c h a n g e m y m i n d

okay so i have some objections
im mad about the recent removal of necessary firearm training in my home state of Tennessee, but this does not make sense
school shootings are for the most part not the fault of laws or distributers, rather the purchaser. Usually the person who buys the weapon in a shooting will end up giving it to the child who commits the crime. I, in fact, believe it best that gun laws be a little looser, enabling teachers to arm and defend themselves in these nightmarish situations. Complaining about gun laws that actually decrease the number of shootings is not the answer.

yes that is true but if we had better gun laws, better background checking for people who purchase it. We wouldn't have the amount of problems we have now. For gun laws to be looser holy shit we would probably kill ourselves on a high. Now just to add the cherry on top, we didn't have shootings in 2020 due to covid.

you really think six feet and a face mask scares people away from murder.

"With guns in the hands of the public, sure, there will be tragedies. But without them, there will be genocides." ~Unknown

Also, Finland has among the loosest gun laws, granting every adult citizen a gun and training- Finland famously has the world's lowest gun crime rate.

im sorry but hundreds of people dying from gun violence since the 30s are not tragedies. And also in Finland, prisons are actually for reforming and they do better background checks then we do in A M E R I C A

uh...
okay so you just suggested that only hundreds died in the 80 years since the thirties
that means almost just one person per year if I were to approximate (i know, incorrectly) to 100 deaths total

which would imply
tragedies

oh and another shooting just happened. A doctor and two children were killed along with 5 other people in South Carolina. Just to prove my point.

well actually that was just 2019

if we do from let's say 1990-2011. According to the U.S Department of Justice, which I quote.

", a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm." "„ In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source"

"During the 2000s, an average of about 1,600 homicides of youth ages 5 to 18 occurred per year. The majority of homicides against youth both at school and away from school were committed with a firearm."
Now, I'm also just gonna cite the shooting at the Spa that just happened a month ago and the shooting at the grocery store. And seeing how you are, you're most likely gonna say that it's the person who bought the gun's fault which yes it is. But if we did more, more background checks, more practicing(which could either be good or bad-). It shouldn't have to be a thing where people fear for their lives due to it, shouldn't be a thing where CHILDREN fear that one day someone may shoot up their school cause oh they couldn't get a date or oh they were bullied.

And to add something, remember the Stoneman Douglas shooting? In 2018? He had a HISTORY of mental health problems, (Im not even gonna talk about his social media) but yet they allowed him to buy a gun.

And if you still don't understand, take it like this. If someone who is addicted to drugs buys one, ain't it the seller's fault also for enabling the buyer? If a bartender gives an alcoholic a drink, ain't it the bartender's fault for still serving them?

That's ignoring the fact we live in the third most populous country in the world. Of course our numbers are high. I see that your argument is well-meaning: find a way to lower the numbers. We shouldn't live in a world where children fear for their lives. But blaming the gun laws isn't the way. And to answer your questions:
1: Doing drug tests would be an effective way of lowering crime, but as it is, you can't fault the seller as they have no legitimate way of knowing.
2: The bartender... is doing his job. His job is to provide anyone with legal verification and proper finances with alcoholic products. It's not his fault that his job involves spurring on a bad thing. The bartender can cut him off several drinks in, but to begin with, he is, in fact, obliged to do his job and provide his service.

Now yes it is their job to provide people with alcoholic beverages, but when they are trained it's also there that they have the right to refuse you if you show signs of being drunk.

That has nothing to do with alcoholism, but I understand the confusion.

Then let teachers have guns