Originally Posted by Edward64
Is the proposed debate whether we should have "armed guards for schools" or "more gun control (but not elimination)" or "statistically there is not that many violent home invasions and therefore having a weapons to protect a home is not a good reason".
The recent pages have talked about all 3 so want to be sure to know if I should agree or not.
Somewhere between between the first two. My question boils down to:
Is the US OK with considering having to protect children with more armed guards so that they can get to school safely, rather than stop and think that maybe this is is a sign that things are getting out of hand, and some form of restricting access to weaponry would benefit the country as a whole.
From your post a few pages ago I think you might be in agreement with the latter (not necessarily taking guns away, but taking more steps to ensure that they are used safely - my own personal opinion is that in an ideal world there would be no guns outside of people in the wilderness and for hunting/rifle ranges, but Iím fully aware that possibility is long gone) as that was the most encouraging post of the thread for me