Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Can you imagine how many people you'd have to shoot while implementing this? We'd have martial law in a week, just to handle the fallout.

I would proffer that would start a second Civil War and much of the nation seceding.

If the only way to put an end to regular mass shootings would mean or outright be civil war then perhaps it's only a question of when.

I hope not. Last time the Muricans decided to civil war it out there was 620,000 casualties, or roughly 2% of the population (which would be 6 million at today's US population).

Without checking I'd guess that's more than has been killed by firearms outside of wars in the USA since forever.

Americans have proved through their history is that they aren't afraid to kill a whole bunch of other Americans.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Can you imagine how many people you'd have to shoot while implementing this? We'd have martial law in a week, just to handle the fallout.

I would proffer that would start a second Civil War and much of the nation seceding.

If the only way to put an end to regular mass shootings would mean or outright be civil war then perhaps it's only a question of when.

I hope not. Last time the Muricans decided to civil war it out there was 620,000 casualties, or roughly 2% of the population (which would 6 million at today's US population).

Without checking I'd guess that's more than has been killed by firearms outside of wars in the USA since forever.

Yes, but only by a factor of four, counting since 1968. Let that sink in for a bit.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Can you imagine how many people you'd have to shoot while implementing this? We'd have martial law in a week, just to handle the fallout.

I would proffer that would start a second Civil War and much of the nation seceding.

If the only way to put an end to regular mass shootings would mean or outright be civil war then perhaps it's only a question of when.

I hope not. Last time the Muricans decided to civil war it out there was 620,000 casualties, or roughly 2% of the population (which would 6 million at today's US population).

Without checking I'd guess that's more than has been killed by firearms outside of wars in the USA since forever.

Yes, but only by a factor of four, counting since 1968. Let that sink in for a bit.

True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if pro gun Americans are civil warring against anti gun Americans, my money is on the ones with all the guns

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

This is mentioned in every gun thread, and yet the argument about suicides not counting because "they'd just find another way" pops up in every new thread on the subject. It's quite fascinating.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

That’s because suicide is often a heat of the moment decision. It you snap them out of it in that moment they won’t follow through and getting them help is easier for future. As you say, a fence on a bridge can prevent someone long enough for the moment to pass, or if you talk someone away from a railway platform. The problem with having a gun to hand is that you can very quickly follow through on suicidal thoughts without the pause for reflection.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

This is mentioned in every gun thread, and yet the argument about suicides not counting because "they'd just find another way" pops up in every new thread on the subject. It's quite fascinating.

I never said that, I think suicides absolutely SHOULD be considered for the reasons Malus said.... BUT I don't think they should be included raw and need to be considered separately. The USA does not have an exceptionally high suicide rate, I'm sure it'd drop further if guns were removed, but of the 20k or so suicides a year that might drop to, what, 19k? 18k? 16k? 10k? Who knows.

At the moment the US has a lower suicide rate than ye olde Sweden, and is kind of middle of the road compared to most European and other 1st world countries.

Hell, the Australian teen suicide rate absolutely dwarfs the US school shooting massacre rate.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
As a matter of fact, I do value my guns more than the lives of children, or you, or anyone.

I guess it’s easier when it’s other people’s children.

Well in his defense, I can't stand kids either. Well, I
Would expand that to...people in general.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

This is mentioned in every gun thread, and yet the argument about suicides not counting because "they'd just find another way" pops up in every new thread on the subject. It's quite fascinating.

Japan has the highest per capital suicide rate in the world as well as the strictest gun laws.

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

This is mentioned in every gun thread, and yet the argument about suicides not counting because "they'd just find another way" pops up in every new thread on the subject. It's quite fascinating.

Japan has the highest per capital suicide rate in the world as well as the strictest gun laws.

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's easier to spontaneously kill yourself with a gun than without one.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

This is mentioned in every gun thread, and yet the argument about suicides not counting because "they'd just find another way" pops up in every new thread on the subject. It's quite fascinating.

Japan has the highest per capital suicide rate in the world as well as the strictest gun laws.

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's easier to spontaneously kill yourself with a gun than without one.

Which is my point. If someone wants to kill themselves, they most likely will irrespective of gun availability. There will be outliers who might reconsider if they don’t have a gun available, but taking away everyone’s guns or severely curtailing their rights is a bit bigger price to pay then it’s worth.
I say this in light of people’s lives which have been saved because they had a gun at hand.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability.

God... if only people would start using this line in regards to the US...

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability.

God... if only people would start using this line in regards to the US...

Doesn't fit the narrative.

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
True, but that includes suicides and if guns didn't exist homocides wouldn't completely disappear, so it's not like that many people would have been saved had guns not been around.

Successful suicides can be drastically reduced by introducing simple barriers to overcome. Such as fences on bridges, maximum purchases of medication in one transaction etc.

If you have access to a gun in the house, it is incredibly easy to commit suicide. This is why suicide rates for houses with guns are much higher than those without, as houses without firearms have to use more difficult methods which naturally allow for more time for the person to reconsider or be saved after the attempt.

This is mentioned in every gun thread, and yet the argument about suicides not counting because "they'd just find another way" pops up in every new thread on the subject. It's quite fascinating.

Japan has the highest per capital suicide rate in the world as well as the strictest gun laws.

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability. Doesn't take away from the fact that it's easier to spontaneously kill yourself with a gun than without one.

Which is my point. If someone wants to kill themselves, they most likely will irrespective of gun availability. There will be outliers who might reconsider if they don’t have a gun available, but taking away everyone’s guns or severely curtailing their rights is a bit bigger price to pay then it’s worth.
I say this in light of people’s lives which have been saved because they had a gun at hand.

Suicide doesn't work that way. Something as simple as a fence keeping people from jumping off a bridge, even a fence that can be scaled with just a bit of effort, reduces the suicide rate. That holds true even if there are other bridges to jump off in town that have no fences. Not having a gun at hand probably prevents a lot of suicides, although it is I possible to estimate any numbers.

Not trying to argue against your bigger point. Just wanted to clear up the idea that people who are going to commit suicide will find some other way when the research indicates many (most?) of them actually won't.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability.

God... if only people would start using this line in regards to the US...

There are more factors at play in the US than just the availability of guns.

There, happy? Can we go back to discussing the variable of guns now please?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I'd just like to highlight that this was posted over 2 pages ago and nobody seems to have considered the possibility of a school shooting thread about an incident outside of the USA. I think that warrants some thought and introspection.

Good luck. I started a thread on the FBI handing out warrants in a world wide election fraud operation, and had it locked because it's US Politics.

That and, there's not much to talk about. Malus, this is, as far as I can find, very much a nearly US only thing.

Frankly, I'd like to see a thread about Moderation and have them explain this to us, because this ban is reaching the point of absurdity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability.

God... if only people would start using this line in regards to the US...

I have, many, many times, and posters ignore it. But Walrus says it and OOOOHHHH suddenly it's important!

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability.

God... if only people would start using this line in regards to the US...

They won't. There are other political and social engineering aspects at play.


People like to preach that mass murder and mass shootings are purely an American phenomena, that doesn't happen in more "enlightened" societies. What they tend to forget is that out of the top ten worst "lone wolf" mass shootings in history, only three of them happned in the U.S. And only three were carried out by white males that fit the profile of a mass shooter. Out of the top twenty, eight were American. Out of your top ten "team killer" shootings, only one out the ten took place in the U.S., and only one of the perps was a U.S. born citizen.

If mass killings happen in places in the world where gun availability to private citizens is prohibited, or heavily restricted, that is a damning indictment on the effectiveness of gun laws to "prevent" such happenings.

Also, across all levels of government in the United States, there are over 20,000 firearms laws and regulations on the books. If that many hasn't prevented mass shootings, then what good are more going to do?

The answer is:NOTHING. It's as the two posts quoted above accurately point out. There are other issues at play. Issues that cannot be solved just by empty promises and half-assed legislation to keep the votes coming. They are issues that nobody has the will to carry out because of the outrage and lawsuits from civil libertarians and advocacy groups generating bad press.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Good luck. I started a thread on the FBI handing out warrants in a world wide election fraud operation, and had it locked because it's US Politics.

That and, there's not much to talk about. Malus, this is, as far as I can find, very much a nearly US only thing.

Frankly, I'd like to see a thread about Moderation and have them explain this to us, because this ban is reaching the point of absurdity.

The van is easy to understand. US politics threads require more moderation than any other thread on the board. The mods are unpaid volunteers and don’t want to spend an inordinate amount of time policing one OT thread that isn’t related to the purpose of the site. DakkaDakka isn’t my website when I post here I realize that I’m playin in somebody else’s sandbox and I need to respect their rules. If the mods and owners of Dakka decide US politics isn’t worth having in the OT then that’s fine with me. There’s a million other sites I can go discuss US politics. If I want to hear what a Dakka member thinks on a particular US politics subject I can PM them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Which only means that there's more factors at play than gun availability.

God... if only people would start using this line in regards to the US...

They won't. There are other political and social engineering aspects at play.


People like to preach that mass murder and mass shootings are purely an American phenomena, that doesn't happen in more "enlightened" societies. What they tend to forget is that out of the top ten worst "lone wolf" mass shootings in history, only three of them happned in the U.S. And only three were carried out by white males that fit the profile of a mass shooter. Out of the top twenty, eight were American. Out of your top ten "team killer" shootings, only one out the ten took place in the U.S., and only one of the perps was a U.S. born citizen.

If mass killings happen in places in the world where gun availability to private citizens is prohibited, or heavily restricted, that is a damning indictment on the effectiveness of gun laws to "prevent" such happenings.

Also, across all levels of government in the United States, there are over 20,000 firearms laws and regulations on the books. If that many hasn't prevented mass shootings, then what good are more going to do?

The answer is:NOTHING. It's as the two posts quoted above accurately point out. There are other issues at play. Issues that cannot be solved just by empty promises and half-assed legislation to keep the votes coming. They are issues that nobody has the will to carry out because of the outrage and lawsuits from civil libertarians and advocacy groups generating bad press.

Yeah I mean think about all those awesome the government could do if it wasn’t for those meddlesome civil liberties and their stupid dog too!

Also, across all levels of government in the United States, there are over 20,000 firearms laws and regulations on the books. If that many hasn't prevented mass shootings, then what good are more going to do?

Wow, what a totally disingenuous point that doesn't take into account how many of those laws are actually meaningful and not just about proper spelling on firearm store licensing or that sort of minutia.

There's already a law against murder, so why bother having more laws am I right?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Frankly, I'd like to see a thread about Moderation and have them explain this to us, because this ban is reaching the point of absurdity.

Been done already, Nuts & Bolts subforum.
It didn't end well, because some people simply can't behave when it comes to US Politics.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
If mass killings happen in places in the world where gun availability to private citizens is prohibited, or heavily restricted, that is a damning indictment on the effectiveness of gun laws to "prevent" such happenings.

It's not that mass killings never happen anywhere else, it's that the US is the only place where school shootings happen regularly. Attacks against schools or workplaces in other countries do happen sometimes too but don't tend to involve firearms so the bodycount is lower.

Additionally, the amount of gun regulations is less useful than the kind because the gun lobby spends a lot of money on making sure that gun regulation is as fragmented, legalistic and silly as possible so they can keep saying that gun regulation is dumb.



So, like, Japan having a higher suicide rate than the US despite much lower access to guns is because of a set of problem that current Japanese society has which wouldn't be helped much at all by a similar level of gun access as the US. The US also has more problems that contribute to its uniquely American form of mass killings but guns are certainly one part of it.

I have major question here , but before I start . I deliver milk to all kind places such as schools ,stores , Nursing home and Hospitals in the great state of Michigan in the USA. One biggest topic at work with my fellow coworker is HOW THE HELL DID THIS SCUM BAG GET INTO THE SCHOOL SO FAST! Now I think thing done here in Michigan bit different then other states. We driver sale men go to three type of doors 1. 90% of the time is the front door which is foyer with door right or left to the office which is lock , they buzz you in. 2. 5% of the time is Receiver door which have a buzzer with a camera if it works? 3. 5 % of the time is Kitchen door it may be a glass door or metal door peep hole to see who there. We still have a hard time getting into the school even when they know who you are, but this scum bag got in petty fast and about 2:00 pm time which is petty hard get in the school it all front door. Then this is the state of Florida they do thing different then we do. I know the FBI drop a major ball on this by not follow the lead on the shooter from what I read and heard on tv. Just so you know I have been to some 300 schools to big and small , big city to rural area so I know what I'am talking about when it come to schools.

Are the schools really that tight or is it only a handful of formal entry points which are like that? Hard for me to imagine such a secure almost prison-like approach to school construction from the schools I've been too (granted in the UK not the USA).

Even the more secure schools would have multiple entry points where you could gain entry fairly easily; or even jump the wall.

Over here I'd wager the only ones that would be super secure would be those designed for socially difficult/dangerous students, and then more to keep the students in than anything else.

And, once you breach the outer parts most schools would be easy to move almost where-ever you wanted. Enter during class time and chances are you could move with impunity for a significant time.


Plus as a former student chances are he knew any weakpoint to enter. A door that has a broken lock; a firedoor with no attached alarm; a fire escape that has windows unlocked; a window left open etc.... Unless the school is designed like a prisons?

DEZOAT wrote:
90% of the time is the front door which is lock , they buzz you in. 5% of the time is Receiver door which have a buzzer with a camera if it works? 5 % of the time is Kitchen door it may be a glass door or metal door peep hole to see who there. We still have a hard time getting into the school even when they know who you are, but this scum bag got in petty fast and about 2:00 pm time which is petty hard get in the school it all front door.

I've never heard of keeping schools locked before, but I've never been to an American school either. Yes, the kitchen/receiver doors would be locked, but not anything else.

Still, with hundreds or thousands of pupils they must be free to move at least somewhat easily. You'd need more security staff than teachers if you actually checked every single person every single time. I guess the guy was the right age, wore the right clothes and trailed a group of students so he could walk in without being challenged. Or as a former student he knew the route the cool boys take in order to sneak out for a smoke and back in.

I’m going to make a sweeping generalization based on my experiences, but I generally found that the better the school and the neighborhood its in, the less secure it is.

Meanwhile I can go to a gak school in west Baltimore in a gak neighborhood, and it would look like a fairly decent min-security prison.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:At the end of the day I don't blame people who don't care about school shootings enough to give up their guns. In the past 6 years since Sandy Hook there been 239 school shootings resulting in 138 deaths.

That *sounds* horrible, but by my quick maths/googling there's 77 million students in the USA, 56 million of which are between kindergarten and 12th grade. That's only 1 in every 2.4 million on a yearly basis.

Is it terrible when a kid dies? Of course. But I don't blame anyone for feeling it's not a big enough number to give up the right to own guns. Compare that to car accidents, which I believe is about 1000 dead kids a year, which rounds out to about 1 in 70k.

Can those people who don't care also add up the injured, permanently disabled, property damage (always a big one when protestors destroy a few windows and thrash can), mental trauma, and so on. How about the medical cost of it all and how it impacts the victims?

People also insist that guns are there for their own safety but burglaries and home invasions also only happen to a tiny number of househulds, that's why having a gun in the house is overall more dangerous than not having one. Because more accidents with guns happen in those houses than people get killed by invaders. Turn the argument around onto the whole self-defence and home protection argument and you could as well say that the 2nd amendment is not really needed because it only affects such a small number of people.

I'm really curious where everyone would put the number: At which point would it be worth considering doing something, besides: nothing at all and never? What's the number of injured/disabled/dead people (or percentage of the population), or overall damage to the GDP and other "externalities".

According to Wikipedia on 9/11 "2,996 people were killed (including 19 terrorists) and more than 6,000 others wounded" and that was enough for the USA to start a war (with even more civilian deaths), suspend civil liberties in interesting ways, add more and more invasive searches on airports and find creative ways to describe all of this as not conflicting with the constitution. Trillions of dollars for feel safe from terrorists while destabilising the middle east even more and fostering an breeding ground for more radicalisation.

What would be the number where people could look at other developed countries and maybe imagine that life is possible without so many guns and that those people over there are not living in some dystopian hellhole with a tyrant on top. That's a completely hypothetical question because we've already heard (in older threads) all the arguments about how nearly impossible it would be to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

People worry about (islamic) terrorism, which kills an even smaller amount of people in the US, and are willing to give up all kinds of rights to fight that (and spend billions). What's the number of gun deaths that would be needed concede that some gun rights restrictions might actually work?

Clearly the school wasn't located in a gun free zone as that would have prevented all of this.

Mario wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:At the end of the day I don't blame people who don't care about school shootings enough to give up their guns. In the past 6 years since Sandy Hook there been 239 school shootings resulting in 138 deaths.

That *sounds* horrible, but by my quick maths/googling there's 77 million students in the USA, 56 million of which are between kindergarten and 12th grade. That's only 1 in every 2.4 million on a yearly basis.

Is it terrible when a kid dies? Of course. But I don't blame anyone for feeling it's not a big enough number to give up the right to own guns. Compare that to car accidents, which I believe is about 1000 dead kids a year, which rounds out to about 1 in 70k.

Can those people who don't care also add up the injured, permanently disabled, property damage (always a big one when protestors destroy a few windows and thrash can), mental trauma, and so on. How about the medical cost of it all and how it impacts the victims?

People also insist that guns are there for their own safety but burglaries and home invasions also only happen to a tiny number of househulds, that's why having a gun in the house is overall more dangerous than not having one. Because more accidents with guns happen in those houses than people get killed by invaders. Turn the argument around onto the whole self-defence and home protection argument and you could as well say that the 2nd amendment is not really needed because it only affects such a small number of people.

I'm really curious where everyone would put the number: At which point would it be worth considering doing something, besides: nothing at all and never? What's the number of injured/disabled/dead people (or percentage of the population), or overall damage to the GDP and other "externalities".

According to Wikipedia on 9/11 "2,996 people were killed (including 19 terrorists) and more than 6,000 others wounded" and that was enough for the USA to start a war (with even more civilian deaths), suspend civil liberties in interesting ways, add more and more invasive searches on airports and find creative ways to describe all of this as not conflicting with the constitution. Trillions of dollars for feel safe from terrorists while destabilising the middle east even more and fostering an breeding ground for more radicalisation.

What would be the number where people could look at other developed countries and maybe imagine that life is possible without so many guns and that those people over there are not living in some dystopian hellhole with a tyrant on top. That's a completely hypothetical question because we've already heard (in older threads) all the arguments about how nearly impossible it would be to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

People worry about (islamic) terrorism, which kills an even smaller amount of people in the US, and are willing to give up all kinds of rights to fight that (and spend billions). What's the number of gun deaths that would be needed concede that some gun rights restrictions might actually work?

According to the CDC, 88,000 people a year die from alcohol related causes. About 11,000 of these are from drunk drivers, which is just about the number of people killed in gun related crime. 2 out of three domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, and when you add in divorces, physical and mental debilities cased by alcohol along with job loss and other miscellaneous problems, gun violence is pretty much dwarfed.
Why is it then that the news media harps on about guns and pretty much by comparison ignores alcohol?

To be fair, I think the only thing that might be harder to get rid of than guns is booze. We will never surrender our booze

OK ! Inner City schools have metal detector and security guard. The door will be chained up. OK some of our school routes have about 25 to 32 schools a day and some where about 500 to 700 cases of half pints of milk 50 to a case. Again Doors are lock to keep people from getting in but they not lock from getting out. So kids can get out with no problem. Its getting back in you have go to the front door where office is. Maybe the state of Michigan take security more seriously then other states. The funny thing the well to do school have alot more security then the inner city school go figure there.