This man is a hero

@famousone do you know about the fire extinguisher idea? I think that is a great compromise to give teachers power to protect without giving them a firearm that could be taken off them, accidentally fired, or fired by a teacher that snaps for a second. It's also really cheap.
The idea is to put a fire extinguisher in ever class room (which is a good idea anyway... I knew some pyros in middle/high school)... you keep the doors closed and have a blind which the teacher puts down in an emergency. You get the kids against the far wall while the teacher gets next to the door with the fire extinguisher and if they try to open the door they spray them with the fire extinguisher and then beat the living shit out of them with the canister.
It's cheap and tactically works... shit if you know where the shooter is you can have 3-4 teachers spray extinguishers like they are smoke grenades and take him down.
Apparently this dude pulled a fire alarm to get everyone into the halls...

maybe perhaps fire alarms that need a passcode that is changed every 6 weeks so only people at the school can trigger it? Or a uh... not a barcode.. but those square things that can recognize who is triggering the alarm? Not only would that cut down on attacks that involve fire alarms, it would cut down on pranks

QR code is what I was looking for. I guess he could just shoot someone and take it, but that would require a shooting first that would alert people. Idk... spitballing.

no because what if some kid lost his code/didn't have it but found a fire kids dont hold onto pencils and lose everything would be wasting time in dangerous situation. dont think fire alarms need to be locked up they are the preventative measure to another much more common problem

How bout, now this is gonna sound crazy and I'm gonna get backlash but, how bout we just, get rid of guns? How bout the us set up a system where you're only allowed a gun once undergoing intense training and you need a reason and holding a permit after that training and the gun has to be stored in a secure place? How bout to decrease school shootings we take away the thing the kids shoot with? Don't tell me I'm dumb. Give me good reasons against this if you disagree.

Self-defense, national defence, defense against tyranny, constitutional precedent, and it is an unrealistic idea that can't be done without turning fascist.

I see your points, however I don't think it's unrealistic as it's been done before with other countries. Maybe not on such a big scale but I think it can be done. Although I can't discuss the legal aspects cause I don't know enough about American law to back up any of my points.

You aren't American? Then know this. The constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any attempt to curtail the Bill of Rights must be regarded as an attack on every man, woman, and child in the nation, else our complacency will see us stripped of all of our rights.

No, I'm Australian. As said, I don't know enough of American law so is it possible for someone in power, say the President or The Sergeant at Arms, to change/restrict these laws?

Any attempt to should be regarded as an attack on every man, woman, and child in the nation. As well as forsaking their oaths, and spitting on the graves of everyone who has ever stood for this nation.
Neither POTUS nor the Sergeant at Arms has the authority to legislate unilaterally, they'd need overwhelming support from both chambers.
But if they do act to strip away our fundamental rights, it will be only result in either a coup, civil war, or the US turning fascist. Anyone who desires such a thing is either crazy, or dangerously stupid.

Is it really that crazy to want to change a law to protect lives though?
The laws were put in place by people, for people, to "protect" people. However, this was all done very far back in the past, if the present is better off with differing laws, why is it such a problem for people to change these laws to once again, protect people?
I may be taking this the wrong way but to me it sounds as if those who are against anti-guns are those who want to stand by the law of the past and it's pride rather than the needs of the present.

As much as famouseone and I bicker... this is one fight you won't win.
just to be an ass: a coup'd'etat.

I didn't intend it to be a fight. I'm just genuinely curious as to why people are so against losing guns, as someone from a country where casually having a gun is seen as crazy.
I would like to hear the answers to my questions though, they're not rhetorical.

Eroding any part of the Bill of Rights erodes the whole thing. Aside from that, the entire point of the right is to enable us to defend ourselves, and to from militias to resist tyranny, especially if our own government turns against us.
Take that away, and we're going to get bent and fucked.

Dont kill me for saying this but as far as I was aware, the amendment is misinterpretted from being, you have the RIGHT to defend yourself and people from the states over the years have used that as you have a right to defend yourself with a gun or have the right to own a firearm. As many americans feel that firearms are the only means for defence. Since every other dick and tom has one, you surely need one to combat that attack with your own personal gun. In aus when people get shot here, we are more shocked that they used a gun. We just dont see guns like Americans. So yes maybe if you say changinh the amendments would change everything but could this not be a good thing? A good revolution to change the world for better?

In what reality is stripping away fundamental rights a good thing?
The exact text is: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There's no misinterpreting that.

Cause this right is causing mass shootings? Cause this right is allowing people from the age of 18 to have a gun, a weapon that can kill? Cause in other countries you also have the right to defend yourself but this doesn't mean you need to hold a gun to feel safe. It's like fighting fire with fire, "oh if bad guys have guns, we need MORE guns to fight these guys with guns". It's illogical to me.

Yes exactly right. And even so, famous one, keeping and bearing firearms doesn't specifically mean deffencr?? Why do people in the states think the first action is always to pull out your gun? Why are you guys so trigger happy? Its absolute hipocracy if you are anti-gun, then defend the law that allows one to own a gun? Makes no sense??

And why also do you need fucking RIGHT to even OWN a firearm? Its backwards thinking !

You obviously haven't read my comments. Do that, read them through and then respond.

I think we pull out a piece of paper with an idea before we pull guns.

Come again?

Anyway I got answers to my questions so I'm happy, this is just a difference of opinion so I'm gonna leave this discussion now. Just know none of it was meant to be a personal attack, sorry if it felt that way

you're good. I'm drunk. I wield the internet like a kid with a.... i need a filter.

Yes maybe I didnt read through properly or maybe I got the wrong impression so sorry for upsetting anyone. I also believe its just a difference of opinion, so im sorry

No harm done bud, makes me so happy when I can have a decent conversation on the internet that doesn't involve swearing and shit just cause you both don't agree on something.

The founding fathers wanted the constitution to be revised and changed every twenty of so years because times and circumstances change. I thought that was interesting.

Wasn't that the Articles of Confederation? It was ditched when they realised that the lack of stability would destroy the republic

Well I mean. we still do change it That's why it's a living document.

It was the constitution, but it was mainly Thomas Jefferson who supported it and he didn’t even sign it. That said, a few of his friends wanted it but because the idea of waiting twenty years was that all adults would be dead and the new generation could decide, when it came time to enforce that idea it was said and done.