Guns, guns, guns

[[PCE]el_Prez]

So in a school shooting situation you want a pitched gun battle fought by amateurs? That's just going to make the situation more confusing, delay police response and the armed teachers are probably just as likely to shoot normal students and teachers as they would with the shooters.

Why are they automatically amateur shooters? I got news for you my friend. Your average patrolman might not be the best shot. Why is it crazy to think that average citizens might be great shots?

I teach at small school in Phoenix where I Coach football as well. The head football coach carries on school campus. He is an ex-marine and a licensed Sheriff's departement deputy.

A CCW course provides no training to deal with a school shooting situation.

On the contrary, there is quite a bit of training. You practice everything from drawing your weapon and firing at a target - to situational drills where time is essential. How fast can you react and hit the target? Also, in order to get your CCW - you must qualify by accurately shooting a target.... now granted qualifying is VERY easy for any experienced shooter - but for people who never fired a gun before, they recieve a LOT of experience and usually leave the class with a desire to further their skills at shooting. If I was in a situation like Virginia Tech last year - I'd rather have a CCW carrier on site more than Campus security.

Also, false alarm situations would have the potential to turn deadly. Some stupid person not following the lockdown? Must be a shooter, shoot him in the head.

False alarms? Not likely. Besides - again your assuming that the school faculty member is half retarded and would just fire wildly into a crowd of students without knowing what is really happening. This is not a likely occurance.

FYI - CCW class has an EXTENSIVE portion on the law, when to shoot, and the consequences of drawing your weapon when not completely justified.

 

[Patton89]

You could, i dont know, improve the mental health system, and all other similar services , so these kids dont end up going on killing sprees ? Perhaps make it so that the process of legally getting a gun at that age would be more difficult and require mental tests ?

Because really, giving guns to poorly trained people, in a chaotic situation like a school shooting isnt the best possible solution. It would make the situation of identifying the REAL attacker much more difficult for the authorities. Dont claim that a course can really make someone ready to use a weapon correctly in a panicked , chaotic situation like a school shooting if they have no previous experience on real live situations. The carriers would be much worse than a patrol officer in most cases.

Really, even if CCW carriers were in every US school, you still wouldnt be solving the problems that cause school shootings, you still would have them.
So what you are suggesting is simply half-assedly treating the symptoms. Instead of curing the disease.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

You could, i dont know, improve the mental health system, and all other similar services , so these kids dont end up going on killing sprees ? Perhaps make it so that the process of legally getting a gun at that age would be more difficult and require mental tests ?

Well thats a whole different discussion. We might have chosen the wrong decision on THIS subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalisation_(psychology)

Because really, giving guns to poorly trained people, in a chaotic situation like a school shooting isnt the best possible solution. It would make the situation of identifying the REAL attacker much more difficult for the authorities.

No one is "giving" guns to anyone else. Furthermore - my suggestion was for people who voluntarily wanted to learn how to defend themselves and others should be able to get the CCW for free. I'm not saying we should force it upon people. Many people KNOW that they are worthless in high stress situations. I wouldn't want those people to have weapons either. My point was that I want more Americans to WANT to be trained and experienced with firearms. It's not something you can force on a person though. However, those who are internally motivated will probably prove to be excellent in horrific situations - due to the fact that they have mentally and physically prepared themselves.

Dont claim that a course can really make someone ready to use a weapon correctly in a panicked , chaotic situation like a school shooting.

I wouldn't say that - no. BUT... for someone who has next to no idea how firearms work, saftey procedures, operation, and the law surrounding firearms - the CCW improves your knowledge signifcantly. AND if one of those person took the knowledge they recieved in the CCW class - and enhanced it in their personal time (target practice, mental scenarios, maybe even more classes) - it would literally transform them from a helpless civlian to a potential savior should they ever be in a hostile situation.

Really, even if CCW carriers were in every US school, you still wouldnt be solving the problems that cause school shootings, you still would have them.

Well, thats a pretty big statement. We're pretty far off from that point so we really don't know for sure what would happen. Don't pretend like you can actually guess. Even in the most lenient gun law states (Like AZ) CCW carriers don't have free access to carry on school campuses. Some states don't even allow Concealed Carry at all. So don't claim to know what would happen if the whole country made a 180 on the gun control issue. Nobody knows for sure - its all speculation.

So what you are suggesting is simply half-assedly treating the symptoms. Instead of curing the disease.

Not really. You seem to be picking and choosing specific parts of my plan and commenting on them. I'm not saying that we need to force every teacher to carry a weapon. I'm saying that if there are teachers or any citizens who voluntarily wish to become experienced with firarms - the government should facilitate that process and wave all the fees and hoops you have to jump through.

 

[Kyuu]

A pitched gun-battle of amateurs is exactly what would happen if a bunch of heat-packing faculty and/or students encountered some gun-wielding nut intent on campus. You can go on about "training" all you like, but when it comes down to it, those people are going to be fearful for their lives. That's going to result in mistakes, whether it's accidentally discharging their weapon, missing and hitting someone else, mistakenly identifying a bystander as an assailant, or a myriad of other possibilities. Hell, soon as one of them sees another faculty member walking around with their gun held out, BAM. It's not because they're "retarded," or because their training was insufficient. It's because all it takes is a tiny mistake and a little pull of the trigger.

For christ's sake. Accidental deaths by soldiers (shooting a non-combatant, shooting one of your teammates or another soldier you weren't expecting on encountering). are downright common, and you're not going to get civilians that are better trained than your average soldier. Civilians have other things to worry about in their lives than perfecting their gun-handling skills and taking endless training courses. Except for those that are hell-bent on holding a gun in their hands because they have an unnatural fascination with the things, and those are the last people I want carrying them around in public because they're the least likely to show discretion and due caution.

As far as studies go, there's only one thing you can really be sure of: gun control DOES reduce gun crime. Whether that's meaningful or not, well, that's something that needs a thorough, proper study that's not interfered with by either side of the debate. 'Course, that's not likely to happen.

Assault rifles have as much legitimate recreational use as a chemical weapon (I'm assuming we're referring to automatic assault rifles here).

Anyways, I plan on purchasing a handgun sometime in the near future.

 

[Patton89]

el_Prez]

No one is "giving" guns to anyone else. Furthermore - my suggestion was for people who voluntarily wanted to learn how to defend themselves and others should be able to get the CCW for free. I'm not saying we should force it upon people. Many people KNOW that they are worthless in high stress situations. I wouldn't want those people to have weapons either. My point was that I want more Americans to WANT to be trained and experienced with firearms. It's not something you can force on a person though. However, those who are internally motivated will probably prove to be excellent in horrific situations - due to the fact that they have mentally and physically prepared themselves.

But you would be giving guns, wouldnt you ? In this situation they wouldnt have guns normally. Also, the problem is, how does the police tell apart those who are the "good" and the attackers ?
How does the person want to be trained somehow make them qualified ? it doesnt.

el_Prez]

I wouldn't say that - no. BUT... for someone who has next to no idea how firearms work, saftey procedures, operation, and the law surrounding firearms - the CCW improves your knowledge signifcantly. AND if one of those person took the knowledge they recieved in the CCW class - and enhanced it in their personal time (target practice, mental scenarios, maybe even more classes) - it would literally transform them from a helpless civlian to a potential savior should they ever be in a hostile situation.

Assuming that they can act accordingly in the real situation and dont end up getting innocents killed. See, it requires assuming that everything goes nice and dandy. There are too many things that could go wrong , thats why i wouldnt even really consider such practice usefull.

el_Prez]
Well, thats a pretty big statement. We're pretty far off from that point so we really don't know for sure what would happen. Don't pretend like you can actually guess. Even in the most lenient gun law states (Like AZ) CCW carriers don't have free access to carry on school campuses. Some states don't even allow Concealed Carry at all. So don't claim to know what would happen if the whole country made a 180 on the gun control issue. Nobody knows for sure - its all speculation.

How is it big statement , its the obvious. It wouldnt solve the issues that cause school shootings: it wouldnt solve youth becoming alianated from reality, from society, it wouldnt solve the psychological and emotional problems. Sure, it might PREVENT school shootings or stop them, but it woudlnt SOLVE the problems.
There isnt much left to guess. IT WOUDNT solve the social problems that cause these things to happen nor make them stop.

el_Prez]
Not really. You seem to be picking and choosing specific parts of my plan and commenting on them. I'm not saying that we need to force every teacher to carry a weapon. I'm saying that if there are teachers or any citizens who voluntarily wish to become experienced with firarms - the government should facilitate that process and wave all the fees and hoops you have to jump through.

I find the plan itself entirely POINTLESS.
Why ? Because it wouldnt solve anything. All it would do at most, would be the changing of targets for the youth who do this.
Better thing would be to simply treat the causes of these problems, and make mental help far more available.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

A pitched gun-battle of amateurs is exactly what would happen if a bunch of heat-packing faculty and/or students encountered some gun-wielding nut intent on campus. You can go on about "training" all you like, but when it comes down to it, those people are going to be fearful for their lives. That's going to result in mistakes, whether it's accidentally discharging their weapon, missing and hitting someone else, mistakenly identifying a bystander as an assailant, or a myriad of other possibilities. Hell, soon as one of them sees another faculty member walking around with their gun held out, BAM. It's not because they're "retarded," or because their training was insufficient. It's because all it takes is a tiny mistake and a little pull of the trigger.

For christ's sake. Accidental deaths by soldiers (shooting a non-combatant, shooting one of your teammates or another soldier you weren't expecting on encountering). are downright common, and you're not going to get civilians that are better trained than your average soldier. Civilians have other things to worry about in their lives than perfecting their gun-handling skills and taking endless training courses. Except for those that are hell-bent on holding a gun in their hands because they have an unnatural fascination with the things, and those are the last people I want carrying them around in public because they're the least likely to show discretion and due caution.


Assault rifles have as much legitimate recreational use as a chemical weapon (I'm assuming we're referring to automatic assault rifles here).

Anyways, I plan on purchasing a handgun sometime in the near future.

So from what I gather from the first couple paragraphs - you don't think that anyone who is not a soldier/swat member (or whatever) does not have adaquate experience to protect civilians effectively? Your talking about human error and fearing for their their life - don't all humans feel that in these situations? Even SWAT team specialists? Everyone is suspect to human error - so is Anyone really qualified to take civilians' lives into their hands?


Heres the deal with private citizens and them carrying for protection in the U.S. If you are in a gun-drawing situation - and act irresponsibly, you can and will be tried. Your example about inexperienced teachers firing a crowd of students is moot because IF a teacher did that they would go prison or face consequences for whatever happened as a result of them pulling the trigger.

Sure there is a "Self Defense" aspect that comes into it - but it will utlimately be up to a grand jury if you actions were justified or not.

As far as studies go, there's only one thing you can really be sure of: gun control DOES reduce gun crime. Whether that's meaningful or not, well, that's something that needs a thorough, proper study that's not interfered with by either side of the debate. 'Course, that's not likely to happen.

Please. If you think that there is emperical evidence that PROVES that gun control REDUCES gun crime you need to spend a little more time studying how statistics work.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

el_Prez]

No one is "giving" guns to anyone else. Furthermore - my suggestion was for people who voluntarily wanted to learn how to defend themselves and others should be able to get the CCW for free. I'm not saying we should force it upon people. Many people KNOW that they are worthless in high stress situations. I wouldn't want those people to have weapons either. My point was that I want more Americans to WANT to be trained and experienced with firearms. It's not something you can force on a person though. However, those who are internally motivated will probably prove to be excellent in horrific situations - due to the fact that they have mentally and physically prepared themselves.

But you would be giving guns, wouldnt you ? In this situation they wouldnt have guns normally. Also, the problem is, how does the police tell apart those who are the "good" and the attackers ?
How does the person want to be trained somehow make them qualified ? it doesnt.

No. There is a big difference in training people and giving them the green light to carry guns concealed and literally "giving" someone a gun and saying "Here - try to hit the bad guy!"

People still have to have the concious decision to go out and BUY a gun and also have a desire to carry it. Many Americans would probably refuse if you told them they had to carry a weapon in public.

el_Prez]

I wouldn't say that - no. BUT... for someone who has next to no idea how firearms work, saftey procedures, operation, and the law surrounding firearms - the CCW improves your knowledge signifcantly. AND if one of those person took the knowledge they recieved in the CCW class - and enhanced it in their personal time (target practice, mental scenarios, maybe even more classes) - it would literally transform them from a helpless civlian to a potential savior should they ever be in a hostile situation.

Assuming that they can act accordingly in the real situation and dont end up getting innocents killed. See, it requires assuming that everything goes nice and dandy. There are too many things that could go wrong , thats why i wouldnt even really consider such practice usefull.

Do things always go right when the cops get to a gun scene? Do cops make mistakes? Do cops accidently shoot innocent people. The answer is YES. So should we take away officers' sidearms?

Like I said - first a person must decide that they WANT to carry a weapon. Once they get the weapon they must consciously decide to use it. If they use it negligantly - they will be prosecuted (and they KNOW that).

el_Prez]
Well, thats a pretty big statement. We're pretty far off from that point so we really don't know for sure what would happen. Don't pretend like you can actually guess. Even in the most lenient gun law states (Like AZ) CCW carriers don't have free access to carry on school campuses. Some states don't even allow Concealed Carry at all. So don't claim to know what would happen if the whole country made a 180 on the gun control issue. Nobody knows for sure - its all speculation.

How is it big statement , its the obvious.

It's obviously not obvious. You say guns would not solve the problem. PROVE IT. Your probably going to have trouble with this. All we can do is speculate on what would happen IF.....
Sure you can study other countries, study different laws in the US over time but that still won't give you diffinitive evidence that more Gun Control or outlawing guns outright would reduce crime.

el_Prez]
Not really. You seem to be picking and choosing specific parts of my plan and commenting on them. I'm not saying that we need to force every teacher to carry a weapon. I'm saying that if there are teachers or any citizens who voluntarily wish to become experienced with firarms - the government should facilitate that process and wave all the fees and hoops you have to jump through.

I find the plan itself entirely POINTLESS.
Why ? Because it wouldnt solve anything.

And you know that how?

All it would do at most, would be the changing of targets for the youth who do this.

Really? Please elaborate....

Better thing would be to simply treat the causes of these problems, and make mental help far more available.

Don't mean to burst your bubble but HOW in the fuck do you plan on doing that? Mental Health "problem" has been on the books longer than gun control has. Sure we've made progress from labotomies to perscription drugs - but we still don't have a grasp on what do do about all the nutjobs in our society.

 

[Patton89]

The problem has been, that these people havent been treated at all or in time. How else would they have done what they did or gone unnoticed ?

No, i dont have statistics. Neither do you when you start suggesting allowing of conceled carrying of firearms in schools.
But it requires rather american approach at things to say that giving guns to people will solve school shootings and the underlying issues .


"Simply" you should try to first solve things without such insanely risky methods. yes, i forgot to add " " the first time, so what ? I know its difficult and complicated, but its probably going to work better than allowing guns to be carried in schools. Might actually SOLVE something.

EDIT: donno how that got there.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Assault rifles have as much legitimate recreational use as a chemical weapon (I'm assuming we're referring to automatic assault rifles here).

I beg to differ, perhaps not legitimate in your eyes but I happen to know a few people who enjoy shooting automatic weapons for recreation.

Besides, automatic weapons are a non issue. They are already heavily regulated. The issue is semi automatic rifles that are capable of holding over 10 rounds and have "evil" features such as a flash hider or the dreaded bayonet lug.

Here is a fun page on "Assault Weapons".

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

The problem has been, that people havent been treated at all.

That might have something to do with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization

How can we "SIMPLY" solve this problem as you so put it?

No, i dont have statistics. Neither do you.

Well, I could go dig up some numbers quick - I've done it before. But it wouldn't really matter. Nothing will give us a definite answer on what would happen, like I said before: speculation.

But it requires rather american approach at things to say that giving guns to people will solve school shootings and the underlying issues.

Again - no one is giving anything to anyone. And its not a quick fix to solve our problems. It's offereing a little more protection to a very unprotected civilian population. It probably wouldn't stop school shootings altogether - but if it reduced the innocent body count by half - would it be worth it? I think so.

in other words,abandoning just about every shred of common sense.

???

"Simply" you should try to first solve things without such insanely risky methods. yes, i forgot to add " " the first time, so what ? I know its difficult and complicated, but its probably going to work better than allowing guns to be carried in schools. Might actually SOLVE something.

I bolded "simply" becasue your basically stating: "'Gun Control' is too complicated - lets solve something easy like 'Mental Health'."

We do much better with gun control than we do with mental health. I mean with guns we have background checks and a barage of laws on carrying, discharging, owning, ect.

We barely have a clue about what we're doing with mental health. We can offer insane people FREE mental health but it doesnt matter - they have to choose to get help.

 

[Patton89]

You have problem with the word simply ?
Oh well.

We should solve this issue with the use of complex, and difficult methods, that are under debate, just like they will be in the next 20 years.

Happy ?

But to me its simple and easy to make a choice between something that is atleast somehow sensible, and makes logical sense, in other words, mental healthcare, and the seemingly pointless, allowing concelead carry. Sure, its "speculation" BUT REALLY, do you ACTUALLY think that concealed carry is better than trying to solve the problems.

And of course there are problems with mental healthcare so what ?
It is ways better solution than consealed carry.

How would gun control even solve the issues ? It doesnt matter if they have guns or not, they will find a way to do damage. They are mentally ill. They will make a bomb. They will ram a car. This isnt going to be solved by consealed carry.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

The issue is semi automatic rifles that are capable of holding over 10 rounds and have "evil" features such as a flash hider or the dreaded bayonet lug.

You have problem with the word simply ?
Oh well.

??? I've explained myslef on this already

We should solve this issue with the use of complex, and difficult methods, that are under debate, just like they will be in the next 20 years.

What does this mean? Seems like a generic closing statement that's littered with buzz words.

Happy ?

I'm extremely happy, my CCW comes in the mail in a few weeks!

But to me its simple and easy to make a choice between something that is atleast somehow sensible, and makes logical sense, in other words, mental healthcare, and the seemingly pointless, allowing concelead carry. Sure, its "speculation" BUT REALLY, do you ACTUALLY think that concealed carry is better than trying to solve the problems.

Can't we do both? Can't we facilitiate people into getting CCW's if they so wish and at the same time work on the mental health problem? I don't see why we have to choose one or the other. Beisdes, my point was not that CCW solves all problems. All I was saying was that it would make our society a lot safer. It's not going to wipe out gun crime or school shootings or help crazy people off themselves. Just going to give a little more protection to the public.

Considering that health care in america is as unbelivably money centered, its not really suprising if things like this happen.

I agree. The biggest problem is that the problem is not worth our money. We're TRILLION dollars in debt - we don't have the $$$ to dole out to nutjobs. The number of people who are literally insane are like < 1% of the popluation.

How much money would it take to allow civilians who desired to get the CCW for free? Not really that much.

 

[Patton89]

So. Mental healthcare
ISNT worth taking care off ?

No wonder America is in the situations its in now. Millions poor.
Countless homeless.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

So. Mental healthcare
ISNT worth taking care off ?

If it were don't you think we'd do it?

Think about it: Do we have a very effective policy regaurding mental health? Do all people who would probably fall under the classifciation as "INSANE" get the treatment they need?

We are Trillions of dollars in debt. You think our government is in a hurry to throw tons of money at a problem that effects less than 1% of the population? Get real.

No wonder America is in the situations its in now. Millions poor.
Countless homeless.

Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Take a look at the top 10 most popular nations in the world. Tell me ONE of them that doesn't have millions that are poor and countless number of homeless people (or that we would consider homeless in the U.S.)

Crime and poverty are popluation things. The higher the population - the harder it is to govern and keep control.

 

[Patton89]

First thing i would cut as unnecessary would be those fancy carriers.
And new tanks.

But according to statistics and http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml, about 25 percent of americans have diagnosable mental disorder of sorts.

SO its worth investing in by any standards. The amount of money the society loses if all those people would be out of work as sick would be rather large.


And this is leering offtopic.

EDIT: oh, Japan is in the list too. And they dont have as bad crime as USA.
Also, its not really that impossible to treat all mental problems as mental problems. Even if there are "few" whom you would call "insane" i still would insist on treating them if you are treating the rest.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

First thing i would cut as unnecessary would be those fancy carriers.
And new tanks.

Don't know if you've noticed but the "War on Terror" is probably the MOST hot button issue we have in the U.S. Those new tanks and fancy carriers are talked about WAY more than gun conrol or mental health.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

But according to statistics and http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml, about 25 percent of americans have diagnosable mental disorder of sorts.

SO its worth investing in. And this is leering offtopic.

Thats counting "Anxiety", eating disorders, depression, etc. etc.
Do you know how many "diagnosable mental disorders" there are? I'm surprised the number is not 30-40%. The DSM-IV is full of shit that people may or may not have.

And most of those aren't a problem at all. Those conditions are all perfectly treatable. Hell, even many of the serious mental conditions are treatable to some degree.

The "PROBLEM" resides in the people who are mentally INSANE. Cannot tell the differnece between right and wrong. These people are not forced to get treatment - thus we have to let them live their own life and make their own decisions. One of those decisions might be to blow away a school. The number of those people is < 1% of people.


BTW, can we quit Editing so much? If you want to say something else, than make a new post. I keep quoting you and then you change your post...

Oh, and japan has low crime. Uuupps.

They also have millions that are poor and countless homeless. "uupps"???

 

[TheGM]

Well guns are part of us Culturally. This Country was made with the gun. From The English Settlers that used them to hunt and blow away the occasional pissed off Indian. To those very English Settlers that blew away other Englishmen to get their freedom. All West ward expansion was made by men with guns. they hunted with guns. Hell most rural places here 60 years ago Gun were needed to protect your food.....To even get food. Remember it is a big place.

Right. Because the US was the only country being expanded in a warlike manner, with guys hunting for guns, not like say Russia and Australia had much the same thing going on. And you think Europe had no guns at this point? Wake up. The gun is not uniquely "cultural" to the US, not by a long shot.

Historical ignorance is the worst of the gun debate. Many Americans don't even seem to realise what the 2nd Amendment is for, instead opting to view it as some kind of "civil liberty"

Well we are not talking about Russia and Austrailain gun heritage now are we, If we are please point that out.

But my point is....That is the excuse they use. "Well my gran pappy had one fer hunting so should I....It's an American Right." So it is part of the Bill of rights, But when Guns make America has been pounded in your head for your entire life you kinda forget why.

Sure it has to do with Militias from 230+ years ago but dammit I need me a 50 caliber rifle for duck hunting.

 

[Patton89]

I tend to edit my posts.
And then you awnser on the old one.
Okay, i wont edit so much. Atleast from now on.

You said that more people, the harder its to control, and japan has low crime rates, so crime isnt linked automatically to population, neither is poverty. That was only regarding that part. I do know that japan like any other country has poor. But the problem isnt poor, its if they have chance to live with atleast some bare minimum standard.
Do they end up homeless. Well yes, they do in Japan and in USA.
But it isnt because these countries cant afford doing something, or its unorganizable. Its simply because they dont give rats arse.

EDIT: this thread is however entirely about well, guns. So unless we go offtopic and cause others problems, i dont think we can keep arguing here.

 

[Sander]

As far as studies go, there's only one thing you can really be sure of: gun control DOES reduce gun crime.

Do you have a link for that?

Assault rifles have as much legitimate recreational use as a chemical weapon (I'm assuming we're referring to automatic assault rifles here).

Really? You're saying that a weapon of mass destruction has just as much legitimate recreational use as a weapon that can (and is) used for simple range shooting?
In addition to that, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the presence of assault rifles is going to increase gun crime or gun deaths by any significant amount. It is purely an emotional response to a weapon that is used largely in wars. These weapons aren't useful to criminals anyway, and criminals aren't going to get them through legal means either.

Also, people, don't double post. The edit button is there for a reason, and you don't need to immediately respond to anything you see in a new post.

Also also, try to keep it on topic please. Patton, you're just derailing the topic by trying to go 'Well we don't *need* guns we could do *this*', which is neither in conflict with or precluded by the proposed solutions.

Lastly, school shootings happen more than other types of shootings because the shooters tend to be students at the school, and schools are one of the few places where there are consistently and reliable a lot of people in a very concentrated and closed environment.
Also, school shootings are actually a very minor issue due to their infrequency and the limited amount of injury they cause.