For those who argue that school shootings are a gun problem, it’s worth considering that in the aftermath of World War I, countless individuals had access to guns without experiencing these widespread, senseless acts of violence for no reason. Therefore, it’s clear that your argument has inherent shortcomings. Moreover, I believe altering gun laws could potentially lead to the establishment of a black market, encouraging individuals to seek illegal firearms, and resulting in an increase in overall violence.
If you take away the guns and do not solve the underlying issue of why people are killing each other, they will switch to other means to kill each other. IEDs work very well.
This is not to say we don’t need to limit access to guns, or that we should make getting guns easier. It is meant to show that the argument of “take away the guns” is a flawed argument in either direction.
We need to figure out WHY people are killing each other. What changed between ww1 and now?
That’s absolutely true. Someone else pointed out removing schools also solves the problem of school shootings. However, I knew when saying that that’s not solving the underlying problem. It’s just that it is very difficult to solve a problem as widespread and vague as “mental health”. However, the thing is, while trying to fix that, we may as well save a few people’s lives and get a quick fix that’ll make it easier to deal with.
Because that’s the thing. The difference with “Remove the shootings” and “Remove the schools” to stop school shootings is that schools are essential. We can’t take that away. However, guns aren’t. At least in my opinion, it shouldn’t, and ergo, we can take them away and control them at the very least temporarily to solve the main issue at hand: people’s decaying mental state.