Teachers unknowingly shot with plastic pellets during active shooter drills

California has pretty much this, and in implementation is much stricter than Canada. The result? There are mass shootings here as well as lots of urban gun violence.

New Zealand already has stricter gun laws than many places in the US.

Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay.

The government unilaterally taking away the rights of innocent people shouldn't be okay. If it's okay with someone, then it means they're okay with stomping on the human rights of people they don't like.

I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.

This is distinct from restricted firearms (mostly handguns) where a new background check is performed each time you buy a restricted firearms.

In California, all firearms save for some really old ones are treated like restricted rifles in Canada. You have to get a background check and wait 10 days for every purchase even if you already own a dozen guns. Plus there are a bunch of rules about the shape of the grip, whether it has a for grip, the shape of the muzzle brake, and whether or not the stock folds that can make guns felonies to possess.

All guns (save for the aforementioned muzzle loader) are registered in California. Well, technically not registered because to do so is a violation of Federal law. But the State does log every firearm brought into the state, every firearm bought, and every firearm transferred. So basically a registry in everything but name.

This in contrast to California where all firearms sales other than black powder muzzle loader have backgry checks run every time someone buys them.

You haven't heard the tales of Minnesota bootleggers and mobsters. (Directly relevant to Canada.) National borders don't mean that much to criminals. This includes illegal firearms trafficking.

Horrifying.

My family has direct experience with Leftists who take away individual rights for the sake of the group. My mother and oldest uncle had to be smuggled for hours in a pitch black compartment of a freighter to escape. That's horrifying. War is horrifying, because that's what came soon after.

It's orders of magnitude more likely you'll die in a car crash than die from an active shooter scenario.

So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive.

Sorry, but none of that makes sense. Many of the states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest levels of violence.

The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns.

I dialed 911 once. It malfunctioned. I called from a neighbor's. I wound up with a bloody face and stitches. The police in their SUV drove past my house to the wrong address, driving right past me waving my arms with blood streaming down my face. This was in addition to their arriving way too late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

One of my housemates had a direct experience with preventing a mugging, because the potential assailant figured out he had a weapon.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-...

Sounds like that trade off is just better.

Restricting the guns won't take the means to kill away from determined nutjobs and criminals. However, every day it's in action, it will take away the means for tens of thousands of innocent law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while creating the precedent of the government stomping on their property and 2nd amendment rights.

Sorry, but your "logic" sounds like something ignorant kids would write.