School Gun Shootings: Access to Guns or Something Else?

I don't think anyone will assert (if you do, please cite sources) that school gun shootings were more prevalent in the U.S. fifty, sixty or seventy years ago than today.

I also don't think that anyone can seriously argue that access to guns was more strictly controlled fifty, sixty or seventy years ago than today.

So, then, if access to guns was far easier fifty, sixty or seventy years ago than today and yet there were not just fewer but [b]FAR FEWER[/b] school shootings than today, isn't it reasonable to conclude that other factors are at work that are resulting in [b]FAR MORE[/b] school shootings than simply the mere access to a firearm?

EDIT:
Statistical reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

School Massacres Around the World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

It's the guns! People, IT'S THE GUNS! No shootings can happen without access to guns

Weekly mass shootings and school shootings are completely the fault of the the gun industry, their lobbying arm the NRA and collaborating politicians. They have been able to block effective, sane gun control legislation in Congress for years. The result is easy availability of military-grade assault rifles, shotguns and semi-auto pistols and their ammo, so every lunatic and criminal in the country can easily acquire them.

Mass shootings and school shootings are becoming more frequent. Also the thousands of handgun killings that happen every year are on the increase. Popular support for stronger gun control laws has risen to 75%. I deeply hope there will be a mass uprising against gun insanity at the voting booth in November and we will have representatives who will enact real gun control laws.

FYI the 2nd Amendment has been given a hugely distorted interpretation by gun nuts. It never meant the public can have unrestricted access to any type of weapon; 2A's original intent was to permit the states to keep their state militia when they joined the federal union. That's why the very first words are "A well-regulated militia..." See article one, section 8 of the Constitution for a definition of militia.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@badminton [quote]"A well-regulated militia...[/quote]

The Second Amendment [b]doesn't[/b] say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[b]It says[/b]:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [b]the right of the people[/b] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

They meant people's right to bear arms THROUGH their state militia. When the Constitution was being written, the framers had to offer a lot of concessions to the states guaranteeing they would have independence over important issues. One of those issues was the right to keep their independent state militia. That's what the 2nd amendment was about.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@badminton [quote]They meant people's right to bear arms THROUGH their state militia.[/quote]

Well, that's disputable at best. Hard to imagine the framers envisioning a Congress that would have banned the rights of people to own firearms. But especially given the tyranny the colonists lived under, why not enshrine it in the Bill of Rights?