Always fun when people with know knowledge of the law try to make arguments about it.

First off, the amendments are not ranked. Freedom of speech is not more important to the right to a speedy trial. The order is irrelevant.

More importantly, the government can absolutely infringe on any constitutional right. Even ignoring the vast interpretation issues of holding the second amendment to protect modern weapons, rights are not absolute. Statutes that potentially infringe on constitutional rights are subject to strict scrutiny, generally. If a statute is related to a legitimate public concern and is the narrowest away to achieve that goal, then it can be passed. Because common sense. Only a complete putz would think freedom of speech means you can say anything anywhere at anytime, or that the right to bear arms means you could have any weapon at any time in any place. Gun free zones have repeatedly been upheld as constitutional. And of course the second Amendment is an AMENDMENT. That means we changed the constitution, and we could do so again. We've done it 34 times. The Constitution isn't a tablet from mount sinai. 

As for school free zones, the last shootings have been at a McDonalds, not a gun free zone, a church, not a gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, a private residence, not a gun free zone, at a small, not a gun free zone, the New York City subway, not a gun free zone, downtown Sacramento, not a gun free zone, a park, not a gun free zone, a high school, gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, a concert, not a gun free zone, the VTA, not a gun free zone to my knowledge, a trailer park, not a gun free zone, a Fed Ex, not a gun free zone, a private residence, not a gun free zone, an office building, not a gun free zone, a supermarket, not a gun free zone, and a spa, not a gun free zone.

So, at best, abolishing gun free zones would have prevented 2 of the last 20 mass shootings.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 

I wouldn’t be so sure. Most people are not smart.

I’m European, so I’ll never understand this, and I won’t argue because why would I, but I don’t see how some here don’t see that arming teachers and whatnot would only lead to wild-west style shootouts in places where you don’t want them.

How likely do you think it is that you can get three-fourths of U.S state legislatures to agree to change the Second Amendment to be more limited. Especially given that this is the issue that is pretty much the most polarized in the country? How likely is the current court (or a forseeable court in the next few decades) to limit rather than expand the scope of the Second Amendment?

Earlier in this thread I was told that I was naive for recommending social and cultural changes/movements that would fundamentally halt the source ideologies and motivations for mass shootings. Nearly a dozen people upvoted the person who called me naive.

Yet every single one of the recommendations I provided don't require a constitutional amendment, nor are they topics that have strong polarization (at least yet.) They can also be applied locally or regionally and have a strong effect.

It seems almost as if there is no consciousness of the political landscape in the recommendations surrounding gun control in this thread.

When the policing issue is brought up for example, it is suggested that gun control that doesn't criminalize people can be constructed. That is true, I provided an example of that myself, but which currently existing bill won't criminalize more people? Almost all of them come with more criminal penalties attached.

The Second Amendment (and the Heller interpretation) are likely here for the next few decades, given the Supreme Court's ideological slant. Any near-term solutions need to be within that framework. If anything, advocates of strong gun control better hope the Supreme Court doesn't touch this topic because they are far more likely to expand the scope of the Second Amendment than limit it.

And while some things like universal background checks and licensing might be able to get past the current Supreme Court, it is highly doubtful that more aggressive gun control than that will. 

In the meantime, is it not possible to actually solve the social and cultural problems that lead to these shooters being motivated to kill other people? 

I know one can say "we can do both", but given the political, logistical, and institutional realities in this country it doesn't seem like we can. 

A large enough minority of adults are willing to kill to keep their guns. It just is farfetched to think that is going to change anytime soon. 

Sure some people in that group aren't that smart, but if people used their own faculties rather than "follow orders" a few of them would have initiated the process of breaking down the door. Police intentionally turn off their own reasoning skills and act as automatons to be ordered.

I personally don't think teachers should be forced to carry guns. Having said that, it isn't impossible for there to be an effective arming of teachers. If I recall correctly, Israel has done this as a counter-terrorism measure. Albeit all Israelis are conscripted into the military for two years and there are other very different cultural and political differences from the U.S. Edit: I just fact checked this, and found out that this is a myth. Israel has armed security guards, but not armed teachers. 

As a former teacher, a couple of things. 

First off, I'm not really sure that I would have taken my gun and gone to confront the gunman. I tried to teach my kids the best I could, I never volunteered to take a bullet for them. Maybe in the heat of the moment I'd have the courage, but honestly, I don't think so. For my family, I'd do anything I could. For your family, probably not. Not what I signed up for.

Of course, even if I did, it wouldn't have accomplished much. Shooting people is kind of hard, especially in a high stress situation when they have body armor and a much better gun than you. Unless Jack Bauer is your art teacher, a gun's not going to help.

Of the teachers I've worked with, I have not met any that I thought "yeah, this is a person I'd trust in a shoot out". If anything, they'd be more likely to harm someone else in that situation. What I have met, is a lot of dumb fucking teachers. I find the idea of a teacher leaving a gun in an unsafe place far more likely than a teacher gunning down an intruder. And if I'm a teacher breaking up a fight with a bunch of kids? Not unreasonable that one of them could get a hold of my gun. 

We could train teachers, but it's a shit job as it is. Tons of them are woefully unqualified, and adding a marksmanship requirement isn't going to be feasible. 

I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to wild west shootouts, but at best it would be as likely to cause harm as prevent it. 

It isn't a real solution, but the people proposing it don't believe it is. They hope that people are dumb enough to buy into these bullshit suggestions, and then while sensible people are pointing out the stupidity, nothing will get done. It's a distraction. Other countries don't have armed teachers, have video games, have mental health problems, have a large number of guns (Switzerland has 2 million guns and 8 million people), but don't have mass shootings, because they have things like background checks and waiting periods. But, I guess we can't have a well regulated militia with those things, so we'll just have to let more children (and adults) die preventable deaths. 

More guns also complicates the police response. If you suddenly have multiple shooters and gunshots coming from different directions it becomes a lot more difficult for the police to locate and address the threat while protecting those not involved. 

Additionally, more guns increase bad outcomes outside of mass shooters such as accidents, heat of the moment criminality and general intimidation which creates an unhealthy school environment for children. Essentially the "just arm the teachers" "solution" creates a bad outcome for millions of kids in order to prevent the worst outcome for dozens of kids, when the aim should be to create a good outcome for all kids. 

So in the Texas incident, the assailant shot 400 hundred rounds in less then a few minutes, armored up and you believe if more people was packing something like this is not going to happen, that is a fantasy. 

Parkland had an officer on duty and we saw what happen there.

Sandy Hook 

Answer this question for me, have you ever shot a hand gun.  

Have you ever shot a hand gun when being shot at

I have in both situations and I am telling you the movies make it seem easy to shot a hand gun but to actually hit a target is not easy at all. Then you take that situation and put it into combat situation and its on another level.  There seems to be this belief that just because someone is armed they are effective but the reality is that they can be just as much a danger as the assailant, shooting and spraying bullets all over the place.

The point again is that you seem to believe that we go back to the wild wild west and these incidents will decrease but the US lived that life before and going back to it not going to solve anything, instead every encounter will be a deadly encounter and its going to be who is the coldest killer and the fastest draw that lives to see another day.

Israel is also the size of New Jersey, with compulsory military service for all citizens. Finding qualified guards there would be easier than placing an armed guard in each school in rural Texas. There are 98,755 public schools in the US. And there are always going to be other soft targets. Can't arm everyone, no matter how much some would like that.

Everyone daydreams that they would be Jack Bauer in a crisis. In reality, we'd all be more like Chief Wiggum. 

Aside from that, we already have the most guns per capita in the world by a pretty staggering number. Yet, these things happen frequently, in places where there are no special restrictions on guns. If more guns means more safer, then you would expect America to have the least mass shootings. Clearly, not the case. Permissive gun laws are directly correlated with more mass shootings.

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

Possibly the key to solving the political problem is to give gun-owners who are suspicious about gun control some things they might like. 

1. Universal background checks -- but make it so that the state funds the background checks from tax dollars, and non-FFL's can do the background checks for transfers. I can't see any negatives to this, and it makes sure everyone who buys a gun is background checked without inducing a cost to the purchaser and seller. Basically it gets rid of all of the excuses.
   
   
2. Allow for a federal concealed carry/open carry license that works anywhere (preempting state reciprocity agreements) on the condition that one takes a course and gets a particular certification. This also solves the current problem in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen.
   
   
3. Decriminalize suppressors. Suppressors give much better noise protection and limit noise pollution. It's why in Norway, for example, they are pretty much unregulated and in fact required in many context. Suppressors don't mute the gun like on sees in movies. It's more a difference of 140 db to 100 db. 100 db is still very loud, louder than a lawn mower for example. 
   
   

Then couple all of these reforms with the licensing system I described in a previous post (and below.) You'll give GOP and Manchin cover where they can campaign on voting to allow nationwide conceal-carry/open-carry and suppressor decriminalization.