Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind

When I refer to assault rifles and high-powered weapons, it"s a general term really, not anything scientific. When I think about the terms I generally associate it with the standard sort of big gun (think M4A4) that can fire relatively quickly. Nothing pedantic, but I"m not thinking about a handgun or a shotgun. Think "Call of Duty" primary weapons. :P But obviously for legal definitions, we need a classification, which I"m going to provide here: A brief Google search showed me some of the capabilities guns have in terms of their rates of fire; ranging from 5 rounds per minute all the way up to fifty. (The website I got the rates of fire from is here, by the way; http://www.milsf.com...) If I were creating the legislation, I would say that as the rate of fire increases, so does waiting time. For example, a gun capable of shooting 50+ rounds per minute should come with a waiting period of about 5-7 days, whereas a simple shoot-and-reload pistol with a fire rate of around 10 rounds per minute might have a waiting period of 1-2 days. This time is more than enough to thoroughly vet and approve whether or not you're responsible enough to own the sort of gun you apply for. In general: the more dangerous (comparatively) the gun, the longer the waiting period. Fingerprint technology ranges anywhere from $50 to $150. Safes that incorporate this technology range from anywhere around $100 - $500. They're mildly expensive, but in reality, it's something you would only really have to buy once - and price is arguably negligible when it comes to saving people's lives. Organisations could potentially lower the prices of guns (which is unlikely) to cop some of the brunt of the costs of the safekeeping " which they actually might end up doing, if statistics show that sales drop after new legislation. Like you said; of course we can"t stop all mass shootings, as there will always be some unpredictable incident from somebody with no warning signs or no past history " it"s inevitable. What we should be aiming to do instead is minimise the amount of gun-related deaths; because, most of the time, a lot of them are easily preventable. Just because we can"t stop all mass shootings completely, doesn"t mean we shouldn"t try at all " and I think you and I are both in agreeance on this. And the way we should go about doing it, as we agreed, is definitely through better legislation; namely, longer waiting periods, increased background checks, and tighter security " but to remove guns or certain makes of guns is certainly not the answer, as is described in the 2nd Amendment and is protected by the United States Constitution " it"s there to protect citizens against a tyrannical, oppressive government, and it"s also for sport and enjoyment. As for arming the teachers, I know there"s been a bit of controversy and I"m a bit on the fence. President Trump stated that he believes, (and I"m paraphrasing); "not all teachers, just the ones that volunteer- maybe 20-30%." If a teacher themselves is willing to be armed to protect their students, then I"m all for it. With proper training and coaching, it sounds like it could work very well. In cases where there are no volunteers, you could have a security guard paid for by the school to protect the students.