Considering that a handgun in the home is more likely to be used against the
home's occupants than against an intruder, I would say the burden of
evidence is on those who want armed teachers. They need to prove that the rate
of accidents from guns in the classroom is virtually nonexistent, or you will
end up with more casualties nationwide than from all of the school shootings
combined. Mr. Burrell raises some excellent points, and I will value his
opinion many times over that of Wayne LaPierre.
Not only is it not "wise", it is in fact profoundly stupid.
The problem with arming teachers is obvious, you aren't really arming
teachers, you are arming the students. Almost any well conditioned student can
easily over power a weak or unsuspecting teacher. Maybe we should
only hire teachers who are ex-police officers or members of special forces
units, doesn't anyone remember Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop".
Wow. Some actual wisdom in a letter to the editor.
Emajor. Then who is going to protect our children? The inconvenient truth is
that bad guys with guns can only be stopped by good guys with guns and the
police can't protect your children any more than they did at Sandy Hook or
any other school. Bad people will always get guns and no gun control law can or
will stop them!
If someone knew teachers were armed I think they might be afraid. In fact mall
shooting in Oregon and I beleive another shooting some time ago a teacher there
got a gun and lives were saved there.
I was talking last night with a friend who is an expert on gangs in Utah. He
works with the Utah Attorney General's office. Although he is pro-gun, he
has some serious concerns with the lack of adequate background checks, the gun
show loophole, and the fact that before being prohibited from possessing a gun,
a person must have been convicted of a felony.According to him, at
least two thirds of gang members cannot be restricted from packing. Most have
fairly extensive records of misdemeanors, but no felonies -- yet. It is not
unusual for police agencies to have to return weapons to gang bangers because
their possession of the weapon is permitted under current law and the Second
Amendment. Because there is no registration of gun serial numbers, there is no
way of learning if the gun has been stolen.He also points out that
in almost every case of a gun being used in domestic violence, the gun was
lawfully possessed by the shooter. Even though the shooter may have had a long
history of previous violence, nothing can be done until he crosses the line from
misdemeanor to felony.Something to think about?
higv, it has been reported that the guy who claimed to have stopped the shooting
in the Oregon mall wasn't in the vicinity when it happened.
Mountainman said,,,for the upteenth time, "... bad guys with guns can only
be stopped by good guys with guns..."OK. You win. I get what
you're saying. But as long as you say that I will say this:Deaths caused by firearms in 2011 included these numbers for developed
countries:Unted States - 10.2 per 100,000 populationGermany -
1.05 per 100,000 populationUnited Kingson - 0.25 per 100,000 populationJapan - 0.07 per 100,000 populationSo i genuinely want to know,
what makes the difference? Why so many more deaths in this country? Are we
just bad people?I think there is another answer but I want someone,
in a responsiublke position, to explain these numbers to us all. Then, and only
then, can we have a meaningful conversation about how to stop the killing.
higvDietrich, IDIf someone knew teachers were armed I think they
might be afraid. ============== ...and I don't
think a mentally ill person, with a death-wish, 2 assault rifles, 1,000 rounds
of ammo, and a bullet proof vest is afraid of a Kindergarten teacher with a 9mm
and a 7 round clip at all.
ECR. Its the culture. For example, when Japan suffered the tsunami, there was
virtually no looting. Compare that with what happened during the last two
hurricanes in America, especially in New Orleans.
Good, sensible letter. Nicely done, sir. And I honor your service to our
@MountanmanHayden, IDECR. Its the culture. For example, when Japan
suffered the tsunami, there was virtually no looting. Compare that with what
happened during the last two hurricanes in America, especially in New
Orleans.9:09 a.m. Jan. 7, 2013Unted States - 10.2 per
100,000 populationGermany - 1.05 per 100,000 populationUnited
Kingson - 0.25 per 100,000 populationJapan - 0.07 per 100,000
population================= The Culture?Japan is a SOCIALIST nation, So is Germany and the UK.Perhaps the Gun-toutiing, anything for a buck, Me, Myself, and I,
get off my property or I'll shoot, selfishness, of a
paranoid America who thinks that the Government, their friends, neighbors,
family and everyone around them is somehow out to get them, is the REAL
There are bad cops too. Shall we take all police guns away?You trust
your kids to a teacher all day long. How does their having a gun change who they
are? Having a gun doesn't suddenly make them into a ruthless killer. These
are highly qualified, responsible people. Who better to take the responsibility
for a weapon and the safety of our kids.If you don't trust a
teacher with a gun to take care of your children, you shouldn't trust them
with your kids at all. A gun is only one way a teacher might harm a child. They
might humiliate them, or hurt their feelings, or molest them. They might stab
them with scissors. You just never know.And the anti-gun folks think
the pro-second amendment folks are paranoid. Your fear of the presence of a gun
EMajor: So the burden is on gun owners and their advocates to prove that
exercising their right will not have any negative effects before they will have
that right protected. Is that what you are saying?If so, why
don't we extend that logic to all the other rights protected by the
constitution? Lots of people abuse the right of free speech (slander, libel,
hate, etc.). Do we make someone prove that they will do none of those things
before we grant them free speech?Freedom of the press has been
abused numerous times by so-called "journalists" printing lies,
exaggerations, and selective omissions. Do we make them prove that none of that
abuse will happen before we "allow" a free press?
If teachers want to carry concealed, are judged mentally sound, and are willing
to go through extensive training, they should be supported and allowed to do so.
Concealed carry permit holders have been shown to be much more law abiding
than the general public.As for the unhinged teacher 38 years ago, I
don't think he/she would have passed today's required FBI background
check, as well as the mental evaluation and extensive training (above).I think my children are safer at a school where competent, well-trained
teachers and administrators are allowed to carry concealed. If something bad
starts, the teachers are already there on the job, in the best position to take
quick action if needed to protect the kids. We should let them.
How sad -- When I was a kid, we feared knowing the Pricipal had a
Paddle in the closet.Today, kids might fear knowing the Pricipal has
a Glock 17 in the closet. I also feared a certain 5th grade teacher
who was known to fly off the handle and abuse kids at times.Throwing
papers, kicking garbage cans, and slapping rulers was a weekly occurance.We were scared half to death.I know times have changed, but I
don't feel better thinking my kids or grandkids would somehow be made safer
knowing these types of short-fused "teachers" could be now be legally
The answer is home shcooling
To "ECR" the problem with your statistics is the simple fact that they
don't reflect the overall homicide rate. If guns are the problem, then
explain why the nations with the highest homicide rates also have low gun
ownership rates?For example, in 2010 Honduras lead the world in
murders, yet they only have 6.2 guns per 100 people. Your ilk's logic
can't explain why they would have such a high murder rate with so few
guns.The other problem that your ilk has is the simple fact that
once you take away guns, the mentally ill will just switch to knives, swords, or
other similar things.If you want to see what happens when you take
away the guns, look to Japan. Read about the Akihabara massacre where a man
killed 4 and injured 8 people using a survival knife. Banning guns is not the
solution since crazy people will find a way to kill. The root of the problem is
the mental condition of the populace.
Once again, this letter points out that mental health is the issue of concern,
not the presence or absence of guns. Guns can't shoot themselves.
The inconvenient truth is that bad guys with killing machines can only be
stopped by good guys with killing machines and the police can't protect
your children any more than they did at Sandy Hook or any other school. Bad
people will always get killing machines and no killing machine control law can
or will stop them!
Whats to say when your kids are out on the play ground that a crazy don't
come a long with his Bush Master and takes them down. Question will the
teacher's be packing then and remember a pistol is only good for short
distance. Wow decisions decisions do my kids got to school with teachers packing
or do i home school them. Hurry and sign your teachers for the four hour class
that will make them true marksman and if there was a shoot out how many kids
will they take out?
When we have armed all of the teachers, administrators and janitors, who will
protect the students from all of the now armed teachers, administrators and
janitors? I'm quite certain an armed school employee who is deemed sane
enough on Friday to have a concealed carry permit is capable of wigging out and
going postal on Monday.
@There You Go Again"Bad people will always get killing machines and no
killing machine control law can or will stop them!"Nonsense, and
at the very least we can make it harder for them to get them by doing what would
in decent societies' view the obvious idea of closing the gun show
If a lot of you think arming teachers is a good idea, and that concealed carry
on campuses helps improve safety... then why aren't you concerned about the
safety of students at BYU, a school that doesn't allow guns? Obviously the
state can't impose that kind of thing on a church-run school, otherwise
they would've when they did that for my school (Univ. of Utah) and the
other state-run universities but shouldn't you be doing something like
signing a petition asking the church to explain their position and consider
changing it? It's not like it's a doctrinal stance the church has
taken anyway and just asking isn't a bad thing. Don't BYU students
deserve to be safer too?
I get tired of repubs talking about what we "can't" do. Anything
for the good of the people is just "too difficult." When it comes to
education, security, economy, etc. We can't protect schools so
why even try? We can't change our gun culture (as if Germany didn't
have a violent past) so why even try? Hilarious!Why then
when it comes to tax cuts for the rich, bailouts, and wars in the middle-east do
repubs suddenly become can doers? But anything for the middle-class? They just
JoeCapitalist2Nice diversion, but I'm talking about guns in the
classroom here, not the right to own guns at all. Stay on topic. Unless of
course you don't have a logical rebuttal to my original point. Which seems
likely since you didn't offer one when given the chance. Mountanman,"Then who is going to protect our children? "Your understanding of risk and probability leaves a lot to be desired.
The fact is, in 99.999% of the classrooms, our children don't need
protecting. Introducing a gun into the classroom provides a risk that was never
there before. So, do you increase the risk in every classroom in the hopes of
preventing a very rare but very serious mass shooting in a very small number of
classrooms? The only classroom made safer by a teacher with a gun is the
classroom another shooter comes into. Every other classroom is made less safe.
This isn't hard to understand.
But it's ok to have armed faculty at prominent schools. These anti-2nd
amendment authoritarians are such hypocrites. They want everybody else to get
rid of their guns while they keeps theirs and their armed security.
JoeCapitalist2Nice diversion, but I'm talking about guns in the
classroom here, not the right to own guns at all. Stay on topic. Unless of
course you don't have a logical rebuttal to my original point. Which seems
likely since you didn't offer one when given the chance. Mountanman,"Then who is going to protect our children? "You need to understand risk and probability. The fact is, in 99.999% of
the classrooms, our children don't need protecting. Introducing a gun into
the classroom provides a risk that was never there before. So, do you increase
the risk in every classroom in the hopes of preventing a very rare but very
serious mass shooting in a very small number of classrooms? The only classroom
made safer by a teacher with a gun is the classroom another shooter comes into.
Every other classroom is made less safe.
If you want gun control, go to the gun control utopia of the world known as
Mountanman Hayden, IDA great argument for allowing people to have
heavy weaponry and nuclear arms, too. Since government cannot protect you 100%
of the time from an aggressor, people should have their own nuclear deturrent
capabliity. Just think, a suitcase nuclear weapon in every home.No
one is going to come through your front door. Not with the ability to blow the
whole neighborhood sky high. You can't trust the military to keep you
completely safe in case of war. We saw the effects of the nuclear bomb in
Japan. If a terrorist got a nuclear weapon, you can't be sure you
won't be a target. So, get your own nuclear weapon. At least the
terrorist will go when you go!Of course, shooters with assault
weapons don't expect to survive their attacks after the police arrive, so
why should you're having an assault weapon with a 100-capacity clip deter
them (assuming you decide to put yourself in harms way to protect other
innocents; remember you are not the police with a commitment to put your life on
the line) and stop the carnage?Remember, Rambo only needed a knife .
. . a huge knife, at that!
Someone mentally ill may not fear a gun. However any case at least someone with
a gun could save many a life from those type of people. As for the person that
said answer is homeschooling, The vast majority of people go through the public
school system and are safe and do ok. People could murder in your home too.
Few people ever see a murder that go through the public school system just hear
about the unfortunate ones that do.
Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID 1:03 p.m. Jan. 7, 2013An excellent
reason to have extensive background checks, limits to access for
mentally-unstable individuals (perhaps having regular psycholocical evaluations
as a condition of gun ownership) and extensive training requiring
re-certification at, perhaps, five-year intervals.This would deal
well with those crazies who want to keep their hands close to their
semi-automatic weapons in case the government comes after them in those black
helicopters. It's true that guns don't shoot themselves. It usually
takes a finger. But high-capacity, rapid-firing guns in the wrong hands can do
a lot of damage. A lot more than if they had only a single-shot, maximum five
bullets to do their terrible deed.
Redshirt - I saw the statistics you are talking about and noticed that without
question, those countries that have a higher gun related death rate are third
world countries, perhaps with the exception of Brazil, although much of that
country could be considered third world as well. I guess I was just hoping we
were more advanced than those countries. Mountainman says it is just the
culture of our country that causes the disparity in the numbers between us and
other developed nations like Japan and the UK. In either case, that
doesn't bode well for our country and is quite a sad commentary.But having said all that, I still think the availability of guns, especially
assault type weapons, has to play at least some part in the sad story of the
United States beating all other nations in gun related deaths except El
Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Columbia, Brazil, Panama,
Mexico. And how many of those countries get their gun supply from their next
door or near next door neighbor, the United States of America?
Some studies of NYPD and LAPA reveal law enforcement officers hit their intended
target 30% of the time. When being fired upon, the rate drops to 18%. Now imagine in a school situation, (assuming the same skill level as law
enforcement officers) with armed teachers and personnel firing back where will
the 70%-80% of bullets be landing?
Oops. Correction: it should be LAPD--Los Angeles Police Dept. (not LAPA)
Our resource officer addressed the faculty today about safety procedures during
lock downs. He recommended, almost begged us, that we do not approach or go
after a shooter if we are armed. He stated that the responding police officer
doesn't know if you are a bad guy with a gun or a good guy with a gun and
if he sees you in the hall with a gun, he will shoot you dead. Why would any
sane person want to make a situation any more difficult for the police officers
responding to an emergency?
@Redshirt I think comparing a 3rd world country like Honduras leading the world
in murders in 2010, with 6.2 guns per 100 people to England, Germany etc is an
insult to our intelligence.Australia is not Socialist but they did a
buy back of semi-automatic guns after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 and have
not had a mass shooting since. As a cautionary thought they recently
had a person beat up a Police officer to steal his gun so they could kill
themselves. So an armed teachers is going to be easy picking.
Re: Dwayne: Excellent, heartfelt responses. I agree with your reasoning.
Competent teachers who are judged to be stable, level-headed, strong, and well
trained are in the best position to stop-short these rare-but-horrific
situations. If they meet these criteria and want to carry concealed, they
should be allowed to -- with the blessing of the administration.Some
of you seem to think that if teachers are armed, they will go nuts, or start
shooting wildly, or chase a gunman down the hall, or will accidentally kill a
lot of students, etc. Apparently I have more trust in our teachers than some of
you. Not every situation will turn out perfectly, but on the whole I think
we'll have fewer shootings and more lives will be saved.When
teachers are properly trained, they'll know what to do and what not to do.
And when I say "trained," I'm not talking about a 2-hour lecture,
I'm talking about a 3-day, intensive, hands-on course, with periodic
refresher training.Our wonderful teachers are already right there on
the scene. Let's let them protect the kids, for Pete's sake.
dwayne,Your lack of concern for bystanders getting struck by stray bullets
scares the bejeezus out of me. Not everyone is OK with their children being
considered "collateral damage" in your hero fantasies:"Would I be so selfish as a parent to blame teachers who killed my child
before successfully killing a child killer? No." You don't
get to make that decision for my child. Period.About Aurora: do you
really think that having frightened, amped-up citizens with handguns blasting
into the dark, crowded theater would have ended happily? One thing you can
almost guarantee: the death rate of "1 to 3 victims per minute" would
have gone up and the killer himself would have used a whole lot less of his own
ammunition to accomplish it. Same with Tucson. Not every mass shooting can be
stopped by armed citizens.
EMajor, the statistics actually tell a different story. You have just succumbed
to the Kool-Aid of the anti-gun lobby.
ECR, you can quote all the statistics that you want. The bottom line is, in a
free society, people have the right to be evil, stupid, and anything else they
want to do. You can't stop people from doing evil things regardless of the
restrictions that are put on society. More gun laws are not the answer and the
bad/crazy people don't worry about the law anyway.
Flashback - I am not quoting statistics to make a point. I am quoting
statistics to ask a legitimate question that no one seems to want to answer -
Why are gun related deaths in developed countries similar to our own (ie.
Germany, Japan the UK) so significantly lower than they are here? Are they not
subject to the same cultural influences as we are?And contrary to
your belief, I'm not claiming that limiting or eliminating gun rights is
the answer. I just want us to ask those types of questions as we consider what
needs to be done to stop the violence. And for the record, I believe that doing
nothing is not the answer. Allowing another tragedy like Newtown to occur
without any actions being taken is simply unacceptable to me. I hope it is to
you as well.
Re: "Your lack of concern for bystanders . . . scares . . . me. . . . You
don't get to make that decision for my child. Period."So,
you'd prefer having a deranged killer making that decision for your child,
rather than a trained, caring teacher?Hmmmmm.
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTSo, you'd prefer having a
deranged killer making that decision for your child, rather than a trained,
caring teacher?Hmmmmm.10:39 a.m. Jan. 8, 2013=============== Speaking for myself, No, I'd like to see military type asssault rifles banned from the general
public, and not even have to worry about teachers having to carry
hand-guns to protect my kids at school just so Billy-Bob can keep is bogus
2nd ammendment rights.If you want those rifles, join a "well
regulated militia".If you're gonna keep and defend the
Constitution, you must do so for ALL of it, not just cherry pick the parts
and snippets you want, and ignore the rest of it.
I don't want the government to limit people's gun rights much more
than it already is. Mostly just because these gun nuts are already
in a frenzy and need to be given some space. They all think the government is
coming for their guns but can't pinpoint who exactly would do that deed.
But they still believe it, that's clinically crazy.I want
people to realize how dumb it is to think a gun makes you safer on their own and
how dumb it is to think that if everyone had a gun we would be safer. It's
just insane If gun nuts have been so easily led to this paranoid
point, I don't think it will take much more to set them off. Clearly many
of them ARE going off one by one killing their families before themselves.
I can do more damage to a tank, truck, hum-vee or airplane with a molotov
cocktail made with a glass coke bottle, gasoline, and a rag -- than all
you Anti-American, the Government is coming to get me, bushmaster AR-15 assault
rifle, paranoid types combined.Sigmund Freud was right about guns
being a symbolic extensionn to compensate for male insecurity.
Arming teachers is silly. Most teachers couldn't being to handle a gun.
HOWEVER - having at least 2 armed concealed weapon carries in a school is a
GREAT idea. These two individuals would be trained and would pass all background
checks. Having 2 armed protectors in a school makes total sense - it could be a
custodian or a principal or an aide. the bottom line is you need to arm citizens
to protect themselves and others.
I am NOT a gun person: Although the fact that most of these massacres seem to
occur in "gun free zones" is a fact that should be noticed.
@dwane -- I think it's fabulous that you are ok with a teacher shooting
your kid. But frankly, that's you and it sure isn't me. If a teacher
shoots my kid because he is an untrained Rambo wannabe, I want him in jail.
Period, end of story. Same with you. If you come to my "rescue" by
shooting me, I want you in jail. If a person feels a need to carry a gun, then
they need to take responsibility for how they use it. The consequence of
shooting an innocent person should be jail time.
If people follow gun safety rules, a gun at home is more likely to kill an
intruder than to kill any of the occupants.I teach my family members
gun safety, i.e. not to ever point a gun at anybody unless necessary, because a
gun should always be treated as if it is loaded.Likewise, if people
follow car safety rules, and drive defensively, they can expect they will have a
safe experience in an automobile. Likewise with knives.Let us not
ban, cars, knives or guns because there are those few who misuse them.
I find it interesting that conservatives are now the teachers best friend,
praising them up and down and saying how they are the saviors of our children.
But I distinctly remember, just a little while ago, when
conservatives could not say enough bad things about public school teachers. How
horrible and worthless and lazy they all are. And where are the
conservative when the teachers are asking for a raise? And where were the
conservatives when the uh, conservatives were destroying public school teachers