Agreed, guns are not the answer.An honest discussion has never been
put forward on what may have happened if a teacher had had a gun there. A
teacher with a pistol would be have been terribly outgunned against someone with
an assault rifle and body armor.
I do not think the answer is either "always armed" or "never
armed"We need common sense. Those that choose to arm themselves
have every right to do so, however they have a huge responsibility that goes
along with that.We can find countless examples of good and bad uses
of guns.We need to find a reasonable balance. The far
right says - Any weapons, any placeThe far left says - No weapons,
anywhere.Both unreasonable. Lets look for the sensible middle
Juana, thank you for your perspective. I believe that gun advocates who
rationalize their fascination with lethal weapons by claiming they need them for
defense of self and family rarely consider the adverse psychological
consequenses of taking the life of another human being, even if that other
person may be perceived as a "bad guy" who appears to threaten their own
or a loved one's life. What if the perception is wrong? We
all have to die of some cause. Existence does not end with mortal life.
Personally, I prefer to bear the infinitesimal risk of dying at the hands of an
armed lunatic because I was unarmed, than to bear the risk and lifelong burden
that would accompany killing another person, particularly one who posed no
actual threat (the perceived aggressor or an innocent bystander), with my own
weapon. In Book of Mormon terms, I would be an Anti-Nephi-Lehite. To each his
Re: "Guns are not the answer"We couldn't be more
pleased to hear the outcome of your story, one in which pluck and intelligence
won out over evil.But, with all due respect, for every story like
yours, there are hundreds more with a different, much more tragic ending.None of us advocating respect for our Constitutional rights would deny
you the opportunity to confront evil in your own way. All we ask is that you
extend the same courtesy to us.Countless Americans would tell you
THEY are here today because they were NOT helpless. They had the necessary tools
to confront and triumph over evil. The same tools that were denied the
courageous principal in that Connecticut elementary school. She was FORCED to
confront evil empty-handed.She died, and was unable to prevent the
deaths of 25 others. Not because she lacked your pluck and intelligence, but
because, like too many before her, she was denied the tools.Confront
evil as you choose. Use whatever tools you like.But don't deny
You can't talk to terrorists. Neville Chamberlein learned that the hard
way. By taking guns away from law abiding citizens than only criminals would
have guns who ignore the laws anyway and things would be more dangerous.
JoeBlow has posted one excellent comment here. Until BOTH sides of the argument
become willing to sit down and listen carefully to the other, not much that is
any good can possibly happen. Only after that happens is there any chance of
finding GOOD solutions to a big problem.
Re:JoeBlowWow...I agree with you!I also agree with
procuradorfiscal saying "Confront evil as you choose. Use whatever tools you
like."Some really good points being made here.I
would like to point out that the media has a spotlight on the gun issue right
now. We are hearing about every incident in this country of 300 million (+)
people. Sometimes we forget just how many people now occupy this land and even
this earth. Statistically, your child, you, or anyone you know, will have a very
very slim chance of ever encountering gun violence. The issue is being
magnified.It is good that we talk about these issues but it should
also be accompanied by education as to why this right to bear arms exists in the
first place. I believe in the second Amendment with some obvious caveats(mental
illness, felony history, responsible storage) simply because it is the nature of
some men, that when they have a little power, seek to exert that power upon
others.It is my INALIENABLE right, within the natural laws granted
to me and enumerated in the constitution, to defend myself from tyranny.
Individual or collective.
Excellent comment, Juana. Thanks.
Let's try some root cause alalysis...Gun advocates are simply
scared and extremely insecure.They were more than likely bullied and
picked on as children, and see MORE violence as the only way to counter
violence.The childish play ground antics of; "My Daddy is
bigger than your Daddy.And my Daddy will come beat up your Daddy."still apply in their world.The letter writer is right though, as a veteran - in any conflict, we were always taught to take out the threat,
the guy with a gun, first.and Bad guys follow that same rule.
Re: "Until BOTH sides of the argument become willing to sit down and listen
carefully to the other, not much that is any good can possibly happen."OK, I'm listening carefully. What do you have to say that we
haven't already heard?I'll bet it boils down to some
disingenuous sophistry about how liberals can restrict my access to arms without
violence to a wise Constitutional provision that says that right "shall not
be infringed."Or, maybe it's some snarky censure of my
"selfish" insistence that my rights be observed.Perhaps even
some analysis of why the only "reasonable" thing to do involves
surrender of the high ground to liberals and bad guys.But, I'm
listening.What novel "solution" are you offering?
Guns is the answer, ah just no it.More guns is like combating drunk
driving by ensuring everyone on the road is drunk.
Open Minded Mormon (aka LDS Liberal),Scared and extremely insecure?
How did you reach that conclusion? Is Obama scared and extremely insecure? Do
you care to tell us how many armed men he surrounds himself with every time he
leaves his bedroom in the White House? How about Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Joe
Biden?Teachers should never be required to carry a firearm, nor
should any citizen. We are free to choose to own and carry a firearm if we
choose to do that. We are not compelled by the Constitution to keep and bear
arms; we are guaranteed that right, if we so choose.In my opinion,
no school child should ever have to watch his teacher shoot anyone. There are
more simple solutions. Locks on the classroom doors would stop most people from
entering a classroom without permission. Locks on the schools entrance door
would be a great help. Putting a fence around the school with a one-way lock at
the gate would be a simple solution.Requiring a teacher to arm
herself is not the solution.
Procura, I've posted this before. Did you ever bother to read it?I have a friend who is an expert on gangs in Utah. He works with the Utah
Attorney General's office. 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.
Re: "Requiring a teacher to arm herself is not the solution."Agreed. But forcing a teacher NOT to arm herself isn't, either.Agreed, no child SHOULD be forced to watch a teacher shoot someone. But, in a
case like Sandy Hook, we don't get a vote. The person creating the
situation is not the teacher, it's the deranged miscreant.And,
we should be able to agree it's better, when a criminal forces a child to
witness carnage, that he watch the teacher shoot the criminal, than to be forced
to watch the criminal shoot the teacher, then him.Locks on doors?
Sure. Lockable fence around the school? Sure.But, unless schools
have changed since I worked my way through a couple years of college as a school
custodian, they already have 'em.They're not enough.Willing teachers, willing to undergo necessary training, willing to
carry concealed, and willing -- as was the Sandy Hook principal -- to protect
kids at all costs, should be permitted the tools to do so.Not made
defenseless victims by operation of law.
Re:procuradorfiscal"Not made defenseless victims by operation of
Re: "Procura, I've posted this before."Yeah, I'm
listening. Your solution is what?Disarm bad guys? We all know how
well that works.There are several problems with your suggestion,
besides the obvious one -- bad guys don't obey the law. So your new
"background" check law would only disarm good guys.Additionally, what do you mean by "background check?" The devil's
always in the details, and liberals are WAY short on those. How long would they
take? Who decides whether your "background" is clean? What other use
will be made of the submitted information?In the past,
"background" checks were used to disqualify Black voters. How do we
assure those abuses don't resurface with your suggestion?What
in my "background" might disqualify me? Felonies already do. What about
a traffic ticket? How about Tim DeChristopher's "civil
disobedience?" How about Prozac use? Alcohol use?What if I were
just opposed to the President's latest executive order?To many
liberals, the most telling "background" flaw is that I want to own a
gun.I'm listening -- where's your cutoff?
Mass shootings provide for NRA recruitment and fund-raising events with the
added benefit of selling more guns to the benefit of the gun manufacturer's
association. The victims of these shootings are acceptable
collateral damage. To say the the NRA deplores these events is to
detract from its business model. The more who are killed, the greater the
generated fear, the better the NRA does.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahOpen Minded Mormon (aka LDS
Liberal),Scared and extremely insecure? How did you reach that
conclusion? We are not compelled by the Constitution to keep and
bear arms; we are guaranteed that right, if we so choose.============= Tell me Mike -- Does the Constitution
guartantee the right to buy and sell arms?A: No. Only to "Keep and
Bare" them. It makes NO mention of any mythical guarateed right to sell or
purchase anything.So, the Govenment CAN constitutionally restrict and
regulate their sale and circulation.They just can't Ghestapo like
knock on your door and confisgate what you already have in your possesion.That is what "infriged" means.Unless you want to amendment
the constituion and spell out "purchase and sale of" in addition to the
right "to keep and bare" -- you will loose this one.BTW -
I'm scared and feel insecre, that's why I have them. I'm fearful
of Domestic enemies vigilanty mob rule types who seek to to over throw our
Country. Not the Chinese, North Koreans or the United States of America like you
procuradorfiscal,I have 23 grandchildren, meaning that I'm
often invited to visit their classrooms and their schools. Not once have I been
stopped when entering a school. Not once was any outside door or classroom door
locked. Not once did anyone from the school question my presence in that
school. Is that security? None of the teachers or principles or
office personnel knew who I was.Some schools had a flyer taped to
their front door asking all visitors to check-in at the office. I always asked
if I needed to check in. Usually I was asked if I was there for a program or to
visit a grandchild. Not once was I asked to sign any kind of register. Not
once was I asked for I.D.Before deciding that every school is a war
zone, how about just accounting for anyone who enters who is no a teacher or a
student? How about using the locks that are already on the doors? How about
making every visitor detour through a secured office area before entering into
procuradorfiscal says "Willing teachers, willing to undergo necessary
training, willing to carry concealed ... should be permitted the tools to do
so."Agreed, but you left off a very key point "willing to
accept the responsibility".The teacher must face consequences if they
lose control of their gun.I can imagine a student getting a hold of
the teacher's gun as a prank.That teacher should face discipline.Worse to imagine a student getting the teacher's gun and firing off a
round.That teacher should be fired.Worse to imagine a student
getting the gun and accidentally shooting another student.That teacher
should face criminal charges and jail.Worse to image a student getting the
gun and killing another student.That teacher should face life in prison,
or perhaps the death penalty.Gruesome examples, yet very possible
because you've allowed a gun in the classroom.If a teacher is willing
to accept the consequences, then let them carry.
LDS Liberal,If you've decided to use Open Minded Mormon as your
new identity, how about changing your writing style just a little?"Shall not be infringed" is a guaranteed right of the 2nd Amendment.
Infringing on gun ownership by limiting the ability to buy arms or ammunition is
"infringing". You're proposing an "ex post facto" law,
which is illegal under the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3).Why do liberals hunt for ways to circumvent the law? Why do they
propose solutions that are clearly illegal under the Constitution? Why do they
pretend that they honor and obey the Constitution when they (daily) mock that
document?Guns are not the answer in the classroom. Others have
proposed simple ways of securing a school and a classroom, but liberals
aren't looking for a solution; they just want government control of
firearms to limit the liberty of the citizens. Any means is acceptable to them
- whether it is lawful or not. Just listen to the rhetoric of Obama and Biden.
They don't care that what they propose is illegal under the Constitution.
They have never cared that their programs are illegal.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahNot once have I been stopped
when entering a school. Not once was any outside door or classroom door locked.
Not once did anyone from the school question my presence in that school. ============= Perhaps it's because MOST of live knowing
we are indeed safe.Most of us aren't paranoid.Most of us
don't live life believing lunatics exist behind each and every corner and
are always trying to get us.BTW - I don't know what school
disctrict you go to, but in Davis County, EVERYONE must go to the fron
office 1st and check-in.No one is allowed in without proper clearance.All exterior doors are locked, allowing only one way for emergancy exits.Anyone not showing proper chest high identification is questioned.How about before we arm each and every teacher.We take precatiouary
mearures first?Rather than teach our children to be insecure and
scared of their own shadows...We teach them to face reailty, and that they
are safe in school, without seeing a bunch of scared adults visually packing
heat.?BTW - the security problems you complain about are at the
local disctrict level, not Obama's.
J Thompson - I notice you ignore "well regulated militia". What does
regulation mean to a pro-gun camp? I interpret "well
regulated" to mean "this is the type of gun the militia may carry"
or "this is the type of ammunition a militia uses". Regulation does not
infringe. "Well regulated" is not a synonym for "well trained".
Re:ModerateYou bring up some good points. I too have thought about
the logistics of a teacher being armed in a school. A six shooter on the hip is
probably a really bad idea. An in class gun safe with a trigger lock, extensive
training, and supervisor approval is probably a really good idea. I
know that if my child were in a school with a armed murderer on the loose, I
would want my child to have the protection of any means available to preserve
his/her life. I realize that in the last twenty years of having
children in the public (and private) school systems that the likely-hood of that
scenario is immeasurably low. Thus, my objections to the knee-jerk
reactions being made by our politicians.BTW - If I had made the
connection Open Minded Mormon=LDS Liberal, I would not have bothered to respond.
Procura, you probably are incapable of understanding this, but the best solution
is one that is somewhere in the middle of the extremes.Background
checks for ALL gun purchases whether at gun stores or private. Close the many
loopholes. Vigorously prosecute anyone who lies on an application. Require
training and insurance for anyone seeking to own a gun. Limit clip size.
Increase sentences for anyone committing a crime with a gun. Increase sentences
for anyone possessing a gun illegally, and without having complied all the
suggested requirements for gun ownership. Vigorously prosecute anyone who loses
control of a gun that is used by anyone else to commit a crime or cause an
"accident."You can argue all you want. Arguing, however, is
not necessarily a reflection of anyone's common sense or level of
intelligence. Those things require a certain ability to think at a higher level
than with nothing more than sound bites from either side of an issue.
Oh By the way...My youngest daughter forgot her lunch today. I walked into her
Jr. High, down the student congested hallways, into the office, to leave it for
her. No one stopped me. No gave me a second look. No locked doors, classroom
doors open. Just walked in.Just FYI.
I am also a survivor, but I would not be alive if someone hadn't intervened
in my behalf.If I had been carrying a gun on my person, I would have been
spared 7-8 wounds, minutes of terror, nightmares, weeks of healing, pain, and
missed work. One person's experience does not translate to
everyone. That is why the right to bear arms is a choice, not a dictate. It
comes with pro's and con's. Education about what the dangers are and
what the responsibilities are with owning guns is imperative. I do not take gun
ownership lightly. No one should. The benefits come with risks, but those risks
can and should be minimized.Teachers are people, citizens, just like
the rest of us. They should NOT have their right to bear arms INFRINGED based on
their occupation. If you are afraid of teachers bearing arms, I am sure there
are other like minded people you could join with and get a school co-op where no
arms are carried. Just don't advertise. You will make yourself a target.Characterizing people's state of mind based on gun ownership is
just plain bigotry.
RE: Grundle"I too have thought about the logistics of a teacher being
armed in a school."How many times do you hear someone ask "Where
are my car keys? Where is my cell phone?""Where is my gun?"
could have tragic consequences in school.We're talking about a
lot of guns. 99,000 public schools. For easy math, say 10 classrooms per
school, and the proposed solution is to introduce 1 million guns into
classrooms. To say "we won't have any accidents with a million
guns" is delusional. Good luck finding an insurance agent to underwrite
that policy.My sister is a teacher and notes that her school has an
open design. Once inside, a shooter has access to everything. We tear down and
rebuild schools for earthquake safety. Maybe it is time to tear down and
rebuild with gun safety in mind.
OMM/LDS Liberal,So why did you tell us yesterday that you swore an
oath to the government to protect it from "wack-jobs". Redshirt
reminded you that you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not
the government.You tell us that schools are safe. Very well. How
would you keep an intruder from entering a school and slaughtering children?
Are you standing in line to give up your guns or do you think that anti-gun laws
apply only to others?Our children and grandchildren are at risk when
anyone can enter a school. It looks like you would strip citizens of their
guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms just so you could force people to your
way of thinking. What other guaranteed rights would you seize
before you are satisfied?
I disagree, guns often ARE the answer.I got my carry permit after
Trolley Square. At that time, a gun in the hand of a good person would have
been 'the answer'. In fact it was, an offduty policeman from Ogden
just happened to have a gun and it was the answer until the SLC police arrived.
No one died after the off duty police began firing at the attacker.I
read about home invasions all the time, across the nation and here in Utah.
Where families have guns and use them, either to pursuade the criminal to change
course or to shoot him .. guns are the answer.The founders realized
that government militias (police and military or national guard) aren't
going to always to be able to help you in a timely manner, (anyone remember
hurricane Katrina?). Were Utah to suffer a bit natural disaster, average people
will be able to band together to protect their homes and neighborhoods, thanks
to the 2nd ammendment.For this reason and others similar, it is
important that the arms (guns) of average citizens be of military significance.
Which is why banning assult weapons would be unconstitutional.
Among the leading causes of death for those ages 15-24, homicide ranks second
and suicide ranks third, with the number of firearm related homicides and
suicides outnumbering the next nine leading causes of death combined.The five states with the highest firearm death rates are Louisiana, Alaska,
Nevada, Mississippi and Arizona. The states with the lowest rates include
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut. For most states,
firearm suicide rates exceed those of firearm homicide.The risk of
firearm death in very rural counties is the same as the risk for big cities.
Rural areas have higher risks for firearm suicide and unintentional injury,
while the risks for firearm homicide and assault are greater in urban areas.Firearm homicides declined in the early 1980’s, rose dramatically
into the early 1990’s,declined to a new low by 2000 and have shown a
moderate increasing trend since then.(U of Pennsylvania "Firearm
Injury in the U.S." 2011)
What we are seeing is hysteria. Demagogues are taking advantage of a crisis to
fulfill their long term political goals. The phrase in the Constitution that
states "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is very clear. To
have a gun or not is a personal decision. Criminals aren't going to
suddenly decide to obey any new or present gun laws. Gun violence is already way
down due to stricter penalties. The common link in mass murders has been
failures to control or stop the actions of a small group of people who were
extremely mentally ill, not assault rifles.
Keeping and bearing arms should not include assault weapons. Or if you have one
in your residence keep it off the streets if not locked in a case. The arms that
are effective in modern warfare are drones, do you get to keep one of those?
I'm sorry. What was the question and will it be on the test?
Curmudgeon, I'd be Captain Moroni and teach my people to use weapons only
as a last resort, but also to be prepared and trained to fight for a righteous
cause if need be. I for one would rather stay alive and live with the possible
psychological problems that might occur. But then again, that is what shrinks
are for.I personally don't want to have my life artificially
shortened if I have another alternative. I choose to fight and be alive. The
fact that you say that we all have to die at some point, is true, but I'm
going to do everything in my power to stick around for my family and die a
natural death. If you want to give up, so be it. That is your freedom of
choice. My freedom of choice is to defend myself and my family any
way possible. If it turns out that I have to shoot a bad guy to do it, so be
it. I want to die at home in my Lazy Boy watching TV, after having lived long
enough to enjoy a life and my grandkids. Or if need be go out screaming and
Moderate, your definition of a well regulated Militia is just plain idiotic.We well regulated militia is the Army National Guard.
I love the logic of the left. Their argument is always the same: No defense is
the best defense. That must be the "common sense" referred to.And they're right, if you're the opponent.In the game of
chess, if you inadequately defend your king, you lose. On the football field, if
your team has no defense, they lose. If you do nothing to defend your body
against the cold, you lose. If a nation does nothing to protect itself, it falls
to an enemy and loses its sovereignty. And the same goes for defenseless victims
of any crime. They all lose.If you want to beat your enemy, convince
them to put down their defenses. Convince them that no defense is the best
defense. And the sheep will call it common sense.