I'm a strong 2nd Amendment advocate, absolutely. But, every right and every law must be driven by common sense. The idea of opening up college campuses to guns cannot be reconciled with wisdom. Just ask those who will be forced to manage the consequences.
Last year, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would allow students to carry guns on college/university campuses. Currently, all campuses forbid citizen firearms. Only campus security may carry. Issuing the veto put her in a tough spot with NRA lobbyists and certain 2nd Amendment supporters.
In light of horrific campus shootings around the nation, one would think the idea of an armed student body would meet with positive responses. Americans certainly have a right to defend themselves.
Imagination puts me under a desk, with a gunman taking out my fellow classmates. The thought shakes a person to the soul, and in my case I would agonize over my inability to protect myself as well as make a difference for those around me.
I've been blessed to train under champion shooters and find my confidence in regards to gun safety sustains my political opinion. However, I'm also a realist. As a whole, I realize few Americans have the same self-assurance and training.
This session, we learn several more, similar bills are in the pipeline. The first one is HB 2254, sponsored by Representatives Jack Harper and Carl Seel. They want college and university teachers to be able to pack on campus. At first glance, that seems to be logical.
A second measure apparently is forthcoming. It's a revision of last year's vetoed bill. Sen. Ron Gould is reportedly reworking his plan for students to carry.
Checking in with Steve Corich, director of public safety at Mesa Community College, we find what nightmares Gould, Harper and Seel are preparing for Arizona.
Students with guns put teachers on guard instead of encouraging vibrant, bold classroom situations, where students are encouraged to challenge ideas. Unease replaces imaginative teaching.
"Weapons on campus create a whole, other dimension," Corich says. "Currently officers try to be very understanding." But if there's a high potential of weapons, of suspects being better armed than police, he says, tactics will change.
My straw poll shows strong opposition from faculty. Barry Vaughn, spokesman for the Maricopa Community College Faculty Association, points out that faculty who carry would be viewed as protectors, as "quasi-law enforcement personnel ... contrary to the nature of higher education faculty." He says, "We are teachers and scholars, not police."
Something parents and students need to remember: Police and lives depend on clarity in a violent situation.
Steve Kadel, a gun owner, campus instructor and son and grandson of police officers, says: "I want my students to feel free to disagree with me and have vigorous debate in a weapons-free environment." In response to Gould's upcoming bill, Kadel says, "This is the most dangerously ill-conceived piece of legislation I have seen in my lifetime."
I'm grateful Arizona has a strong 2nd Amendment lobby. However, it will have far more credibility when it acknowledges the need for wisdom in all things. When it comes to an armed campus, my gut tells me there's a better way - not perfect, but better.
If what we really want are safer students, then allocate state funds to bulk up the campus forces already in place. Taxpayers will need to do that anyway should campus guns be allowed.
Most Arizonans support civil rights and rights of safety. This issue reaches far beyond that scope. In the course of life, unfortunately, we can't protect ourselves or our children from every danger. But, we can use our best shot to make sure we don't make it worse.
East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen (turleyhansen@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist and former Phoenix veteran TV anchor.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:25 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Bravo Linda!
Now what do you think of outlawing armor pearcing ammunition, the type being used to pearce the vests of policemen, and outlawing extended round magazines like the one Jared Laughner used to kill 6 and critically wound 13 others before he was disarmed while attempting to reload? Wouldn't you consider such legislation to be "driven by common sense?" Jon Kyl does not think so!
Mike McClellan posted at 3:43 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Yikes! Someone's kidnapped LInda and replaced her with a phony Linda! No way the real Linda could write a column that makes as much sense as this one does!
Rich posted at 4:35 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
How about classes kids have to pass to graduate high school and college. We all have to live with guns, there is no magical way to uninvent them. We remove more and more places to carry them, and people don't know how to use them,, what they do and don't do, how to hit something with one, how not to shoot yourself. The biggest problem with guns is ignorance, cure that and all the other problems with them diminish considerably. Allow the ignorance, allow all the other problems. Schools, colleges are there to teach, to forbid something on them is a form of censorship, and preventing kids from learning about guns, how to handle them safely, how to hit what you aim them at, is quite possibly one of the deadliest failures in our educational system.
az2008 posted at 5:01 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
The problem is that signs saying "no guns allowed" only stop the people you *don't* have to worry about. Someone intent on taking lives isn't going to let a simple sign stop them. All the sign does is *advertise* that such a person is unlikely to meet any resistance. (And, it gives everyone else a false sense of security.).
If people really want "vigorous debate in a gun-free environment," they should be clamoring for metal detectors at the door to each building. If they aren't willing to do that, then they're delusional if they think a little sign is having some kind of magic effect.
Finally, I'm not an absolutist. I didn't agree with this state dropping a training/licensing requirement for ccw. I strongly support greater training/licensing requirements even for simple ownership. But, when someone has been trained/licensed, they shouldn't be treated as if they share anything in common with those who go on shooting rampages.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:17 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Hmm. It would appear that my comments of 2:30 p.m. got dropped!
Way to go Linda [version 2.0]! You've hit the nail on the head. Now let's have a look at what it might mean to have gun legislation driven by common sense.
I started a conversation last year at this time on outlawing extended round magazines. I've added to that conversation armor pearcing ammunition. AP ammo is used by a very few militia whose supplier is the Federal Government. More is used by those trying to pearce bullet proof vests of the sort used by police. And where some shooting enthusiasts do use extended round managines on the target range, no one has yet developed a target that can run out of sight before the shooter can reload.
Where Jared Laughner fired 33 rounds killing 6 and wounding 13 before he was disarmed and taken to the ground by an unarmed citizen, had he not had access to extended round magazines, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect less than 3 would have been killed and less than 6 would have been wounded with a stardard 12 round magazine?
So Linda, what do you say? Would you consider legislation banning AP ammo and extended round magazines to be based on common sense and reasonable thinking?
If so, know that Jon Kyl does not. He blew off my letter suggesting this legislation. Let's blow him off by pressure him to propose such legislation before he retires and starts earning the Big Bucks lobbying for the NRA!
Slabside posted at 5:22 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Mike McClellan, your weak stock just took a major fall in my book. Your editorials are nothing to brag about.
az2008, great post. I feel the same concerning ccw laws. These "No guns allowed" areas are nothing but target rich environments to criminals that could care less about rules.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:52 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Rich believes, apparently, that schools should teach about guns -- required class or elective, Rich? Junior high or high school? The funding source for that would be?
I attended school in the Midwest, the South and the Rocky Mountain states as well as here in AZ. None of those schools ever offered the class Rich believes is necessary. I always thought the NRA and other gun clubs/gun stores offered those classes to interested people.
Rich posted at 6:46 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Actually Mike, shooting tests were required in some places (as were swimming tests) as late as the 1960s. Land grant colleges (those with 'State' in the name) required one as well. Our children have to live in a world that has guns in it. Learning about them, being safe around them will be a lot better for them than learning their teacher's political views and calling it 'history' or 'literature'. You have a public 'education' system, which is basically just indoctrination, and courses like math which are best titled 'which calculator to buy'. We have moved to an 'indoctrinated state' where corrupt people make absurd laws for the ignorant. Our solution for child drowning? Fence your pool or get fined, not teach the kids to swim. 'Mommy' government takes care of you, that's 80% of public education, cut it back to 70% and maybe take 10% and teach the kids a couple real life skills, make them mandatory, the 70% elective you'll be better off, and so will they. You have a problem with guns, teach your children to handle them, understand them, and in the space of a generation, the problem is solved.
DrLocke posted at 7:23 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Most of what is said here makes sense. But if teachers were the only ones allowed to carry guns they would be the gunmans first target. And if the teacher elected to not carry he would be a senseless victum.
If students were allowed to carry there might be one student brave enough to end the massacre early.
To me it just makes sense to increase the odds of stopping the shooter before he kills one more student.
az2008 posted at 8:33 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Slabside wrote: ""No guns allowed" areas are nothing but target rich environments to criminals"
It's worse than that. Many students walk and bike to campus. They're effectively denied their constitutional right to defend themselves during that *entire* journey just because some people believe in the Power of the Sign.
This has to make students *off campus* much easier "marks." If I were a criminal and had to choose a victim anywhere near a college campus, I'd go for the student. Odds are *much* more in my favor.
I can halfway understand an institution (commercial or academic) believing it can control behavior on its property -- and accepting the *liability* for failing to do so. But, when they extend this control *off* their property, where they have no possible hope of controlling behavior, I think it's tantamount to wanton negligence.
At a minimum, schools (and businesses) should be required to provide lockers at entrances so that the *demarcation* of where behavior is being controlled is clearer.
And, as I said, they should also bear much greater liability for failing to control behavior within their property. I think it's *much* more serious to give patrons the impression that there are no guns on the property -- while doing absolutely *nothing* to enforce that rule. That seems much worse than not claiming to control behavior and leaving everyone to their own wits, making no assumptions -- especially entirely *false* assumptions about the Power of the Sign.
az2008 posted at 8:40 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
@DrLocke: This topic is exactly like what we heard 20 years ago when CCW was debated. "If we let people carry guns concealed, arguments will brim over into shootings! We'll have normal people who suddenly become deranged lunatics, shooting everything in sight, all because of the magical talisman we call a 'gun'."
Didn't happen.
But, I do agree with critics that there should be some training and licensing prerequisite to carrying on campus. Still doesn't mean unlicensed individuals won't carry. But, I do think it's wise to have a "point-of-contact opportunity" to instill responsibility in those who have a desire to defend themselves and those around them.
If it were open to every numbskull who can buy a gun, I'd be worried about people dropping guns, leaving them unattended, etc. I've seen some lamebrain gun owners and that's why I fully support training and licensing as a prerequisite to simple *ownership*. But, I definitely believe that's necessary if someone intends to carry in public and, even more so, intends to use it in public.
Cerulean posted at 7:30 am on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
“All the sign does is *advertise* that such a person is unlikely to meet any resistance. (And, it gives everyone else a false sense of security.). “
Some of you sound as though you believe that *ultimate* security can only be achieved when everyone carries live ammo at all times. If this is your delusion of “security” then it seems extremely menacing and unhealthy. Not at all safe.
In my opinion, only persons who are determined to act on violent carnage are going to use a handgun. In that case, it’s too late, no one can predict, protect from or stop the mad to insanity.
sockratties posted at 7:56 am on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
This is a case of arguing about how tight to put a tourniquet around a victim’s neck to stop the bleeding. The problem is not about who should or should not be carrying guns on campus. The problem is people are being shot at school. And in stores. And at political rallies. And in neighborhoods. And in parking lots. And on the highways. And in their homes... through the wall!
We have the right to bear arms. We, as a society, are abusing that right. Debating how to be the fastest gun in town and how to respond to this threat indicates that we accept the abuse. The discussion needs to be about social change, education, interdiction, responsibility and changing our approach. Guns, like drugs and alcohol, can be an asset and useful tool or a threat to be misused. Guns, like drugs and alcohol, require education and respect. They are dangerous when in the hands of the wrong people, when trafficked illegally, and when used inappropriately.
We don’t depend on “no drugs allowed” signs, arm our teachers with hypodermics, or allow all students to carry a stash on campus. Why guns? Oh that’s right! We haven’t solved the drug problem either. Maybe we need more discussions on how to solve our social problems and less posturing about who has the biggest gun. Unless we want every campus to become the OK corral.
az2008 posted at 9:01 am on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Cerulian wrote: "Some of you sound as though you believe that *ultimate* security can only be achieved when everyone carries live ammo at all times."
That's the problem opponents' reasoning. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. By simply a few people carrying, never knowing who they are, it can be an effective deterrence.
It's the same strategy as hauling ICBMs around the country on trailers back in the '80s. Not "every" trailer had a missile. But, opponents didn't know which trailer did.
It's your "all or nothing" approach (which is oddly passed off as "common sense" moderation) which makes it very clear that *all* college students are easy pick'ens.
davidflucier posted at 3:42 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
The right to possess a firearm is no more absolute than the freedom of speech. Restrictions abound. And the idea that guns belong on an educational institution is as absurd as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater or saying libelous things about a person or letting an untrained child behind the wheel of a car.
We restrict behavior based upon many variables: safety, public interest, equity, etc.
Guns have no purpose in an educational setting. Teachers are not the police...nor are students.
And we don't need to post signs either...no more than we need to post signs that say, "No saying bad and untrue things about people." or "Don't yell fire in the event there is no fire."
Perhaps it's time we start to have some adult conversations regarding jobs, education, and wellness in the legislature and start to solve real problems with real solutions.
Slabside posted at 4:15 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
@davidflucier, "The right to possess a firearm is no more absolute than the freedom of speech."
Wrong. I will fight for my right to posess a firearm and use it to defend my life if need be.
"And the idea that guns belong on an educational institution is as absurd as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater or saying libelous things about a person or letting an untrained child behind the wheel of a car."
Wrong again. As long as killers target the unarmed populace on campuses, firearms are necessary for the qualified to defend themselves.
"We restrict behavior based upon many variables: safety, public interest, equity, etc."
Oh yeah David, those restrictions work well don't they? Ask the families of the victims of Columbine and Virginia Tech how well restrictions work.
"Guns have no purpose in an educational setting. Teachers are not the police...nor are students."
You're right, guns have no place but are necessary as the criminals still kill on campuses using firearms. Teachers are not the police but they need to be able to defend themselves when the unthinkable happens. So do students.
"And we don't need to post signs either...no more than we need to post signs that say, "No saying bad and untrue things about people." or "Don't yell fire in the event there is no fire."
OK David, you need to stop puffing off the bong there chief.
"Perhaps it's time we start to have some adult conversations regarding jobs, education, and wellness in the legislature and start to solve real problems with real solutions."
So, adult conversations will stop the kooks and criminally insane from performing campus shootings in the future? Wow, if only we had thought of that all of the victims would still be around huh David?
Your incredible!
Rich posted at 5:10 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
"The right to possess a firearm is no more absolute than the freedom of speech." But David, the right to both is absolute. Any method to stop either is a posteriori. Possessing a gun, or speaking as I please, I can do, no power can prevent it; therefore, within our society it is, absolute. An honest, incorruptible government would recognize that and deal with it for the best benefit to the most number of people. Our government hangs on the words of people like you who refuse to face reality and uses them to fine us for both. Thus the interest of government is to maintain the facade and line their pockets. If guns frighten you, take classes, learn what they really are what they can and cannot do and how to handle them.
They belong in schools, and if you teach children all about them, in a generation they are no longer an unmanageable problem. When you start playing the restriction game, against an absolute, you can only lose, wh play under those circumstances.
"...some adult conversations regarding jobs, education, and wellness..."
Jobs are a private sector factor, and once the government becomes involved with them about all you get is bloated, expensive bureaucracy and unsustainable welfare, calling it jobs. Jobs produce, government above 10% of the GDP only wastes. Education? When it's controlled by the government it's only indoctrination, say your Socialist pledge every morning now. You do know it was written by an avowed Socialist with the stated and published aim of bringing Socialism to America via the schoolhouse? Wellness? Really, what does that cover? Christian Science practitioners? Chiropractors? Yacqui Shamans? Or just a bloated fat and lazy 'medical' profession owed by insurance companies which every year gets less efficient, less competent and more expensive because you are removing all responsibility from them?
The problem is David, we've been trying your thing for about a half a century. Time to admit it's a failure. Government simply does not understand it's limitations and as that continues it can only be expected to become bigger, less effective, more expensive and more corrupt.
az2008 posted at 6:08 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Lucifer wrote: "Teachers are not the police...nor are students."
This is a non sequitur. We've already established (Supreme Court) that individuals have a right to arms to defend themselves. And, a majority of states recognize the legitimacy of individuals to do so with the aid of a concealed firearm.
This leads to the natural question: if someone claims to control behavior on their property (via a sign saying "no guns allowed"), to what extent should they be liable for failing to do so? And, more importantly, to what extent should it be criminal to make that claim while doing absolutely *nothing* to actually control behavior?
I'm all for the right of institutions (public and private) to control behavior on their property. But, these signs do nothing except mislead the law abiding, and attract the criminal element. Worse, it puts a target on anyone who is known to be traveling to and from such a location.
You definitely have a point that rights are never absolute. They are *all* subject to time/manner/place restrictions. But, TMP restrictions are designed to *balance* competing rights -- not *obliterate* them. A perfectly valid example of balancing would be to require the school to provide lockers for students (so they aren't effectively disarmed during their entire journey to and from school -- where the institution has no hope of controlling behavior).
Another example of balancing rights would be to require training and licensing as a requirement to carry on campus. (I.e., students have a right to be around relatively competent gun owners who choose to carry their firearm off their own private property.).
And, while we're on the topic of balancing rights. What about the right of individuals to be free of *FRAUDULENT* acts such as signs giving the appearance behavior is controlled -- when there is *absolutely* nothing being done to control behavior? If you want to live in a fantasy land which actually says "hey, criminally-minded, you'll find defenseless victims here" that's your business. But, I have a right to defend myself, or be in the custody of a property owner who takes *reasonable* steps to protect me. Posting a sign is not reasonable (absent enforcement mechanisms, such as metal detectors).
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:08 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
I didn't hear much about the bill. However, one part I thought I heard was that students would be able to carry weapons on the campus itself, but once you entered a college's building, you'd be required to check your weapon. It seems they are trying to meet half way with the law.
This would increase costs for the school in order to do that, but balance that cost against the possible loss of life like previous University shootings.
It' a hard call in my book.....
Rational Human posted at 7:35 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Anyone over the age of 21 can pretty much carry a gun however they wish almost anywhere in the state, but as soon as they enter school grounds they aren't to be trusted? Sounds like logical liberal lunacy to me. Any school has the right to post a no guns allowed sign just as an business has that same right, but why make it a state law? Let the individual schools decide for themselves whether or not they want to disarm their lawful students and faculty and parents or be potential victims.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:32 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Rich seems to believe in rational behavior: "You have a problem with guns, teach your children to handle them, understand them, and in the space of a generation, the problem is solved."
Unfortunately, we are not always rational in our behavior, especially the behavior of kids, no matter how much we teach them (see accident rates for teens).
So to believe that simply teaching them will "solve" the problem (which is?) is a simplistic and naive idea. And once again is a "socialist" proposal, putting a parent's responsibility in the hands of a government entity.
And will schools be responsible for the training? At what level? Mesa Schools has had two kids younger than high school recently bring guns to school, one firing it off in a bus.
Rich posted at 11:04 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
The problem, a great mass of people who don't understand guns, irrationally fear them, and create opportunities for nuts to kill them and other people through ignorance and fear. Erase the ignorance, this eases the fear, removes the opportunities and saves lives. I suppose getting rid of ignorance is a simplistic solution for anything and everything Mike. And I would suppose that if it was a requirement for a high school degree in Arizona, it would apply to private schools as well.
Is this how you taught your students to organize and present their thoughts in writing? These boards do aid and abet typos, but really. No wonder we are at the bottom of the educational heap. Our teachers can't present an orderly bit of writing leading to a point and just babble, saying, we shouldn't teach that, oh, the horror of it? And then want more money?
Mike McClellan posted at 11:22 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Speaking of "presenting an orderly bit of writing," I'm struck by Rich's logic : "Erase the ignorance, this eases the fear, removes the opportunities and save lives."
His logic begs this question: how that diminishes what Rich calls the "nuts" from killing, since he writes that teaching about guns in school will "remove the opportunities."
Maybe he can make that connection clear with "an orderly bit of writing," and avoid the ad hominem.
mjbarkl posted at 11:37 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Linda wrote "every right and every law must be driven by common sense."
That's not likely since Justices Scalia and Alito weighed in. All gun control laws are now at risk whether Federal, State, or Local. It's going to get worse. The basic problem : Too many guns, too easy access. Stop the gun madness. Repeal the right to keep & bear arms, make it a privilege, and then impose meaningful regulation via a graduated tax. Amendment & legislation at http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm . --Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress new CA-10 District
Rational Human posted at 3:33 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Yes mjbarkl, a police state would be preferable to the madness of a constitutional republic any day. Oh and pigs can fly too.
Les Aker posted at 4:03 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
"I'm a strong 2nd Amendment advocate, absolutely. But, ..."
As soon as you insert the "But" you have invalidated your claim to be a strong 2nd Amendment advocate. The very nature of rights makes your "But" inconsistent with a belief that other people have rights whether you choose to exercise your own or not.
Rich posted at 7:15 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Mike, it's Karl Jaspers, it's not attributed because my German isn't good enough in translation. You know Jaspers don't you? Wrote three texts on Logic.
And Mike, I paid a goodly amount in taxes over close to half a century for you to teach children. It wasn't an argument or an attack, it was more in the nature of a startled observation. I paid you to teach children to think in a disorganized, emotional manner? And worse yet write it that way? It is as much an attack on myself, that I allowed and paid for it as it is an ad hominem attack. It is an attack, if you wish to consider it so, on a system which takes money and misuses it. Try not to allow your ego to get in its way.
Rather obviously being in a group of armed knowledgeable shooters as opposed to a group of unarmed people is going to reduce the opportunity to kill many of them. Duh.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:21 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
So you are advocating kids with guns in schools as a way to make them and their schools safer.
Now at least we know your argument.
k33j88 posted at 2:39 am on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
Guns, in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens saves lives-------always has----always will.
sockratties posted at 6:56 am on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
K33j88 - I think you paint with too broad a brush. “Guns, in the hands of responsible, law abiding citizens saves lives -- always has -- always will” seems to be more a platitude than fact. It may be a valid opinion but I don’t see what it’s based on.
A gun will not be a deterrent if the threat of death is not a deterrent. Knowing an intended victim is armed might keep a robber away, or a mugger or rapist. I agree with you there, but nut-cases and terrorists, who intend to die or who are acting irrationally in the first place won’t be deterred.
Yes, I would have liked to see a well trained sharp shooter stop any of the school massacres, or the 9/11 flights, or the Tuscan shooting, but 30 students going for their gun in a classroom might add to the carnage in a big way.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:36 am on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
k33, at what level should guns be allowed in schools, colleges like the bill under discussion outlines or high school or junior high or elementary schools?
Your response?
Rich posted at 7:50 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
k33j88 and sockratties
You're both taking a simple argument too far. Mike can't answer it, as I clearly stated high school and college, in other words, make a knowledge of guns and a minimum competence with one a graduation requirement. It's really an old law that has been disregarded, and probably shouldn't have been, along with a swimming test. Mike reacted irrationally, and is now trying to change the argument. A lack of knowledge about guns causes almost as much fear as the guns themselves. Mike, the ex-teacher finds ignorance to be an answer.
To begin to understand what you call 'terrorism' go back to the Persian, Hassan Sabah, who created it with his cult of 'assassins.' No, thirty people going for their guns isn't a real good idea. However, had people been carrying guns aboard the flights that took down the WTC, you'd be plus two buildings and about 5000 people. Though I have little doubt all four planes would have crashed, the passengers did it to one without guns. To an assassin, a terrorist, or even a robber fleeing the scene, you may or may not save a life or two. In fact, I would think statistically, it could go one way or another in the safety department. The plus is that people don't have to feel that they are victims, helpless, that they know what they need to, are not manipulated, by fear, or fearful people, like Mike here, and that provides societal benefits that far outweigh the safety issues. Guns are here, they are a part of living in this world, you can't uninvent them. You can demystify them, make sure they are a tool most everyone can use, or you can make your children fearful and victims. Education does the first, banning, restricting and stereotyping them does the second.
Slabside posted at 9:41 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
Very well said Rich!
k33j88 posted at 6:46 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Sockratties: Thank You for your response. What is my argument based on? Ask the hundreds, if not thosands, of American citizens using guns in defence of their homes, family, and yes, themselves. It is well documented, not in the spoon-fed liberal news networks, but in respected gun magazines and related articles. 2nd point. Nut cases/terrorists will not be deterred. Probably not, especially if they have been indoctrinated by sharia law. This is all the more reason to protect innocent lives. Question: Do you honestly see such a senario as 30 students going for their gun? You've been watching way too many cop/robbber shows. Thank You
k33j88 posted at 7:05 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Rich: There's a book that backs up the right to exercise the 2nd amendment in all circumstances. " More guns, Less Crime", can't recall the author. It backs up my argument that I posted earlier. Let's be clear, we're talking "law-abiding citizens" here, free from drug use, domestic abuse, child abuse, and psycologically stable to address stressful situations. These are model citizens here, who love this country and what it stands for. I'm one of them. Thank You
k33j88 posted at 7:43 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Mike McClellan: Thank you for your response. After reviewing all of your previous posts, it has become quite clear that you, sir, are a anti-2nd amendment advocate. Nothing I say nor any references to any level-headed facts will sway your stance. You and Dale should get together for a cup of tea and crumpits. Heres' a real-life story for you. Once upon a time, in the not so distant past, a child had to do a "show & tell" for a grade. (grammer school) With prior approval and a parent in tow, this child brought his 22 caliper hunting rifle to class to explain the safety and proper handling of a firearm. The teacher/class applauded, and the child received an "A". The liberal establisment has changed the face of society in ways that most "normal Constitutional republic-loving citizens don't recognize today. Dissent protects democracy, but it's time to swing the pendulum back to the silent majority and their desires. If gun-safety classes were a pre-requisite for educators, then Columbine would'nt have occured to the extent that it did. Most teachers/administrators, have been fully immersed in the liberal dogma embraced by the academia. The ones I've met, are mostly all anti-gun, socialists, willing to forego their " liberty" for "safety. They deserve neither-----wasn't that a Ben Franklin quote? Thank You
Mike McClellan posted at 3:25 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
k33, I'm not "anti-2nd amendment" -- in fact, I believe that anyone who's not been adjudicated insane or has committed a crime with a gun should be able to own guns, either for hunting, protection, collection, or security, or just because.
My concern here is not the idea of owning a gun (though I believe, like some, that to own a gun should be connected with some kind of training in the use of that gun).
My concern is that those who advocate the possession of guns by kids in schools, particularly in high schools, is asking for trouble.
Again, Rich would rather insult than argue -- for whatever reason, he believes that a gun education class in high school would solve our gun violence problems.
As said before, that is a naive view, suggesting that people -- especially the young -- will react more rationally than irrationally.
That defies realtiy.
As does your argument above, k33, that "if gun-safety classes were a pre-requisite for educators, then Columbine wouldn't have occurred to the extend that it did."
That presupposes:
A. Gun education for educators would lead to gun ownership;
B. That those educators would bring the guns to school;
C. That the gun education the educators received included crisis shooting situations, including simulations. Without that kind of training, do you really believe simple possession of a weapon would've been sufficient to diminish the carnage?
I wish someone had had a gun, that that someone had been proficient enough to kill the two before they killed him, and that the person was able to shoot the killers among a group of hysterical kids.
Just like I wish the young man in Tucson who carried concealed had been able to get to the Safeway lot before Loughner had finished his carnage. Unfortunately, he didn't.
Rich posted at 3:59 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
"Again, Rich would rather insult than argue -- for whatever reason, he believes that a gun education class in high school would solve our gun violence problems."
This is in part what I said: "In fact, I would think statistically, it could go one way or another in the safety department. The plus is that people don't have to feel that they are victims, helpless, that they know what they need to, are not manipulated, by fear, or fearful people, like Mike here, and that provides societal benefits that far outweigh the safety issues."
How can it be an insult when you verify it in your very next post? You didn't read what I wrote, you reacted emotionally to an idea, again. I suggested to you that you organize your thoughts and your writing a bit better. I renew the suggestion. Your statement above is nonsensical, you are trying to argue with the your characterization of me. In essence arguing with a totally different position than the one I have taken.
Slabside posted at 4:16 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
@Mike, "My concern is that those who advocate the possession of guns by kids in schools, particularly in high schools, is asking for trouble."
Mike, you must be 21 to purchase and cc a firearm. This means high school kids don't qualify. Quit the liberal spin.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:22 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Fair enough, Slabside. Now, please explain how guns in school, with minimal training and putting guns in the hands of amateurs in a crisis situation, is somehow a way to stop school shootings.
Rich posted at 6:02 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
"Now, please explain how guns in school, with minimal training and putting guns in the hands of amateurs in a crisis situation, is somehow a way to stop school shootings."
A) Who said 'minimal' training, no one but you Mike.
B) Who besides a soldier is a 'professional' police aren't, as they continually prove. Anyone who doesn't make a living with a gun is an 'amateur'. That has no meaning.
C) If you want to build a wall you have to know how to use a hammer. If you want to end crisis situations, it is better to know and understand a tool used for that than to be clueless.
D) No one is going to stop school shootings or gun violence any more than you can stop someone from hitting someone else with a baseball bat. No one is advocating that students with weapons will stop it. However, with proper training they can get lucky before it gets too bad, and feel better about themselves both before and after.
You keep dealing with this as an emotional issue, the idea scares you so you don't really respond, you react by recasting what is said into a form you can oppose, without dealing with what is written to answer you.
Slabside posted at 6:30 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Mike, Rich fielded that one perfectly. Thank you Rich.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:33 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Maybe you should examine the rules for concealed carry in AZ before you speak of the amount of training required -- it's minimal, to say the least. So under the current law, many of these people you imagine will have an effect will have had little training.
Further, being able to shoot a gun and being able to shoot a gun in a crisis are two different things.
"They can get lucky and feel better about themselves both before and after." I'll let others judge the degree of absurdity in that statement.
You ascribe motivations that don't exist -- but since you must find motivation, have at it.
If there is any fear, though it's fear that others employing your thinking that gun education in schools will somehow lead to fewer deaths will prevail. It's a untenable argument, one you have yet to flesh out or defend.
Rich posted at 7:11 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Mike, you are not answering what is written, just taking flight again. I said, high school class, graduation requirement, the gun laws in Arizona are currently a painting by Dali, surrealism in everyday life, they are the problem, not the answer. Did you give your students 'minimal training' What makes you assume another teacher will? Unless, of course, you did and got away with it.
"Further, being able to shoot a gun and being able to shoot a gun in a crisis are two different things." So what?
"They can get lucky and feel better about themselves both before and after." I'll let others judge the degree of absurdity in that statement." In logic it is 'reducio ad aburdum, a process by which you show a statement to be absurd, not a label as you are attempting.
"You ascribe motivations that don't exist..." And they were? Again labeling to make you feel better.
"If there is any fear, though it's fear that others employing your thinking that gun education in schools will somehow lead to fewer deaths will prevail. It's a untenable argument, one you have yet to flesh out or defend."
Again, please read the argument you are opposing BEFORE opposing it. I said: "In fact, I would think statistically, it could go one way or another in the safety department." If you want to argue, stop arguing with yourself, it's unproductive, and frankly getting silly. You can argue with me, and I'll try to answer you, but you must first posit an answer to what I said, not the stereotype of what you think I should have said so you have an answer.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:57 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
I suggest you reread your own arguments, which began with "in the space of a generation, you have the problem solved" to "In fact, I would think statistically, it could go one way or another in the safety department." Problem solved, maybe, well, 50/50 chance "in the safety department." Duh, indeed.
Rich posted at 9:18 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Mike, read the column you're dealing with. Gun laws, which is the subject are addressed, a solution posited, and you went nuts. You haven't made a logical post yet. Can I solve Columbine? West Virginia? No. The problem of your laws? Yes, I can. And you have yet to present a cogent argument that ignorance trumps education.
ANTITHUG posted at 8:28 pm on Fri, Feb 17, 2012.
The university isn't isolated from the community, and concealed carry is prevalent there. Amanda Collins said it best, "I don't understand why (the state) trusts good, responsible people to be able to have their firearm across the street, and as soon as they cross an arbitrary line, they somehow lose all reason and ability to be able to be competent with that responsibility. It makes no sense to me at all."
The university supports constitutional rights, except the constitutional right to defend oneself when face to face with a violent criminal. Leave it to the police, they say. Okay, get rid of fire extiguishers and leave fires to firefighters. When seconds count, a cop is minutes away. Gunowner or victim is your right. You choose for yourself, and not for me. Many soldiers have fought and died defending our constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Across the street, I have my constitutional rights, and on campus they are taken from me. WHY? You trust me more across the street, sitting next to you in the restaurant, in the bank, grocery line? Those rights off campus will exist on campus. This bill will pass! And the next day will be business as usual. No one will see a gun around. The university will actually reflect the values, freedoms and rights of the surrounding community. If you don't like it, then pick another country to live in... perhaps, China. Give up your 1st amendment rights, rights to religious freedoms, etc.
ANTITHUG posted at 8:32 pm on Fri, Feb 17, 2012.
If you don't want guns around you, I suggest you find a country that bans them and live there. Live in China, where the government will protect you, your rights, and your freedoms. And do please comment to this post after you move there, and tell the rest of us how that is working for you.
Thank you for supporting the constitution.
ANTITHUG posted at 8:47 pm on Fri, Feb 17, 2012.
Concern for public safety? In the rest of the community, CCW holders carry every day without incident. No innocent people being shot. Suddenly, we're to believe that across the street, on the university campus, our minds will be twisted into a homicidal rage, and only the police are immune. I have 2 masters and soon a PhD. I support your constitutional right to defend yourself. Please, carry at least two guns when the bill passes. And you're welcome to bring them to my class anytime. Of course, I'll never see them, because they are concealed (which should disway those tempted to perpetrate violence against us). Should an actual maniac, or zombie, come to harm us, please be sure to shoot two to the chest and one to the head (would not want them to not get the message). Honestly, I hope and pray you never have to use your weapon. But, if you do, may you have the fortitude to be decisive and save your life.
delia posted at 7:10 pm on Mon, Oct 29, 2012.
Obviously, not my kid and not my choice. But, I have a kid that has had 1 brain issue (not concussion) let alone 5. If a doctor told me that there was ANY risk I would not allow my child to play. What in the world is this school, parent, child thinking? Catcher of all positions? Someone needs to step in and be the adult here and protect this kid!chnlove