[Pro2A]

So I posted a question in another forum about concealed carry in schools. Below is the question followed by a few responses. How would you argue some of the responses?

I always hear people say that guns and kids don't mix. Personally I think it's a crock and I'll explain my reasoning in a moment. To me this 'gun free school zone' and 'guns and kids don't mix' are a play on emotions. I mean after all if you are against anything that is 'for the kids' you must automatically hate the kids.

It doesn't have to do with kids at all. They use 'kids' as a canard to make it painstakingly impossible to be a legal gun owner carrying a legal weapon. It's all about control of you and what you do. You see it with 'Cap and tax', 'Health care reform' and a bunch of other non-sense. It's all a play on emotions.

People say "well they could get a hold of it"

No they can't if you educate them and show them what they do. My 4 year old daughter knows what a gun is, what it can do, and she knows darn well not to touch them or daddy will be mad. For the record, she never has. It's quite simply about education, and quite frankly I feel very comfortable that with the education I provided her about guns, she would not go near them unless I said she could.

In a school how could a kid get a hold of it if it's concealed on your person and they have no clue it's there in the first place?

So I ask whole heatedly for a non sarcastic answer... what is the reasoning behind prohibiting an otherwise law abiding person from exercising a right, that is not rooted in controlling what others do or think simply based on an emotion? In addition, please explain to me the logic behind why "Well guns just don't belong in a school"... If they don't... why don't they? Again please provide an answer that is not rooted in controlling what others do or think simply based on an emotion...

And below are a few responses to that question.

Simple answer: People imagine Columbine or kids getting shot in the face.

That being said, I don't see the necessity of guns in schools. Plenty of people are careless with their firearms and all it takes is one careless teacher, assistant, parents, etc and yes, a kid could get ahold of it. Then of course, there's the very symbology of the firearm and what it means to most people.

I think you're just being angry here about further gun control. To put it bluntly, and you can sit there and deflect all you want, society is so astronomically different and the state of security both local and national are so vastly different than they were back then that it's flat insane to think that there is no reason to disallow guns in school.

You may think it's crazy, I think it's ridiculous not to see the potential danger in having guns around children. I normally agree with you when it comes to guns, in this case, I do not.

If you can't logically and easily see what could potentially happen, then I don't see the point in asking people to help you.

As a side note, the media doesn't lead me to believe anything. I just simply don't want my kids around adults with guns, unless those adults are police officers.

I have to go with my crossfire argument here if I can't use children. Schools are crowded places and I think a shootout inside the building breeds the potential for unintentional injury.

You can't argue for guns using phrases like "trust in your fellow man" and "the need to control", as the only reason a person would feel obliged to carry a gun in the first place is because they (a) do not trust their fellow man, and (b) feel the need to be in control.

Teachers are there to teach, they have way too many things going on than to worry about someone reaching for the gun. All it would take is one instance where a teacher turns his or her back and a kid gets a hold of it. It isn't comparable to someone carrying his gun while running to Lowe's to pick up some items.

So what do you guys think? It's a pretty one sided argument here.

 

[PastorPack]

The first responder was so close when they referrenced Columbine. That is reason number one: an active shooter situation that could be limited by a law abiding person with a concealed weapon.

 

[Paco]

say screw 'em and don't argue. If it ever happens to you, you will have the odds of survival on your side and they will have the corner to cower in.

 

[logan]

I'm all for teachers in K-12 schools who would want to go get their carry permits and proper training. Then as long as they carry on their person and the gun isn't laying around their desk for students to take. Even in high school, an 18 year old who went and got the proper training and has a permit should be able to carry.

In colleges, anyone with a permit should be able to carry. I'd say carry more on the person, than in bags or purses. Just think of Virginia Tech. Apparently there were about 7 students/teachers in that building where the shooting occurred who had concealed carry permits. But VT policy stated that students and teachers could not carry guns, so they all left theirs at home.


A lot of those arguments are talking about having kids around guns, or what if the teacher turns away for a second and a student grabs it. Well that's why they should be carried on the person, and they could be concealed so students won't know if any of their teachers actually have a gun.

The only way a school would be safe by not allowing guns would be if there were armed security guards at each entrance with metal detectors, checking every person walking into the building. Even then things like windows on ground level would have to be secured.

Gun free zones make people feel safer. Carrying a gun makes you safer.

 

[chiefjason]

Here's where NC ticks me off. We cannot have a gun in the car to drop off the kids. Usually you get the , a kid may break into the car and steal it argument. Then walk out there and tell me which car has the gun!

As far as in the school, I am a bit torn on that one. I am aware that all of the major mass shootings have been in gun free zones. I carry a firearm, in part, to protect my children, my wife, and my ability to provide for them. My biggest question would be, are you asking to open it up for anyone to carry, or talking about training some teachers for some form of security? If I could pin down one thing that made me uneasy, I would tell you. I'm not sold on any one stance, just unsure if I want the buildings completely open for anyone to carry. Yeah, it's probably emotional.

Another issue is the CC training. NC has decent class time spent on use of force law, etc. Then there is range time, at a minimum you have to show that you can handle a gun in some form. In GA, IIRC, you submit some paperwork, get a background check, and get the permit in the mail. I'm not one to force mandatory training on the masses. But I bet that would come into play here. The training, or lack of, would be an issue in allowing carry in schools.

Unless your an idiot, noones is getting your gun from you without physically assaulting you. I think that you would have to require on body carry for schools. Purse carry would be a big no no. Seems that the last guy thinks the teacher is going to lay it on the desk or something. Get ahold of it, right.

The most valid argument on there is crossfire. But.... If you have an active shooter, then folks are already getting hurt. You have to decide it putting the shooter down is worth the possible consequences of hitting a bystander. In a situation like that, i have to think that quickly stopping the shooter is worth the collateral damage. I'm sure some folks would disagree with that. And with the lawsuit happy crowd, it's a dangerous position to put yourself in.

 

[logan]

Chiefjason....agree with you here. Not sure if the we are talking about anyone carrying or what. But I'd have to say only let the people who like us, would carry everywhere else. Unless a teacher really wanted to get into guns and shooting, lets not just give them guns. If you just grab some teachers and take them to the range once and say here, take this gun to school, that would not be good. But when you have people who carry everyday just to leave it at home when they go to school, they should be the ones allowed to carry.

As far as crossfire...thankfully most of the walls at schools seem to be solid. Not all, but most or a lot anyhow. Anyone trained well with a pistol would do their best to minimize any crossfire, and stopping a shooter would be worth possible injuring somebody else in my opinion. You never know how much ammo they have with them and how long they will keep going.

 

[12Rounds]

So these people are basically arguing that that teacher is going to get their concealed weapon snatched by a kid , or leave it laying around where a kid can access it
. (Sarcasm coming) Well, it's hard to argue with that logic. Kids sneak up on Leos and take their guns all of the time, they then go on playground shooting sprees. (sarcasm off).

Pastor Pack made an excellent point, the person who talked about Columbine just about made your point for you. Armed teachers could have saved many lives.
The scenarios where an armed teacher can be a bad thing are pretty far fetched, although I can understand where some people ,not knowing the teacher could not want them with a gun in a room with their kid. I can see that, but they are missing the point, that the same teacher if they wanted to ,could kill a little kid bare handed, with a knife, bat etc.
With the savagery that we see these days in some Junior and Senior High kids, particularly in some areas, if I were a teacher, I'd be more worried in the class room than out on the street , some of the older kids are the criminals that we arm ourselves against.
Weighing it out, I'd prefer that my kids be protected by an armed teacher rather than be sitting ducks for any nut-job, gang banger, or terrorist that wants to get to paradise by blowing up some school kids.
Maybe some psychological testing ,a rigorous background check ,and more than just the average CCW training in marksmanship might make it more palatable for some folks. But if we're going to do all of that, might as well have a cop in the room.
At the end of the day, I'm for it, as they are right now schools are too soft of a target.

 

[BlueNinjaGo]

I've been doing research on the candidates that are running for Governor of Texas next year. One candidate's staff member responded to my e-mail with this:

Mr. ****,

Hank's position on 2nd Amendment rights are on his website, listed here:

Second Amendment Rights : Hank Gilbert for Governor

His support of Texans' rights to keep and bear arms is unequivocal. The only caveat is that he does not support allowing concealed handguns in university classrooms.

Thanks,
Vince Leibowitz

(For the record, they posted their statement on their website after I e-mailed them... I did check all of the candidate's sites before I e-mailed them.)

This was my response...

Vince,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question and posting it on the website. Very few of the candidates have taken the time to address their opinion on gun rights openly on their websites. I for one feel that a candidate should be completely open and honest with his views, even if it's not the popular opinion. I have more respect for someone who has different views than my own, but honest and brave enough to stand by them, than someone who simply goes with whatever gets them the most votes.

I do have a question in regards to his "does not favor allowing the carrying of concealed weapons inside classrooms at Texas’ public colleges and universities." Does he care to elaborate? I must agree, to an extent, that schools should be crime and weapons free. No one wants violence in the schools. We've heard the tragic stories of Columbine and Virginia Tech, and no one wants those type of situations to occur again.

But on the other hand, if a Professor or other Staff at the university is trained to be efficient with handguns, would that not help prevent that kind of behavior? I cannot recall any event in which a staff member has been involved in a school shooting, but I have not done adequate research to say that it's never happened.

How many lives could have been saved if a staff member had a handgun at Virginia Tech or Columbine? We would all love to depend on the police, but unfortionately they cannot be everywhere at all times. Most, if not all, security on college campuses are unarmed. How many lives might be lost during the time it takes for police to arrive and defuse the situtation?

And how about firearms being carried on the campus by students? Hank mentioned the word "classrooms", not campus. What about the hallways, cafateria, dorm rooms? Those who live on campus are left unarmed and helpless against crime. We would love to live in a perfect world, but unfortionanetly we do not.

I will understand if this is too much detail for Mr. Gilbert to get into. But I just want to understand the reasoning behind our elected officials. I feel it would help stop the distant relationship and help both sides of the "issues" to see the other's views as valid.

I have a few links I would like you to visit if you have the time.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/87272-i-need-rant.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/carry-defensive-scenarios/87483-situation-school.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbull...-discussions/86942-problem-college-carry.html

I would recommend you read the stories, but also pay attention to the other people's views. Some may call people who carry firearms "paranoid", but we've all watched the news and see what happens on a daily basis. We just want to be able to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our property. I think we can agree that criminals do not need access to firearms, but us law abiding citizens shouldn't be forced to suffer as well. It's a truly delicate balancing act.

I want you to know I really appreciate the time and effort you have put forth in communicating with me.

**** *****

I have yet to receive a response... (It's been a week or so.)

 

[NoNameMan]

So I posted a question in another forum about concealed carry in schools. Below is the question followed by a few responses. How would you argue some of the responses?
...
So what do you guys think? It's a pretty one sided argument here.

Pro2A, I agree with you 100% The guns and kids argument seems to be based on emotion and not fact. Like you, I believe it is a baseless argument used to further an inappropriate point of view. There is no doubt that any danger would be lessened through proper parenting and gun education.

You and I, and many others on this forum, know that gun control in any form only benefits criminals. All of these school shootings occur in gun-free zones, yet they still occur. The criminal will always find a way around the rules. It's like how prisoners always get contraband inside of prison despite strict security.

The bottom line is that students and teachers would be safer in the event of a shooting rampage if a teacher was armed and trained (or in the case of a college campus: some students as well). If the institution refuses to allow this then an adequate number of competent armed guards instead.

I might get some flak for this, but wouldn't we all be better off if students had a gun safety class at school? What about elective target shooting? Like that would ever happen!! It might not be the perfect solution, but most people's exposure to firearms through high school and through college and beyond is limited to what they see in the movies and in video games, and hear from the gun-hating media. Unrealistic perceptions cause the future antis and "sheep."

 

[BuckeyeEric]

Here is my position:
1. All teacher's and faculty shall have the explicit right to properly carry and conceal a weapon on their person at all times within campus grounds. This is for all elementary and high school facilities, not withstanding the laws of the state of ________.

2. All teacher's, faculty, and student's shall have the explicit right to properly carry and conceal a weapon on their person at all times while within campus grounds. This is for all college facilities, not withstanding the laws of the state of ________.

 

[Hillbilly1964]

A few years ago, there was a shooting in our local high school. A fifteen year old student had brought a handgun to school. The school principals called the student to the office when they got the report instead of calling local leo's or even school security to handle the situation. When all was said and done, two principals were gravely wounded, one was dead. The student was subdued by the ROTC instructors.

At that time, even school security and other normally authorized personnel were forced to disarm on the property. The security officer was a sheriff dept. sgt., employed off duty by the school. Another "normally authorized person" was one of the teachers; the local assistant chief of police who taught during the day and ran the afternoon shift for the pd. Neither knew anything was going on until afterwards.

My point? If the properly trained personnel on site had been notified, even unarmed, the tragedy may have been averted. If they had been armed, two trained officers WOULD have averted the situation. A legally armed civilian may have saved two of the three principals, but would have had no cause to have acted before the first shots. So yes, carry in schools in most situations would have reduced casualties by taking out the shooter, but there still would have been victims. Just not as many.

 

[gunthorp]

It's nearly impossible to debate someone who can conjure up any number of possible harmful situations, no matter how ridiculous or remote, in order to justify the control of others. In order to prevent you from hurting yourself or others, they think they ought to restrict your actions and access to objects they fear. As an instinctive response to the suggestion we should fight back or defend ourselves, they say things would only be worse had students at VT been armed. One Brady organizer told me her sister had been shot with a rifle by an ex. Smoke came out of her when I lamented her sister's lack of a protective firearm and defensive training. I asked if she would ban cars, corvettes in particular, and alcohol, because they caused far more deaths than firearm accidents. "But they're not designed to kill people."

The anti's perception of evil design, worst case hypothetical possibility, and fear, prevent facts or logic from having any influence on their entrenched, emotionally based assumptions. Sometimes even a rude lesson courtesy of some BG doesn't do the trick. Perhaps it's just another manifestation of the law of natural selection.

 

[Chiller2]

Nobody has yet explained to me the difference between a bunch of kids in a school, and a bunch of kids at a Mall, Playground,Movie Theater,Restaurant etc... Do schools emit some kind of radiation that makes inanimate objects come to life and start doing damage or make people who are sane and law abiding elsewhere suddenly go crazy and start killing people?

 

[Napolean]

My kid's Principle and school manager are large and formidable, but unarmed. I wish the voters could see how arming them would make our children safer.

 

[Firkin]

Simple answer #1: Home School.

Simple Answer #2: Teach at a private, post secondary school and get written permission from a supportive administration :wave:

 

[DaveH]

It's nearly impossible to debate someone who can conjure up any number of possible harmful situations, no matter how ridiculous or remote, in order to justify the control of others. [emphasis added]

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ :yup: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Absolutely!

Control of others is what it is all about. :rant:

 

[64zebra]

I think it should be legal. I know my wife would carry at the college she works at if it was legal. My other family members would carry at the schools they work at also. All the arguments for a kid getting mad and getting the gun away is far-fetched IMO. Nobody would know which teacher was or wasn't armed in the first place and some training should be mandatory above the CHL training for the teachers/admins to aid in this.

as for this....

I just simply don't want my kids around adults with guns, unless those adults are police officers.

what about when their kids walk outside down the street, in walmart, at mcdonalds, mall, theater, visiting other people's houses, church, I could go on and on
just because someone is a LEO doesn't flip a switch and all of a sudden they are something really special, other citizens have the same mindset about saving innocent children too
I was a CHL for 4 years before becoming LEO and I have the same thoughts regarding these situations in school back then and now.

not too mention that schools are being studied by terrorists as evident by blueprints for schools in America found in other countries, We're going to stick our heads in the sand and have the mindset of worrying about a kid maybe getting a gun away from a teacher/admin instead of worrying about defensing against such attacks from kids or terrorists, even though kids can currently hurt people anyway with guns, knives, pens, pencils, propane tanks, pipe bombs, scissors, etc.

 

[RETSUPT99]

Explain to me how...taking weapons away from victims, maks fewer victims?

Utah is the only state that allows private citizens (parents, teachers, and admin) with CCW permits to CCW in any K-12 school.
Now please enlighten me on all of the gun incidents you can name in the UT schools...:image035::blink:.

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country and its school system is a complete disgrace with something like this...

508 Chicago School Students Shot In 16 Months
Reporting
Jay Levine CHICAGO (CBS) ―

Five out of these seven students raised their hand when asked if they know a friend or relative who has been shot.

Twenty-five Chicago Public School students have been murdered this year. As shocking as that number is, there is another figure that's very disturbing as well: the number of students who have been shot in a 16-month period is enough to fill an elementary school - 508 students, according to school officials. CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine asks why, and what is being done to stop it...
---------------------------------------------------------------

And the violence goes on...I guess those gun laws really work?

 

[logan]

Utah is the only state that allows private citizens (parents, teachers, and admin) with CCW permits to CCW in any K-12 school.

When I have kids, I'm moving to Utah.

 

[NCRonB]

So I ask whole heatedly for a non sarcastic answer... what is the reasoning behind prohibiting an otherwise law abiding person from exercising a right, that is not rooted in controlling what others do or think simply based on an emotion? In addition, please explain to me the logic behind why "Well guns just don't belong in a school"... If they don't... why don't they? Again please provide an answer that is not rooted in controlling what others do or think simply based on an emotion...

Logic and reason are often trumped by emotion in any argument. To separate them would require the possibility of being humbled... to admit that perhaps you have been wrong in the past. People don't like to be wrong.

Forget that we have a right to own and carry guns; it's all too apparent that many people don't care. They're more interested in the "greater good", which cannot coexist with an individual right... but that's a discussion for another thread. If we must argue this "right" based on "greater good" principles, and we remove emotion from the equation, then it all boils down to the same thing that all of life's activities boil down to... Risk Management.

Everyone is faced every day with risk management decisions. I pilot airplanes, ride motorcycles, and shoot/carry guns, so I'm faced with special risk management decisions of my own. Many people would consider my activities extremely dangerous and a ridiculous risk on my life, and it would not be hard for them to make valid arguments to support why they feel this way. What they're really saying, however, is that they prefer to live with a more conservative risk management policy and they don't understand why anyone would do otherwise.

Different people have different levels of risk they're willing to take, which is fine, but people are often misguided by an incomplete risk management picture... and that's where the logic behind anti-gun sentiment lies (again, assuming we've removed the emotion that most drives the anti-gun argument).

There is risk involved just by the presence of a firearm. Parents are extremely protective of their children (I'm a parent of 3 grade-school children) and trusting anyone else with their children is difficult to swallow. Add those two things together and it's not hard to understand why someone would feel that the risk of the presence of a firearm in an environment where their children are away from them for so many hours of so many days is disconcerting.

The problem is that anti-gun people do not consider all types of risk, but only the risk of the presence of the firearm. This risk is based mostly on emotion and wild imagination, though there are past news stories of accidental/negligent discharges and other extremely rare incidents to support their argument.

If people would consider both the risks of having a firearm present and the risks of not having one present, using factual historical data, without emotion, they may very well change their opinion. If I recall correctly, this is what John Stossel discovered when he did his 20/20 special on guns and crime. It would be a long uphill battle to get that to happen, but I think non-emotion-driven gun education in schools would be an excellent place to start.

The bottom line is there's a perception problem. Guns are most often portrayed in a very negative light, causing people to view the mere presence of a gun as extremely high-risk, ignoring the very real benefits and very real risk of not having one. Since most people don't have an extremely-high risk management policy, the logical conclusion is that guns should not be present.