Teacher Wants to Bring Gun To School

[erpowers]

Earlier this morning CNN interviewed a teacher that is fighting for the ability to bring a gun into the school at which she works. It seems that the woman mainly wants to bring the gun to school because she is afarid of her former husband. I contend this teacher wanting to bring a gun into a school is just stupid. There is no reason for any teacher to bring a gun into the school system. In addition, it is my opinion that kids will be scared and as a result they will want to buy guns of their own. By the way this teacher's legal fees are being paid by a gun lobby group.

[Squatch]

1. "There is no reason for any teacher to bring a gun into the school system."

Killer had a KNOWN target-rich environment of disarmed students and teachers

[acmavm]

2. Here's a sane, logical solution, ARM EVERYBODY

:sarcasm:

[NYVet]

4. As long as they pass the required licensing requirements

then hell yes, arm everyone.

Gun laws are only obeyed by the law abiding citizen, not the criminal, and frankly, I consider schools with the "gun free zones" marketing themselves as shooting galleries for the insane.

You are a teacher and want a gun? Take the classes to learn how to shoot, maintain the weapon, and pass the background check.

[MadHound]

42. Oh, yeah, that will go over real well

Until some kid gets ahold of said gun, and either misuses it, or uses it on their self, the teacher, or fellow students. I know, I know, you're going to say that the teacher should therefore lock it up at school. First of all, it will then be useless locked up, and secondly, kids can open any lock if they are sufficiently motivated.

Schools are gun free zones for a good reason, so they don't become shooting galleries.

[Squatch]

61. "...so they don't become shooting galleries."

1000 kinds of FAIL with that statement here: Link

[MadHound]

64. Ah, so you want to up the number of guns in school

Thus upping the number of opportunities for disturbed children to get ahold of those guns. Ooo, bright move there, not!

Gee, the Virgina Tech shooting incident could have been prevented if somebody had recognized the symptoms of what was going on and taken some real action. Instead, now people want the quick fix solution of arming our schools. What are you going to say when some disturbed student gets ahold of one of those CCW guns brought to school and turns it on his fellow students, that we should start allowing automatics in the school, thus having superior firepower:crazy:

Sorry, I don't want to teach in an armed encampment.

[slackmaster]

88. Children who are truly disturbed don't belong in regular public schools

They need to be in secure instituations.

[MadHound]

93. Geez, more authoritarian bullshit from you

Locking up disturbed kids:crazy: Disturbed kids can range from being despondent over breaking up with their girl/boy friend, all the way up to homicidal. Some of these certainly don't belong in a normal class, but the vast majority do, and having a lethal weapon lying around for them to pick up in times of personal turmoil is just asking for people to get killed.

[slackmaster]

126. I thought you were in favor of the will and well-being of the majority

Disturbed kids can ruin the learning environment for everyone else.

[MadHound]

132. Depends on the definition of disturbed

And the fact that you are willing to Lock up "truly disturbed" really reveals your mindset, and not in a good way.

Like I said, "disturbed" kids can range from those who've just broken up to those with serious issues, and every spectrum in between. The fact that you are lumping them all together, and wanting to lock them up is disturbing in and of itself. The fact that you want to act guns to this mix is beyond the pale.

[slackmaster]

134. What would YOU do with one who is violent to the point of endangering others?

Leave them in class with the normal kids?

The fact that you want to act guns to this mix is beyond the pale.

You're missing my point. I'm not advocating putting guns into the mix. I'm favoring giving teachers who are on duty, particularly at schools that don't have robust security systems to keep intruders out, the same rights as people who work in other places.

[MadHound]

141. LOL, you do realize that truly violent students aren't mainstreamed

And if a student becomes a danger to others, there are certainly ways of subduing that child without resorting to deadly force. Perhaps you should take some martial arts classes and find out.

Oh, and just for your information, you have no right to carry a gun into all buildings and places of business. I can post it on my front door that CCW isn't allowed, and have the full authority to enforce it. As a businessman, I can have a policy disallowing CCW and guns in the workplace. The only thing that CCW gives you is the right to walk, ride or drive with a concealed gun, to go into businesses and other places that allow CCW. But you don't have the right to carry a gun to work in violation of stated policy.

[slackmaster]

145. So the kids you said might be a danger to others aren't really a danger to others

Thanks for the clarification.

[MadHound]

150. You're being deliberately obtuse there slack, give it up

Why are you the only one who's having trouble getting the point of my posts:think: Oh, yeah, that's right:eyes:

[michreject]

160. You would never know

But you don't have the right to carry a gun to work in violation of stated policy.

And if you found out, in Mi., it's not a violation of any law. Your only option is to ask me to leave. That's it.

[DemBones DemBones]

177. I had a student who had killed someone in my class.

He had not been tried for the murder because of a police screw-up. Maybe he'll never be violent again, but he killed a family member when he was 15, was in one of my classes two years later. He was hyperactive so I had to tell him to sit down and be quiet often. It was a little unsettling when I found out about the murder half-way through the school year.

I had another student who had spent three years at the psychoeducational center after stabbing (not fatally) a family member. Teachers who had known him were freaking out about him coming back. I never put any stock in teachers' gossip, but when he walked into my classroom and I saw what a huge well-muscled guy he was, I was a little taken aback.

Everything was fine, though. He was a sweet guy who worked really hard on his studies and on staying out of trouble. He'd pull his desk up close to mine so he wouldn't be distracted by anyone else in class. That was my experience with all the kids I was told were "awful." They had a bad reputation that people didn't want to forget.

[zanne]

242. Don't bother. He's gun-blind. nt

[zanne]

246. You have one foot in DU....

And one foot in Nazi Germany.

[Horse with no Name]

224. Add the number of students killed over the years with guns

and number of kids NOT killed over the years without guns.
Therein lies your answer.

[michreject]

92. Not locked up

But carried on your person. No one would ever know.

[MadHound]

94. You have obviously not been around a lot of kids have you

Many of them are quite proficient at sliding things off of a teacher, wallets, cell phones, etc. etc. Besides that, you could misplace, drop, or otherwise lose the gun. Even the NRA will tell you the best place for a gun is locked up, in which case it's not going to do you a hell of a lot of good in an emergency.

[michreject]

102. If I need deep cover for a gun

I wear a shoulder holster under my dress shirt. I can have it accessed in a moments notice. I carry a Keltec P3AT in my front right pant pocket at all times. It goes in my sweat pants when I get home.

[MadHound]

106. Again, you obviously haven't been around a lot of kids, and it shows

It also shows that you are willing to put a lot of kids at risk just so that you can carry. I truly hope that you're not in the teaching profession.

And the fact that you carry a gun at all times, even in the home, well that are a lot of worms in that can, and I would probably say you need some professional help.

[michreject]

109. How do you figure that?

It also shows that you are willing to put a lot of kids at risk just so that you can carry.

I was a teachers aide for two years.

My sanity is just fine. Thanks for caring.

[MadHound]

113. You are carrying a gun in a school environment!

If you can't figure out what is wrong with that, then you'd better stay away from the teaching profession. Did you tell your administrator about this? Your teacher? Frankly I hope that I never meet you in a classroom, because I'll bust you six ways from Sunday. What part of "don't put children at risk" and "guns in the classroom put children at risk" do you not understand?

Yes, if you can't understand this concept, you do need some professional help.

[slackmaster]

140. Disagree with MadHound and "you do need some professional help"

Argumentum ad hominem.

[MadHound]

143. Disagree all you want, but I'm willing to bet large sums of money

On the fact that the school said poster worked at had a specific policy against guns on the grounds, CCW or not. The fact that he carried it around kids utterly absurd, and if found out, would be grounds for dismissal.

[slackmaster]

147. Tell it to the Xmas Bunny

Maybe you can get the person fired.

[michreject]

144. I don't believe that this is true

guns in the classroom put children at risk

No one knows because no one needs to know. It's none of their business.

[MadHound]

149. None of their business until your gun gets snagged,

Or some kid sees the gun under your shirt. Then it is everybody's problem.

Sorry dude, but you lost all credibility with me when you stated that you carried while a teacher's aid. And now you are admitting that you did it in direct opposition of school policy. I truly hope that you're not going into teaching, for you would be a horrible role model for children. "OK kiddies, today I'm going to tell you how to circumvent rules and regulations in order to carry a gun:eyes: Fucking pathetic.

[Hangingon]

116. KelTec is a good choice -

my brother carries one and it is not noticible.

[northzax]

76. for the insane?

why would the insane care if others have guns to shoot back? they're insane, that's the whole point.

in case you hadn't noticed, people shoot at cops a lot more often than they shoot at teachers, and cops are almost always armed. Heck, people shoot at solders a lot more than teachers or students, and soldiers are not only trained to, but encouraged to and enabled to shoot back and kill you. Do you think the presence of guns would have deterred the Virginia Tech shooter? unlikely. it seems likely than in the chaos, an armed student would have shot another armed student.

[Hangingon]

117. While armed students would not have stopped Cho from trying,

armed students would have reduced the carnage. Yes, I firmly believe an armed student would have made a difference. A armed student trained for concealed carry would not be likely to shoot a student.

[northzax]

169. With all due respect

You are misguided. Highly trained soldiers, who sleep with their weapons and have uniforms kill their own in battle, even those with superior training, like rangers, have 'friendly fire' incidents, and you think some guy who took an 8 hour training course can avoid it?

[ManiacJoe]

170. Avoid it? Yes, quite easily.

Most friendly fire problems result from bad target identification. This is a common problem for military. In the civilian world, the "enemy" is the guy shooting at you/yours, easily ID-ed by all the participants who are there from the beginning. 8 hours of training is more than adequate for this. Time needed for marksmanship training is different discussion.

[northzax]

181. This is almost amusing

So heat of battle affects soldiers and police officers, but not civilians? Your plan suggests that the only two guns in the building are the good guy and the bad guy, and that, in the heat of battle, you can tell the difference after 8 hours of training,. What if there are two guys with guns? Which one do you shoot, or do you wait to visibly observe one killing your friend? You think, in the heat of battle, you can do better, among civilians, that people who train nonstop for this?

[ManiacJoe]

217. Absolutely, civilians have an easier time doing target ID.

Civilians have a much easier time of target ID than soldiers and police.

It affects soldiers because they are engaging a distances and among obstacles that prohibit visual identification.

It affects the police because they usually arrive during the middle of the fight and have no clue who the players are. This is why they take everyone down at gun point, put everyone in handcuffs, and sort out the mess at their leisure.

For civilians there at the beginning of the fight, the ID's have already been made. You know who your friends and coworkers are. You know who is not in this group. Anyone in the "them" group using weapons against "us" are the Bad Guys.

Any civilian coming in late to the party has the same problem as the police of target ID. Thus they are legally and morally limited to a defensive roll (if any roll) and should not be getting involved.

[minavasht]

146. Hm, when was the last time someone went to shoot

cops in a police station?
Funny how the "insane" NEVER go to kill a bunch of armed cops.

[northzax]

167. Really?

Go visit the police officer's memorial, they will be sad to show you the latest additions to the wall of honor...

[krispos42]

236. Couple of months ago in Idaho

Guy opened up on a police station with a scope-sighted rifle. Killed like 3 people.

[DrDan]

15. you know - your topic line is certain recognized here as a

totally tongue-in-cheek comment.

However, over at freeper-land, it would be welcomed as a progressive, totally sensible statement.

[trusty elf]

56. "I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."

[LeftHander]

213. Teacher and estranged husband have shoot out in school....

Nine children wounded in the cross fire...

How about that for a future headline.

[flvegan]

3. All students (down to the 4th grade) should have Concealed Carry Permits

That way, the teacher wouldn't need one.

[devilgrrl]

5. I want armed lunch ladies

and janitors!

:popcorn:

[flvegan]

11. American chop suey is already a WMD

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

33. You forget cafeteria stewed tomatoes.

One of the finest nausea-inducing agents in the history of mankind. Ain't nothing like a good cafeteria stewed tomato vomit for vibrant colors.

[zanne]

7. You forgot the sarcasm thingie....

Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm thingie.

[flvegan]

8. I honestly hoped I didn't need one.

[zanne]

14. Well, we have a "few" gun people here.

And if they said that, they wouldn't be kidding.

[flvegan]

18. Yeah, but they'd have eliminated the age limit I suggested.

[zanne]

22. I don't know about that. nt

[michreject]

20. I don't think it possible

to be 18 and still in the 4th grade.

In several states, there is a law that is being proposed to allow teachers to carry concealed guns in school. If they qualify, let em.

[devilgrrl]

57. It's too bad the librarian at my high school didn't have a gun when he "lost it" with a student.

Now there's someone that should have been packing heat. :sarcasm:

:popcorn:

[slackmaster]

163. Someone who "loses it" with students shouldn't be teaching

Or working as a school librarian.

[devilgrrl]

230. How about someone who "loses it" in the White House? You up for that, Mr. Sanctimonious?

:eyes:

BTW, what f%&@ing school did you get to go to?

Yeah! Guns in the classroom!
Keep America Safe!!!!!

[slackmaster]

247. A Red Herring and a Straw Man all in one short post

Attack your fellow DUers much?

[devilgrrl]

248. Your arguments throughout this thread are red herrings and strawmen.

Project much?

:popcorn:

[devilgrrl]

249. How would one know he would "lose it" before hiring him?

Huh?

[karlrschneider]

6. Well Gawd knows we don't want anyone actually DEFENDING themselves...

:eyes:

[zanne]

10. Then having an argument with the wife....

Then getting good and blitzed while thinking about it at the local bar...Then building up the rage while driving home...Then shooting wife, family and self. But at least he was able to defend himself.

[mvccd1000]

26. Can you cite ONE single instance of a CCW permit holder doing that?

As I said in my other post, CCW holders commit far FEWER crimes than the population as a whole.

[zanne]

35. Which gun site did you get that one from?

You love your statistics, I know. But it seems to me that the statistics you read about and the statistics I read about are so very different! We could have a neverending statistics war.

[mvccd1000]

41. You're right, you (and I) can make statistics say anything. Still....

.... the reports really are available, right from the State police. Here's a link to the Michigan reports:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html

Not sure if they are pro-gun, or anti-gun, or if they just report the crimes. Feel free to check it out for yourself - I wasn't making it up! :)

[zanne]

49. I'm sure you don't make up statistics...

Neither do I. So what gives? Somebody along the way is really using their imagination when they print statistics.

[Kingshakabobo]

45. Here:

I suppose you get off with a technicality because he was an off duty "part-time" cop? Oh, and it was his girlfriend, not his wife.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/07/wisconsin.shooting/index.html

(CNN) -- A sheriff's deputy shot and killed six people in Crandon, Wisconsin, early Sunday before dying himself under circumstances that remain under wraps, the town's police chief said.


Tyler Peterson, a sheriff's deputy, shot and killed six people, police said.

1 of 3 The assailant, Tyler Peterson, also worked part-time as a Crandon police officer.

Forest County Sheriff Keith Van Cleve said Peterson was "about 20" and was not on duty at the time of the shootings.

Schools superintendent Richard Peters told The Associated Press that three Crandon High students were killed and another three who died had graduated within the past year.

The victims were at a house party together. Residents say one of those killed is or was the shooter's girlfriend.

[mvccd1000]

54. He was a cop, but he was too young to have a CCW.

He was only 20. I can't imagine why the PD thought that someone not even old enough to get a CCW should be a cop.....

[slackmaster]

174. That adds an interesting ironic twist to the story

Clearly he wasn't well vetted for his position.

[zanne]

243. You mean if he had waited a year to be legal....

He'd never go nuts and shoot people? WTF? The argument that only illegally obtained guns are used in crimes is ridiculous. A gun doesn't know legal from criminal, and everyday "nice guys" and "good kids" are often in the news because they shot up a bunch of people, surprising everybody. Well, no shit.

[iverglas]

159. interesting you should ask in this thread!

Not exactly "that", but something rather worth mentioning.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGLqbyW_oXVAOOZmJx8D6rKQ8n4AD8S58TTO0
(emphasis mine)

Ore. Teacher Wants to Take Gun to School

... Katz never owned a gun until she and her then-husband, commercial photographer Gerry Katz, moved to Oregon from Atlanta eight years ago and bought 20 acres on a gravel road in the foothills of the Cascade Range.

... In 2004, Gerry Katz, who had a concealed weapons permit, was arrested for pulling a .38-caliber revolver after a confrontation that began in a parking lot with two men whose car almost hit his.

According to the police report, he did not point the weapon at anyone. The police seized it, and the charges were later dismissed. Gerry Katz said he never went back for his gun.

Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies.

He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.

Now there's a turn-up for the books! Mr. Katz, the one whom Ms. Katz is so afraid of, had a concealed weapons permit. And used his firearm unlawfully.


Evidently, Ms. Katz has never submitted her allegations of threats / assaults for determination by a court.

So if she wins her case, does any teacher, or any adult who works in a school, who happens to want to tote a gun get to do so in the school?

Based on an allegation by one person that she is at risk of harm at the hands of someone who denies it, who has never made any effort either to prove her claim or to seek protection from the person she claims is a threat to her?

Interesting concept.

[iverglas]

193. The Husband Had a Concealed Carry Permit

and criminally misused the firearm he carried (not against the wife; against a stranger during a traffic dispute).

Just didn't want anyone to miss that little fact in the news report quoted in my post above.

[DemBones DemBones]

40. Alcohol is a factor in many suicides, perhaps the majority.

Alcohol is a factor in many homicides, too, and vehicular homicides. Alcohol surely causes more deaths than guns in the US, probably even without counting deaths from cirrhosis and other medical conditions caused or exacerbated by excessive use of alcohol.

AND

Your hypothetical guy could just as easily go home and use a knife to kill the wife and kids, then slit his own throat.

Remember Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? They were both adults and I don't recall any evidence to suggest there was more than one killer.

Or your hypothetical guy could smother them in their sleep and then kill himself.

Or he could take them out for a drive and run into a solid concrete object or a semi at a high speed, or perhaps run off a bridge.


"There must be fifty ways to kill your lover."

[Richard Steele]

17. "Better a statistic than an assault survivor", cry the pistolphobes! nm

[zanne]

24. "Pistolphobes"?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zanne]

51. I think you'd develop Didaskaleinophobis...

From a rational fear of gunfire.

[DemBones DemBones]

58. If you knew your teacher's ex was stalking her, yes, you

should be afraid to go to school.

As I asked before, how will people feel if the man walks into her classroom, kills her and maybe kills some kids and/or kills himself, all in front of the kids?

If she can get a concealed carry permit, she's not likely to cause any harm to anyone unless she has to defend herself against her ex. You can't get permits without investigations of your background, being fingerprinted, etc. People with something to hide don't do that.

You know that many schools have armed guards, don't you? Why are they more trustworthy than a teacher who has been trained in how to use a gun safely and practices regularly? (I'm sure I'd go to the range regularly if I were in fear of my life.)

I don't know that school guards have to practice regularly or how well trained they are. It's a question that should be asked.

[zanne]

66. You're assuming he'd announce himself

I don't think that somebody that hell-bent on killing someone would explain why he was there, then wait a few minutes while the teacher had time to get her gun, assuming, of course, that she was still alive. It's pretty hard to protect kids when you're dead.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. I'm assuming she'd have her classroom door locked from the inside

and he'd have to break it down. She could fire a shot through the door while he was trying to break it down, which might make him leave even if he wasn't hit by a bullet.

[zanne]

73. You should write scripts.

Imaginative. Highly unlikely, but imaginative. Anything to defend guns for everybody.

[DemBones DemBones]

75. I like to use my mind to imagine situations and solutions to problems.

Maybe I should write scripts instead of wasting time here. :hippie:

[zanne]

153. Who knows? You may have a new career. nt

[MadHound]

186. Yep, that ol' stray bullet there

Hits the metal door jamb(common in schools across the country), ricochets and strikes some kid right between the eyes. Well hey, poor kid is dead, but at least the teacher could legally pack concealed heat, and in some states, get away with killing a kid due to Castle Doctrine laws. Gee, and what about the kid's right to live?

See, I like to use my mind to imagine solutions, oh, and the problems that come with them(as they inevitably do).

But I doubt that I'll write a script anytime soon.:hi:

[northzax]

77. armed guards don't have concealed weapons

they are right out in the open. if she wants to bring a firearm to school, let her wear it in a holster on her belt, just like the armed guards do. wouldn't that be a much better deterrent, than scrambling for her locked purse (surely she wouldn't leave her gun unlocked at any time in a room full of teenagers if it wasn't on her person, right?

open carry or no carry. I have no problem with that. concealed weapons are for psychos and cowards.

[iverglas]

91. you must know some really stupid abusive men

Imagine, one who is dumb enough to announce his intentions face-to-face to his intended victim, rather than lying in wait unseen and shooting her from a distance.

That's actually what firearms allow people to do, after all. Someone with access to a firearm and a yen to kill his/her estranged wife would be pretty dumb not to take advantage of that ability.

In point of fact, unless the teacher in question is using a handgun as a blackboard pointer, it's rather unlikely she's going to be able to use it to prevent herself from being killed if her estranged husband enters the room with a handgun of his own, in any event.

So ...

As I asked before, how will people feel if the man walks into her classroom, kills her and maybe kills some kids and/or kills himself, all in front of the kids?

... what alternative scenario are you actually imagining? How would that scenario be different if she had a handgun in her purse or even pocket?


http://www.thestar.com/article/173793

Jan 23, 2007 04:30 AM

Lionel Klotz says he never had any doubt who was responsible for mortally wounding fellow teacher Aysegul Candir when he came upon her dying body in the parking lot of Bramalea Secondary School.

The popular 47-year-old ESL teacher had just been shot that wet morning of Dec. 10, 2004, as she was getting out of her car and Klotz was among those who rushed outside after hearing reports of the shooting.

Ehrun Candir, 64, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of his estranged wife in a trial that got under way yesterday in Brampton.

Crown prosecutors Brian McGuire and Mike Morris say Candir stalked her that morning and lay in wait for her to return from buying flowers for a distraught student, whose father had suffered a heart attack. As she got out of her car just after 11 a.m., they say her husband got out of a rented minivan and shot her twice, one bullet to the hip and a fatal one to the left side of her head.

She died later that day at Sunnybrook hospital.

Now how, exactly, would that teacher have used a firearm to prevent her death?

And I wonder what guarantees you or anyone else can offer that a teacher carrying a firearm in a school would not be relieved of that firearm by a student or someone else more likely to use it in less admirable ways than for self-defence ...


Utter nonsense, instalment 63.

Interesting, though, to see someone who believes that women should be prohibited from choosing to terminate their own pregnancies, when the fact is that pregnancy DOES involve risks to life and terminating a pregnancy causes no risk to anyone else, should be so eager to see a woman be permitted to do something that is so unlikely to be effective at averting any risk to her life and is entirely possibly going to result in harm to someone else.

[Evoman]

206. Extra bullets for the shooter is the only difference.

[iverglas]

114. where I come from

... in this case, the Guns forum of DU ... it is considered extremely bad form to ascribe a mental disorder to another DU member. Even a phony mental disorder like "hoplophobia". In fact, posts ascribing that disorder to DU members are seldom seen there. For long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

Hoplophobia, (pronounced <ˌhɔpləˈfoʊbiə>), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is a word coined in 1962 by firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper meaning an irrational and morbid fear of guns.<1> Cooper employed the clinical-sounding term as an alternative to other slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not (explain this behavior)." Cooper attributed this behavior to the irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."

The word hoplophobia is not found in the Oxford English Dictionary, generally considered the most comprehensive dictionary of the English language, though that dictionary does identify twelve different words with the prefix hoplo-.

Now granted, "the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user" is probably a sign of a mental disorder.

If only anyone here had exhibited any symptoms of it. Or of any other "irrational fear". Eh?

[Evoman]

205. In light of this post, I find your name absolutely hilarious.

[erpowers]

34. Not About Protection

I am all for people defending themeselves. I just do not think a teacher should bring a gun into a school.

[slackmaster]

179. Do you have an alternative proposal to provide protection for this particular teacher?

Doing nothing would leave her vulnerable, especially now that her story has been publicized.

[devilgrrl]

253. Those who date abusive people shouldn't get married to begin with!

That's more or less the type of argument you've presented throughout this thread. You're not trying to make a point, you're deliberately annoying people. Why don't you just shut your piehole.

:nuke:

[michreject]

9. If she qualifies

Then it shouldn't be a concern. I would venture a guess and say that there's some in every school. Concealed means concealed.

[crim son]

12. I have some empathy for this woman.

I'm assuming her husband is a violent man and she feels truly endangered (and I could be wrong). The system doesn't protect people like her and she wants to feel safe. Unfortunately bringing a gun to school isn't the answer, clearly not.

[DrDan]

13. ABSOLUTELY - Schools are no place for guns . . .

[Recursion]

229. Why not?

You state that as if it were axiomatic.

[Richard Steele]

16. The teacher has already stated the VALID REASON she wishes to be armed for her own defense.

So, when you make the blanket statement, "There is no reason
for any teacher to bring a gun into the school system", you
are admitting that you aren't interested in actually DISCUSSING
this situation. She's STATED her reason; you pretend it doesn't exist.

Do you think that "abusive ex-husbands" are just an imaginary
boogeyman dreamt up by the NRA? That women who FEAR them are
just hysterical ninnies whose concerns can be dismissed with
two seconds of internet "pooh-poohing"?

And re: your opinion "...that kids will be scared and as a result
they will want to buy guns of their own", I can only ask:
How do you figure?

Please explain the chain of circumstances you're imagining there,
to get from one point to the other, because I can't imagine it
myself.

[erpowers]

31. In the School

As far as I know she wants to bring the gun into the school. I understand she may be scared of her husband, but I do not think people should have guns inside a school. My major problem is that I contend the kids will be scared by the guns and in turn want to bring guns into the schools. I do nt think we need kids bring guns into schools. I imagine that a number of kids could or would become scared that a teacher is carrying a gun to school. I think it is possible that some of the kids will think what if the teacher someday decides to use the gun on me.

I do not think angry ex-husband are just a made up thing. However, I do not think one has to carry a gun into a school in order to protect one's self.

[Richard Steele]

48. Well, I -WILL- say that I appreciate your response.

I'm sorry, (and I don't intend this to be rude or insulting,
so please don't think that) but I don't think there's any
useful purpose being served by my discussing this any further
with you.

I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and it seems clear
that no common ground will ever be reached. So best to stop
before anyone's feelings get hurt, no?

I like reading your opinions on many other subjects, and not always
just because I agree with them. So I'd rather just "agree to disagree"
than get into a drawn-out fight about this particular issue.

Sincerely,
Richard

[MadHound]

53. Yes, she has stated her reason, but it is an invalid and illogical one

Let's see, if she brings it into the classroom, then she is going to have to lock it up for safety's sake. Therefore, if it is locked up, it will be useless to her if confronted in her classroom by her ex. If is locked in her car, her ex can get to it there. And overarching all of this is that no matter where she puts that gun on school grounds, the very real potential for it falling into a student's hands is very real, and very dangerous.

Schools are gun free zones for a reason, for the safety of the students.

[krispos42]

237. Flawed logic

She keeps the gun on her person. Shoulder rig or inside-the-waistband holster. A student would have to assault her to get the gun.

I don't think it should be in her locker or desk. It should be on her, under her full control at all times.


And "gun-free zone" is a stupid meme. There's no magic force field that keeps guns from entering a certain area while being porous to everything else. The percentage of students who say that they have brought guns to school is alarmingly high, yet more students a year are killed playing sports than die from gunfire.

I don't want students carrying guns in school. I have no problem with organized shooting sports, but minors carrying concealed is not something I'm really happy with.

I have no problem with lawfully licenced adults carrying on school grounds, as long as they keep the gun on their person.

Schools are gun free zones for a reason, for the safety of the students.

So are school shootings up or down since these zones became vogue?

[MadHound]

239. You really don't know how devious kids are, do you

How sneaky, resourceful and smart they are. Carry a gun in a waistband? Yeah, right, and watch how quick it is gone.

In addition, even the NRA says that guns should be locked up around kids.

But let's say that the worst happens, her hubby makes it past the front desk, past the security guard, and through her locked door. She pulls her gun, fires, and misses one, two, three times. Given the prevalence of hard surfaces, ricochets are likely. One, two, three children drop. Worse yet, he fires a couple of times, misses, and a couple of more kids drop.

Gee, she's exercised her ability to conceal carry, her right to bear arms, yet there are dead and wounded children. What about their rights, you know, like the right to live?

Schools aren't the place for guns, in fact there are many public and private areas where guns aren't allowed, nor should they be. It is a common sense safety measure.

In answer to your question, I don't have the data to answer you. I do know that schools haven't allowed guns inside the school house door for fifty years or more.

You have the right to own, and if legal, conceal carry a gun in public. That right ends at the front door of any public or private building that disallows guns. Most have common sense reasons for doing so, like schools. If you can't abide by that, TS, deal. Trying to legally infringe on the rights of others is wrong and unconstitutional.

[krispos42]

250. Every carry a gun concealed? n/t

[MadHound]

252. No, but then again, I don't live in the state of unreasonable fear either

However I do know that kids as young as ten can be well versed in the arts of picking pockets(both waist and vest), picking locks, B&E, and many other sly tricks of the trade.

I noticed that you didn't touch the rest of my post, why's that? The scenario to realistic for your worldview? You prefer to believe that everybody shoots straight and the bad guy is killed?

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

[krispos42]

254. I also don't attribute mythic powers to criminals

including children.

Have you even shot a handgun?

If the teacher is carrying the gun on her person, then getting it picked is virtually impossible. She could, I suppose, be grabbed or clubbed upside the head and her gun stolen. But not picked.

You try hanging a pound and a half of steel off of your belt and see if you notice it's missing. G on, do it. Find something about six inches long, four high, and about 1.5 deep, that weights between one and two pounds. Then shove it inside the waistband of your jeans, and see if you forget it's there.

I guess you've just watched too many cowboy movies, where the guns hang loose in low-slung quick-draw holsters.


As to the rest of your post, what of it? You want a real worst-case scenario? How about after shooting dead the teacher, he takes the entire classroom hostage? By the time the police finish assaulting the place the husband and over a dozen students are dead.

How is THAT scenario any more or less valid than yours?


If the guy has a gun for the express purpose of killing the teacher, then whether or not the teacher is armed there's going to be shooting in a school!


There are multiple avenues of attack for the husband. A frontal assault in front of student witnesses is only one of many possible scenarios, and IMO one of the least likely.


And are you really sure you're not living in an unreasonable state of fear?

[MadHound]

256. LOL, I love people who ass u me things

First of all, yes, I've shot guns. Handguns, shot guns, long guns. Pretty decent marksman if I do say so myself.

Secondly, you obviously have no clue about picking pockets. I have, thanks to, well, shall we say an interesting period of my life. I can assure you that a person can pull a gun off of a person, whether it is in their waistband, or in a shoulder harness. And no, you wouldn't miss it until I'm long gone, no matter what the weight. You see, your back, torso and shoulder area have far fewer nerve endings that sense weight, pressure, and the lack thereof, thus you probably wouldn't pick up on this until I'm long gone. I know, I've picked my fair share of heavyweight items out of peoples' pockets. In fact about a quarter century ago, when I was actively pursuing this skill, the current fashion trend for men was to wear essentially what was a purse or bag rigged up in a shoulder harness similar to that used for handguns. It was supposed to be safer, more pick proof. But sure enough, do a stumble and grab on the mark, and poof, I had money.

And don't get me started on how many cops have had their gun nicked from their holster. At the time it was a rather common rite of passage, and it was really quite easy. And this off of people who were supposed to be all about gun safety.

As far as your worst case scenario, well gee, that's about what it is, a worst case scenario. Frankly, if the teacher is confronted by her homicidal ex, then what she should do is get him out of the classroom, even if that means that she has to leave with him herself. After all, as a teacher, or a human being for that matter, her first responsibility is to insure the safety of the children under her care. Turning the classroom into a shooting gallery certainly wouldn't do that, would it?

No, I don't live in an unreasonable state of fear. I don't see threats and bogeymen around each and every corner. Hence, I feel no need to carry a gun. And even if I did, there is no way in hell I would take it into a school. That's just asking for trouble.

Gun owners love to tout that they have a right to own a gun, and conceal carry if the law permits. That's all fine and good, but other people in our society have the right to ban guns from residences, places of business, or other such locations. Whether you like it or not, gunowners don't have the right to trump other's rights. If a gun is banned from someplace, then that means all guns. If you don't like it, then you don't have to enter that location. You don't have the right to demand that you can enter and carry a gun. Deal with it.

[krispos42]

260. Absolutely right

Private citizens and business do have the right to refuse to allow concealed carry on their property. I'm not saying otherwise.

And since a public school campus, despite the word "public" in them, are not generally-open areas like a sidewalk or park. So the debate here is not "does she have the right to carry concealed in the school", it's "should she be allowed to carry concealed in the school?", and the various pros and cons of each.

As to your prior criminal activities, you are still proceding from the assumption that there are significant number of expert pickpockets roaming the school halls, preying on students and teachers alike, which is not an assumption that I'm willing to give credence too. In addition, unlike in a crowded public area, if a student did do a "stumble and grab" on the teacher, and a few minutes later she noticed her concealed pistol was missing, it would be a relatively simple if time-consuming event for her to identify the student that did the stumble-and-grab, recover the gun, and arrest the student.

As to what she should do if the ex breaks in... well, that's highly dependent on what he does. He might, for example, point his own gun at her and motion her out into the hallway, at which point she should probably go. Or he might open the door and start shooting indiscriminately, at which point not only is fighting for her life, she's fighting for the lives of the students, too.

It obviously depends on the circumstances. I read a LTTE recently in a gun magazine about how a man who had a CCW permit and was carrying a pistol when a guy robbed the diner the man was eating at. Even though he COULD have drew and confronted the robber, who had his own gun, the man chose not to. In this particular case, the man felt that the robber was not desperate or homicidal and so chose NOT get involved. And he was right. The robber fled with the money, and nobody got hurt.

So this ex might barge in. Or, he might hide in the ladies' room or the teacher's lounge or the school parking lot.

[slackmaster]

19. Does she have a concealed weapons permit? Training?

More information, please.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. What will you say if her husband walks in and kills her in front of the kids?

He might also kill some kids or take hostages. Such events are not unheard of.

If someone with a gun had walked into any of my classrooms over the years and started shooting, I could have done absolutely nothing to stop him except throw books off my desk.

Sometimes I think we're heading for an armed guard being needed full time in every hall of a school, plus others to patrol the grounds and give the ones in the halls break times.

Other times, I think we're overreacting to school shootings as they did happen before cable news, perhaps as often as they do now. I never knew of one anywhere that I lived but in high school in Virginia, in the mid-Sixties, we used to have bomb threats pretty regularly and all be evacuated from the buildings while the police checked things out.

[truebrit71]

23. ..I'd ask why he was allowed into the school in the first place...

...isn't that what security is for?

[michreject]

29. Yeah right!

A security guard is going to stop an armed person. They would last be heard saying before they ran away, "Not for no 7 bucks an hour."

[CRK7376]

38. Our schools use

Sheriff Dept Deputy Resource Offciers who are armed and on campus daily.

[michreject]

47. So it OK for some to have a gun in a school?

And others, when the need arises, you're SOL.

[DemBones DemBones]

72. WHAT security guards? We didn't have them in any school I taught in

nor were guards in any school my daughter attended. That was in three counties, a total of three elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools.

And there were doors that were unsecured, anyone could have gotten in from outside.

[michreject]

90. I never said there were any

I just made a comment on what someone else stated.

[DemBones DemBones]

97. Sorry, I guess I replied to the wrong post -- you said

that security guards weren't paid enough to risk their lives, I believe, and I agree.

If there were any security guards.

[michreject]

100. There weren't any when I went to school

With budget crises at most cities, I don't see how police in schools, if there are any, are part of the budget.

[DemBones DemBones]

65. We had NO security guards in the schools I taught in.

I taught in a middle school and a high school in one county and a high school in another. That's surely the case in many schools in small towns and rural areas of the country: no guards.

in one school, doors that were not supposed to be opened (in order to keep intruders out) were regularly opened by the students and would not close and lock after being opened. There was such a door near my classroom in that school.

[mvccd1000]

25. I have no problem w/ a teacher w/ a gun. I DO have a problem with...

... someone who strongly believes an ex intends to harm them, staying in a room full of kids. If she honestly believes the guy is that dangerous, she should not be in a classroom.

HOWEVER, I do not have a problem with any person with a concealed carry permit taking his or her gun anywhere they want to. Look up the statistics for your state (Michigan's are online on the State Police web site): CCW holders, as a group, commit far fewer crimes than the population as a whole. These are not "gun crazy, shoot-em-up nutcases," these are people who have taken a class, passed a background check, and choose to ensure that they will not become victims.

The CCW reports maintained by each state PROVE that concealed carry permit holders are among the least likely group of people to go "off the handle" and use a gun to commit a crime.

These are the people I would WANT around me if someone intent on committing a crime dropped in.

[michreject]

30. Don't confuse the anti's with facts

I have a Mi CCW and I carry a gun everywhere I go.

[riverdeep]

32. But where would she go?

What if she worked in an office? Or maybe a restaurant? Someone's gonna get shot. She's got to work someplace. Maybe this guy is the one that should be inconvenienced for being an alleged psycho. Tell him to get out of the state and don't come back or in prison you go.

[DemBones DemBones]

69. Yes, putting him in prison would solve it but

the police will do nothing if a person threatens to kill you.

They will say "We can't do anything unless this person actually does something to you."

Comforting, isn't it?

[iverglas]

111. fascinating

the police will do nothing if a person threatens to kill you.

So -- uttering a death threat isn't an offence where you're at?

It sure is where I'm at.

And once a person is charged with doing it, the conditions of pre-trial release will include remaining a certain distance away from the complainant, having no contact with the complainant, and being in possession of no firearms. And breach of any of those conditions will result in further criminal charges.

And if the police "will do nothing", then the police have masters who need to know about it. Where I'm at.

Indeed, this was not always the case in spousal abuse situations, where I'm at. It sure is now, though. I guess I just live in an enlightened society.

Meanwhile, there is always the private prosecution route, to bypass police and get the matter before a court.

We apparently don't know that the individual in this situation actually made a death threat.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/10193211.html

Katz told Larson and his listeners that she will not back down, and feels more resolved than she ever has before.

"I would be the first to say I was never the activist type. I would have been quite happy to fly under the radar, but I was a battered wife for seven years, and it has to stop," Katz said. "I am particularly sensitive to bullying. And I won't be bullied by my ex-husband.... I'm not going to be bullied by the school district."

During the radio interview, Katz said she has the firearms training to carry a weapon safely - even in her class.

"This is something I take seriously. I practice regularly," Katz disclosed. "Our kids do need to be protected. I think it just comes down to making sure it's done responsibly."

I wonder what she has done in the past to neutralize the threat she claims he presents. A battered wife for seven years: no complaints to police? no charges laid? I will never blame the victim in such cases for not doing what looks, from the outside, like the logical thing. However, I will also not support someone who claims to be entitled to tote a firearm around, let alone in a school, for "protection", if s/he has not used every means to neutralize the threat by the means that society provides.

Toting a gun around is not going to neutralize whatever threat he presents to her. It may enable her to avoid harm if the risk she fears materializes -- if he attempts to harm her -- but it also may not.

And quite seriously: if she feels that strongly about eliminating risk to the children she teaches, she should remove herself from the classroom.

And where I'm at, her union would be demanding paid leave while the danger persisted ...

[northzax]

85. ahh, perhaps

do you have stats on what percentage of CCW's guns are used against themselves or third parties?

[Recursion]

232. CCW holders have a lower crime rate than law enforcement officers

And yet people don't seem to have a problem with armed cops in schools. Because the police are all Good People here to protect us.

Except when they shoot up a slumber party, I guess...

[riverdeep]

27. Guns were brought to schools in the past lots of times.

I know an older acquaintance that grew up in a rural area, and during hunting season, they would sometimes bring the rifles to school. He said he remembers sitting with the principal many times and talking about how the season was going and his gun. They both had one. And no one got shot. There would be fights in school sometimes, but no one reached for the gun, it was unthinkable.

I know that's not the world today, but it's not the gun in itself that made it so. If she's trained, let her have it.

[Xithras]

215. Yep, my school had a shooting class and hunting club.

Including a rifle range on campus. The school had a couple of rifles on campus for student use, but most simply brought their own or their parents rifles. It wasn't seen as a big deal, and the idea of actually shooting someone never even came up.

Different era, I guess.

[rug]

28. Arm the teachers. No Body Left Behind.

[zanne]

37. ROFL! nt

[no_hypocrisy]

36. I believe this teacher is not thinking of some imperative variables:

such as the kids. Worst case scenario: Her ex-husband gets into the school building and makes his way to her classroom. He won't leave. He is armed with a weaon. He verbally threatens to kill her or one of her students. She has her gun in her purse or her drawer. Now what?

The kids freak out. Can it realistically be expected that they will sit in their seats, frozen in fear or will at least one jump up, run for the door, charge the ex-husband, throw something at him, etc.? She can't protect herself and her students if the environment is based on actions that can't be controlled or predicted. This SWAT Team stance only works on TV or in the movies.

No, she has to find another way to be in the classroom, or if she has to have a gun, then to get another job.

[Phillycat]

39. So, let's think this through.

Let's say the teacher wins her battle and gets to carry her gun to school. What happens then? The ex husband shows up (let's assume armed, or why else would she need a gun?) and what? They have a gun battle right there in the classroom? Bullets whizzing by the kids' heads? How is this anything but a supremely stupid idea?

[michreject]

43. Using your scenario

What would happen if only the enraged husband were armed. The kiddies could witness a murder/suicide. If I were the teacher and it came down to that, I would want to go out fighting, not on my knees begging.

[mvccd1000]

46. I agree - if she KNOWS she's in danger, why put the kids in danger?

That part I agree with.

I just can't agree with telling a person that it is perfectly legal for them to carry a gun into a bank, a restaurant, a national forest, or anywhere else about their daily business, and then pretend that that person suddenly becomes a menace once they set foot in a school building.

That is simply a ridiculous argument.

[slackmaster]

50. You're right, the school should pre-emptively fire her

Whether she has a gun or not, her status as a target could result in some innocent kids getting hurt.

[Hangingon]

67. Fire a teacher because she has a nut ex-husband?

What is NEA going to say about that? How about tenure? I can see law suits about that dismissal.

[slackmaster]

79. It's for the safety of the children

Why do you want innocent kids to die? Are you that afraid of a labor union?

[Hangingon]

121. Gee, I thought labor unions were supposed to help their members

Guess I was wrong - not that I have seen it happy all that much. No, I am not afraid of unions misguided and corrupt as most are. This woman is not dangerous in herself. She has a problem with an ex-spouse she fears. I certainly would expect the union (and the school0 to work towards an accomodation for her security. Guards more closely watching her classroom, increased security for people entering the school, posting a picture of the spouse at the office where he would be seen entering and a panic button pressed, and escorting her to and from her vehicle on school grounds - where her weapon may be kept. Some simple thought would keep this woman off welfare. What would her next job application list as a reason for leaving her last job? "Terminated because her ex-spouse made her a danger to her students"? That should ensure she gets another job, shouldn't it? There is a lot that could be done before the woman has to carry a weapon into a school room, but if her safety depends on the weapon, then she should be allowed to carry. And no innocent kids have to die.

[slackmaster]

175. How about the NEA providing a bodyguard for her?

That would take care of the problem.

[Hangingon]

So, the teacher can't carry but you have no problem

with an armed third party in the school. Okay. Is the guard's primary responsibility to guard her or the school. Wonder how the locals would feel about it. I can imagine how NEA would feel about it. I'll bet NEA could contract with Blackwater - those guys are good at private protection.

[slackmaster]

201. Did I say the bodyguard had to be armed?

:crazy:

I was thinking of a big burly guy who would throw his body between the teacher and whatever might be threatening her. Someone to take the bullet for her, if her assailant was armed with a gun.

Do you like that idea? What would YOU propose to handle this situation?

[Hangingon]

208. I gave my proposals and your answer was union action (>).

I don't think much of the idea of an unarmed guard. Sounds like recruiting would be difficult. So, the unarmed guard takes a bullet for the teacher. I guess then she takes a bullet for herself. That would make two dead. Yep, great idea.

[Hangingon]

194. So, the teacher can't carry but you have no problem

with an armed third party in the school. Okay. Is the guard's primary responsibility to guard her or the school. Wonder how the locals would feel about it. I can imagine how NEA would feel about it. I'll bet NEA could contract with Blackwater - those guys are good at private protection.

[Kingshakabobo]

52. I found this interesting animation at wikipedia. It shows the progression of CCW states:

[mvccd1000]

55. That's interesting info. What a jump in 1995. Was it because...

... of backlash over the Brady Bill and the Assault weapons ban?

[MadHound]

60. No, what is propelling the CCW movement is money, plain, pure and simple

During the late ninties, the NRA with their massive lobbying machine, came into my state of Missouri, and tried to shove a CCW through our Congress. They succeeded, but the late governor Carnahan vetoed it. So in an unprecedented move, this massive lobbying coalition got enough signatures to put the CCW issue on the ballot, and leave it to the will of the people. Well, despite the massive amount of money spent, Prop B went down to defeat, and Missouri was still not a CCW state. The gun lobby then ran it through our Congress again, where it was vetoed by Gov. Holden, another Dem. So finally, the gun lobby helped back Matt Blunt, he got into office in '04 along with a 'Pug majority in Congress, and this time CCW was rammed through and signed, all in direct contradiction to the will of the people.

What I find greatly amusing is that the numbers who actually use this are very slight, much fewer than the gun lobby predicted. But it still burns me that these gun nuts will fly directly in the face of the people's will in order to secure their precious, precious guns. These people aren't democratic, their authoritarian assholes.

[Hangingon]

71. I am not convinced that the people don't want this.

Every time I read one of these responses, I see why I keep
losing arguments with friends - even those wh don't consider
guns the central point of their lives - that Democrats cannot
be trusted on this issue.  It is why the NRA gets donations. 
It amuses me that the people who so oppose others right to
carry a weapon legally are so disappoiinted that the CCW/CHL
laws have not resulted in their predicted shootouts on the
streets.  

[MadHound]

80. Well, a few facts first

If you are worried about the ramifications to the party over this issue, remember that actually the Democratic party has consistently and solidly held up the second amendment. Secondly, the reason that the NRA gets donations is because it whips up panic and fear much the way Rush and other propagandists do. It invents some story of dubious fact, and uses to show how the evil liberals will take their guns. This started long ago, with the concept that guns must be regulated. The NRA has managed to confound these two concepts, regulation and banning, to such a point that many Americans see the one and think of the other. Third, quite frankly I'm not afraid of a person carrying a gun. I find the argument of those in favor of CCW rather amusing, that they want to make would be criminals think twice before attacking. Well hell, if that's the case, simply strap that S&W right out there on your hip, and I guarantee you that nobody will mess with you. Instead however, they want to be chickenshit about it, hiding their guns, using stealth and subterfuge to gain their end. Like I said, chickenshits all. Finally, there actually have been an increase in shootings initiated by people with CCW permits. We've had a number of such cases here in Missouri over the past few years, and I distinctly remember a case of a bar brawl that escalated to a shooting simply due to the fact that all of the participants were carrying concealed.

As far as people not wanting this, well one has but to look at the tactics of the NRA. Up until the Missouri case, the NRA had never pushed for a public vote on the matter, because poll data told them that they would most likely lose. Missouri was an unprecedented test case for the NRA, since we are, in general, a rather conservative and pro-gun state. However despite their deep pockets and professional political machine, CCW lost in the general election. Granted, it was close, but it was still a loss. The NRA hasn't submitted CCW laws to a vote of the public since. Instead, they keep subverting democracy and the will of the people by buying off legislators and ramming CCW laws through the legislature. A foul, underhanded tactic IMO, but hey, it is the NRA.

[slackmaster]

81. Anyone who forces their will on me, preventing me from getting a permit when I need one

Is the real authoritarian asshole.

[MadHound]

82. So in other words, you are in favor of minority rule

If the majority of a state's population has unequivocally stated that they don't want CCW permits issued, then they are all asshole authoritarians and such laws should be circumvented? Is this what you're proposing, tyranny of the minority?

If so, no wonder you feel the need to have a gun around at all times.

[slackmaster]

83. I oppose oppression of minorities by majorities

If the majority of a state's population has unequivocally stated that they don't want CCW permits issued, then they are all asshole authoritarians and such laws should be circumvented?

Yes, I feel exactly the same way about it as I do about same-sex marriage. About 2/3 of the population opposed it here in California when the issue was last put to a vote. They're wrong.

If so, no wonder you feel the need to have a gun around at all times.

That is a Straw Man. I do not now, nor have I ever, carried a gun for self-defense in populated areas. But people with concealed weapons permits aren't putting you or your loved ones in any danger. Your only reason to oppose the issuance of permits is a desire to control others.

[mvccd1000]

87. Excellent summary. nt

[MadHound]

89. LOL, now that's a fucking classic friend.

Comparing the inability of po' widdle gun owners to carry hidden guns on them to the plight of the LGBT community:rofl: I would say that's a bit more than a stretch, that's a downright whopper.

Let me make this perfectly clear for you. One involves the recognition of the basic human rights of two citizens in this country, the other involves the regulation of a deadly weapon. Get the difference?

But your honesty is refreshing. At least you're flat out admitting that you think it is OK for lobbyists to circumvent the will of the people. Gee, and you call yourself D(d)emocratic? Sounds more like dictatorial to me.

So let me ask you this. If a state had voted down having a lottery in their state, you would be in favor of circumventing that too, because that po' widdle pro lottery minority is being oppressed? See where your line of reasoning can go? It can be used to justify damn near anything.

Sorry slack, but your authoritarian attitude, and your desire to circumvent the will of the people, has take this discussion out of the realm of reality and straight into a fascist nightmare, where all is allowed to those po' widdle oppressed minorities:eyes:

One last question. How the hell do you equate not being able to conceal carry with being oppressed? How do those two even fit in the same ballpark? African Americans were, and are, oppressed. Wayne La Pier and Chuck Heston aren't oppressed, they just can't carry concealed in certain states. You cheapen the very meaning of the word with your usage. Besides, you can always strap that shooting iron onto your hip and carry it in plain view. But noooooo, there's a certain, small minority who want to use subterfuge and be sneaky, carrying a gun that nobody knows about. Gee, how courageous and noble is that:puke:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one slack, for your position is so far out there that it is in orbit. The fact that you are willing to subvert the will of the people on this issue truly boggles the mind.

[mvccd1000]

99. What is your fear of concealed carry, and why do you say "a small minority?"

According to the Michigan State Police website, just under 200,000 Michigan residents applied for CCW permits in the first four years after the law was passed. Another entire year has passed, but the report is not out yet; June 2006 is the latest data available. If the same average of 50,000 people applied during the last year, then we're at 250,000 people in the first five years.

Arizona has nearly 90,000 permit holders with a population about half that size, but our gun laws are a lot better. People don't need to get a CCW just to carry in their own car or other places that some states restrict. I would suspect that's one reason so many people in Michigan have applied. Sure, you can open carry. UNTIL you get in your car. Then you have to take it off, unload it, and lock it in the trunk. Then, when you get out of your car, you have to get it out of the trunk, load it, and re-holster it.

Easier just to get a piece of paper that lets you go about your business.

[MadHound]

105. Reading a lot into what's not there

First of all, I have no fear of concealed carry. Frankly I think that it is a stupid method of overcompensation for a minority of people who have some severe fear issues themselves. I also find such people to be rather authoritarian and underhanded. But what really chafes my chaps is when CCW gets foisted upon a state against the express will of the people. That is what happened in my state, in a documented form, and what I fear happens in many other states in a not so documented form. Tyranny of the minority, or in other words, fascism.

Secondly, the reason that I use the term "small minority" is because that it is just that, a small minority. Twenty percent of the population owns at least one gun. Most of those are long rifles. Most who own a gun therefore have no want or need for conceal carry. Therefore those that want conceal carry are indeed a small minority.

And I'm sorry it would be such a damn inconvenience for you to open carry, but hey, when you're dealing with a deadly weapon, that's the measures you take:shrug: If you don't want the hassle, hey, do like the overwhelming majority of Americans in this country do, don't carry a gun. But no, instead we're supposed to submit to the tyranny of the minority and allow chickenshits to secretly carry deadly weapons. Hmmm.

[Mojorabbit]

110. Good grief

As a woman, I love that I can carry mine. I know from experience that the police aren't going to be there when I need them. If you don't want to carry that is your choice, but I would like to retain my options.

[MadHound]

115. So you are willing to usurp majority rule all so you can carry your precious gun concealed

Geez, no wonder this country's drifting quickly towards fascism, its citizens like to practice it themselves:eyes:

[Mojorabbit]

151. I believe that I have the

right under the constitution to own a weapon and yes, my safety is worth more to me than your fear of weapons. I was attacked once and I am sure like when it happened and no one was around you won't be there to save me either if it ever happens again. I am more than happy to take my own safety into my own hands.

[MadHound]

185. Much assuming about nothing there

You assume that I fear weapons. Interesting that you assume that, since I own weapons, including three shotguns(which are, after all, the best weapon for home defense according to the NRA) and a nice family muzzleloading heirloom piece from Stone Hill. I have a farm, hunt, like to shoot skeet, and yes, really, really have a fear of weapons(do I really need to put a sarcasm icon here, or are you getting the picture).

Your second assumption is that by wishing to regulate firearms in this country(joining a nice large majority of both gunowners and NRA members, according to the NRA) that somehow I am against gun ownership. Again, why would I wish to give up something that I find both useful and fun:shrug:

What I am for is keeping guns out of locations where there it has been clearly expressed that guns are welcome, whether that be a private residence, private businesses, or various security conscience facilities, including schools. Yes, there is a right to keep and bear guns in this country, there is also the right to say that they stay outside if I have authority over any given location.

I also believe in the rule of the majority in this country, you know, how it works according to that pesky little document called the Constitution. It is wrong to circumvent the will of the people, declared in a free and fair election, all so that a distinct minority of people can get their own way. We whine and moan up and down these boards over the tyranny of the minority as exhibited in our current government, yet when it comes down to your issue, all the sudden it's OK to throw away our Constitution and a couple hundred years of legal precedence? Hypocritical much?

I understand your wish to protect yourself, and you have that right. However you don't have the right to trample over the rights of your fellow citizens in order to exercise your right.

[Mojorabbit]

189. I'll say again

I will not be attacked on the street again undefended even if I have to do it illegally. I don't think carrying a shotgun around is practical. I refuse to be victumized again. I will carry.

[MadHound]

191. Then you and I have to part company

For if you are willing to carry illegally, then I have no respect for you. And frankly, if you came into my school carrying illegally, I would bust you straight into jail. As I said earlier, you have the right to own and the right to carry where legal. But that right ends at the door of a school, my house, or any other place that doesn't want a gun brought in. If you can't abide by those rules, then you are not a good gun owner(you know, one of the ones who give the rest of us a bad name) nor a good citizen(you know, one of the ones who give Americans the reputation of being out of control cowboys). You accused me earlier of being in fear of guns, I would have to say that you are exhibiting a fear of life, and that you are allowing that fear to rule you, to the point of becoming a serious detriment. Perhaps you need to deal with that fear before it gets the better of you. Peace:hi:

[slackmaster]

182. Equal protection and allowing people to exercise personal liberty = Fascism?

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

119. I consider self-defense to be a basic human right

Comparing the inability of po' widdle gun owners to carry hidden guns on them to the plight of the LGBT community I would say that's a bit more than a stretch, that's a downright whopper.

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

At least you're flat out admitting that you think it is OK for lobbyists to circumvent the will of the people.

Sometimes the will of the (majority of the) people is wrong, and needs to be circumvented in order to prevent an injustice.

Gee, and you call yourself D(d)emocratic? Sounds more like dictatorial to me.

I'm not advocating forcing you to carry a gun or even to allow them in your home, MadHound. I'm advocating for the right of people who have proved their qualifications, to choose to carry an effective means of self-defense, in a highly regulated manner BTW.

If a state had voted down having a lottery in their state, you would be in favor of circumventing that too, because that po' widdle pro lottery minority is being oppressed?

Comparing a state-run lottery to private gambling is apples to oranges, but I do believe people have a right to gamble if that so suits them.

Sorry slack, but your authoritarian attitude, and your desire to circumvent the will of the people, has take this discussion out of the realm of reality and straight into a fascist nightmare, where all is allowed to those po' widdle oppressed minorities...

Appeal to scorn is another logical fallacy, and there is nothing authoritarian about putting individual liberty ahead of the will of a misinformed, misguided majority.

One last question. How the hell do you equate not being able to conceal carry with being oppressed?

Since people are not all physically equal, the ability to carry a firearm allows the weak, old, infirm, small, meek, female, etc. to be able to defend themselves effectively against more aggressive, stronger people.

Someone who is being stalked by an estranged ex-spouse is most certainly oppressed.

[MadHound]

127. You have every right to self defense, but that is within certain boundaries

If you are worried about getting your ass kicked, then carry that sucker right out in the open, it has a lot more value as a deterrent out in the open than in your pocket.

And sorry, but no matter how much you protest, CCW isn't a right, and not allowing CCW isn't an injustice. Your excess hyperbole on this is why I'm being so scornful. The fact that you are willing to usurp the will of the majority just so you can have your concealed gun is utterly absurd.

Sorry, but you have stretched your argument beyond the reasonable into the absurd. It deserves every response of scorn and derision that it gets. It says a lot about a person when they wish to impose tyranny for their own pet concerns.

[slackmaster]

131. Open carry can be provocative

Some people are out looking for a fight.

And what is more likely to be stolen, a concealed gun or one carried openly?

And sorry, but no matter how much you protest, CCW isn't a right...

Is too. There, it's degraded into a religious discussion. Are you happy now?

... and not allowing CCW isn't an injustice...

It is an injustice when the regulation of the right to carry is not applied equitably to all qualified citizeins.

It says a lot about a person when they wish to impose tyranny for their own pet concerns.

I believe your irrational fear of qualified people carrying concealed weapons has blinded you to the inherently authoritarian nature of your position.

[MadHound]

136. Then you fuckng deal with what life gives you

You don't usurp the will of the majority in order to quell your own irrational fears. You either carry open, or don't carry at all.

And it is laughable that you think that I've an irrational fear of CCW. Like I've stated before, many times in this thread, is that it pisses me off that the will of the majority is being subjected to the tyranny of the minority. You know, we've already had enough of that in this country, but when it comes to guns, there are a certain number of people ready to strap on their jackboots and jump right in. Congratulations, your position puts you in such good company as Bush, Hitler and Stalin, good authoritarians all who loved to impose the tyranny of the minority.

It isn't surprising that you're degenerating this down into some sort of "religious discussion" Your mindset on this issue certainly exhibits that sort of twist.

[slackmaster]

138. Dog eat dog, eh MadHound?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

130. the old tricks

If a state had voted down having a lottery in their state, you would be in favor of circumventing that too, because that po' widdle pro lottery minority is being oppressed?
Comparing a state-run lottery to private gambling is apples to oranges ...

If only anyone had done that, eh? You might not have wasted your time and the bandwidth.

This one is particularly curious, since no one had even *mentioned* private gambling. Didn't you mean to say: Comparing a state-run lottery to permitting the toting around of guns in public?


Since people are not all physically equal, the ability to carry a firearm allows the weak, old, infirm, small, meek, female, etc. to be able to defend themselves effectively against more aggressive, stronger people.
Someone who is being stalked by an estranged ex-spouse is most certainly oppressed.

So then, how about concealed carry permits for people who are able to demonstrate that they are at special risk? That's all your argument leads to.

Your argument does not lead to the conclusion that anybody who wants to tote a firearm around in public should be permitted to. People do not become members of an "oppressed" group by virtue of the fact that they want to do something that the law prohibits them from doing.

Gay men and lesbians are not oppressed by virtue of the fact that there are laws prohibiting them from marrying the partner of their choice. They are oppressed as an historical fact, as members of a group that has historically suffered stereotyping leading to unequal opportunity, has suffered targeted violence and has been the object of incitements to hatred. Laws that prohibit them from marrying are manifestations of that oppression, not the factor that defines them as an oppressed group.

Your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with any oppressed minority, and if you'd put your thinking cap on you'd understand this. Or if you'd drop the disingenuousness, you'd acknowledge it. I won't suggest which you should do; your argument is bullshit however you came to make it.

Your argument is based on the fundamental right to life, of which self-defence is an exercise. Toting a firearm around in public simply is not self-defence. It is toting a firearm around in public. Using force to avert an attempt to cause one injury or death is self-defence.

You claim that certain people or classes of people are more vulnerable to dangers to their life than others. You should therefore define those classes of people and recommend measures to reduce their risk.

You could argue that laws prohibiting the toting around of firearms in public create adverse-effect discrimination, by leaving some classes of people more vulnerable to injury or death than others, e.g. by virtue of age or sex. You would be wanting some actual facts to back this claim up.

And you would be needing to establish that the interests of those people, once you had established their interest in being permitted to tote firearms around in public, outweighed the public interest in firearms not being toted around in public.

But you really, really, really cannot claim that someone's desire to tote a firearm around in public defines him/her as a member of an oppressed class when s/he is prevented by law from doing so. Really.

[slackmaster]

137. Your post lacks any rational basis for denying licensed concealed carry

So it's irrelevant.

[iverglas]

155. oddly enough ...

Your post lacks any rational basis for denying licensed concealed carry

... my post also lacked a recipe for onion soup.

Your posts, of course, lack any rational basis for claiming persecution as an oppressed minority.

The evidence and argument establishing which my post did contain.

[michreject]

161. Here

http://southernfood.about.com/od/crockpotsoup/r/bl50c5.htm

[krispos42]

255. What plight of the LBGT community?

All the majority of people are saying is that they can't get a marriage permit! They can still live their lives unfettered. They can live together, they can be together in public, they can have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness together. They can adopt each other's children, and jointly own property.

So, what's the big deal?

:shrug:







And yes, that's sarcasm.



What slackmaster is referring to, and to which you are most likely deliberately misinterpreting, is that the fact that the the majority of people supporting a law is irrelevent in and of itself.

Irrelevent.

The fact that the majority of people in a given state don't want gays to be married is irrelevent because a homosexual has the inheirent Constitutional right to be treated the same with respect to marriage and other issues.

The fact that a majority of people in a given state don't want abortion is irrelevent because a woman has the inheirent Constitutional right to that choice.

The fact that a majority of people in a given state think that people that are 1/8th or more of African decent are slaves and property, not citizens, is irrelevent because the Constitttion recognizes and protects the rights of all people.

The fact that a majority of people in a given state actively want Christianity in public schools is irrelevent because the Constitution prohibits a state religion.


Any law that is proposed must have all of its aspects scruitized for Constitutional compliance. And that includes "the regulation of a deadly weapon".

There does not seem to be any issue of Constitutional compliance with regards to this woman being able to legally carry concealed, in that it is recognized that the states have the right to regulate the public presence of firearms.

So let me ask you this. If a state had voted down having a lottery in their state, you would be in favor of circumventing that too, because that po' widdle pro lottery minority is being oppressed? See where your line of reasoning can go? It can be used to justify damn near anything.

Wow. Here, lemme help you out with that...

http://www1.istockphoto.com.nyud.net:8090/file_thumbview_approve/2098842/2/istockphoto_2098842_straw_pitchfork.jpg

[MadHound]

259. Wow, do you actually read for comprehension, or just for getting in the quick snark?

If you will notice, slack was in favor of overturning bans on CCW laws, even though these had been voted in by the majority of voters. In fact he was comparing it to same-sex marriage laws, and how those should be those should be overturned.

I was pointing out to him that one, the same sex marriage laws, deals with the civil rights of minorities, the other one simply involves the regulation of an inanimate object, a tool(albeit a potentially deadly tool). This isn't a Constitutional issue, for while the Constitution does provide the right for you to keep and bear arms, it also notes that this is to be done by a well regulated militia. Thus, provision for gun laws is in the Constitution. You don't have an inherent right to conceal carry. You have the right to own a gun, keep it in your house, and at least in most states, you have the right to carry it out in the open, strapped to your hip. That's it, the rest of gun law falls under that "well regulated" clause. CCW is such a regulation, and if the people don't want it, then the minority party doesn't have the right to disobey the law. It isn't a minority issue, it isn't a civil rights issue, it isn't a Constitutional issue. It is a matter of law.

I would suggest that you go back and retake Civics 101, and perhaps a Constitutional law class. You seem to be more than a bit confused.

[krispos42]

261. I like looking at the pretty shapes

And pictures. That whole reading thing is just sooooo overrated...

:-)


The Missouri CCW law was legitimately passed by the duly-elected representatives of the voters. You admitted it in post #60. And lobbying is, for good or for bad, constitutionally-protected free speech. I'm sure the Brady Campaign spent plenty of money in Missouri as well. They lost.

It was in Missouri, recently, I believe (I may have the wrong state) that recently passed laws that would in effect shut down the abortion clinics in the state because the Republicans rammed through standards that make abortion clinics meet the same medical standards as a hospital. I understand it's on hold due to a judge's order, but the fact is, it became law.

Civics 101 and Constitutional law.

And I'm not an NRA supporter, either. Both the NRA and the Brady Campaign use incredible amounts of disinformation, paranoia, and hyperbole. I think that the NRA is generally right in what particular points of law they want passed, but I think the way they go about it is really shitty and demeaning. Those 'surveys' they and other pro-gun organizations put out are insultingly simplistic and biased. I enjoy putting them through my shredder. :-)



The milita argument... he he he, that's a good one to debate about.

You have the right to own a gun, keep it in your house, and at least in most states, you have the right to carry it out in the open, strapped to your hip. That's it, the rest of gun law falls under that "well regulated" clause. CCW is such a regulation, and if the people don't want it, then the minority party doesn't have the right to disobey the law. It isn't a minority issue, it isn't a civil rights issue, it isn't a Constitutional issue. It is a matter of law.

In this case, "well-regulated" means something else that what you state here. Nonetheless, you're essentially right. It is not a civil rights issue, nor a Constutional issue, it's a matter of regulation.

And slackmaster was in favor of overturning such prohibitions. Not through the courts, but by changing the law via the conventional legislative process, even if it surveys indicate it's against the will of the people.

Because, frankly, the will of the people is sometimes badly misinformed. Exhibit A: "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" debate. Exhibit B: 50% or so of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

The same media that we ridicule routinely is in charge of educating the public on gun laws and policies. So you can imagine how well THAT goes...

:eyes:

Read some of the predictions from the anti-gun website "gunguys.com" about Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law that passed a couple of years ago. If you can find them, they made some super-neat postcards, too.

[Irreverend IX]

112. Democracy isn't purely a numbers game.

Say you have a vote due on a controversial issue. Ten people support one side and a hundred people support the other, but the ten are passionate and devote lots of time to furthering their cause while the hundred are lukewarm in their advocacy. In a case like this, the ten will usually beat the hundred.

Also, I think it's amusing when you say that the "gun lobby" were the ones overriding the will of the people when CCW in Missouri was vetoed by the governor. The NRA is the very definition of a grassroots organization, since nearly all of their support comes from their 4 million dues-paying members. The gun industry is small and weak compared to most US industrial sectors (all US gun-related businesses combined make only $2 billion a year), so most financial support for the RKBA comes from gun owners.

[iverglas]

118. try again

The NRA is a voluntary association of individuals with shared interests. It is tax-exempt and therefore is not permitted to engage in political lobbying, I assume:

http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/Report.aspx?CharityID=1420

Tax Status

The NRA is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions and membership dues are not deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.

The NRA-ILA -- the NRA Institute for Legislative Action -- is a political lobbying organization and is a separate entity from the National Rifle Association.

It is the NRA-ILA that conducts the activities that have been referred to here.

Members of the NRA have nothing to do with the NRA-ILA unless they choose to associate themselves with it, e.g. by donating money to it.

So when you say:

Also, I think it's amusing when you say that the "gun lobby" were the ones overriding the will of the people when CCW in Missouri was vetoed by the governor. The NRA is the very definition of a grassroots organization, since nearly all of their support comes from their 4 million dues-paying members.

you have put together a fine basket of fruit, but said nothing to refute the claim that the "gun lobby" has been a driving force behind legislation that is plainly contrary to the wishes of the majority in several jurisdictions. Members of the NRA are not part of "the gun lobby" unless they choose to be in some other way, and very many of them do not.

MadHound did use the common shorthand "NRA" to refer to that lobby. You, of course, are quite aware that the NRA itself does not engage in these activities, and so I find your response disingenuous.

[MadHound]

122. Oh, so democracy is rule of the loudest now?

Geez friend, if that were the case we would be out of the Iraq war by now, given how loud the anti-war people have been.

Go back and study high school civics pal, then get back to me. You obviously didn't pass it the first time around.

Oh, and the NRA isn't just some small, innocent "grassroots organization" If you believe that, I've got lots of infrastructure and prime real estate to sell you. And yes, NRA is indeed part of the gun lobby, in fact it is the major lobbyist. This has long been recognized, and the fact that you're trying to split this hair only goes to show how desperate you are.

[Irreverend IX]

156. It always has been rule of the loudest.

Unfortunately, the money from the oil companies and the neocons speaks much more loudly than anti-war protests.

The NRA (and by that I mean the NRA-ILA, as nitpicked by Iverglas) is indeed the major pro-RKBA lobby, but the term "gun lobby" suggests that the gun industry is involved. In fact, the gun industry's contributions to RKBA lobbying are minor, and the industry lobby is separate from the NRA-ILA. The gun industry makes $2 billion a year, while McDonalds alone makes $12 billion, and let's not even get into the wealth of the petrochemical and pharma industries. Gun manufacturing requires massive overhead costs, highly trained and specialized workers and is subject to many restrictions. Unlike most products, guns have no planned obsolescence, since you can't cut corners when making a device that contains an explosion. There are only two publicly traded firearm companies: Ruger and Smith & Wesson, the latter of which is bounced between foreign holding companies like a football.

These are not signs of an influential industry. So can you explain where the pro-rights lobby gets its power if not from the grassroots?

[cgrindley]

59. Teachers with CCW permits should carry guns to school

I'd safe knowing that some of my kids' teachers were carrying.

[MadHound]

63. And let's see here, what could happen, what could happen

:think:

Oh, yeah, some crazed, desperate kid could get ahold of one of those guns, and turn it on the rest of the school. Not good, not good at all. Thus, this means that those who carry will actually have to lock them up in some sort of secure place, probably the front office in order to be accountable. Well gee, in those very rare instances when the fecal material hits the whirling blades, those guns will be unaccesible. In addition, if you've been around any children of any age, you'll know that if they're determined enough, they will and can get into anything, including a gun safe in the front office.

If you want to feel safer, promote justice, social harmony, an end to poverty and other forces that force people over the edge into using a gun. I know, I know, that takes real work, and isn't as soul satisfying as the quick fix take a gun to school scenario.

[northzax]

78. anyone who thinks is can be in her purse or bag isn't thinking

it has to be straight up on her person at all times. and then why bother concealing it? open carry the f%^$ker already. this is the problem with CCW laws, they allow cowards to hold onto their guns and secretly caress them, without allowing others the chance to know they are there. If I am in a room with a gun, I want to know about it, I think I have a right to know if I am in a room with a potentially deadly weapon. The deterrent effect comes from the presence of the weapon, right? so if people think carrying a firearm in public is acceptable, I think that open carry is the only reasonable compromise. if I am in a room with a police officer in uniform, or wearing a badge, I can either see the weapon or assume it is there because of the badge. but either way, I deserve to know. So carry your gun on your hip, if it makes you more of a man, but don't do it secretly, that's for cowards, cheap shot artists and psychos.

[michreject]

98. You don't know the half of it

If I am in a room with a gun, I want to know about it, I think I have a right to know if I am in a room with a potentially deadly weapon.

I'd say you have been in a room with guns present. Further more I would say you had a muzzle pointed at you and not know it. 99% of all shoulder holsters have the muzzle in a horizontal position not vertical. I wear a shoulder holster under my dress shirt. No one ever knows it's there.

[northzax]

103. and not known it is the point, isn't it?

I mean I have probably had sex with someone at risk for an STD and not known about it, and no one would think that was ok, right? so carry your gun out in the open, why do you feel ashamed of it and have to hide it? it's a tool, right? no one hides their hammer under their coat unless they are up to no good, why hide a gun?

[michreject]

108. Don't want to scare the kiddies

And those with an irrational fear of "Tools."

[northzax]

164. No fear of tools

Just of those who get off concealing them on their person. And why would a 'tool' scare the kiddies? Would they be scared if their art teacher carried around a paintbrush?Or their shop teacher a power drill? Or only if those teachers felt the need to hide those tools from everyone else? Seriously, what's wrong with open carry?

[michreject]

172. This is what's wrong

what's wrong with open carry?

You become a primary target by the bad guys and lose the element of surprise.

[Paladin]

176. Anyone Who Can't Be Satisfied With Concealed Carry.....

...., anyone who advocates the open, civilian display of firearms in public, has left any notion of justified self-defense usage behind, and has sunk to the level of rank, bullying intimidation, and to the active courting of violent conflict, pure and simple. Nobody exhibiting those sorts of ugly character traits should be trusted with guns, period.

And let's get away from the ridiculous notion that guns are just ordinary tools, OK? Next time somebody slaughters a bunch of kids with a paintbrush or a power drill, give it another try.....

[northzax]

184. This is interesting

Public weapons, ones everyone can see, are uncivilized, but secret weapons aren't? I thought the point was deterrance, that a potential criminal doesn't know if the potential victim is carrying a gun? So what's wrong with straight deterrence? Why, in your world, are publically displayed firearms about 'bullying' and secret firearms about pure defense? Surely, if someone won't attack me because he thinks i might have a gun thenhe really won't attack me if he knows i have a gun.

open societies don't have such secretas, If guns reduce crime, let's have people carry them openly, there is no shame, right? And sure, you can bully someone with a gun, unless they have one too. I really don't see the difference, unless people get off on the secret? You don't want the element of suprise, do you? You want to not be attacked in the first place, isn't that better? I mean, a place like Baghdad, where veryone has an assault rifle is one of the safest places in the world, right? You know force will be met by force, so you don't attack. Brilliant.

[Paladin]

225. A Couple Of Points

1. I think it's extremely telling that none of your fellow DU gun obsessives have come over to support your nasty little O.K. Corral scenario. And I also think it's telling that virtually all of the states that have dealt with this issue have opted for concealed carry, rather than the sort of open carry free-for-all you're advocating here.

2. "I mean, a place like Baghdad, where veryone has an assault rifle is one of the safest places in the world, right?" Jesus H. Christ. Tell you what I'm going to do---I'm going to send that quote to my military and diplomatic acquaintances who are currently stationed in the charming, attack-free city of Baghdad, just to give them a good laugh, bitter though that laughter may be.

[iverglas]

258. oops -- post 257 was meant for you! n/t

[iverglas]

257. I'm thinking we may have a failure to communicate here

I'm thinking that northzax is making the same kind of argument as "arming 9-yr-olds would stop school shootings". Argumentum ad absurdem, and all that.

If I'm right, the approach is admittedly a tad opaque. If I'm not right, I don't really know what's up. ;)

[Phillycat]

209. A Bic pen is a potentially deadly weapon.

Didn't you see the Bourne Identity?

Do you insist all people show you their pens when you enter a room?

[riverdeep]

187. What do we do in the meantime?

What do people do until this magical day when there is no poverty (a condition that's existed since we moved past hunter-gatherer societies). It doesn't seem this guy threatening her has poverty issues anyway, but control issues. There ARE people working to end injustice, and promote social harmony, some of them dedicate their lives to it, but it isn't here yet. You're giving directions on a map that hasn't yet been drawn.

Wouldn't it make sense to do both? Promote those things that are beneficial for overall while understanding you have to deal with an imperfect world?

[MadHound]

241. The thing is, allowing concealed carry is not beneficial for overall

In fact CCW isn't beneficial for anyone, nor any situation, and especially in a school. Do you really want a fire fight in a class full of kids? Gee, the teacher successfully defended herself, but killed a few kiddies in the process. Do you really want to be the one explaining that to the parents? Frankly, that is the ultimate scenario that this teacher is involved in, confronting her abusive ex in her classroom, and opening fire. Frankly, that sort of attitude of putting herself first in such a situation disqualifies her from being a teacher in my eyes. She isn't putting the welfare of her children first, in fact she's willing to sacrifice a few kiddies for her own well being.

Sorry, but that's just wrong.

[aikoaiko]

62. Your subject line should be "Teacher wants to protect self from abusive husband while at work"

much better.

[WinkyDink]

70. She would NEVER have enough time to get a bead on him first.

This is an awful dilemma for her, but having a gun wouldn't help her.
Besides, he'd just wait for her in the parking lot.

[DemBones DemBones]

74. She is NOT stupid to want to protect herself.

If there is no security in her school, as there was not in schools I taught in, it is quite a dilemma.

Even with security, as was pointed out upthread, many security guards aren't paid enough to risk their lives against a gunman. Another poster said they have actual police in their schools, which is ideal in this crazy world.

I would guess she has moved so that he doesn't know where she lives, so the next logical step would be for her to transfer to another school so he won't know where she works. If she's in a town with only a couple of schools, that may not help, though. And if she moves out of state, or out of the system, she will lose her tenure and probably have to jump through a lot of hoops to be certified in another state.

Why do the bad guys always win?

[northzax]

84. no, but why does she have the right to put others at risk

especially children who cannot consent to being put at that risk, because it won't inconvenience her?

I would be willing to accept this, potentially, if she agreed to keep the weapon on her person at all times. not in a bag, but in a holster on her body, at all times, and accepted legal and financial responsiblity, through added insurance, should her gun be used, by anyone, to injure a student.
she wants to pack heat, let her pack heat. if it's 90 degrees, she still better be wearing a sweater or jacket to keep the gun concealed, it's not safe in a bag or her desk. on her person, at all times.

[slackmaster]

86. Licensed concealed weapons permit holders don't put others at risk

Historical evidence is on the side issuing permits based on objective criteria.

[northzax]

95. the presence of a firearm puts me at risk

otherwise, why would someone have the gun, if not to put someone else at risk to protect themselves? isn't that the point?

look at it purely mathematically. what are my chances of being shot in a room where there are no guns present? exactly zero, right? no guns, no one can shoot me. that is a zero risk. i can spend a million years, in a room with a million people who don't haev guns and no one will shoot anyone. right?

now what are my chances of being shot if you have a gun? slightly higher, maybe not much higher, but higher none the less, right? after all, if there is a gun in the room, the chance of someone being shot increases, even if it is an accidental shooting. and I am not aware of that increased risk, because your weapon is concealed.

let's take an anaolgy, and if you don't like it, tell me why. I am a smoker. My smoking increases your risk of lung cancer and emphysema, right? If I am smoking, you can see that I am smoking, and choose to either ask me to stop, or remove yourself from the risk. similarly, if you run a business, you can post a sign saying "no smoking" and I have to follow that sign, or be expelled. you can mitigate the risk to yourself, from my smoking, right? so why can't I similarly mitigate the risk from your gun? I don't even get to know if you are increasing my risk, because I can't see your gun from a distance. similarily, in most jurisdictions with CCW, I cannot ban you from carrying your gun in my business, even if I want to.

so why all the secrecy with the CCW? I support open carry, but not concealed carry. I want to know if my risk if being raised by the presence of guns, so that I can act appropriately. it's only fair. plus, it's better for you, right? if the idea behind CCWs is personal protection, having an open carry is even more protection! you can access the weapon faster, should you need to, and it's very presence should deter the types of crime we are concerned about, right? so why conceal them? can you expound on that?

[slackmaster]

120. It sounds like you are confusing your fear with actual risk

...look at it purely mathematically. what are my chances of being shot in a room where there are no guns present? exactly zero, right?

Illogical premise - Except for highly secure enviromnents like courthouses and airports, it is impossible to guarantee that there is no gun in the same room as you at any given time.

now what are my chances of being shot if you have a gun?

Zero.

let's take an anaolgy, and if you don't like it, tell me why. I am a smoker.

That's all I need to know about you. Nothing you say in this discussion could possibly matter.

:sarcasm:

I cannot ban you from carrying your gun in my business, even if I want to.

Sure you can - You can post a sign. I believe most states have statutes that make it a crime for a CCW licensee to violate a properly posted sign.

And how is someone with a permit LESS dangerous with a gun than someone without one? You certainly have no control over them, do you?

[Occulus]

123. I see Ignored is a busy beaver on this thread today

That dude sure does get around....

[slackmaster]

178. Spinning the advocation of equal protection as authoritarian strikes me as quite bizarre

As does equating the exercise of individual rights as Fascism.

At least he's consistently bass-ackwards.

[iverglas]

198. spinning equal protection to pretend it includes protection of whims

strikes me as a little beyond bizarre.

Here. Edumacate yourself.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):

A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy

3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens. (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")

If you see "people who feel like toting firearms around in public" in any of those classifications, let me know. The right to life should indeed be an "other right recognized as fundamental". Now you just have to establish that "wants to tote a firearm around in public and isn't allowed to" creates a classification that improperly burdens that right.

Or you could just abandon the hokey aggrieved-gun-guy whining about discrimination, and make a rational argument.

[slackmaster]

200. How is the desire of a stalking victim to carry a weapon for self-defense a "whim"?

:crazy:

[iverglas]

207. how is anyone's desire to do anything

the basis for forming a protected class that would trigger the equal protection provision of your constitution?

Why can't you address the issue?

So many questions ...

Since yours is heavily loaded with things I don't accept, I won't be answering it.

But just to ward off any wide-eyed expressions of failure to understand that statement, I'll explain.

How is the desire of a stalking victim to carry a weapon for self-defense a "whim"?

First, we assume that the statement of the person seeking permission to carry a concealed firearm, as to the reasons for her desire to do so, is accurate and complete. I'm not necessarily buying it.

Second, one can only do something "for self-defence" in a situation in which self-defence is necessary.

Self-defence is NOT necessary if one is not being, or about to be, assaulted.

One does NOT carry a weapon "for self-defence". One carries it because of one's belief that one may at some time in future be in a situation in which one is being or about to be assaulted, and that having a weapon on one's person will enable one to avert that assault.

A person who chooses to carry a weapon does so as preparation for self-defence, IF self-defence becomes necessary at some time in future. There is still no guarantee that the weapon will be usable or effective for the purpose of averting any assault that does occur.

Meanwhile, the person is carrying the weapon around, including in a classroom if this individual gets her way, in every situation that might arise in the course of his/her activities during a day.

If the person has occasion to use the weapon for self-defence, then s/he was carrying it for the purpose of defending him/herself against injury or death, I suppose.

If the person is assaulted and is unable to avert the assault, with the weapon or otherwise, and the weapon is taken from him/her and then used to kill him/her, then I suppose s/he was carrying it for the purpose of getting killed. If it is then used to hold up a liquor store, I suppose s/he was carrying it for the purpose of facilitating a robbery. If it is used to kill a bystander when the person attempts to use it against someone assaulting or about to assault him/her, I suppose s/he was carrying it for the purpose of committing homicide.

An individual's stated reasons for wishing to tote a firearm around are not predictive of the purposes for which the firearm will be used.

It MAY BE that the person will be in a situation where having access to a firearm will enable him/her to avert injury or death where s/he would not otherwise have been able to. It MAY ALSO BE that the person will be in a situatiom where having access to a firearm will enable that person or someone else to cause injury or death, or commit another crime, where s/he would not otherwise have been able to.

No one's stated reason for wanting to tote a firearm around precludes any of the other possible scenarios from materializing.

I may have a perfectly good reason for wanting to bring my dog into the grocery store, including protection against a stalker. That doesn't mean that there are not perfectly good reasons for prohibiting me from doing it -- in both cases, the reasons being based on predictions of what may happen if I do it, none of which will necessarily ever materialize.

There is no more reason to believe that the scenario imagined by the person who wants to tote the firearm will materialize than there is to believe that any of the other scenarios will materialize. And there is a very definite public interest, and many individual interests, in NOT permitting this particular individual to tote her firearm into a building full of children -- who are required by law to be there, where she is free to be somewhere else anytime she chooses.

[slackmaster]

210. Is there some minimum number of people required to qualify for equal protection?

Or how about regarding schoolteachers as a class?

Keep up the reason-o-babble, iverglas. It amuses me and seems to keep you busy.

[iverglas]

214. ah yes, schoolteachers

And historically disadvantaged, oppressed and hated class.

I think my amusement outstrips yours.


and I add: as, obviously, does my knowledge. Feel free to get some of your own though. I did offer you a link ...

[krispos42]

238. Do you live in a place with a staircase?

How about a pool?

Both of those increase your chances of death in your home.



What do you drive? Is it a Mercedes? If not, why not? How do you justify NOT driving a Mercedes when a Mercedes is demonstrably safer than other cars?

look at it purely mathematically. what are my chances of being shot in a room where there are no guns present? exactly zero, right? no guns, no one can shoot me. that is a zero risk. i can spend a million years, in a room with a million people who don't haev guns and no one will shoot anyone. right?

Here's the problem with this example. Your goal, if you're a sane person, is to not be killed in that room. Until and unless you can argue that the removal of the guns from this room affects the murder and violent crime rate, you're not really accomplishing anything.

The reason you're worring about the gun is not because the act of posessing a gun in and of itself is the problem. It's because the gun is commonly used as a means to an end that justifies control. In comparison, rape, murder, assault, and theft are all acts that inheirently violates the victim's rights.

If the state of Texas banned the ownership and use of black automobiles, I bet the number of people killed by black cars and SUVs would drop dramatically. However, if the governor and lawmakers in Texas bragged in the media about how they're "saving lives" and "making the streets and highways safer", you would scream at the TV "BULLSHIT!!!"

[zanne]

152. You mean like the sheriff's deputy who shot six people? nt

[slackmaster]

180. Interestingly enough, he didn't have a concealed carry permit

At age 20 he's too young to qualify for a permit, or even to buy a handgun (under federal and most state laws).

[zanne]

195. You guys just kill me.

He didn't have a permit for the handgun? What the hell difference does that make? I don't understand why you point out that people who go berserk and kill a bunch of people with a gun weren't following the state gun laws. WTF difference does that make? I don't know why you keep doing this. You might not be able to see it yourself, but to many of us, it's laughable. It's something like Condoleeza Rice saying "I don't recall". The flimsiest of excuses, but you always come up with one!
.:crazy:

[slackmaster]

199. My point is that it makes no difference

What was your point in bringing him into the discussion?

[Recursion]

233. Aren't you making the anti-gun-control point?

He didn't have a permit for the handgun? What the hell difference does that make? I don't understand why you point out that people who go berserk and kill a bunch of people with a gun weren't following the state gun laws.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

People who won't obey assault or murder laws also won't obey gun laws. This teacher's ex-husband, as adjudicated by a court, seems to pose a threat of breaking assault or murder laws. Declaring a school a "gun-free zone" won't prevent him from bringing a gun to that school, though it will prevent any law-abiding potential victim of his from doing so.

[zanne]

240. But wasn't he previously "law abiding"?

He was a deputy, for Chrissake. My point is that gun people seem to think that none of them will ever fly off the handle or go berserk, LEGALLY or ILLEGALLY, and shoot several people at once. And since criminals do have guns, as you say, gun regulations must be OPTIONAL or it wouldn't happen so often. While the NRA was busy putting Bush in the White House, the gun companies were busy lobbying for looser gun laws. Congratulations--you did it.

[DemBones DemBones]

96. Remember that her husband is the one putting children at risk if he

comes to the school. He could be a threat to people wherever she goes.

If she moved to another district or state, he might find her there, too.

He's the aggressor; she just wants to defend herself if necessary.


She should wear a shoulder holster and a jacket so the gun is concealed.

[northzax]

104. sure, he could be

but then we only have her word for that, right? she says she's afraid of him, fine, but if she thinks she is the impending victim of violence, what right has she to expose children to that? if she has a rational reason to believe he is a threat, then why hasn't she gotten a restraining order against him, posted his picture at ever door of the school saying "if you see this man, call the police" there are many ways to make a school safer without additional weapons, don't you think?

[Irreverend IX]

154. She probably has a restraining order.

They're worth about as much as the paper they're written on.

[iverglas]

157. interesting speculation

She probably has a restraining order.

Do you think she might have mentioned it, if so?

http://www.katu.com/news/local/10193211.html

MEDFORD, Ore. - The Medford school teacher suing her district for the right to bring her concealed weapon to school revealed her identity Tuesday on the Lars Larson Show on KXL 750.

... "I would be the first to say I was never the activist type. I would have been quite happy to fly under the radar, but I was a battered wife for seven years, and it has to stop," Katz said. "I am particularly sensitive to bullying. And I won't be bullied by my ex-husband.... I'm not going to be bullied by the school district."

During the radio interview, Katz said she has the firearms training to carry a weapon safely - even in her class.

"This is something I take seriously. I practice regularly," Katz disclosed. "Our kids do need to be protected. I think it just comes down to making sure it's done responsibly."

I dunno. Maybe she did mention it, along with all the talk about guns, and the media source just didn't think it was relevant ...

[Irreverend IX]

171. Truly pathetic.

Link:

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/118949018187870.xml

"The Medford teacher has a restraining order against her ex-husband, whom she divorced last year, according to Jackson County Circuit Court records. Those records show the teacher has accused her former husband of hitting her and threatening to kill her numerous times.

In a filing for a restraining order in September 2006, the teacher wrote that her former husband told her he would "kill me and that I would never get a cent out of him." At the time, she said he drove by her house four times one night and made repeated, daily phone calls to her. The teacher has two children."

This was one of the first links when I typed "oregon teacher restraining" into Google; there are several other stories that mention it. And you're trying to claim that the teacher must not have taken out a restraining order because it hasn't been mentioned in the media? Your debate tactics have seriously jumped the shark.

[iverglas]

192. I think you meant to say

you liar. Wasn't that what you meant to say?

And you're trying to claim that the teacher must not have taken out a restraining order because it hasn't been mentioned in the media? Your debate tactics have seriously jumped the shark.

When *I* typed "shirley katz" into google news, well over two hours before your post when her identity was still breaking news, and read several stories about her case, no mention whatsoever was made of the restraining order.

Plainly, the report that you cite obtained the information about the restraining order by searching court records -- NOT from Ms. Katz.

So actually, I think my question still stands: Do you think she might have mentioned it, if so?

Maybe altered to: why on earth would she not mention it? She apparently hasn't mentioned it in speaking to the media, and it would appear that she did not mention it in her present application to the court, or it wouldn't have taken a search of court records to find it.

So now the question is: if he is in breach of the restraining order, what has she done to have it enforced? And if he is not in breach of the restraining order, over a year since it was issued, what's her problem?

[iverglas]

221. Do please see post 220

I guess maybe that would be why she failed to mention the restraining order when speaking to the press -- BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T BOTHER TO RENEW IT last month.

Why, she must be terrified of her estranged husband ...

[Irreverend IX]

228. Like I was saying...

A restraining order is nothing but a piece of paper. Most police departments don't give a rat's ass about enforcing them; recall the estranged boyfriend shooting in Seattle where the victim both had a restraining order and worked on a "gun-free" university campus. I don't see why Katz should care about keeping up the restraining order if it's not going to do her any good.

[iverglas]

245. and you missed post 222?

Keep spinning.

(oops, 222, not 221)

[northzax]

165. You think she'd say that, right?

Only help her case...conspicuous by the absence, methinks.

[MadHound]

107. The very presence of a gun in the classroom puts the children and school personel at risk

Easy enough for kids to get ahold of a gun, any gun, no matter where it is carried. Mistakes happen, shit happen, and voila, a kid's got a gun and is blowing someone to hell and gone.

Sorry, but guns and schools simply don't mix.

[slackmaster]

124. You said you are not opposed to licensed concealed carry

Please explain why carrying at a school is more dangerous than at a shopping mall.

I'm open to a rational, logical explanation if you have one to offer. Preferably one supported with verifiable facts.

[MadHound]

148. What, you can't read my previous post? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

101. If a teacher can bring a gun to school, then ALL of the students should be able to.

Fuck this crazy ass bull shit! :wtf:

What if armed teachers go postal and kill everyone in class? :eyes:

WHAT? YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK?!?... (((((BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!)))))

[slackmaster]

125. Sounds like the "crazed armed airline pilots" argument again

Yes, what if the pilot goes crazy and starts shooting people at 37,000 feet?

:rofl:

[Swamp Rat]

129. Are you comparing pilots to school teachers?

Uh oh.

:D

[slackmaster]

133. Let's see...

Government-issued professional license required to practice the profession. Check.

Periodic recertifications to ensure that qualifications remain up to snuff. Check.

Ongoing training to keep up with latest developments in the field. Check.

Specific certifications for specific areas of expertise. Check.

Officially sanctioned position of authority included in the contract. Check.

Power to administer discipline to those under their care, including confining or removing troublemakers. Check.

Legally responsible for the physical safety of people under their charge. Check.

Unionized. Check.

;-)

[Swamp Rat]

135. You can uncheck all of those.

Sorry, I do not have the time to follow all those red herrings. ;)

My point is: If teachers are allowed to carry guns to class, then goddammit, so can I.

[slackmaster]

139. I think you should be allowed to carry a gun to class

If you meet the same legal requirements that everyone else in your state does, and you really want to.

[Swamp Rat]

142. Thank you for understanding my point.

:)

[Perry Logan]

128. This is what comes of applying winger logic to the real world.

[iverglas]

158. Students allowed transfers out of gun-toting teacher's class

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071008/NEWS/710080311

As of Friday, a few students had already transferred out of Katz's classroom, said Principal Kevin Campbell. An exact number could not be immediately confirmed.

Medford schools Superintendent Phil Long said the district would do what it can to satisfy any parent and student requests to transfer their children to other classes.

... The question of whether students would be able to opt out of a class where a teacher is carrying a concealed weapon is new territory for the district.

Way to make your problem a few thousand other people's problem.

[slackmaster]

162. Too bad they defeated the whole purpose of her concealed carry permit

By broadcasting it to the entire world.

[iverglas]

196. eh?

I thought the alleged whole purpose of her concealed carry permit was to enable her to stay alive.

If her allegedly dangerous estranged husband knows that she is carrying a firearm, how would this defeat that purpose?

I scratch my head.

Of course, it might make it more likely that he would lie in wait for her and shoot her from a distance, rather than walking into her classroom and doing it. But then, that's what he'd do if he had a yen to kill her and half a brain in the first place.

[slackmaster]

202. Yes, to help her stay alive

Concealed means just that.

[Xenotime]

166. This person is insane. And she works with kids...

There goes our future.

[ManiacJoe]

168. What makes schools so special?

What makes schools so special that they should be off limits CCW holders?

Court houses are excluded because they are places of guaranteed conflict.
Bars/taverns are excluded because alcohol consumption affects your judgment.

What makes schools stand out from libraries, supermarkets, etc, so that they need to be off limits to all the folks who have gone though the process of being licensed by the state for concealed carry?

[Paladin]

173. Have Many Kids In School, Do You?

n/t

[ManiacJoe]

218. Irrelevant. Try answering the question. (n/t)

[Paladin]

226. It Most Certainly Is Relevant

And I'm certainly not going to waste my time giving you any further response than that.....

[ManiacJoe]

227. Cannot say I am surprised. Disappointed though.

1, 3, 6; the number is irrelevant. Unless you were trying to imply that (1) I have no children in any schools, and (2) that disqualifies me from this conversation by some strange thought process.

Personally, I WANT someone around who can defend my children when I am not there to do it.

[Recursion]

234. Yes, now answer the question

Why are schools singled out as "Unarmed-Target-Rich Zones" (aka "Gun-Free Zones") while other places children congregate are not?

[LWolf]

183. I don't feel safer with guns on campus.

I actually DID have my ex-husband come onto campus after school and threaten me in my room once, back in the 80s.

My secretary saw him going by, and headed off after him. She hit the door about 90 seconds behind him, walkie-talkie in hand and squawking.

It probably helped that she was an athletic 6'3", and he was 5'10"; still, he backed down and left before she could say anything except for "Are you ok?"

I also did a parent conference once, in the dark at 7:30 pm, the only person left on campus, with a just-released felon. I didn't know he was out, and thought the mom was coming, or I wouldn't have stayed so late. All he wanted to do was talk about his daughter.

[riverdeep]

188. The issue here really isn't guns, as much as it may seem on the surface,

it's really the willingness to take domestic issues seriously. Until law enforcement takes restraining orders seriously, and issues harsh penalties for people who ignore them, predators will act with impunity. Meanwhile, the people who had the unfortunate experience of living with them, will have their lives turned upside down.

[mvccd1000]

190. Restraining Orders are only one tool...

Unfortunately, in some cases, the first time a person commits a violation of a restraining order means the end of the line for the victim.

The only good purpose of a restraining order is that it removes the discretion from the police.

Scenario #1: No restraining order. Your ex comes over, banging on the door, threatening you, and generally acting like an ass. You call the cops. By the time they show up, he's standing calmly near his car and he informs the cops that you have threatened (something - destroy his property, etc.). The cops might believe you, they might believe him, they might just say, "Keep the noise down," and depart. It's up to them.

Scenario #2: You have a restraining order. The ex comes over, same actions, you call the cops. They now have no choice. The judge has already ordered that this guy be arrested if he shows up. It doesn't matter who they believe, that piece of paper means he goes go jail.


The bad part of a restraining order is that, in either of the scenarios above, if the ex comes over with a knife, or an ax, or a gun and starts banging on the door, it doesn't matter HOW seriously the police take restraining orders. You have somewhere between seconds and minutes for someone to intervene. You can hope the police show up in time, or you can protect yourself.

The teacher in this thread has chosen to protect herself. I agree with that. I just don't think she should be making her stand in a room full of kids. She should keep the gun, lose the kids. :)

[Beelzebud]

197. Stupid idea. Period.

[slackmaster]

203. If the title of this thread had been "Stalking victim sues to bring her licensed gun to work"

The responses from the masses would surely be very different.

[LeftyMom]

204. If she's being stalked by a nutjob, I wouldn't want her around my kid until he's locked up.

Gun or no, if she's introducing an unsafe situation she really shouldn't be around kids.

[IA_Seth]

212. ok, so i suppose i should have read your post before responding.

Great minds and all that.

[IA_Seth]

211. If she is in that much danger from her ex, I dont want her around my kids! n/t

[Xithras]

216. My wife, a teacher, carries a Taser to school.

Not an actual Taser brand taser, but a pretty good knock-off. She's a teacher in a very ghetto area, and has been attacked by both parents and total strangers at the school before (she teaches kindergarten, so the students aren't a problem). They are highly effective, and are actually legal in most states on campus. She once guessed that half of the teachers at her school carry some sort of stun gun, knife, pepper spray, or some other self defense implement into their classrooms. It's tragic, and I'd REALLY prefer that she taught at a safer school, but it's comforting to know that she has some defense the next time some gangbanger punk decides to take a swing at her because she sent his kit to the principals office.

[Bum Whisperer]

219. Maybe they need to have a bunch of cops in the schools

Unless they're going to be like the cop in Wisconsin

[Recursion]

235. Exactly. Why trust a cop or a security guard more than a teacher?

Law enforcement officers have a higher crime rate than the population as a whole; the fact that so many people on DU want to limit only them to having guns is disturbing to me.

[iverglas]

220. TEACHER FAILED TO RENEW RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HUSBAND SHE CLAIMS TO FEAR

'Tis a shame to drag such a tedious thread back into the light -- but facts is facts, and always worth knowing.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1191381906117860.xml&coll=7
(all emphases mine)

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Katz has been teaching for 21 years, the past seven in Medford, she said. Divorced last year, she has had two restraining orders against her former spouse, but the last one expired in September.

And a woman who was afraid that her estranged husband would try to kill her would allow the restraining order against him to expire ... WHY???

The estranged husband continues to deny the allegations.



And oh look. Quelle great big fat fucking surprise:

Her legal bills in the case are being paid by the Oregon Firearms Foundation, a pro-gun rights group. Although Katz is a member of the National Rifle Association, she said she is not acting on the NRA's behalf or receiving any money from the group.

I wonder what facts we'll learn next.

[iverglas]

222. Teacher says estranged husband repeatedly violated restraining order

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/NEWS/710030316/-1/INTERACT04
(emphases mine again)

She claimed her ex-husband tried to choke her, threatened to kill her, threatened to strike her son from a previous marriage and repeatedly violated a restraining order that was in effect from Sept. 11, 2006, until last month. She said she missed a deadline to renew the restraining order.

Now, did she just fail to mention the complaints she made to police about the violations, and the charges laid against the husband ... or didn't she report the violations??

Gerry Katz, a 54-year-old photographer, denied her allegations.

"I'm not a spousal abuser," he told the Mail Tribune on Tuesday.

"She has never filed a (criminal) charge against me. She has produced no witnesses and no evidence that she's a battered woman. There are no photographs of injuries or wounds."

No assault charges were listed against Gerry Katz in Jackson County court records.

He said she has perpetuated the accusations in order to persuade a judge to restrict his visitation time with their 5-year-old daughter.

The couple have been embroiled in a custody dispute since their divorce was finalized in January.

I'll tell ya, if I were a parent in that school district, I'd be feeling a little used and abused myself at this point. Having my children used as pawns in a domestic dispute, and put at risk to advance a political agenda I don't share, and all.

[Horse with no Name]

223. If she is afraid for her safety

She has NO business being anywhere around kids. She needs to take a leave of absence and get her personal life in order, move, or whatever else she needs to do. There is no good reason to bring a gun into a gun-free zone and no reason to endanger the lives of children because of her personal life.

[Recursion]

231. Yes, fire a teacher for having an abusive husband

She should have known better, I guess?

[Horse with no Name]

244. I didn't say that and please don't put words in my mouth

but her presence endangers the kids. That is NOT the fault of anyone, it is just the way it is. A gun is NOT the solution.

[Recursion]

251. A gun is a means of protecting herself

In particular, it's a means that the local police have decided is warranted and that she is responsible enough to carry concealed.

I guess I just don't feel the raw fear about the mere presence of a gun that a lot of people on the board do; maybe it's because I'm very familiar with them. I don't see the presence of a gun in a holster on her person as any more of a "risk" than kids in geometry having pointy compasses and protractors (come to think of it, I'm more worried about the kids having compasses than the teacher having a firearm). (Am I dating myself? Do kids use compasses and protractors anymore?)