Posted: 2/14/2008 11:48:40 AM EDT
|
Future teachers don't want guns in schools Christine Wald-Hopkins Arizona Daily Star February 13, 2008 I was dismayed and then puzzled to read that a majority of Star respondents actually supported the proposed legislation to allow firearms on campuses ("Online readers favor guns in schools plan," Feb. 4). How could this represent progressive Southern Arizona? So I decided to ask people who would be directly affected by such legislation — young teachers. I put the guns-in-schools question to my University of Arizona English education class. My students — juniors and seniors preparing to teach in secondary school — have grown up under the specter of campus gun violence. They were in middle school when Columbine High School was shot up and in high school when the UA nursing instructors were murdered. They were contemporaries of the students mowed down at Virginia Tech. They're smart. They're informed. They understand the risks. Several have experience with firearms. And they almost unanimously oppose guns in schools. My poll sampling was small but invested. This was their message: Guns would contaminate the learning climate. The idea itself is patently unworkable. Participating in life or death situations is not in their job descriptions. These students asserted that schools are, and should continue to be, "safe havens" for learning. Guns — registered or not — threaten that sanctuary. The one student who favored the bill argued that arming teachers and administrators would deter a Columbine-like attack, and that female teachers would be more willing to accept risky assignments if they could carry handguns. Those who took issue with her first point said that anyone who had developed a mind-set for murder would hardly be discouraged by the prospect of a teacher's gun. Addressing both points, a junior literature/writing major wrote that the idea is "paradoxical" that guns equal safety, and that handguns more frequently hurt their owners than dissuade would-be killers. Practically, they pointed out, concealed-weapon training couldn't prepare public school teachers for the unpredictability of assault situations. The words "violence" and "escalating" recurred in their comments. One writing major denounced the slippery slope implicit in "violence for the sake of prevention." Most of them attended public schools, so they're familiar with the endemic lower-level threats of bullying, verbal assaults and fistfights. But, as one noted, a single incident of adolescent pique could turn deadly if there were a gun available. Handguns could be as easily pinched from teachers as answer sheets. "Our job as educators," wrote an English education senior, "is to teach our students and ensure their well-being, something that cannot happen when weapons are on campus. It is not our job to make potentially deadly decisions or provide opportunities for a potentially deadly situation." We threaten the lives and careers of these teachers of tomorrow if we allow schools to become armed camps. An alternative message from the "guns poll" needs to come out of Southern Arizona: Legislators Karen Johnson and Russel Pearce owe it to Arizona's children to listen to these young educators and reconsider this wrong-headed bill. If they don't, then reasonable legislators must listen, and bury it. Write to Christine Wald-Hopkins at [email protected]. |
|
My reply: Christine, It is clear that your editorials are agenda driven and that no matter the argument, you will continue to point out any and all negative facets of pro-gun and personal protection legislation. You fail to mention in your ad for the Brady campaign, that the bill requires nothing of teachers. It does not place any responsibility on them to carry a firearm, it does not require that they act in any capacity to stop a dangerous threat or place themselves in harms way at all. What it does do, is allow those willing to take upon themselves the burden of protecting the rest of the sheep (the children, you and anyone else who fails to take responsibility for their own safety), by allowing them the means to do so. A concealed gun in a classroom detracts from or contaminates a learning climate about as much as a tampon does. It'll never be an issue unless someone needs it, and when the do, they REALLY need it. No argument has been made that putting firearms in the hands of trained teachers would have prevented any of the tragedies that you mention. However, one person, trained and armed, could have stopped each incident in its tracks much earlier and with considerably fewer casualties. I question your choice of surveyed teachers. As you mention, each of them are students. None have experience in the classroom dealing with potentially dangerous students or parents. None of your surveyed teachers has anything at stake in the classroom other than themselves and their jobs. Try surveying the parents whose children are the helpless targets or collateral damage in such an attack. All schools now have lock-down procedures for protection. These involve barricading the teachers and students in classrooms. What do you propose a teacher do when, despite best efforts, the attacker gains access to the classrooms? Detention perhaps? My wife is an elementary school teacher, and while she does not feel that she could take on that responsibility, she agrees that the choice should be available to those willing to do so. The bottom line is, there are no more "safe havens" as you mention. Any location is accessible to the determined mind. We cannot control that. No amount of security, laws or signs will ever change that. The only thing we can control is the manner and the speed of our reactions. Providing teachers, parents and administrators with the choice of protecting themselves and those in their charge is the only way of immediate, conclusive crisis resolution. Consider a gun like a fire extinguisher. What if we pulled all of the fire extinguishers out of classrooms in the hopes that the fire department will make it before too much damage is caused? Consider that analogy. Sincerely, |
|
At best, you will get a 6 word reply, like I did. - - - - Thank you for sharing your thougthts, Mr. Weaver. Sincerely, C. Wald-Hopkins Quoting Tim Weaver <[email protected]>: > Ms. Wald-Hopkins > > I am curious...how many of those you polled had experience with > firearms (apart from 'several'), and how many supported or disagreed > with the notion of allowing firearms under the auspices of this bill. > What was the extent of their experience? Have they had any training, > or just out to the range with friends or family? All these factors > are important considerations. > > I've been published in a nationally known financial magazine as well > as the newspaper at my graduate alma mater and a local newspaper. > Were I in a different context, could it not be said that I "had > experience with journalism" even though I am not formally trained as > such and it's not my primary hobby? See the parallel? Just because > someone "has experience" in an area does not make them an expert, and > perhaps not even truly knowledgeable. > > Several other discussion points: > > While someone bent on murder may not (likely not) be deterred by the > presence of an armed teacher, we can see exactly the result of having > NO armed teachers or CCW-permitted students by looking at Virginia > Tech. > > While we might argue whether a student or teacher, lawfully armed, > might have prevented more deaths, there is no argument that NOT > having a firearm allowed the gunman to continue his murderous rampage > unimpeded. Were I back on campus, I would rather take the chance of > having an armed teacher or lawfully armed student being in the right > place and the right time, rather than waiting for law enforcement. > Because, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. > > Next, the "paradoxical" statement that more guns equals more safety. > Heinlein opined that an armed society is a polite society, though he > was a writer not a criminologist or sociologist. Instead, perhaps > you should look to the work of Dr. John Lott, who HAS studied the > cause and effect of more lawfully carried firearms in society. > > In each case where lawful concealed carry has been established, there > has been a decrease of violent crime, precisely because of the > deterrent factor. Additionally, people who do not carry (for whatever > reason) are "silent benefactors" since criminals do not know who may > be armed, and who may not. > > As for the "guns hurt their owners more than criminals", that work > has been discredited many times, and many years ago. In Kellerman's > study, if someone had been injured by a firearm, the question "is > there a firearm in the home" was asked...regardless of who was > injured, by whom, or where it occurred. In several instances, police > shot a criminal in the person's yard, and that "counted" as someone > injured by a firearm NOT used by the owner. Google the issue and > tell me that it was good "science". It wasn't. If you cannot find > it, I can direct you > > I understand that you don't want to have firearms on campus. Trying > to spin this as some sort of sample, non-representative as you point > out, without understanding whether or not these students have ANY > understanding of the issue beyond emotional investment (based on > OPINION, not knowledge) only shows the strong bias you have. > > How could a majority of respondents/commentators support such > legislation in "progressive" Southern Arizona? Perhaps because they > understand that wishing criminals wouldn't do bad things does not > mean criminals will cease doing bad things. The police cannot be > everywhere, and are not responsible for an individual's safety. I > would rather take my chances with an armed classmate or teacher than > wait for law enforcement to arrive...which historically are > historians/report takers rather than crime-stoppers. > > Sincerely, > Tim Weaver > Glendale, Az > |
|
A gun-free environment is a sterile environment. Just because you are not willing to learn to defend yourself and therefore may very well be placing that BURDEON on law enforcement, don't take away the fact that many of us are very well trained citizens and would be willing to do everything within our powers to prevent an atrocious act such as Virginia Tech, Columbine, and other incidents that have happened within the past several years. Arrghhh...  People like this are a burdeon on society. G'nite ya'll,AJ BTW if anyone wants to respond to the article w/o registering and getting all the spam mail... I created one on my spam email account. The username is NotASheep and the password is asdf1234. |
|
Well maybe one of us will get a different response. Of course, in Ted Nugent's article in a recent American Hunter Magazine titled "No Apologies", he outlines the futility of trying to reasonably logic with those that have neither reason nor logic. Here goes nothin! **** Mrs. Christine Wald-Hopkins, I have read the study that you performed using your University of Arizona English education class. I found it quite interesting, particularly the fact that they nearly all unanimously opposed concealed carry of firearms in schools. I was dismayed by your statement that a bill allowing such carry of firearms would not represent a progressive Southern Arizona. How so? This country and this territory was settled and founded with the aid of firearms. Wouldn't you consider that a progressive step? It is only through the sustaining of our freedom to use firearms that we guarantee any progressive steps forward. The proper use and carry of firearms would allow us to remain free from the oppressive forces of fear, which hampers progress. I am of the age of your students, and I attend a local college. I, too, grew up under the specter of campus gun violence: Columbine, VA Tech, and all of the small campus shootings that were not nationalized put concern in my heart over the safety of myself and my fellow students. Even with professional firearms training, the obtaining of my concealed carry permit, and years of target shooting which have inspired in me a great confidence with my firearms, I am not allowed to carry a weapon onto campus. These shootings are at random, at small schools and large campuses. My small college campus could be next, and with what will I defend myself? The police are not rushing into these buildings to guarantee safety; they are solidifying tactical solutions outside while students die helplessly inside. What if one person, or multiple persons, were armed, trained, and ready to stand up and say "Not me, and not today"? I put to you that armed citizens make a difference. I will not quote statistics, for most are agenda driven, but I can guarantee you that one armed citizen could have prevented the high body counts that so frequently are associated with school shootings. Would it have prevented all violence? Certainly not, but there would be more parents with living children today. Criminals are like animal predators - for the most part, they choose a weak and unguarded target. Do you suppose that these young individuals, armed and ready to kill, would have walked into a school and started shooting had they known that some teachers, and potentially some students, were armed? Why do you think that they killed themselves? Aside from being mentally unstable, it is obvious that they knew that they would not stand a chance against an armed defense, so before police breached the campus, all of the gunman in nearly every school shooting killed themselves. You stated that some of your students have experience with firearms. I wonder what this experience entails. Do they carry firearms, or have they ever? Merely being a target shooter or hunter does not include one in the knowledge of the frame of mind which those of us who choose to carry must remain in. Not everyone is willing, or able, to carry a firearm or other weapon for self-defense. There are those, however, who do so. And we do so under the hope that we never have to use them. But if they are needed, they are needed badly. I do not understand how guns would contaminate the learning climate, as your students have said they would. The presence of a legally concealed firearm is not known, hence the name, and does not come out until needed. I do not suppose that your future teachers would be willing to participate in a life or death situation; but nevertheless, such a situation may be forced upon them, and what then? Will they call 911 with their cell phones, barricade themselves inside their rooms? Run? What will they do when death may come calling for them and their students? I agree that schools should be safe havens, as you stated, but are they? How can they be when students must fear that the next school shooting fatality may be them? I am not saying that all students live under this fear, or that they should, but with the shootings on the apparent rise, it is a question that I believe more students will be asking themselves. You stated that the one student who was a proponent for SB 1214 was argued down on the fact that "anyone who had developed a mind-set for murder would hardly be discouraged by the prospect of a teacher's gun." I greatly disagree. As I said earlier, most criminals are dissuaded by the fact that a possible target may be armed. Why do you think there is greater violent crime in cities and even countries that have banned firearms and the carry of firearms? Criminals prefer unarmed victims. I have also pondered on the meaning of your junior literature/writing major's statement that "handguns more frequently hurt their owners than dissuade would-be killers." Really? I'd like to see some facts on that one. I am a member of a few shooting clubs, and have taken some firearms courses. I have been around firearms since I was a child, and I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman. Not once, in my entire life, have I witnessed, or been privy to the knowledge of, a responsible firearm owner's handgun hurting its owner. Handguns are inanimate objects, not sentient beings that make choices. Indeed, I have never even seen a case where a firearm, in the hands of a human being, has ever been used in such a manner as to accidentally cause harm to the handler or any bystanders. While there are certainly cases of such occurrences, it is the exception and not the rule. I have seen more kitchen appliance accidents leading to injury than I will ever witness with firearms. Concealed carry training does not train one for the unpredictability of assault situations, just like a driving test does not train someone to handle high speed collisions or losing control on an interstate crowded with fellow drivers. However, just like driving, responsible firearm usage requires experience, and while not everyone may take classes or be privileged with information on how to handle assault situations, it's a good thing that no school shootings fell into this category. While those being shot at certainly must have felt "under assault", no shooter of any campus slaying that I'm aware of was formerly trained. These were mentally disturbed people, with recently acquired firearms, shooting at apparent random or a few designated targets, expending many rounds of ammunition with few critical hits. With that said, one armed citizen, having taken even the most basic firearms course, could have stood their ground, and with the efficiency born of formal training, ended the threat early on, containing fatalities to a minimum. I wish for you to tell your writing major that this is not violence for the sake of prevention, for violence must be met with violence. If this education major so desires, he can attempt to talk down the shooter should such a catastrophe happen at his school. But when he wants to end the confrontation still standing, he should depend on a solid defense, and meet the opposition head on. We all want to believe that violence can be stopped with a kind old professor's encouraging words to a troubled youth with a shotgun, but in reality, it cannot always be so. Violence is around us, and while most of us will not experience its harrowing effects, the least that we can do is to prepare for it as best as possible. You fear fist-fights turning into gun fights, bullying being stopped with a .45 handgun. Isn't that already the cause of some of this campus killing: unloved, mistreated youths responding to teasing or being an "outcast" by bringing guns to school? SB 1214 would only allow adults, those 21 years of age and older, to carry handguns, as that is the minimum age to obtain a CCW already. There is no guarantee that these individuals would not become enraged and pull their handguns in response to an incident of adolescent pique, just as there is no guarantee that the millions we license to drive will not become intoxicated behind the wheel, fall asleep on the interstate, or drive into a building crowded with people in a fit of rage. Only now we are talking of a relatively few number of people, those licensed by the State of Arizona to carry a concealed firearm. These are not average citizens who have turned 16 and by law can get a license to drive – these are a certain type of individual who choose to guarantee a defense for their lives, and been approved to have that privilege. These few people could guarantee the safety of many, those unwilling or unable to protect themselves. Handguns would likely not be stolen from teachers. Along with this state bill to allow the carry of firearms would come school provisions for keeping handguns in safes if not on the person. Those few teachers who would take upon themselves the responsibility for the safety of their students are not those who carelessly display or talk of their firearms. Of those that I know who carry concealed firearms, myself included, it is not known by many of our associates, and even some of our friends, that we carry a firearm. It is not a bragging right, nor something for casual conversation. It is something that we take seriously. It changes our habits, our actions, our demeanor, and even our wardrobe. It is a freedom and an ideal that we have taken upon ourselves to ensure the freedom and safety of ourselves and our loved ones, and of those whom we can help. We do not own fire extinguishers in the hopes of a fire, or homeowners insurance in the hopes of a flood. The same can be said for the firearms that we carry – they are another form of life insurance. Do not try and take from us the only guarantee that those of us who will not lie down and die have for our safety. We do not suppose ourselves as heroes. We do not wish for violence, for confrontation. But if it comes, we are ready. My Best Regards, Glen Stilson Prescott Valley, Arizona |
|
I am saddened to read you’re an educator…responsible for giving our future teachers the tools to successfully educate forthcoming generations of American children. Your ‘from the hip” emotional rational does not represent progressive Southern Arizona…we have a long tradition of being independent…basing our decisions on facts rather than opinions or emotions. The mark of a good educator is one that encourages open discussion with facts and without injecting personal bias. Your discussion was certainly not clouded by the facts. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf A couple of thoughts… In states that have allowed concealed carry by citizens crime rates including mass shootings have dropped…while states without have seen an increase. When the 1995 “Gun Free School Zones” law was passed the Assistant Principal in Pearl Mississippi began locking the handgun that he had carried for years in his car parked a quarter mile away to comply with the law. When that shooting began he ran to his car, retrieved his handgun, ran back to the school, disarmed the shooter and was able to hold him on the ground until police arrived. Had he be able to carry his weapon on person he might have prevented two deaths and seven shooting related injuries. Educators are armed in Israel and many eastern European countries…resulting in several lives being saved each year. Eleven students and two teachers were saved in Jerusalem last Thursday. As a youngster we would bring our rifles to school during the hunting season…I don’t recall the “learning climate” being contaminated. I would argue it was enriched. The assertion that schools are “safe havens” is sadly laughable at best. Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois were “Gun Free Zones” and “safe havens.” Firearms save many more lives…they are used 2.5 million times each year to prevent crime, or 6,849 times everyday…crimes including rapes, murders, assaults and kidnappings. I am aware of and have encouraged many women to obtain their concealed weapons permit along with proper training. Each has commented that there is something empowering about not being afraid and having the ability to protect themselves and loved ones should the need arise. And the need has arisen…a local public school teacher, single mother and standing 5’4” 125lbs was confronted by a 6’2” man intent upon robbing and sexually assaulting her…with her handgun and training the tables were turned on the attacker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A Arizona has issued over 100,000 concealed weapons permits…I have carried concealed since the law was enacted. Everyday I interact with people who have no idea that I am armed. If I were in your classroom I fail to envision how I would “contaminate the learning climate” or how I would endanger the students and/or staff. I can envision how I could stop and/or deter a “shooting rampage” and save lives…even though it might not be in my “job descriptions.” Educators and students who are properly trained, licensed to carry concealed and willing to take on the responsibility of saving lives should have the option of carrying a weapon in the classroom. Because you are not up to the task and/or not willing to risk your life to protect another is not caused for limiting our choice to take on that responsibility. I wish you the wisdom to open your mind |
|
I was atmy Moms house yeaterday, she gets the "RED STAR", this was the lead story above the fold: Ariz. bill allows gun anywhere in vehicle DPS opposes measure, which would ease law for those who lack a permit By Howard Fischer CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES Did you know . . . Arizona didn't allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons until 1994. Before that, anyone could carry a gun, but it had to be kept out where it could be seen. PHOENIX — Rejecting police concerns, state lawmakers are trying to make it even easier for people to carry concealed weapons in their vehicles. Legislation awaiting action by the House says anyone can carry a firearm anywhere in a vehicle, visible or otherwise, without getting a special permit. Right now, having a concealed weapon is restricted to those who have a state permit, which requires completing a state-approved training course as well as fingerprinting and a background check. Since the concealed-weapons law was approved 14 years ago, lawmakers have modified it to allow a person without a permit to have a loaded weapon in a trunk, glove box or map compartment. House Bill 2389, which has been approved by the House Judiciary Committee, would expand that exemption to cover the entire vehicle. Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the current law regulating where someone can have a gun is confusing, not only to individuals but even to police. "You shouldn't have to have a table of yes-no locations taped to your dashboard so you can figure out where you lay the weapon whether it's legal or not," he said. Kavanagh said the current law can make a criminal out of an otherwise innocent citizen. For example, he said, a person without a permit might put a weapon on a car seat, where it is visible, only to have a jacket fall over it inadvertently. Or a driver could hit the brakes, causing a formerly visible gun to slide under the seat. The state Department of Public Safety objects to the change. "We're not really worried about the good, honest citizens out there," DPS Lt. Bob Ticer said. He said he has never heard of a case in which someone was arrested because a jacket or newspaper fell over a weapon on a car seat. "We're worried about the gang members, the criminals, who put guns underneath the seats, hide them" and make traffic stops more dangerous for police officers, Ticer said. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said he would not support anything that puts police officers at risk. But he said Ticer's concerns about easing the laws are misplaced, adding that gang members probably are not obeying the existing law now. "Is it common practice for criminals to put their guns up on the seat when they're pulled over or an officer comes up to the car?" he asked. "It's hard to determine what they are going to do," Ticer responded. And he said that while gang members may not respect the law in general, they might decide not to risk getting arrested on a weapons charge. But Ticer pointed out that the new legislation says that even a gun under a seat would now be legal — a gun he said someone might decide to use if it looks like an arrest on some other charge is imminent. "They can get to it readily," he said. "The officer doesn't know it. We worry about that." Farnsworth remained unconvinced. "I'm having a hard time believing that a criminal that's actually going to shoot a police officer under any circumstance is going to be worried about whether he has the gun in glove compartment or whether he has it on his person or whether he has it on the seat," he said. "If they're willing to kill a police officer, they're willing to hide the gun under the seat." Gary Christensen who lobbies for the Arizona Rifle and Pistol Association, said he does not believe changing the law would affect law-enforcement safety. He said police would retain the right to ask occupants of a vehicle if they are armed and, if so, to hand over their weapons during a traffic stop. If the vote by the House Judiciary Committee is any indication, it may be difficult for foes to stop the bill. That 6-4 vote came along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. And Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate. But the final word would be up to Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, who has vetoed some changes in gun laws in prior years after objections from police departments. Did you know . . . Arizona didn't allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons until 1994. Before that, anyone could carry a gun, but it had to be kept out where it could be seen. |
