“Law enforcement is there to protect us against this sort of thing, and they have the tools do so.”

Not true. Law enforcement is there to pick up the pieces after the fireworks are over. As a point of fact, LE was not there to protect either myself or my wife when we were mugged in two separate incidents.

If you don’t like guns, don’t own any. That does not give you any right to say what I should own.

Thanks for your comments, it’s the most activity this blog has seen, well, ever.

I’m betting there is a lot more bloodshed caused by legal ownership than is prevented. Obviously that’s pure opinion.

I feel bad that Americans feel the need to own guns for protection. Here in Canada we own almost as many guns per capita as the U.S. yet our gun related crime or accidents related to guns is vastly lower than the U.S..

I don’t say that to gloat, I’m honestly curious why this is. I don’t think it’s any social variable, because, lets face it, the U.S. and Canada are very much alike. I know we’re limited to rifles used for hunting. It is very difficult to own a hand-gun here. Maybe it’s due to the fact that hand-guns are easily concealable. So, knowing that someone may be carrying a gun might lead many to carry their own guns “just in case”. The resulting volume of hardware out there just lends itself to accidents and misuse. After all, you don’t need to demonstrate good judgment to own a gun.

As far as the “gun-as-a-tool” analogy, you’re right, Sailorcurt. If a person is hell-bent on killing someone they could use a pencil if they wanted, so I sort of see your point. However, I’m focusing on the accidental injuries or death caused by guns. You don’t often accidentally kill someone with a fire extinguisher, a seatbelt, or even a pair of scissors. I mean, lets face it, guns are compelling devices. They beg to be handled…and not everyone is as responsible a gun owner/handler as you appear to be.

I guess, in short, it’s not guns I distrust. It’s people. You see examples of abysmally (often fatally) poor judgment everyday. Add guns into that mixture and it’s pretty easy to see what can happen.

It’s a pretty polarized argument. No one is going to convince either side of anything I don’t think.

I don’t necessarily believe you are bigoted against guns per se…but your opinions lend the impression that you are bigoted against citizens carrying them for self defense. I use the term bigotry because I sincerely feel that it better fits the expressed attitude. I believe that such an opinion is informed more by assumptions and emotions than by any critical evaluation of facts. At any rate, I intended it only as a descriptive of your stated position, not as a personal insult and I hope you didn’t take it as such.

I’ll not continue belaboring the points. So if you choose to respond to this comment, I’ll leave you the last word.

I was raised on a farm. I was taught to be as self sufficient as possible. Even though I now live in town, I drive a 4 wheel drive truck. I keep a toolbox, small air compressor, wrecking bars, tow straps, tie downs, a first aid kit etc etc etc in my truck at all times. Not because I believe I’ll need them every time I go anywhere, but because the possibility exists that I MIGHT need them. That’s the same reason that I carry a gun. I’m in my mid 40′s, I’ve been carrying a gun for many years and I’ve never needed it. And I sincerely hope and pray that I never do. But I will be prepared because the alternative can be devastating.

I agree with the old apothegm that you paraphrased, but there’s a counterpoint to it as well: When your only tool is a hammer, everything may look like a nail. But when you actually run across that odd nail, it sure sucks if you left your hammer at home.

Out of curiosity, what’s the name of the Police Officer assigned to your personal protective detail?

Seriously, the Police cannot be everyone’s personal bodyguards. As a fellow gun blogger once said: “Defending yourself is your responsibility, the Constables are only there to mark where the bodies ended up.”

Have you ever had to call 911? If so, how long did it take for them to get there? Do you realize that it took Cho about 12 minutes to kill 30 people and wound 17 others in Norris hall at Virginia Tech? It took three minutes for the first 911 call to be made, four minutes for the Police to show up (an UNUSUALLY fast response time by most standards), five minutes for them to gain entrance to the building and they got in just as Cho was firing his last shot, with which he killed himself. BTW: according to eyewitness accounts, he was not rushing. He was taking his time and executing defenseless students pretty much at will.

The vast majority of violent encounters last only a couple of minutes. Even if you had the ability to call 911 during that time, they would not arrive on scene until long after the event is over. When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.

Not only is it impossible for the Police to assume responsibility for every individual’s safety and security, but, based upon US Supreme Court precedent, it is not their responsibility to do so.

In summary, if you choose not to avail yourself of the tools of self defense and prefer to rely on the the goodwill and mercy of humanity and/or the effectiveness and timeliness of the Emergency Response System for your safety, that’s your decision to make. You will never hear an advocate of self defense demanding that you arm yourself.

The only thing that we ask is to have that courtesy returned. The Harrold school district made a decision based upon their school’s individual situation. Under the advisement and consent of the duly elected school board and with specific and stringent procedures spelled out, they determined that permitting a limited number of trained and qualified teachers to avail themselves of the most effective tool for defense of self and others currently available is a viable part of their overall security plan.

Ridiculing them (or law abiding citizens who choose to take responsibility for their own safety) for their decision based upon nothing more than emotion, hyperbole and unsupported assertions is, itself, worthy of ridicule.

In my humble opinion.

I don’t equate wearing a seatbelt or having a fire extinguisher with carrying a gun. A car accident is an accident, as is a fire. An act of violence is not an accident, no matter what you say. Law enforcement is there to protect us against this sort of thing, and they have the tools do so. Let them do their jobs, and having everybody packing a gun does not help them in that regard.

The article you linked didn’t have much information. This story has actually been around for awhile. In fact, this is not a proposal. The policy has already gone into effect and some Harrold school district teachers are currently armed.

Had you done a google search for the story (I used “harrold texas schools”) you would have found a huge number of articles and commentaries on it with more detailed information…like This one for example:

In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

In Texas, getting a concealed handgun permit requires training, as well as the other mandated special training they have to undergo. The district is not taking this lightly. They’ve put in place a very stringent policy. I would argue too stringent, but it’s their school, so their decision to make.

Why would you want a teacher firing a weapon in a roomful of kids? Because the teacher would be firing at the bad guy. The alternative is the bad guy executing each and every one of the “roomful of kids” with no opposition…as basically happened at VA Tech.

You seem to be making the assumption that a teacher can’t be trusted not to start shooting willy nilly as soon as some kid mouths off to him. If the teachers are that unbalanced, what’s to keep them from tossing a kid out the window or stabbing them with a pair of scissors? A gun is a tool. It’s not some magical talisman that causes insanity. Teachers are ALREADY entrusted with the lives and safety of our children every day.

Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you “live in fear” of having a car crash, or is it just prudent to wear a seatbelt just in case? How about fire extinguishers? Are they a good thing to have around or does having one mean that you are “living in fear” of fires?

It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that because someone carries the most effective tool for self defense on the off-chance that they may need it, that they are “living in fear.” That assumption is based upon stereotyping and bigotry, nothing more.

Is having a fire extinguisher a guarantee that anyone can put out any fire that may occur? Of course not. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a good idea to have one.

There are no happy endings to violent encounters. But the ending MAY be happier for at least some of the innocents if there is someone around to defend them. Is having armed teachers a guarantee that no one will be harmed? That the teachers will be able to stop the attack before being taken out of the fight themselves? That they will even get off a shot, let alone take out the attacker?

Of course not. No one’s issuing any guarantees here. But they’ve got a heck of a lot better chance of stopping an attack if they’re armed than if they aren’t.

And if history is any judge, they’ve got a pretty good chance of getting the job done. Most mass killers either give up, or kill themselves as soon as they face any type of armed resistance. They don’t choose “gun free zones” because they’re itching for a fight. They choose gun free zones because they are looking for a target rich environment with minimal risk to themselves.

It seems to me that Texan (and Virginian) gun laws are a bit sketchy, so perhaps I’m preaching to the wrong choir? Who said the teachers would be trained on the use of a gun? The article said they would receive crisis-management training, not gun training. Texas doesn’t require even a license or a permit to buy a handgun, nor a waiting period, why would I want these teachers shooting any weapon in a room full of kids? Maybe the teachers ARE the crazy ones?

We are talking about schools, but really what you are proposing is more guns in any situation is a great idea in case the “crazies” show up. If you subscribe to a fear-based culture, you will live in fear, naturally. That’s just too much for me really.

You can’t say to me that you know for certain without a doubt that the Columbine situation would have had a happy ending if all of the teachers had possessed a gun? “Been there, done that” doesn’t really cover it.

Ahh…and therein lies the problem: When a crazed gunman shows up at the school, by definition, there IS a gun present.

As demonstrated at Columbine, Virginia Tech and any number of other incidents, in that case, someone’s very likely going to get shot. What you are proposing is that the ONLY gun present be the one in possession of the crazed gunman and that the ONLY people getting shot are the innocents. As I said before: been there, done that. Didn’t work out all that well for the innocents.

I’m not the one who forwarded the premise that the decision to allow trained, vetted and school board approved teachers to carry defensive arms was a bad idea. Therefore, I had (and have) no need to provide facts to back anything up. You presented the hypothesis…it’s on you to support it.

If that’s truly your opinion, surely you have something concrete upon which you based that opinion. Surely you wouldn’t have formulated an opinion without all the facts or with no basis other than a knee-jerk emotional reaction…right?

All I’m asking is for you to educate me. Tell me why this is a bad idea without relying on hyperbole and demagoguery to do so.