Email this Anti

[tyler500e]

The editor in cheif of my college campus newsletter is at it again. Below is the article from the latest college newsletter, and her email address. I have already contacted her, the student senate, and the board of trustees. Let them know how you feel about concealed carry, the second amendment, and the fact that Jen Harris gets to spread her socialized views through this publication. If you are willing to help, please, Keep it High Road!

HIDE AND SEEK HEAT (Opinion) by Jen Harris
As a member of the press, I am a card-carrying member of the “protect the Constitution” club. Unfortunately for my personal beliefs, this includes the 2nd amendment, which guarantees Americans have the right to bear arms.
The concealed carry permits in Kansas and Missouri allow a person of sound mind, with no debilitating physical handicaps and no prior criminal convictions to apply—and potentially be approved – to carry a concealed gun on their person for four years.
Before a permit is issued, applicants are required to complete an eight-hour gun safety course.
While the appropriate precautions are in place to keep concealed carry permits out of the hands of the irresponsible and incapable, what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?
Students at the college are petitioning to have the right to carry their concealed weapons on campus. My question is: why?
In what way will random strangers carrying hidden guns benefit the campus community?
While I would prefer the U.S. completely ban personal gun ownership and police carry nonlethal weapons, the scenario is highly unlikely.
Thus I support the decision of the college to arm the college police.
Living in a country that condones gun ownership and growing up in an era of school shootings, I feel safer knowing that adequately trained men and women will protect me if called upon.
What I do not support, however, is rogue individuals potentially “jumping the gun” in an effort to “help out” should an emergency arise.
Please, leave the shooting to the professionals.
Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially.
There are so many opportunities for situations to turn deadly should the concealed carry policy be overturned at the college.
Think of all the students whose backpacks are stolen on campus each year. A lover’s quarrel? A sports team rivalry? An excuse to get out of finals week?
What if a student removes their weapon to use the restroom and forgets about it?
Or maybe, just maybe, a crazed madman disarms a person licensed to carry a firearm and turns the weapon on the campus population.
There are just too many “what ifs.”
In order for concealed carry supporters to get their wish, college officials will have to approve any provisions amending the current “no weapons on campus” policy. State law currently prevents individuals from carrying concealed weapons into schools that post “no firearms” signage.
I urge you to contact the Student Senate and the Board of Trustees to express your concern for this irresponsible and distasteful display of “Shoot first, ask questions later.”
As one professor pointed out, “I’d like to be able to fail a student without worrying about getting shot.”
Shouldn’t we all?
Contact Jen Harris, editor-in-chief, at
[email protected]

Please send Editor-in-chief Jen Harris an email!
You can also help by contacting the Student Senate at 913-469-8500 x3414
and the Board of Trustees at 913-469-7660 or via email at [email protected]

The College is closed today due to inclement weather, so you can leave a voicemail if you call.

Please keep it tasteful and respectful if you are emailing or calling!

 

[jbkebert]

I have sent a email to your prof. yes I was kind and clean I invited her to as a journalist to seek the truth and research non biased facts on the safety of firearms.

 

[ACBMWM3]

I also emailed and was very respectful.
Short and sweet version of my statement was if you promote your right to free speech why should others not be able to promote their right to bear arms?
Also I pointed out how school shootings may have turned out differently if one or more of the students had been carrying.
There may have been a chance, instead of a boxer beating up a baby type situation.
To me it also seems that she makes it seem like most people who carry do not have any training at all. But earlier she points out that a 8 hour course is needed.
All in all she doesn't state any facts and makes it sound like we are all crazy and if we fail a class will go on a rampage. In which I don't respect.

 

[grampster]

Here is my reply to J. Harris.

My goodness, Ms. Harris. How quickly you descend from the high ground of protecting the Constitution and describing the rather stringent qualifications for folks who would exercise their constitutionally guaranteed a priori right to keep and bear arms. You describe us well, then you begin to ascribe to us behavior that is a figment of your young imagination.

As a 65 year old former police officer I can assure you that you have nothing to fear from sane, honest, stable law abiding citizens who choose to embrace the personal responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon. Since I have been around firearms all of my life, and have associated with many citizens who also collect, shoot and or carry a weapon, you can be comforted to know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of us are very well trained and skilled in the use of firearms. We also have a deep and abiding respect for the safe handling of them as well.

I am also well acquainted with criminals. Criminals have a tendency to not pay attention to laws or gun free zones Ms. Harris. As an aside, most civilians who carry concealed are better trained in the use of firearms than police officers. You also need to know that police officers have no legal mandate to protect individual citizens. In fact there is a saying that says..."When you need help now, the police are still minutes away." The point being the police generally clean up the mess after it has already happened.

What I fail to understand is why you, and many others who are unfamiliar with firearms, seem to have to demonize law abiding good citizens such as myself and my brothers and sisters who enjoy our firearm hobbies and, yes, our concern with our personal, familial and friend's safety. Your comments you are ascribing to people who have CPL's are not only out of line and disrespectful, they are not true at all.

Criminals are the people you need to be wary of, Ms. Harris, not law abiding citizens. Over two million times a year, the possession of a firearm has protected life and limb in our country Ms. Harris. In most of the cases, the firearm was not used, mainly because the law abiding victim was well trained and of stable character and mind and knew firing it would only be necessary as a last resort. I can also tell you that criminals fear law abiding citizens who carry concealed weapons. The FBI statistics bear this out. In the states that have Shall Issue laws, crimes have decreased. In cities like New York or Washington DC, that have the most bellicose and stringent anti gun laws, the statistics are woefully in the other direction.

What you should do before you again use your 1st A right to express your opinion, is find out the truth of a thing before you contribute again the untrue myths about firearms and the good people who choose to possess and or carry them, which indeed is not a right granted by the Constitution but rather enumerated as a basic human right in our Republic and protected by that Bill of Rights.

I'd suggest that you look up a shooting club or a firing range in your locale and take it upon yourself to familiarize yourself about firearms. I'm sure you find that activity enlightening and maybe ever turn out to be fun.

Cordially

 

[Martyk]

My reply..

My reply

Dear Ms. Harris:
I have read your opinion about guns on campus and would like to offer a few observation of my own. Since you state early on in your editorial that you are a member of the press and a “card carrying member of the protect the constitution club” perhaps you will see the credibility in publishing an opposing view in your editorial column. Otherwise, you are not really being fair with the authority of your position, in my opinion. Or maybe this is now acceptable behavior given that it os so commonplace within the mainstream media channels.

I believe your personal opinion on the subject of your article is frankly idealistic and naive. To highlight some key points, the complete banning of personal firearms is an unrealistic solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s not the law abiding citizenry that’s the problem Ms. Harris… it’s the Criminals! And since the criminals are.. well.. criminals, they don’t care about you, me or the gun laws. So if all guns were made illegal, and eliminated from society, then why would the police even need them? Unfortunately you will never be able to erase firearms from the world.

Another unrealistic concept is that dialing 911 is going to solve all your problems instantly. I have nothing but respect for police officers and the job they do, however, MOST law enforcement officers I speak to actually favor proper concealed carry laws. They will realistically admit that they can not be all places at all times. Take one of the recent school shootings that occurred. The police were called and had the building surrounded in riot gear while the shooter continued to kill people on the inside. Do you think the outcome would have been any different had some of the student body or faculty been armed defensively? Don’t you think the shooter would have been stopped much earlier? Or perhaps, he or she might have re-thought their actions knowing that they were walking into a situation where their “targets” were not just sitting ducks and were capable of defending themselves.

The idea that concealed carry laws foster a wild west atmosphere again has no realistic basis. Have you ever researched factual crime statistics with regards to states that have adopted right-to-carry laws. Isn’t that what Journalists are supposed to do? It may interest you to know that currently 40 states now have right-to-carry laws. And in those states, violent crime has DECREASED annually. This is factual, researchable information. Please check out www.gunfacts.info .

Lastly, I would like to pose a question to you. Why do you suppose our founding fathers created the second amendment? The reasoning is just as valid today as it was when the Bill of Rights was created. It was to create a balance of power between the people and the government to prevent tyranny.

I believe that if you take the time to educate yourself with factual information and not “made for TV” prime time propaganda, you will see that private gun ownership is a benefit to our society and not a detriment.

Sincerely,

 

[kendradad]

In about 5 minutes I was able to get stats from several states that list the crimes committed by CCW holders. In every case it was less than one third of one percent. Seems like a fair-minded journalist could have done the same research.

 

[Martyk]

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find statistics on crimes which were prevented or thwarted because of CCW. There ARE reports which are completed and published by state agencies such as the FBI and other crime reporting agencies, however the information is obscured. However it's there. I encourage everyone to look at www.gunfacts.info every statistic in this document is footnoted as to the source for the information. In other words... it's factual and not a journalistic "Opinion"

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

my response:

Ms. Harris,

You seem to have a fault in your rational on the issue of guns at your school. A person who wants to get a CCW license has to put in time, effort and money to do so. You even mention the training they would have to do a head of time, this training costs money and is not free. Your rational is that after a person puts in the time to train and fill out paper work, spent the money to train and to apply for the permit and identified themselves to the police that they would be carrying a gun, they would then use this gun at the first chance they got in an illegal manner such as shooting a teacher that gave a bad grade, thus negating everything they went through to get the permit in the first place. You blindly fear the people that would jump through the legal hoops to carry a weapon, when it is these people that would not use their weapon in an illegal manner.

As for the countless “what ifs” you describe in your column. They are unfounded and obviously a product of your over active imagination. I carry a gun to school on a daily basis. Don’t worry I do not go to your school, I go to Colorado State University where they treat those that meet the requirements to get a CCW as the adults that they are. Concealed carry on campus has been allowed for about 6 years now and not one of your “what ifs” has become a reality.

A few thoughts to ponder:
-In Kansas you have to be 21 to obtain a CCW permit, not all students would be allowed to carry only those that are of age.
-The cost of the permit is 150USD and the cost of the training program, which www.ksag.org said to shop around for and I did finding that it would cost about 150-250USD depending on where you got your training. That is 300 dollars and that does not include the cost of the gun or the bullets to train with and carry. You are looking at a 600-800 dollar investment to get your CCW permit and carry a gun. How many fellow students of yours do you know that have 600 dollars just sitting around?
-Those students that have their CCW permit already are trusted by your state to carry everywhere else already, besides federal buildings and marked “Criminal Friendly” opps I mean “Gun Free” zones.
-You seem to enjoy “what ifs” a lot, so I have one for you right now. What if you were in class and a gunman stormed in and started shooting? Would you feel anger towards the CCW holder that draws his weapon to save the lives around you? Of course that is just a “what if.” I sincerely hope that I will never draw my sidearm and that that situation will always remain a “what if.”

Sincerely,

 

[conw]

It's a long one. Check the last thrree paragraphs IMo they're the best.

Hello to the JCCC Senate and to you, Ms. Harris.

As an English major I am reluctantly omitting my several objections to Ms. Harris's article on the basis of style and structure alone and am instead writing about the content; it is worth mentioning, however, that she contradicts herself in saying that she "supports the second amendment" (in the convoluted paragraph about how she's a "card-carrying member of the support-the-constitution club," a rather flippant description at any rate) then later mentions she is all for total bans on weapons. Further, before I respond to what little substance IS included I should mention that the majority of the article consists of worn-out cliches such as "jumping the gun," which is not even used correctly - as if Ms. Harris expects to be able to coast by using nothing but cliches. Sound and fury!

Factually the piece is not just problematic, it is out-and-out wrong. The following rebuttals may be confirmed with primary sources referenced at www.gunfacts.info.

Ms. Harris asserts "we" (non-police) should trust police with guns; police are more likely than law-abiding citizens to abuse the power guns provide them! Further, most card-carrying legal handgun owners actually practice just as much as police do - ask your local range.

There are two issues with Ms. Harris's main assertion, that allowing guns on campus will make the place more dangerous rather than safer (backed up with convenient, generic quotes from mysterious anonymous professors). First of all, short of spending millions of dollars on body cavity searches, there is no way to keep people who are willing to break the law from having guns *currently*. If someone is willing to kill someone with a gun they are not allowed to have, why would they balk simply because there is a rule somewhere in the student handbook saying it's prohibited? Second, there is no proof that legalizing handguns in any community makes it more dangerous; while it is too complicated an issue to say that handguns *caused* the decrease in crime, most communities that have legalized gun ownership for law abiding citizens *have* experienced a concurrent drop in crime. At the very least this proves that handguns legally owned by citizens do not increase crime!

Ted Bundy once said "What's one less person on the face of the earth, anyway?"

According to Jen Harris, he has a point. It's not likely that the presence of legal handguns will make the community drastically safer, anyway. And even the worst school shootings in history have effected far less than one percent of students on far less than one percent of college campuses. If we take Harris's logic to its conclusion, we see that ultimately - if the community is far more important than the individual - she feels that there is no good solution to the problem, that it is an inconvenient fact of life.

As a law-abiding citizen and gun-owner, I disagree. I do not believe Ms. Harris should be able to restrict my freedom. While my decision to carry a gun is not going to help anyone else, and may or may not help me, I believe it is worth the investment of my time and money; if I am not hurting innocent people with it, why should I not be allowed to do so? If we allow the Jen Harrises of the world to dictate whether or not we get to keep individual freedoms by virtue of their merit to the larger community, expect to have few freedoms at all.

Respectfully,
_____ ______
English Major
_______ College

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

ah nuts, I for got my closing statement which would have been along the lines of:

You wrote "what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns? " The answer to this is that you have no rights to live in a gun free society. You should forfeit your "protect the constitution" card because only an amendment to the constitution would give you the right to take guns away, not unconstitutional laws and policies that you support.

 

[Dan Crocker]

Ah, ol' Johnson County Community College. Those kids live in a la-la fantasy land.

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

P.S. anyone that feels like ripping off that last part I wrote, but didn't send feel free. I am just to lazy to send another e-mail. Yet not to lazy to type all of this. I am a complicated man

 

[turbojohn41]

mine was short and sweet.

The second amendment lets you say you opinion. You and all the anti second amendment people better go back to school and learn the definition of shall not be infringed.

 

[akodo]

This is mine, see any errors?


Ms. Jan Harris

I read your article and would just like to bring up a few issues.

You write "what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?"

There is no such right to force your ideals on others. Whenever you call for 'a society free of X' you are calling for others to bend their knee to your believes. This is only allowable when their actions would truly infringe upon yours. Recall the early days of gay activism, when many people would state 'I am fine with gays...I just don't want to see them kissing in public...I have the right to live in a society free of their perversion...behind closed doors is okay, but not out in public.

Further, you write "What I do not support, however, is rogue individuals potentially “jumping the gun” in an effort to “help out” should an emergency arise. Please, leave the shooting to the professionals. Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially. "

A journalist should write in the realm of facts. We have a nation of 300 million people. We know how often people get struck by lightning, how often people die from bee swarms, injuries freak elevator related accidents, and falling off of horses. We use the frequency of occurrence of the incident in the past to measure how serious of a risk it really is. Do you have any statistics related to the number of incidents of people who are legally carrying because of such a permit system 'jumping the gun' and causing an issue? 37 states are now 'shall issue' and 2 are unrestricted regarding concealed carry of handguns. Surely, if this was a real risk, we'd see such cases reported in the news. The truth is, this fear is unreasonable. It is right next to the unreasonable fear of catching AIDS from a mosquito bite, kissing, or a toilet seat.

 

[conw]

Akodo, the last Pgph would work better first since it is the most persuasive. Also her name is Jen not Jan (that's the only error)...you may also want to cut out the gay analogy as I don't find it very persuasive (my opinion and that of others is that people are gay not by choice, but it's a stretch to say that it isn't a choice, IF a rational one, to carry a gun).

 

[Rodentman]

I emailed:

«Dear Ms. Harris,

I know you have received many emails on the subject of your recent editorial, so I'll keep it short and sweet.

I live in MN and have had a concealed carry permit for over 5 years. I am a 59 year old senior corporate accountant for a large international corporation with 271,000 employees. I have been with this firm for over 25 years.

You have absolutely nothing to fear from me or any other law abiding citizen with a carry permit. You will never be able to live in a society free of firearms.

For the saying is true: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I, for one, prefer to level the playing field and carry defensively. I have done so for years and shall continue to do so. I haven't shot anyone yet, and don't plan to unless my life is endangered.

Responsible firearm carrying by legitimate permit holders increases public safety; it does not reduce it. I hope you will investigate the statistics on crimes committed by permit holders and reconsider your position.

Regards,»

 

[Demitrios]

This is aimed towards conwict. I have to say you're writing was eloquent and impressive. I'd love to read more of your work, if any, that you've submitted regarding gun rights.

 

[mljdeckard]

(Marking to remember to send a diplomatic email first thing tomorrow.)

 

[conw]

Demitrios, wow man, that's flattering. Thank you. Do a recent post search on me and you will find a letter I wrote to my Senator Kay Hagan, in a thread about the Mexican border violence. It's very recent and locked.

Again, thanks. You humbled me and I have recently made it a goal to write a lot of these letters, so thanks for the inspiration!

 

[akodo]

Here is my revised message. I plan on sending it after work tomorrow



Ms. Jen Harris

I read your article and would just like to bring up a few issues.

You write "What I do not support, however, is rogue individuals potentially “jumping the gun” in an effort to “help out” should an emergency arise. Please, leave the shooting to the professionals. Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially."

A journalist should write in the realm of facts. We have a nation of 300 million people. We know how often people get struck by lightning, how often people die from bee swarms, injuries freak elevator related accidents, and falling off of horses. We use the frequency of occurrence of the incident in the past to measure how serious of a risk it really is. Do you have any statistics related to the number of incidents of people who are legally carrying because of such a permit system 'jumping the gun' and causing an issue? 37 states are now 'shall issue' and 2 are unrestricted regarding concealed carry of handguns. Surely, if this was a real risk, we'd see such cases reported in the news. The truth is, this fear is unreasonable. It is right next to the unreasonable fear of catching AIDS from a mosquito bite, kissing, or a public toilet seat.

Further, you write "what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?"

There is no such right to force your ideals on others. Whenever you call for 'a society free of X' you are calling for others to bend their knee to your believes. This is only allowable when their actions would truly infringe upon yours. This attitude of 'the behavior is acceptable, but only behind closed doors, because it infringes my right to not see it' has been tried as a method of stopping same sex couples from showing displays of affection in public, of stopping interracial couples dating openly, of non main-stream religions worshiping openly, and fringe political parties from being involved in public parades and campaigns.

There is no right to not be offended by a person's comments. There is only free speech.

There is no right to not have to tolerate other religions. There is only freedom of religion.

There is no right to see people you don't approve of dating. There is only freedom of association.

There is no right to see people you don't agree with gathering to protest a message you don't like. There is only freedom of assembly.

And finally, there is no right to demand that all around you be forced to adopt your philosophy on firearms. There is only the freedom of each individual to own a firearm if they so choose.

Cordially

 

[bang_bang]

They could move to Britian...

 

[ACBMWM3]

Anybody received a response?

 

[hso]

Keep it civil and to the point.

We don't want to have any letters that let the antis characterize us as knuckle draggers.

 

[Davionmaximus]

Will do!!

 

[Davionmaximus]

Here is what I sent...

I have read your opinion article. I will keep this brief. To begin with I do appreciate your opinion, but I disagree.

The main point I wish to make is simply this: Gun free zones are invitations for tragedy.

People who CHOOSE to go to schools, churches, shopping malls and nursing homes and commit mass murder are choosing these locations BECAUSE they are considered "gun free zones". They understand that they will meet a minimum amount of resistance.

Funny.. you never hear of this happining at a gun range....

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Check the statistics for yourself. How many of these killers are licensed carry conceal gun owners?

I pray you never have to face such a horrible situation. But if you do I hope someone with a concealed license is close by.


Davionmaximus