Email to a mothers group

[Tom Servo]

"Guns are
only the solution if you're watching a Hollywood action flick."

Or, say a student at Columbine High or Virginia Tech.

Ouch

"is there anything to
prevent unstable employees from obtaining a CCP?"

The questions on the CPL application that deal with mental illness and the follow-up period of investigation.

Aren't teachers subject to pretty stringent mental-health background checks already? IIRC, Pennsylvania uses the same system (PICS) for CCW licenses as they do for the police and teachers.

"Teachers are supposed to be role models...won't it teach them that its ok to solve their problems this way?

Not unless teachers go on vigilante rampages over poor penmanship. What it DOES teach children is not to be passive victims, an idea that keeps the Left awake at night.

All in all, really good points. The only problem is that you're relying on FACTS, while the opposition has been taught to recite rhetoric and rely on emotion.

Still, I wish you the best, and I'd really like to see MI set a precedent with this.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Your mothers might benefit from viewing and discussing this video of a University of Florida student who was recently arrested and tasered by the campus police at a John Kerry forum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag

Mr. Kerry ignores what is happening before his very eyes and even jokes that the student isn't available to join him on the platform. As the video demonstrates, the job of a school police force is to protect the school, not its students or its teachers, and a school's police officers go their own way. I would trust teachers who have qualified for concealed weapons permits over any campus police force any day where my own children's well being is concerned.

Another video for those mothers to see and consider is the famous lecture on gun safety by Lee Paige to a class of young people in Orlando, Florida. Agent Paige is an officer in the federal government's Drug Enforcement Agency: he was better trained than most school guards. How many of your mothers think that he--or anyone like him--is better able than a teacher with a concealed weapons permit to look after the safety of their children? Your mothers might want to know that Paige's own children were in that group of kids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY

My point isn't that school police or DEA agents are incompetent or that teachers with concealed weapons permits are more competent. My points are that a competent teacher who also has qualified for a concealed weapons permit is at least as trustworthy and reliable, presumably more able to work with and for the needs of children in their care, and are members of the same species as school police and DEA agents. Teachers, guards, police, and DEA agents all are human beings.

It's a serious mistake for parents to view the safety of their children with prejudgments that ignore what generations of earlier parents knew and what common sense should suggest: that good teachers do better than outsiders at creating safe classroom environments unless they are prevented from doing so by parents, administrators, school boards, and politicians. The good teacher with a concealed weapons permit has earned both his or her license to teach and his permit to carry a defensive firearm. Not even the best school police guard has demonstrated competence in both areas.

 

[10 Ring Tao]

What disturbs me about this, is that in talking about conflict resolution using weapons, they seem to think that it is better to try and talk to someone who is shooting at everything that moves, instead of shooting back.

Are these people really so naive?

 

[BridgeWalker]

Are these people really so naive?

Some of them are hardcore idealists, who believe that they are willing to die or let thier children die for the fantasy of a "world without guns"

Some of them are hangers-on who haven't thought it through but enjoy the flowers and rainbows view of reality that is evoked for them by the phrase "a world without guns"

So, yes, they are that naive.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Are these people really so naive?

Yes, but denial probably is the greater problem and it is terminal because there is no way to overcome denial. My personal committment is to protect the weak--in this case the children--because I hate it when the weak are exploited, but I don't think it's possible to protect children against exploitation by their own parents whose childrearing orientation derives solely from the need to protect their own illusions. How can anyone explain that they are killing their kids with "kindness"?

I've just read delta9's latest post. She seems to have a good grasp on the problem.

 

[mike101]

"A wise person can make
peace as easily with his body and voice as he can with a baton, knife,
or gun."

I love that one. Sounds like something Brady Bunch Kelli would say. Aside from a bit of craziness, it takes a certain amount of misdirected courage, guts, nerve, whatever, to force your way into a school or an occupied home, and attack people. These people are overtly agressive. They are not going to be disueded by anything other than equal or superior force. Anyone who uses that argument with you has their head buried in the sand (or somewhere else).

 

[pax]

Sara ~

That was a great letter. Sorry it didn't go over too well ...

Hey, as far as "a world without guns" goes, if you want to pursue the conversation any further (I'm not sure I would -- you've done well so far though), you might want to read and maybe use some arguments from Kopel et al at http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

Good luck to you.

pax

 

[Dorryn]

I dont think ive ever met someone "Wise enough" to disarm a violent armed psychopath by talking.

 

[cambeul41]

This is worth keeping on file.

"Ten things non-gun people should know about CCW holders" by Serenity


http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176240

 

[BridgeWalker]

Well, the conversation has taken a bizarre but predictable turn. Now several women are protesting that they are ex-military, the husband is an LEO, the husband is a hunter, etc and so they KNOW guns.

One brags that her husbands guns are not only kept unloaded and locked in a safe (fine) but hidden behind boxes of Christmas decorations that he has to move out of the way every time her wants to go hunting.

I am beginning to understand why my husband loves me...

I hereby pledge to never require my spouse to become a lousy shot through lack of practice due to my insistence on hiding his guns behind stacks of boxes in the basement.

I did post another response in which I addressed again the continued hysterical hand-wringing about poor, scared, untrained teachers being forced to carry WMDs, and pointed out again that the point is mostly not to shoot crazed students, but to end the idea that our schools are pens of sheep for the slaughter. I also addressed to normalcy of carrying and the huge population of (so far violence free) CPL holders in our county.

Of course there is one good side-effect: whole bunches of these women are now considering homeschooling.

 

[SteveS]

I'm in Lansing. Some of the women are in Lansing, which does have some frightening schools. Most are in East Lansing/Okemos/other nearby cities which are "safe", that is to say, affluent and mostly white, like Columbine.

I have lived in this area for about 15 years and can say it is an interesting mixture of right and left. Unfortunately, mostly left. Hang in there. Your post was good. At the least, you have presented them with a rational, intelligent gun owner. Maybe it will counteract their preconceived bad image of gun owners.

 

[CNYCacher]

You, and your children interact with them daily. They shop in the same stores you shop do. They eat in the same restaurants you eat at. They sit in the same theaters you sit in. They watch their children play in the same park your children play in.

Hmmm. Where is this Deja Vu coming from. . .
oh yes:

. . . Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... f### with us.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Alright, I ended it. Several more people responded by posting about how violence breeds violence, therefore peace breeds peace. Apparently they are confusing biology with philosophy now, and how police officers have a magic aura that helps them be safe with guns while the rest of us are scared little ladies (I got the distinct impression that included you guys too...) who need to be saved by the pros, lest we all be disarmed by rampaging students.

Quick question for the CPL holders out there: When was the last time you "got complacent" and left your gun unlocked, loaded, no safety, on a table surrounded by kindergartners?

Yeah, so, I'm walking away from this one in disgust. My final response:

-------

First, the bill (if passed) would amend the current CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) law to include any school employee who is given permission by authorized school officials."

I just don't see that. I am reading that this section applies to

"...an individual
licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is
exempt from licensure under section 12a(f),..."

So, this section is talking about CPL holders.

"...shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A school or school property..."

And where CPL holders may not carry concealed, and the following exception to where CPL may not carry

"...except that a AS FOLLOWS:
(i) A TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, OR OTHER EMPLOYEE OF A SCHOOL IS
NOT PRECLUDED FROM CARRYING A CONCEALED PISTOL IN THAT SCHOOL OR ON THAT SCHOOL PROPERTY IF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCHOOL HAS AUTHORIZED THAT INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL IN THAT SCHOOL OR ON THAT SCHOOL PROPERTY...."

It was pretty clear to me on first and subsequent readings that this bill proposes reducing a limitation on CPL holders, not abolishing the CPL requirement.

My husband and I have gone back and re-read it several times, and cannot come up with any alternate reading. Perhaps, as a second year law student and a paralegal, we're just more accustomed to reading statutes and proposals. The relevant section, you will note, is a subsection outlining a proposed exception to a subsection (limiting carry) of a statute regulating CPL holders. Laws and proposals are nested like that and a section read in isolation doesn't really make sense. This is, of course, not a qualified legal opinion, but merely a close reading of the proposed language.

I had a lot more to say and refutations to make, but frankly, interest seems to be waning and I have a lot of work to do tonight, and I seem to have irreconcilable differences of opinion on the matter of gun control with most posters.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion offlist with anyone interested, but not by email, since it simply is too time-consuming. (Most of these women have easy access to my telephone number)

Peace,

Sara

P.S.--sorry about the kooky formatting. My email client is misbehaving itself tonight. (Sara's being folksy and conciliatory instead of taking the effort to fix the formatting).
-----------

Well, it's been fun. I'm gonna limp away from this one and get my homework done. I wanna move to the UP...

 

[v35]

Sara, I'm thoroughly impressed by your thoughtful responses, and although I understand your "disgust" I certainly hope you don't give up. The logical, reasoned approach you've taken is the only counter to the hysterics that anti-self-defense advocates usually resort to.

You will get nowhere with a closed-minded person, but you will win a few converts who have the courage to question their prejudices. It sounds as though you've accomplished that. Well done!

 

[SteveS]

My husband and I have gone back and re-read it several times, and cannot come up with any alternate reading. Perhaps, as a second year law student and a paralegal, we're just more accustomed to reading statutes and proposals. The relevant section, you will note, is a subsection outlining a proposed exception to a subsection (limiting carry) of a statute regulating CPL holders. Laws and proposals are nested like that and a section read in isolation doesn't really make sense. This is, of course, not a qualified legal opinion, but merely a close reading of the proposed language.

Your interpretation is correct. I'll echo the previous poster and say don't give up. I have had some moderate success with similar people.

 

[RuffRidr]

So far, I got one worried and scared response and several ranting, disgusted responses. I think I just lost a few "friends" who had made the mistake of thinking my family are sheeple. But at least one person who responded and likely several who didn't got to think a little and see a new perspective.

That last line says volumes Sara. You'll probably never change the mind of someone that is set in their ways. I've found the best thing to do is respond rationally and calmly. It won't do anything to win over the person you are arguing with, but you could very well win over many of the onlookers.

Good on ya, and keep up the good work.

--RuffRidr

 

[LeafsFan]

(Edit: I just realised that I came late to this thread and you already moved forward. Good work. I'll leave my post here anyway for what it's worth.)

I'd work in this point:

Metal detectors are called that because they detect metal. Notice how they're not called "metal-taker-awayers".

If a criminal wants to bring a gun to school the detector will (probably) go off... and then the kid will just continue on into the school with his gun and we'll have another massacre.

Why? Because after the detector went off nobody was able to stop the criminal since he was the only one with a gun.

if you end up in a back-and-forth argument, I'd also recommend taking any emotion out of your responses... let them supply that. You supply the calm, rational answers, deflect any personal jabs, and take a lot of deep breaths before you answer them. After they've calmed down your behaviour throughout the exchange will reflect well on your position.

Good luck!

 

[BHPshooter]

I think Utah has similar legislation.

Yep, in Utah a school zone is NOT a prohibited area to anyone with a valid CFP.

I have worked in the school system (in support roles) on and off for about 10 years. School security can best be described as "sieve." Utah Safe School Policy mandates having only the main entrance open, and all other doors locked (but available as exits via crash-bars). Nobody gives a crap. DAILY I would find at least one door blocked open for whatever reason -- so that the night school classes didn't have to walk all the way around to the main entrance, so that Coach so-and-so's team can practice unsupervised and let themselves back in afterwards -- et cetera.

Now, none of the schools I attended in my tenure, or later worked at, had metal detectors. But it doesn't take a CPA to figure out that metal detectors are expensive, so it is fiscally impossible to have one at every entrance. (AFAIK, no public school in Utah has metal detectors).

Therefore, metal detectors are essentially a large sum of money flushed down the toilet, because if someone wants to get a gun in the school -- not that a metal detector would ever stop a deranged person -- they could almost assuredly get in through another entrance.

Man, I love Utah. I know of several public school employees, teachers and otherwise, that have Utah CFPs. I don't know how often they carry, but it is a nice thought, nonetheless, knowing that they can carry when so many other states prohibit it.

Wes

 

[Rey B]

I'm rooting for Michigan to pass this one. If they do Indiana could conceivably follow suit. I will be teaching in about 2 years and would love to have this as a possibility.

 

[txgho1911]

What is this thing in MI about target clubs that only allow shooting wax projectiles?
A relative of mine there wants to get a HD weapon. All they have at home is a revolver that will only shoot wax bullets made for target shooting. I really believe this may be a 38 with a wax buildup making it smooth bore.
I recommended he shop around in his own state.

How many of these moms KNOW guns through one of these wax cannons?

 

[BridgeWalker]

I dunno. I've never heard of such a thing. You can be sure that none of my family's guns have ever been used to fire wax projectiles!

In other news, since someon else revived this thread, the conversation on that thread did become more positive and a few more of the hyper-liberals "came out" as gun owners, emphasizing safe storage and good education for thier kids.

There was a good discussion on "accidental" deaths and how those are not accidents but negligence, often extreme negligence.

I think it had a good overall result, even though I've now been written off as a crazed redneck (fine by me...)

 

[gunsmithgirl]

I really hope MI does allow CC in schools. My daughter attends the school in North Branch where that 10 yr. old kid brought the handgun + 26 rounds of the wrong ammunition for the gun to school. I would feel better if certain teachers were armed.