.

Banning Guns is Not the Way to Go

Surrounding the Sandy Hook school shooting there has been the inevitable discussion about guns and gun control. The one thing everyone can all agree on is that we are beyond sad about it.

This was not the blog I originally intended to publish today.  I’m going to save that one, with a much brighter focus, for next week.  The Sandy Hook school shooting has caused a national outcry, and the one thing everyone can all agree on is that we are beyond sad about it. And we are angry.  And no matter what is done, we cannot bring back the lives of those who were lost.

Surrounding this event, there has been the inevitable discussion about guns and gun control.

The truth is that if we banned handguns, any psychotic monster like the one who committed the heinous-beyond-comprehension attack on the Connecticut school children yesterday would have used a shotgun, rifle or perhaps another type of weapon.  People who are on illogical and inhumane missions to destroy others and have no regard for their own lives will use whatever means necessary, even if not officially deemed a weapon to carry out their attacks. We all remember the attack on the World Trade Center.  How many of us ever thought of using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction before?  Not me.

So the question is, are we as United States citizens willing to forsake our right to bear firearms as civilians?  I’m not; and I’ll explain why.

I’m fully aware that this is a serious topic, especially following yesterday's terrible tragedy. I know that many will oppose my opinions; however, there has got to be a middle ground for any solution to really work.

Most people who commit these kinds of killing spree crimes are not licensed to have guns in the first place. People will always find a way to get them no matter what the gun control laws are. Unfortunately, when people want more restrictive gun laws they are targeting a population of people who legally embrace the second amendment to the constitution, by going through proper licensing and background checks, which in most situations is NOT the crazy person who will buy a gun on the black market or steal one to cause harm.

There will always be some insane jackass who wants to cause harm by any means. How do we prevent someone from going off the deep end, and if not using a gun, resort to a bomb, or other method of madness against an innocent portion of the population? That is the key.

The people that do go through proper licensing to bear arms do it for one of four reasons - self defense, defending others (as in police officers), hunting, and collecting/hobbyist/occasionally go to a shooting range).  As an American citizen I would like the option to be able to defend myself and my child against maniacs like this if the situation need be.

When we had Hurricane Sandy in NJ, people were without power for weeks. No power means no alarm systems work. We could barely get signals on our cell phones to call for help if we needed to. People were stealing generators out of neighbors’ backyards and stealing gas to run them, too. If someone wanted to break into a dark cold house thinking that they were going to do some looting, they probably could have, and in some cases did. Would I want to be a female with a child in the house at night, in the dark, absolutely defenseless?  Um, no.

What about this idea:  maybe it should be easier for a person to get and carry a gun, but in a very controlled way.  Just entertain this idea for a minute:  What if the process to obtain a gun permit is regulated a lot more, while keeping the availability of guns intact (not automatic weapons – there’s a big difference)?  It would be hard at first to achieve the results we want, but if everyone (or almost everyone) carried a gun and knew how to use it, the thrill of carrying one when you aren’t supposed to would be diminished.  Not only that, but if you tried anything funny, you would know right away that chances are, with a room full of people pointing a gun at you, you’re not going to get away with it.

Like punishment for breaking laws, if the penalties and consequences (in this case knowing that there is an armed population around you) were stricter, you'd see reduced crime.  Instead, most first offenders of anything get a slap on the wrist and go out and become repeat offenders.  If you have a great enough deterrent in the first place (like an ARMED police officer at each school), some lunatics would think twice before going on a shooting spree in a school.  And yes, you will always have a crazy one who doesn't care if they die in the process of hurting others....so they will try to cause harm regardless.  You can’t ban crazy. But you know what? If you plant someone in that school who is trained to kill a psycho like this, chances are that psycho won't kill many or any.

Teachers are supposed to act like defenders now anyway - armed or not. They are the unarmed front line protecting our children. That just doesn't seem right to me. They need backup that works.

If we left the decision to hire armed personnel at schools up to school funding, then poorer districts would not have as adequate defense as those with more money to spend. My guess is that this would have to be a Federal mandate that requires a trained officer or personnel to be present at every school.

We place a lot of responsibilities upon educators already.  They are expected to be care givers, teachers, counselors, referees, and now defenders and protectors of our children. When you introduce the element of a psycho maniac attacking children, that just ups the ante and now they are expected to defend and protect our children without a means that really works.

Training teachers how to pull shades down in schools, turn the lights off, and walk kids out in single file lines (depending upon the situation) just isn't enough.  So do we start training combination teacher/security officers or do we hire separate staff to stand guard? I'm fine with either solution, really. I just think if you forced teachers into a training program to carry guns, not everyone would go for that who wants to become a teacher. It could potentially narrow down the population of those who want to become teachers because they don’t want to be put in that position where they have to be focused on simultaneously educating our children, while having eyes in the back of their heads to take out trouble. Plus, if you've got someone elderly teaching versus someone younger and more agile, that wouldn't make sense to assume they all would be comfortable and capable of defending children. Hire the big guys with the big guns to protect our kids, I think.

Banning guns doesn’t prevent people from going crazy and killing others.  They will just find another means to execute their madness unless there is a measure put in place to stop them at the front line.  Crazy doesn’t rationalize.  The only thing that speaks to crazy is the action that if you do this, we’re going to put a bullet in your brain and stop you, period.

 

This blog post was originally published on the author's own website:  http://TheLadyinRedBlog.com

 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

QuiverFullaKidz December 17, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Enjoying the radio broadcast. I loved everything Ian had to say:) I agreed so much with his reccomendations for stricter gun control laws! Laws that pertain to making it much more difficult to obtain gun licensing and the accountability that is vital in monitoring people who own guns. I also loved his ideas about making guns much more individually "fingerprinted" but he says the NRA is opposed to this. I enjoyed Laura's position on more safety and screeing at schools. Schools should not be opening doors for just anybody and letting them in and theres should be security guards at school. Unfortunately I did not enjoy damon's comments at all. he seems selfish and only concerned with "HIS" rights to bear arms..the hell with the world at large..and the people who "DO NOT" own firearms as "responsibly" (as he does) :(
Laura Madsen December 17, 2012 at 06:04 PM
Thank you for listening, QuiverFullaKidz, and leaving your comments here. I truly hope that a solution can be found that protects our children and teachers in schools.
Laura Madsen December 17, 2012 at 06:05 PM
The sound bite of today's radio broadcast from Atlanta, with myself and two other guests, about gun control in the wake this tragedy is now available to listen to. Click here --> http://www.theladyinredblog.com/awesome-moments.html and scroll down to "On the Radio in Atlanta" to listen. Thank you to all of the callers who participated in this discussion, and we wish we had had more time to hear from more of you. We understand that some people feel that this is too soon to discuss this issue, and we respect your right to not listen if you feel this is inappropriate. We did our best to approach super-sensitive and highly tragic issue with a total lack of sensationalism.
Ben Vitale April 07, 2013 at 05:17 PM
Laura: I agree with you 100%. When I was in the Auxiliary Police officer, our relief point and meeting room was inside of a School. I am sure that the “Police” sign on the door would make someone with bad intensions, think twice. While on an Auxiliary Police routine training patrol with two other APOs, we accidentally approached a police officer who was trying to control six alleged criminals who were inside of a car. The criminals saw a distinct advantage in their favor, six of them and one Police officer. The officer was ordering them to stay in the car, and the criminals were ignoring his orders; the situation was going from bad to worse! I pulled up with three armed APOs, four including me; it is amazing how quickly the cowards, turned into angels. A show of force is the only outward sign that the criminal element understands! The Auxiliary Police was a volunteer service; the other side of my life was in Academia. I know how easy it is to get caught up in an environment of “Wine, Cheese, and Chamber Music.” When you are continually surrounded by the most intelligent, articulate and reasonable people in the world, you soon lose touch with the fact that criminals are a fact of life, and are not at all reasonable. Without a means of protection, the criminal element will have the absolute power to kill me and my entire family, at will! Again, a show of force is the only outward sign that the criminal element understands!
Archie Bunker April 07, 2013 at 06:08 PM
Our Gov tells it like it is !!!! Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) ripped National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre on Sunday as someone who reminds him of “the clowns at the circus.” Malloy was responding to LaPierre’s criticism of Connecticut’s new gun restrictions, signed into law after December’s elementary school massacre in Newtown. LaPierre said the new rules won’t affect criminals but will only make things harder for law-abiding citizens. “Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus. They get the most attention and that’s what he’s paid to do,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable. Ninety-two percent of the American people want universal background checks. I can’t get on a plane as the governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me. Why should you be able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing ammunition? It doesn’t make any sense — he doesn’t make any sense, thus my reference to the circus.”

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »