Posted on 10/10/2002 12:57:49 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
A Second Amendment group says the shooting of a 13-year-old boy outside a Maryland middle school on Monday bolsters its argument for allowing parents and teachers to carry guns on school grounds - specifically, in the parking lot outside.
Ed Kelleher, president of the pro-gun group GrassRoots South Carolina (GRSC), believes the presence of legally armed parents in the parking lot at Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Md., could have provided a "deterrent effect" on the still-unknown sniper who shot and seriously wounded the child.
But Maryland State law (Article 27 Sec. 36A) expressly prohibits the possession of firearms on any school property, even if a gun owner possesses a permit to carry a concealed weapon. (An exception is made for law enforcement.)
Federal law also prohibits anyone from possessing a firearm within a thousand feet of school grounds. That federally mandated "gun-free school zone" includes public, parochial and private schools.
Maryland is one of 32 states that issues permits for people who want to carry concealed weapons. However the Maryland State Police, which issue the permits, warns applicants they are difficult to obtain.
According to a fact sheet available on the Maryland State Police website, state residents applying for an "unrestricted" concealed weapons permit probably will never get one. "Almost all handgun permits are restricted in some fashion," the website says.
'More guns, less crime'
Mass murders have one thing in common, said Kelleher. They happen in places where people are forced to be disarmed, he said. "You don't hear about shootings at NRA conventions and gun shows."
GrassRoots South Carolina is trying to change state gun laws so that people with concealed weapons permits would be allowed carry guns in school parking lots, while dropping off or picking up their children. The group believes that's the best way to stop crime on school grounds and in neighborhoods.
But state lawmakers apparently don't agree. A measure that would have allowed concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns in school parking lots failed this year in the South Carolina legislature.
GrassRoots South Carolina also wants to increase the number of concealed weapon permit holders: It is working to double the number of CWP holders in South Carolina by 2006.
The pro-gun group is hosting a "Great GrassRoots Gathering" on October 19 to generate support for its goal of arming local citizens "wherever and whenever they choose."
Kelleher said he hopes the educational event will help minimize the "hysterical reactions" of non-gun owners who object to the idea of private citizens carrying guns on school grounds. He said GrassRoots South Carolina and its 5,000 members want to convince concerned parents and lawmakers that gun owners are "good people motivated by good desires."
But swaying the anti-gun crowd is not an easy task, he said.
"People just aren't comfortable with it," Kelleher said. "People are comfortable with police officers carrying guns in schools because they know them and they have a good feeling about police officers."
Kelleher said he often asks parents if they would have used a gun to protect their children in a school massacre such as the one at Colorado's Columbine High School. He said their response is always the same: "Sure, I could use a gun."
Kelleher also said he's a strong proponent of arming teachers as an additional deterrent to school shootings.
By his account, arming teachers proved effective about a decade ago in Israel when terrorist gunmen launched a rash attacks on Israeli schools. Once the gunmen realized the teachers were armed, the killings stopped, he said.
The fact remains, Kelleher said, that all of society benefits when good people carry firearms.
"What stops people from shooting? People arriving on the scene with guns," he said. "How can we prevent shootings? It seems pretty obvious to say, 'Well, let's have people with guns there in the first place.'"
The other side: 'More guns, more violence'
Ginni Wolf, executive director of Marylanders Against Handgun Abuse, Inc., said issuing permits for parents and teachers to carry weapons on school property would only lead to more violence and tragedy.
"You get into a fight with your child's teacher because you don't believe they're being fair to your child and you're in a parent-teacher conference and emotions run high and out comes the gun because you're allowed to have it," Wolf hypothesized. "That's not very far outside the realm of possibility."
Further, she noted that parents have become increasingly violent at their children's sporting events in recent years, a subject that's received much discussion in the media.
"If they were on school property and they got into something like this, would they not pull out their gun?" she asked. "That happens with road rage all the time."
Wolf said the example of the Maryland sniper has only solidified her group's argument that there are "too many guns out there, and it's very easy for these types of people to obtain guns."
Representatives from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research refused to comment to CNSNews.com.
What you are asking for in armed civilians is the functional equivalent of doctors who will work as paramedics. It doesn't work that way. LE officers are highly trained...BUT NOT IN FIREARMS! The truth of the matter is guns don't require that much training, and if we hadn't had a hundred years of women whinning to "make them feel safe," firearms wouldn't be the dark secret they are today.
Further, no, you don't understand my position correctly; mostly because you have bought into the "vigilante" shiboleth of the left. The nut cases you are alluding to, that is, people who will mistakenly take their right to self protection as a licence to kill, are of the same mind, and exist in the same numbers as those who think income tax laws don't have any legal standing. Give people a little credit. There will always be "darwin award" candidates. Liberals are the ones that formulate policy to make sure no idiot ever has the opportunity screw up: not us.
How are you defining "regulated?" I sounds to me like you are defining it as a synonym of "registered."
As NRA members and 2nd Amendment Supporters together we should spend more time reminding ourselves and each other what it means to be a sovereign citizen in a Constitutional Republic.
Civilian patrols are one small component of the larger plan outlined by our Constitution.
To fulfill the standard of "Eternal Vigilance as the price of Liberty" all adults should be familiar with and proficient in the use of firearms; a significant portion of them should be armed under as many circumstances as possible and the standard of prosecution should only apply to those individuals who actually commit crimes.
Many of the ideas you outline in your posts on this thread violate at least two fundamental ideas - "innocent until proven guilty" and "prior restraint".
For example, the notion that adults who acquire firearms are automatically to be treated as though they will use them recklessly flies in the face of research that has demonstrated between 1-2 Million incidents a year in which ordinary people have used firearms in self defense without ever firing a shot or even making a comprehensive report to "authorities".
Further we are blessed with empirical evidence of the negative effects on Society when government recklessly disarms adults by the example of both England and Australia.
Since those societies have managed to criminalize instruments of self defense the rate of crime and sheer brutal thuggery have skyrocketed. It is now generally conceded London is far more dangerous for ordinary individuals than New York or for that matter many third world countries.
This increase in general mayhem can be directly traced to the date of overregulation in regard to the concepts of armed self defense.
I hope you will find more time to reflect on the connection between armed citizens and a safe living environment regardless of location-home, school, parks, malls, highways or any other public or private space.
Best regards,
I guess with any extreme, you can't be extreme enough to satisfy. My position with regard to firearms is far more conservative than most people, and far more pro-gun than is permitted in almost any state of the union. When I discuss my pro-gun stands with the guys at work -- they think I'm a raving neo-fascist -- which only goes to prove that you can't please everyone.
The term "extreme" is, of course, a subjective word used mainly by politicians to divert attention from positions which have the added disadvantage of perceived unpopularity in public discourse.
If your fellow employees resort to labeling or namecalling to silence your viewpoint in a discussion it is probably because you were winning the intellectual argument.
I would suggest you continue to lead by example and earn their genuine regard over time rather than seek to please them with your silence.
1) I do not support hand guns in the hands of convicted felons or certified psychopaths -- is this position unreasonable?
Yes.
It is impossible to keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons or certified psychopaths.
By definition they do not accept restrictions society attempts to place upon them. To disarm valuable, productive citizens by regulation in a futile attempt to disarm criminals is a useless exercise and complete waste of time as well as patently dangerous. Criminals who can not acquire handguns legitimately will steal them (from military and police if necessary); if they cannot steal them they will manufacture them( with nothing more complicated than ordinary pipe if necessary);if they cannot make them they will develop other tools and techniques to accomplish their goals of mayhem. They are, after all, convicted felons and certified pyschopaths.
2) I do not support the idea of armed vigilantes -- operating outside the law, taking the law into their own hands -- is this position unreasonable?
Yes.
It depends on your definition of "armed" and "vigilante" Again, may I direct your attention to the number of instances when ordinary adults used weapons (annually)without firing a shot or engaging anyone except the goblin interested in mayhem.
There are as many examples of inappropriate weapons handling by certified authorities that do not receive wide public notice as there are sucessful instances of APPROPRIATE weapons handling by ordinary citizens which also do not receive wide public attention.
Further, as you are aware, the individual who accepts 2nd Amendment responsibilities develops, over time, a transformed world view which includes mental assets known as "tactical awareness", something which has been lost as we have transformed ourselves from a "nation of riflemen" into a nation of supplicant socialists.
A nation of riflemen will know how to react and deal with sniper attacks whether or not they happen to be armed during an assault. A nation of supplicant socialists will cluster helplessly together in a feel good group hug until the next attack.
Target practice is the only useful mental discipline or therapy to prevent societal breakdown from terrorism.
3) I support restrictions on the sale of military-style weapons to civilians -- weapons designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds -- is this position unreasonable?
Yes.
Military weapons in the hands of the general populace are the only bulwark sufficient to protect the general population in the event of a central government breakdown.
As a member of the NRA you surely understand military weapons are in fact NOT designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. They are designed to injure and maim enemy soldiers so the army to which they belong will be demoralized and bogged down with damage control.
The ordinary deer cartridge, on the other hand, is designed with soft point projectiles that expand upon impact to ensure "one shot, one kill" as frequently as possible for a humane and ethical harvest of wild game.These rounds are banned by the Geneva Convention for use in armed conflict.
Finally, I believe that the breakdown of American culture (i.e. the rise of multi-culturalism and PC) has contributed far more to rising violent crime statistics than restrictive gun laws. Ethnic and racial minorities and illegal immigrants are disproportionately responsible for violent crime in America -- this has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with a "free pass" for criminals because they're a protected minority.
I would have to question this premise. Many of the unpunished violent criminals in our society come from all strata equally. There is no doubt the cultural environment of unaccountable behaviour creates many opportunities for thugs to prevail, but once again this should be an argument for more armed citizens not fewer. Nothing focuses a goblins attention more thoroughly than the knowledge that in this one instance at this particular time he/she will be held thoroughly and completely accountable for bad behaviour because this citizen refuses to be a victim.
It is the ultimate exercise of citizen sovereignty and it is exercised far more wisely and frequently than the muddlestream media would like to report.
Best regards,
Indeed. And those feminized accountants are sprinkled everywhere throughout law enforcement and the bureaucracy, particularly in the upper ranks and leadership.
To balance your view of the incompetence of armed vigilantes you may wish to consider this example from last year in California. Hundreds of shots were fired, many of them into occupied homes who had no knowledge of or association with the alleged felon. It was swept off the front page by 9-11.
The Santa Clarita Shootout-Waco, the Sequel
Best regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.