Examples exist where armed individuals came through

In a letter in the May 9 News Tran-script, "Idea of Teachers and Students Carrying Guns Is Way Over the Line" the writer, Teja Anderson, whom I highly respect, defends the effectiveness of the Gun-Free School Zones Act. I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to her criticism.

There have been 27 well known school shootings in the United States since 1966, according to Wikipedia. Six of those occurred during the 24 years prior to the enactment of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The remaining 21 have taken place in the 17 years since. That amounts to a nearly 400 percent increase in the annual rate of school shootings since the act was put into effect.

One of those shootings took place on Jan. 16, 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. But this one ended a little differently. When a gunman opened fire, killing three and wounding three, he was subdued with the help of two students with personal firearms before he could harm anyone else. Unfortunately, stories like this, where further violence is prevented with the help of armed citizens, quickly fade from memory.

Furthermore, in the recent shooting at the Amish school in Pennsylvania, the killer made it clear that he chose to commit his crime at a school because he knew he would encounter little or no resistance there.

The writer cited two police station shootings, but what she failed to mention is that in both cases the attacker was stopped almost immediately by good guys with guns, and further tragedy was prevented. Had these police stations been a mandatory gun-free zone the death toll would have certainly been higher. And while someone as ill as the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, might not have been dissuaded by the threat of force, I find the idea of forcing his victims to cower defenselessly, waiting for him to run out of ammunition, far more horrifying and immoral than the alternative.

The writer finds the idea of responsible law-abiding Americans having the ability to defend themselves to be "more immoral than she can comprehend." She's in distinguished company. Many well known political leaders have taken similar moral positions on the idea of ordinary people being able to defend themselves: Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro and Adolph Hitler have all shared the same deeply held moral view, and took aggressive steps to ensure that the ordinary civilian remains defenseless.

On the other hand there have also been some notable names on the "immoral" side of this issue. Known tyrants such as Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and even Mohandas Gandhi have all made numerous statements in favor of ordinary citizens being able to defend themselves with arms. Remarkably, none other than that infamous villain and gun nut, the Dalai Lama, has been quoted as saying "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." I have every reason to believe that my critic, whom I know to be a very moral person indeed, would feel more at home in the company of the Dalai Lama than Mao Tse Tung, despite her feelings on this issue.

The letter further cites that no children were killed by guns in Japan because of their strict gun laws, but it fails to mention that on June 8, 2001, a trespasser into Ikeda Elementary School, armed with a kitchen knife, killed eight children while wounding 15. And on Nov. 26, 2004, an intruder stabbed eight students to death and injured four others at China's Ruzhou's Number Two High School, where guns are also forbidden. It was the sixth such incident in a four-month period.

The Gun Free School Zones Act is "head-in-the-sand" legislation. It provides an illusion of safety by trying to convince us that someone who is willing to commit murder and suicide would be persuaded otherwise for fear of violating yet another law. This is about as effective as holding your hands over your eyes so you can't see danger. Why do we do such things when they obviously don't work?

One reason may be that our society has irrationally vilified guns instead of focusing on those who use guns to commit crimes. When a drunk driver kills someone, we don't try to ban cars or alcohol. When a child accidentally drowns in a pool, we don't try to regulate pool ownership or ban deep water. Yet if one commits murder with a gun and another commits the same crime with an ax, the gun gets blamed, while the violent people (and the ax) get little attention.

Another reason is that you almost never see or hear in the media about violence being prevented by responsible, armed people. I suppose the prevention of a massacre is not nearly as newsworthy as an actual massacre.

Another theory is that it's seemingly easier to control an inanimate object than it is to influence a complex human being. Therefore, politicians, in an effort to appear useful and provide a sense of security, false as it may be, are quick to enact "feel-good," yet fruitless legislation. It's easier than finding a real solution. Just like holding your hands over your eyes.

Therefore, guns have gradually become the object of our fear and wrath. And that's unfortunate, because good guys with guns are still good guys. And legislation that hurts them hurts us all.

Anyone who would like to broaden their scope of knowledge should consider a visit to a gun range, where members include veterans, retired police officers and sportsmen who are decent, respectable and fanatically responsible and safety-obsessed firearm owners.

These men and women deserve our respect because in a dire situation, given the legal option, they would be the first ones to stand up and protect not only those who can't, but even those who won't protect themselves - whose eyes are clenched shut.

This is an ongoing war of words between my wife and a woman we know casually. This post is a response to this letter by that (extremely liberal) woman:

http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0509/Letters/073.html

Which in turns is a response to my wife's original letter here:

http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0502/Letters/029.html

I post it here partly out of pride and partly to give access to examples of what I think are pretty good arguments. But mostly I post it here for the entertainment value. I can't remember ever seeing someone's (admittedly thin and poorly thought out) arguments so totally eviscerated.

Ain't she a peach?

Hear, hear!

The truth has to be declared even when it's ignored.

That's what sucks about life.

There are Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs in our dangerous day to day world...........Teja Anderson seems to have made her choice. Now she has to try to sustain her slippery grip on life.

Paper laws will never stop a jacketed bullet Teja unless ya hide behind a pile of em the rest of your life.

Stay safe , use the tools designed to keep ya that way properly.

Teja is the wife of the actor who plays "Frank Cooper" on "The Guiding Light". She's pretty well known in out town and is actually a very nice person in spite of her unremarkable intelligence. My wife went out of her way to try not to make it too personal. She didn't want her arguments to be left unchallenged, but she also didn't want to hurt Teja's feelings.

And in defense of her husband Frank, he hasn't made any public statements on this issue so I think it would only be fair to leave him alone about it.

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.