Evil versus Evil with a gun

The argument that evil acts reside solely in the person committing the crime and not in the tools they use to commit the crime may be the most ludicrous argument ever presented by pro-gun advocates. A psychopath with a knife is more terrifying than a psychopath by themselves. An evil man with a semi-automatic assault rifle will always be more dangerous than an evil man alone. Society cannot directly regulate that evil man, but we can control his access to dangerous weapons. If pro-gun advocates wholeheartedly believed that evil actions are committed by people alone, regardless of their access to deadly weapons, then they would also need to protect the sanctity of gun-ownership from evil men to keep their arguments in line. They would have to advocate for stringent and painstakingly thorough background checks on gun owners and the residents of their households. They would have to require gun-owners be trained. They would need to insist that all gun-owners have safe and secure storage for their guns. Believers in the tired saying; “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, would have to support and help enforce laws preventing mentally ill, violent, or otherwise dangerous people access to guns in order to protect their image of responsible gun ownership. But they don’t. They consistently encourage everyone and anyone to own guns simply because they can. Laws cannot regulate the evil contained in any persons heart any better than it can regulate the logic of simpletons, but we can control the mediums though which they deliver that evil unto the world. It is time for our laws to change.

The second amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms, and I believe in that right.

However, I also believe that your right to bear arms ends the moment those arms are no longer meant to function for either sporting purposes or home defense. There is simply no circumstance of home defense in which 100 bullets in a single magazine is required. Likewise, if you are a responsible recreational hunter and you require thirty or more shots before reloading, you are a lousy hunter and would benefit from investing in a new hobby. There is no logical argument outside of “because I can” that supports any private citizen’s right to buy and own a semi-automatic assault weapon. The day that our right to own or bear these weapons – weapons that can carry dozens of bullets and are designed for the sole purpose of inflicting the maximum amount of carnage – supersedes our nation’s commitment to the safety of our citizens and our children, is a dark and immoral day.

The second amendment, along with the rest of The Bill of Rights, was passed in 1791. In 1791 the typical hand gun carried a single shot. It was more than twenty years later, in 1814 that the first revolvers – guns able to carry multiple shots – were introduced. Still, these guns only held up to six rounds. It was 103 years after the second amendment passed that the first semi-automatic handguns were introduced. These guns still carried less than a dozen bullets in a single magazine. In the 1980′s and the 1990′s most police forces began switching to semi-automatic handguns instead of revolvers. Even our nations most trained and experienced peace officers and security guards don’t regularly carry assault rifles, let alone magazines that hold 100 rounds. Today, we have semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles that can hold dozens of rounds in a single clip and can be concealed in a relatively small space. As has been demonstrated in recent events, these weapons are not difficult to procure despite past acts of violence, mental health issues, or lack of professional training. Politicians in 1791 were no better equipped to pass laws regulating the use of such weapons than we are currently equipped to pass laws on the ownership and use of atom-scrambler cannons and disintegrater-rays. Citing the second-amendment as infallible proof that citizens should be allowed to own and carry semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity cartridges is flat out lunacy.


Mrs. G. has a Glock in her desk. Mr. S. has a six-shooter.

Any effort to recruit and train teachers as armed guards on school campuses is utterly outrageous.

I am a teacher. I personally have great experience with guns, and I respect their appeal and their power. I have completed hunter’s safety courses, and have been individually trained in how to carry, clean, and handle a variety of firearms. I would never under any circumstances carry a loaded gun onto a school campus.

No amount of training would prepare any teacher for carrying a deadly weapon into a room full of children or teenagers. Guns should not be allowed in a classroom. They should not be locked in a teacher’s desk. They should not be in the parking lot, locked in a teacher’s car. Period. If a tragic event took place on a school campus involving brass knuckles, you wouldn’t start passing them out to teachers. Likewise with lead pipes, chainsaws, knives or anything else that could be used as a dangerous weapon. Why on earth would giving guns to teachers ever cross anybody’s mind as a good idea?

Smoking is not allowed on school campuses. Alcohol is not allowed on school campuses. Offensive clothing is not allowed on school campuses, but now guns are up for debate? Guns in the hands of teachers? Really? Teaching is hands-down the most emotionally and intellectually demanding profession in the world. On a daily basis, teachers are entrusted with the physical, moral, and emotional well-being of our nation’s children. Now some pro-gun advocates want to arm them, effectively dumping the responsibility of life and death at the pull of a trigger in the hands of some of the most honorable, over-burdened, and under-appreciated people in the nation. Teachers are already playing the roles of guardians, mentors, coaches, confidants, surrogate parents, and counselors. Do we really want to add armed guard to their overwhelming duties?

Whether or not there should be trained, experienced, and properly licensed guards on school grounds is ultimately for the families of the students to decide. These people, should they exist in school communities at all, should not be the school’s teachers under any circumstance. The fact that this topic has become a serious debate is downright frightening. If you are a teacher and a pro-gun advocate and you believe that you have the right to be armed on a school campus, you should not be evaluating your rights as a gun-owner, you should instead be reevaluating your decision to be a teacher.