Printed letters, January 3, 2013
The Sandy Hook massacre rightfully impassioned us. It’s hard to believe what happened. The question is how can we stop it.
Believers in restricting the right to defend oneself think disarming all people will protect us. What about human ingenuity? The most destructive school massacre in U.S. history occurred without a shot.
Rationally, the right of individual self-defense is unquestionable and individual ability to destroy, plain. Nevertheless, trust in state protection manifested with unfathomable destruction throughout the 20th century in macabre scenes, making recent horrors seem trivial.
Murderous rampaging in gun-controlled Mexico continues every day, to the tune of 50,000-plus dead.
Genocide suffered in Guatemala and the murders authorized by Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and the Ottomans, among many others, led to more than 250 million people being murdered in the 20th century by believers in government protection. Piers Morgan-types who childishly advocate for a state monopoly on weaponry allowed it.
Enough of us must have the sense to value the relative freedom from violence our culture has enjoyed due to individual arms. Self-defense is natural and not given by the Constitution, only recognized. It is fundamental to life itself. It has been reaffirmed by the greatest leaders of our time, from the Founding Fathers to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
Society cannot be free without an armed citizenry, so how then can we stop violence? We must take self-defense seriously, making sure that we are armed and able to quickly respond to deadly violence with force.
The principal from Sandy Hook should have shot back. What if she and other teachers were concealing firepower? Likely, several armed staff, or perhaps even one, could have stopped the perpetrator before 26 people died.
Hardliner believers in the nanny state use deception to steer us toward a completely illusory solution: victim disarmament. Lawrence O’Donnell said that “the NRA has made sure that mass murderers in America are the best equipped in the world.” This statement misdirects from the fact that while the rest of the world has suffered through massacres of the unarmed numbered in the millions, we have not. We must not submit to disarmament.
DAVID L. COX
Build rooms for teachers, students to use as refuges
Here’s an idea in regard to safety in our schools:
It is interesting that the teachers and staff in some of the classrooms at the site of the Connecticut shooting last month were able to secure their students in small rooms that were in their classrooms and secure the doors so no one could enter.
Rather than have a safety officer with a weapon or a trained teacher or staff member with a weapon, why not make sure every classroom has a room large enough to handle the size of the class and teacher.
With such a secure space, if an alarm or lockdown notice were activated, the teacher could, in seconds, herd his or her class into this room and secure a door that could be opened from the inside only.
We had them when I was in school, and they were coat closets and storage rooms. The present schools could have these constructed in most cases without major construction. All schools being built could have these in the building plan prior to construction.
A side issue would be that construction companies would be able to put people to work whom they may have had to lay off. This would preclude having to hire more police or security folks or train teachers and staff to handle weapons to make the schools more secure.
I don’t believe most teachers want to be asked to defend or have to handle weapons in the classroom. Regardless of the cost, it would be better than having another situation like we have had in Newtown, Conn.
Amend the Constitution to fix Second Amendment
While I understand Greg Corles concern (in his Jan. 1 letter) about adhering to the letter of the Second Amendment, the original wording is out of technological date. His interpretation would allow for private citizens to own weapons used by today’s “ordinary soldier.”
Our efficient and highly trained soldiers are skilled in the deployment and use of everything from handguns to rocket-propelled grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces and armed drones, to name but a few.
Unless the United States government wants to encourage the general populace of this country to set up an armed revolution, it seems sensible to prevent untrained citizens from legally acquiring war weapons of enormous destructive power.
The Second Amendment needs to be rewritten, or at least reinterpreted by an amendment to the amendment, that makes it clear 21st century “ordinary soldier” armaments are not what was intended by the original wording of the document.