SOUNDBOARD 12 FILM 11 GALLERY 9 Homegrown 8

Homegrown 8
Dayton family bakery re-opens
GALLERY 9
“Disaster” exhibit at Convention Center
FILM 11
“Any Day Now”
SOUNDBOARD 12
Tim Pritchard and the Boxcar Suite
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4
JANUARY 22-28, 2013
DAYTON
CITY
PAPER
.COM
opinion debate forum center
Arm the teachers?
America’s largest pro-Second
Amendment lobbying organization, the
National Rifle Association (NRA), has
pointed out that “gun free” public places
such as banks and airports have made
popular exceptions with armed security
for decades. In reaction to the killings
in Sandy Hook, Conn., last month, the
NRA’s latest proposal is that schools, like
airports and banks, should have armed
guards in place to prevent further tragedies like the one that occurred at Sandy
Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.
White House reaction to the shooting
initially yielded a new task force headed
by Vice President Joe Biden whose mission was to find a way to address gun
violence in the wake of what happened
in Connecticut. In reaction, several U.S.
lawmakers immediately called for swift
passage of an assault weapons ban. President Obama followed suit with his recent
speech mandate to ban assault weapons,
in addition to other measures. The movement, however, is attracting followers,
along with another more controversial
proposal: arming teachers and staff in
schools.
Fifteen states already have armed
teacher training, and Ohio is one of
them. Here in Ohio an “Armed Teacher
Training Program” is being developed
by three groups: The Buckeye Firearms
Foundation, The Buckeye Firearms Association and the Tactical Defense Institute. Their goal is to supply firearm
training for teachers and other school
employees – free of charge. So far at
least, two local school districts – Springboro and Tipp City – have opened dialogue about allowing armed teachers
and administrators in schools.
Of course, people are divided on these
developments. Those who do not favor
armed security or arming teachers worry
about practicality: Could a handgun-toting teacher or even a security officer really prevent, stop or diminish injury and/or
fatality in a school scenario – especially
with someone who doesn’t care whether
he or she gets killed? Further, some argue
that the use of armed security creates an
“armed camp” environment. Still, others
more in line with Vice President Biden’s
vision think that we can make schools
safer by implementing tighter restrictions on people’s access to these weapons
in the first place.
For those in favor of armed protection
at schools, the issue is pretty simple: security. They argue that it is impossible
for the police to respond to these types of
situations quickly enough, and if it is general knowledge that schools have armed
security, then potential shooters might
not act. Having someone there to stop or
deter another active shooter is the goal.
After all, “the only thing that stops a bad
guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,”
said Wayne LaPierre, NRA Chief executive in a statement only one week after
the school massacre in Connecticut. His
supporters find this logic irresistible.
Whatever the solution is, this is just
the beginning of where each side differs.
Where some favor trained armed security
– such as the police – strolling the school
grounds rather than having teachers
(read: amateurs) protecting schools and
students, others think that fewer guns
and stronger laws are the answers.
Debate Forum Question of the Week:
"Should schools be included in the same category as airports, banks and other
public places where armed security is the only exception to an otherwise
“no guns allowed” environment? Should schools go even further and
permit qualified school staff to be armed in schools?"
See our debate on this topic on the next page
4
DaytonCityPaper.com
January 22-28, 2013
opinion debate forum left
opinion debate forum right
Debate Forum Question of the Week
"Should schools be included in the same category as airports, banks and other public places where armed security is the only exception to an otherwise
“no guns allowed” environment? Should schools go even further and permit qualified school staff to be armed in schools?"
Armed teachers ≠ safer campuses
By Rana Odeh
I was two paragraphs into writing
this article when I looked up the details of
the beastly gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre to kill 20 precious children and six heroic teachers, and that is when I lost it. I feel
a deep sadness for the victims and their families, and I feel angry at those who are supporting the spread of more guns in the wake
of this tragedy. My thoughts and prayers are
with the families of the Sandy Hook victims
and every person who was disturbed by this
horrific shooting.
It was a .223-caliber Bushmaster assault
rifle that shoots six bullets per second. “I
only did seven of the autopsies,” medical examiner Wayne Carver said. “The victims I
had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece,
and I only saw two of them with close-range
shooting.” The killer, Adam Lanza, had three
other guns: two semi-automatic pistols in his
cargo pants and a gun that was left in the car.
Why would any civilian need a gun that
can spray an entire room and kill dozens of
people aimlessly in a matter of seconds? For
self-defense? I do not think this is the type
of security that the Constitution protects.
All the guns were legally registered to Nancy
Lanza, who was not able to use any of them
to protect herself against her son’s rage when
he shot and killed her with her own gun. This
situation, in which a gun owner gets shot by
his/her gun, is not an outlier in gun violence,
and neither are the situations in which gun
owners are shot and killed before they could
access their guns to “protect” themselves, but
this particular debate is more about teachers
carrying guns than gun violence, per se.
While I am sure the National Rifle Association (NRA) would love to have 3.7 million new
gun carriers, allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons in response to the tragic Sandy Hook shooting would not be an effective
or healthy solution to ending gun violence on
school campuses. I realize that passing such
a law would not cause millions of teachers
to run out and get a gun. However, teachers
across the states, who would do anything to
save their students’ lives, are vulnerable now
to the ideological manipulation of the pro-gun
lobby. Taking advantage of schoolteachers by
passing such a law and making them believe it
would help to keep their students safe is not
only inaccurate, but also morally wrong.
Having a weapon inside classrooms is
unsafe for many reasons, but my focus
here is on the mental health consequences
of children thinking they need to be constantly “protected” by guns. Constantly
feeling nervous about a weapon in classrooms is unhealthy for society. We do not
stay locked up at home even though we
know there are murderers and rapists potentially everywhere, because that would
be an unhealthy, paranoid way to live.
Well, we should not allow our children
to be around guns or to let them grow up
thinking that guns are a necessary safety
measure, because there are horrific shootings that happen at schools. We need to
help children heal from the trauma and
let them return to being kids. A school
should be a carefree zone. Having guns on
campuses will not allow for that, regardless of who is carrying the gun.
This irresponsible hysteria about having armed security or armed teachers on
campuses needs to stop. What we need to
do is pause for a moment and re-think the
phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill
people.” Having the automatic rifle allowed
one person to kill 26 people before anyone
could stop him. Either way you look at it,
we are failing in both directions: the fact is
guns kill people, but we certainly need to
improve our methods of talking to students
about bullying, counseling rape and other
abuse victims, properly diagnosing the
mentally ill and helping ex-prisoners reintegrate into society. Those measures, along
with taking steps to restrict gun ownership,
will be a much healthier and effective way
to reduce gun violence.
Rana Odeh is a DCP Debate Forum
freelance writer. She holds a BA in English
and Philosophy from UD and is currently a
graduate student in the ICP Program at Wright
State University. Reach Rana at
RanaOdeh@DaytonCityPaper.com or
view her work at RanaOdeh.com
Armed education
At a time when our nation mourns
the loss of innocent life, we have entered
into a debate on how such a tragedy could
have occurred and what should be done. We
must realize as a nation that we live in an
imperfect world where bad things happen.
We must approach such tragedies with rational and logical thought and not ignore
the obvious.
There has been much discussion about
armed security and even armed teachers in
our school system. This article is written in
support of such ideas, as they are the logical, rational and realistic mechanisms that
we must put into practice in an effort to prevent further tragedy. By slapping a feel good
law on the books, we achieve nothing except
to further divide our country and punish
law-abiding citizens. Simply put, criminals
are criminals because they disobey laws, so
it is illogical to believe that these laws would
achieve anything fruitful.
Throughout these past few months I have
routinely debated this very issue and time
and time again I hear the same rhetoric that
“more guns are not the answer.” Proponents
of self-defense are not necessarily advocating for “more” guns; what we are advocating
is the ability of those in a position to stop
violence to have the means to stop that violence. The argument is simple: criminals are
predators and target the vulnerable. When
we as a society create environments (i.e.
gun-free zones) where citizens are unable
to protect themselves, we make those citizens vulnerable and open to attack by such
predators.
I recently contacted a friend who is a
teacher and her opinion was very telling.
She stated that she did not feel safe for herself or for her students. Her school currently
has in place a “crisis plan” which states that
they are to lock down the rooms and hide.
She noted that there is nowhere to hide. She
believes that if there were someone trained
with the use of a firearm she would feel
much safer. Now this is not to say that all
teachers should carry or are in support of
such actions. However, we should consult
with those at the front lines, teachers like
my friend, in trying to find a solution.
Looking at gun laws in the United States,
I believe we can say most assuredly that
By Derek A. DeBrosse, Esq.
more regulations are clearly not the answer.
In 1994, an “assault weapons” ban was implemented by Congress. In 1999, during this
ban, the massacre at Columbine High School
occurred. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a student
at Virginia Tech completed one of the most
successful school massacres in our nation’s
history. As a student, he was forbidden from
carrying firearms on campus. His restriction
from carrying firearms on campus did not
prevent the tragedy. Moreover, Mr. Cho used
two handguns and had passed a background
check in their acquisition. More regulations
will have zero impact on such tragedies, as
can be seen historically. Moreover, many
involved in this debate ignore the incidents
where law-abiding gun owners stopped further harm, such as the tragedy at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002.
We have this desire to believe that if we
illegalize weapons that can be used for evil,
the evil will stop. What many fail to realize
is that a gun has no conscience; it does not
reason and does not have a free will. It is the
person behind the trigger who acts; it is the
person behind the trigger who is the problem, yet many continually ignore this fact.
I believe that a serious debate should be
had as to the mental health system in this
nation. Not being a mental health professional, I cannot adequately propose any such
solutions on this front. What I can propose
as a gun owner, Second Amendment lawyer,
Concealed Handgun Instructor and concerned citizen is that allowing those on the
front lines the ability to protect our children
after the proper training seems logical, rational and realistic.
Derek DeBrosse is a Second Amendment lawyer
and founding partner at Barney DeBrosse, LLC
a full service statewide law practice based out
of Columbus, Ohio. He is a firearms instructor
and gives legal presentations for numerous
other instructors, Derek also serves as General
Counsel for Ohioans for Concealed Carry.
Learn more at OhioGunLawyer.com.
January 22-28, 2013
DaytonCityPaper.com
5