[tyler500e]

The editor in cheif of my college campus newsletter is at it again. Below is the article from the latest college newsletter, and her email address. I have already contacted her, the student senate, and the board of trustees. Let them know how you feel about concealed carry, the second amendment, and the fact that Jen Harris gets to spread her socialized views through this publication. If you are willing to help, please, Keep it High Road!

HIDE AND SEEK HEAT (Opinion) by Jen Harris
As a member of the press, I am a card-carrying member of the “protect the Constitution” club. Unfortunately for my personal beliefs, this includes the 2nd amendment, which guarantees Americans have the right to bear arms.
The concealed carry permits in Kansas and Missouri allow a person of sound mind, with no debilitating physical handicaps and no prior criminal convictions to apply—and potentially be approved – to carry a concealed gun on their person for four years.
Before a permit is issued, applicants are required to complete an eight-hour gun safety course.
While the appropriate precautions are in place to keep concealed carry permits out of the hands of the irresponsible and incapable, what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?
Students at the college are petitioning to have the right to carry their concealed weapons on campus. My question is: why?
In what way will random strangers carrying hidden guns benefit the campus community?
While I would prefer the U.S. completely ban personal gun ownership and police carry nonlethal weapons, the scenario is highly unlikely.
Thus I support the decision of the college to arm the college police.
Living in a country that condones gun ownership and growing up in an era of school shootings, I feel safer knowing that adequately trained men and women will protect me if called upon.
What I do not support, however, is rogue individuals potentially “jumping the gun” in an effort to “help out” should an emergency arise.
Please, leave the shooting to the professionals.
Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially.
There are so many opportunities for situations to turn deadly should the concealed carry policy be overturned at the college.
Think of all the students whose backpacks are stolen on campus each year. A lover’s quarrel? A sports team rivalry? An excuse to get out of finals week?
What if a student removes their weapon to use the restroom and forgets about it?
Or maybe, just maybe, a crazed madman disarms a person licensed to carry a firearm and turns the weapon on the campus population.
There are just too many “what ifs.”
In order for concealed carry supporters to get their wish, college officials will have to approve any provisions amending the current “no weapons on campus” policy. State law currently prevents individuals from carrying concealed weapons into schools that post “no firearms” signage.
I urge you to contact the Student Senate and the Board of Trustees to express your concern for this irresponsible and distasteful display of “Shoot first, ask questions later.”
As one professor pointed out, “I’d like to be able to fail a student without worrying about getting shot.”
Shouldn’t we all?
Contact Jen Harris, editor-in-chief, at
jharri34@jccc.edu


Please send Editor-in-chief Jen Harris an email!
You can also help by contacting the Student Senate at 913-469-8500 x3414
and the Board of Trustees at 913-469-7660 or via email at skuder@jccc.edu

The College is closed today due to inclement weather, so you can leave a voicemail if you call.

Please keep it tasteful and respectful if you are emailing or calling!

[jbkebert]

I have sent a email to your prof. yes I was kind and clean I invited her to as a journalist to seek the truth and research non biased facts on the safety of firearms.:)

[ACBMWM3]

I also emailed and was very respectful.
Short and sweet version of my statement was if you promote your right to free speech why should others not be able to promote their right to bear arms?
Also I pointed out how school shootings may have turned out differently if one or more of the students had been carrying.
There may have been a chance, instead of a boxer beating up a baby type situation.
To me it also seems that she makes it seem like most people who carry do not have any training at all. But earlier she points out that a 8 hour course is needed.
All in all she doesn't state any facts and makes it sound like we are all crazy and if we fail a class will go on a rampage. In which I don't respect.

[grampster]

Here is my reply to J. Harris.

My goodness, Ms. Harris. How quickly you descend from the high ground of protecting the Constitution and describing the rather stringent qualifications for folks who would exercise their constitutionally guaranteed a priori right to keep and bear arms. You describe us well, then you begin to ascribe to us behavior that is a figment of your young imagination.

As a 65 year old former police officer I can assure you that you have nothing to fear from sane, honest, stable law abiding citizens who choose to embrace the personal responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon. Since I have been around firearms all of my life, and have associated with many citizens who also collect, shoot and or carry a weapon, you can be comforted to know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of us are very well trained and skilled in the use of firearms. We also have a deep and abiding respect for the safe handling of them as well.

I am also well acquainted with criminals. Criminals have a tendency to not pay attention to laws or gun free zones Ms. Harris. As an aside, most civilians who carry concealed are better trained in the use of firearms than police officers. You also need to know that police officers have no legal mandate to protect individual citizens. In fact there is a saying that says..."When you need help now, the police are still minutes away." The point being the police generally clean up the mess after it has already happened.

What I fail to understand is why you, and many others who are unfamiliar with firearms, seem to have to demonize law abiding good citizens such as myself and my brothers and sisters who enjoy our firearm hobbies and, yes, our concern with our personal, familial and friend's safety. Your comments you are ascribing to people who have CPL's are not only out of line and disrespectful, they are not true at all.

Criminals are the people you need to be wary of, Ms. Harris, not law abiding citizens. Over two million times a year, the possession of a firearm has protected life and limb in our country Ms. Harris. In most of the cases, the firearm was not used, mainly because the law abiding victim was well trained and of stable character and mind and knew firing it would only be necessary as a last resort. I can also tell you that criminals fear law abiding citizens who carry concealed weapons. The FBI statistics bear this out. In the states that have Shall Issue laws, crimes have decreased. In cities like New York or Washington DC, that have the most bellicose and stringent anti gun laws, the statistics are woefully in the other direction.

What you should do before you again use your 1st A right to express your opinion, is find out the truth of a thing before you contribute again the untrue myths about firearms and the good people who choose to possess and or carry them, which indeed is not a right granted by the Constitution but rather enumerated as a basic human right in our Republic and protected by that Bill of Rights.

I'd suggest that you look up a shooting club or a firing range in your locale and take it upon yourself to familiarize yourself about firearms. I'm sure you find that activity enlightening and maybe ever turn out to be fun.

Cordially

[Martyk]

My reply

Dear Ms. Harris:
I have read your opinion about guns on campus and would like to offer a few observation of my own. Since you state early on in your editorial that you are a member of the press and a “card carrying member of the protect the constitution club” perhaps you will see the credibility in publishing an opposing view in your editorial column. Otherwise, you are not really being fair with the authority of your position, in my opinion. Or maybe this is now acceptable behavior given that it os so commonplace within the mainstream media channels.

I believe your personal opinion on the subject of your article is frankly idealistic and naive. To highlight some key points, the complete banning of personal firearms is an unrealistic solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s not the law abiding citizenry that’s the problem Ms. Harris… it’s the Criminals! And since the criminals are.. well.. criminals, they don’t care about you, me or the gun laws. So if all guns were made illegal, and eliminated from society, then why would the police even need them? Unfortunately you will never be able to erase firearms from the world.

Another unrealistic concept is that dialing 911 is going to solve all your problems instantly. I have nothing but respect for police officers and the job they do, however, MOST law enforcement officers I speak to actually favor proper concealed carry laws. They will realistically admit that they can not be all places at all times. Take one of the recent school shootings that occurred. The police were called and had the building surrounded in riot gear while the shooter continued to kill people on the inside. Do you think the outcome would have been any different had some of the student body or faculty been armed defensively? Don’t you think the shooter would have been stopped much earlier? Or perhaps, he or she might have re-thought their actions knowing that they were walking into a situation where their “targets” were not just sitting ducks and were capable of defending themselves.

The idea that concealed carry laws foster a wild west atmosphere again has no realistic basis. Have you ever researched factual crime statistics with regards to states that have adopted right-to-carry laws. Isn’t that what Journalists are supposed to do? It may interest you to know that currently 40 states now have right-to-carry laws. And in those states, violent crime has DECREASED annually. This is factual, researchable information. Please check out www.gunfacts.info .

Lastly, I would like to pose a question to you. Why do you suppose our founding fathers created the second amendment? The reasoning is just as valid today as it was when the Bill of Rights was created. It was to create a balance of power between the people and the government to prevent tyranny.

I believe that if you take the time to educate yourself with factual information and not “made for TV” prime time propaganda, you will see that private gun ownership is a benefit to our society and not a detriment.

Sincerely,

[kendradad]

In about 5 minutes I was able to get stats from several states that list the crimes committed by CCW holders. In every case it was less than one third of one percent. Seems like a fair-minded journalist could have done the same research. :fire:

[Martyk]

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find statistics on crimes which were prevented or thwarted because of CCW. There ARE reports which are completed and published by state agencies such as the FBI and other crime reporting agencies, however the information is obscured. However it's there. I encourage everyone to look at www.gunfacts.info every statistic in this document is footnoted as to the source for the information. In other words... it's factual and not a journalistic "Opinion"

[SpecialKalltheway]

my response:

Ms. Harris,

You seem to have a fault in your rational on the issue of guns at your school. A person who wants to get a CCW license has to put in time, effort and money to do so. You even mention the training they would have to do a head of time, this training costs money and is not free. Your rational is that after a person puts in the time to train and fill out paper work, spent the money to train and to apply for the permit and identified themselves to the police that they would be carrying a gun, they would then use this gun at the first chance they got in an illegal manner such as shooting a teacher that gave a bad grade, thus negating everything they went through to get the permit in the first place. You blindly fear the people that would jump through the legal hoops to carry a weapon, when it is these people that would not use their weapon in an illegal manner.

As for the countless “what ifs” you describe in your column. They are unfounded and obviously a product of your over active imagination. I carry a gun to school on a daily basis. Don’t worry I do not go to your school, I go to Colorado State University where they treat those that meet the requirements to get a CCW as the adults that they are. Concealed carry on campus has been allowed for about 6 years now and not one of your “what ifs” has become a reality.

A few thoughts to ponder:
-In Kansas you have to be 21 to obtain a CCW permit, not all students would be allowed to carry only those that are of age.
-The cost of the permit is 150USD and the cost of the training program, which www.ksag.org said to shop around for and I did finding that it would cost about 150-250USD depending on where you got your training. That is 300 dollars and that does not include the cost of the gun or the bullets to train with and carry. You are looking at a 600-800 dollar investment to get your CCW permit and carry a gun. How many fellow students of yours do you know that have 600 dollars just sitting around?
-Those students that have their CCW permit already are trusted by your state to carry everywhere else already, besides federal buildings and marked “Criminal Friendly” opps I mean “Gun Free” zones.
-You seem to enjoy “what ifs” a lot, so I have one for you right now. What if you were in class and a gunman stormed in and started shooting? Would you feel anger towards the CCW holder that draws his weapon to save the lives around you? Of course that is just a “what if.” I sincerely hope that I will never draw my sidearm and that that situation will always remain a “what if.”

Sincerely,

[conw]

It's a long one. Check the last thrree paragraphs IMo they're the best.

Hello to the JCCC Senate and to you, Ms. Harris.

As an English major I am reluctantly omitting my several objections to Ms. Harris's article on the basis of style and structure alone and am instead writing about the content; it is worth mentioning, however, that she contradicts herself in saying that she "supports the second amendment" (in the convoluted paragraph about how she's a "card-carrying member of the support-the-constitution club," a rather flippant description at any rate) then later mentions she is all for total bans on weapons. Further, before I respond to what little substance IS included I should mention that the majority of the article consists of worn-out cliches such as "jumping the gun," which is not even used correctly - as if Ms. Harris expects to be able to coast by using nothing but cliches. Sound and fury!

Factually the piece is not just problematic, it is out-and-out wrong. The following rebuttals may be confirmed with primary sources referenced at www.gunfacts.info.

Ms. Harris asserts "we" (non-police) should trust police with guns; police are more likely than law-abiding citizens to abuse the power guns provide them! Further, most card-carrying legal handgun owners actually practice just as much as police do - ask your local range.

There are two issues with Ms. Harris's main assertion, that allowing guns on campus will make the place more dangerous rather than safer (backed up with convenient, generic quotes from mysterious anonymous professors). First of all, short of spending millions of dollars on body cavity searches, there is no way to keep people who are willing to break the law from having guns *currently*. If someone is willing to kill someone with a gun they are not allowed to have, why would they balk simply because there is a rule somewhere in the student handbook saying it's prohibited? Second, there is no proof that legalizing handguns in any community makes it more dangerous; while it is too complicated an issue to say that handguns *caused* the decrease in crime, most communities that have legalized gun ownership for law abiding citizens *have* experienced a concurrent drop in crime. At the very least this proves that handguns legally owned by citizens do not increase crime!

Ted Bundy once said "What's one less person on the face of the earth, anyway?"

According to Jen Harris, he has a point. It's not likely that the presence of legal handguns will make the community drastically safer, anyway. And even the worst school shootings in history have effected far less than one percent of students on far less than one percent of college campuses. If we take Harris's logic to its conclusion, we see that ultimately - if the community is far more important than the individual - she feels that there is no good solution to the problem, that it is an inconvenient fact of life.

As a law-abiding citizen and gun-owner, I disagree. I do not believe Ms. Harris should be able to restrict my freedom. While my decision to carry a gun is not going to help anyone else, and may or may not help me, I believe it is worth the investment of my time and money; if I am not hurting innocent people with it, why should I not be allowed to do so? If we allow the Jen Harrises of the world to dictate whether or not we get to keep individual freedoms by virtue of their merit to the larger community, expect to have few freedoms at all.

Respectfully,
_____ ______
English Major
_______ College

[SpecialKalltheway]

ah nuts, I for got my closing statement which would have been along the lines of:

You wrote "what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns? " The answer to this is that you have no rights to live in a gun free society. You should forfeit your "protect the constitution" card because only an amendment to the constitution would give you the right to take guns away, not unconstitutional laws and policies that you support.

[Dan Crocker]

Ah, ol' Johnson County Community College. Those kids live in a la-la fantasy land.

[SpecialKalltheway]

P.S. anyone that feels like ripping off that last part I wrote, but didn't send feel free. I am just to lazy to send another e-mail. Yet not to lazy to type all of this. I am a complicated man :D

[turbojohn41]

mine was short and sweet.

The second amendment lets you say you opinion. You and all the anti second amendment people better go back to school and learn the definition of shall not be infringed.

[akodo]

This is mine, see any errors?


Ms. Jan Harris

I read your article and would just like to bring up a few issues.

You write "what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?"

There is no such right to force your ideals on others. Whenever you call for 'a society free of X' you are calling for others to bend their knee to your believes. This is only allowable when their actions would truly infringe upon yours. Recall the early days of gay activism, when many people would state 'I am fine with gays...I just don't want to see them kissing in public...I have the right to live in a society free of their perversion...behind closed doors is okay, but not out in public.

Further, you write "What I do not support, however, is rogue individuals potentially “jumping the gun” in an effort to “help out” should an emergency arise. Please, leave the shooting to the professionals. Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially. "

A journalist should write in the realm of facts. We have a nation of 300 million people. We know how often people get struck by lightning, how often people die from bee swarms, injuries freak elevator related accidents, and falling off of horses. We use the frequency of occurrence of the incident in the past to measure how serious of a risk it really is. Do you have any statistics related to the number of incidents of people who are legally carrying because of such a permit system 'jumping the gun' and causing an issue? 37 states are now 'shall issue' and 2 are unrestricted regarding concealed carry of handguns. Surely, if this was a real risk, we'd see such cases reported in the news. The truth is, this fear is unreasonable. It is right next to the unreasonable fear of catching AIDS from a mosquito bite, kissing, or a toilet seat.

[conw]

Akodo, the last Pgph would work better first since it is the most persuasive. Also her name is Jen not Jan (that's the only error)...you may also want to cut out the gay analogy as I don't find it very persuasive (my opinion and that of others is that people are gay not by choice, but it's a stretch to say that it isn't a choice, IF a rational one, to carry a gun).

[Rodentman]

I emailed:

«Dear Ms. Harris,

I know you have received many emails on the subject of your recent editorial, so I'll keep it short and sweet.

I live in MN and have had a concealed carry permit for over 5 years. I am a 59 year old senior corporate accountant for a large international corporation with 271,000 employees. I have been with this firm for over 25 years.

You have absolutely nothing to fear from me or any other law abiding citizen with a carry permit. You will never be able to live in a society free of firearms.

For the saying is true: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I, for one, prefer to level the playing field and carry defensively. I have done so for years and shall continue to do so. I haven't shot anyone yet, and don't plan to unless my life is endangered.

Responsible firearm carrying by legitimate permit holders increases public safety; it does not reduce it. I hope you will investigate the statistics on crimes committed by permit holders and reconsider your position.

Regards,»

[Demitrios]

This is aimed towards conwict. I have to say you're writing was eloquent and impressive. I'd love to read more of your work, if any, that you've submitted regarding gun rights.

[mljdeckard]

(Marking to remember to send a diplomatic email first thing tomorrow.)

[conw]

Demitrios, wow man, that's flattering. Thank you. Do a recent post search on me and you will find a letter I wrote to my Senator Kay Hagan, in a thread about the Mexican border violence. It's very recent and locked.

Again, thanks. You humbled me and I have recently made it a goal to write a lot of these letters, so thanks for the inspiration!

[akodo]

Here is my revised message. I plan on sending it after work tomorrow



Ms. Jen Harris

I read your article and would just like to bring up a few issues.

You write "What I do not support, however, is rogue individuals potentially “jumping the gun” in an effort to “help out” should an emergency arise. Please, leave the shooting to the professionals. Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially."

A journalist should write in the realm of facts. We have a nation of 300 million people. We know how often people get struck by lightning, how often people die from bee swarms, injuries freak elevator related accidents, and falling off of horses. We use the frequency of occurrence of the incident in the past to measure how serious of a risk it really is. Do you have any statistics related to the number of incidents of people who are legally carrying because of such a permit system 'jumping the gun' and causing an issue? 37 states are now 'shall issue' and 2 are unrestricted regarding concealed carry of handguns. Surely, if this was a real risk, we'd see such cases reported in the news. The truth is, this fear is unreasonable. It is right next to the unreasonable fear of catching AIDS from a mosquito bite, kissing, or a public toilet seat.

Further, you write "what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?"

There is no such right to force your ideals on others. Whenever you call for 'a society free of X' you are calling for others to bend their knee to your believes. This is only allowable when their actions would truly infringe upon yours. This attitude of 'the behavior is acceptable, but only behind closed doors, because it infringes my right to not see it' has been tried as a method of stopping same sex couples from showing displays of affection in public, of stopping interracial couples dating openly, of non main-stream religions worshiping openly, and fringe political parties from being involved in public parades and campaigns.

There is no right to not be offended by a person's comments. There is only free speech.

There is no right to not have to tolerate other religions. There is only freedom of religion.

There is no right to see people you don't approve of dating. There is only freedom of association.

There is no right to see people you don't agree with gathering to protest a message you don't like. There is only freedom of assembly.

And finally, there is no right to demand that all around you be forced to adopt your philosophy on firearms. There is only the freedom of each individual to own a firearm if they so choose.

Cordially

[bang_bang]

They could move to Britian...:neener:

[ACBMWM3]

Anybody received a response?

[hso]

Keep it civil and to the point.

We don't want to have any letters that let the antis characterize us as knuckle draggers.

[Davionmaximus]

Will do!!:D

[Davionmaximus]

I have read your opinion article. I will keep this brief. To begin with I do appreciate your opinion, but I disagree.

The main point I wish to make is simply this: Gun free zones are invitations for tragedy.

People who CHOOSE to go to schools, churches, shopping malls and nursing homes and commit mass murder are choosing these locations BECAUSE they are considered "gun free zones". They understand that they will meet a minimum amount of resistance.

Funny.. you never hear of this happining at a gun range....

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Check the statistics for yourself. How many of these killers are licensed carry conceal gun owners?

I pray you never have to face such a horrible situation. But if you do I hope someone with a concealed license is close by.


Davionmaximus

[Rawb77]

There are some disagreements I have with what she has written. Mostly is her list of "what ifs"

Every one of those "what if" statements were biased towards the forgetfulness or carelessness or neglect of the gun carrier. What I feel she failed to note are the "what ifs" from outside sources.

What if it is late and a female student is going to her car and is assaulted and/or raped in a dark parking lot?

What if there was a school shooter such as at Virginia Tech?

etc.

My problem with "banning" guns is that the only guns you will confiscate are from the people who own and use a gun to protect themselves. This leaves us much more vulnerable to those that would potentially use their guns, until taken from them, to do us harm.

[ACBMWM3]

Again anybody get a response?

[SpecialKalltheway]

I highly doubt anyone will get a response.

[cliffy]

I have no "weapons" designated as "self-defense" types. I have firearms for sporting use only. I'm a target-shooter, and primarily at long-range. I'm not so naive as to think my target-shooters cannot kill if aimed incorrectly. I also like bow-and-arrow traditional shooting. I work at the local Compton's Traditional Archery shoot every year. Nothing dies during Compton Shoots. I currently became a NRA certified Range Safety Officer, again where nothing dies. If you have the time to drive to Berrien County Sportsman's Club in Berrien Springs, Michigan, you'll find no stuffed animal heads on our walls. We raise and release 100,000 plus Steelhead Trout into the St. Joseph River every year. I catch-and-release all fish. Cliffy

[jbkebert]

:confused:

[SpecialKalltheway]

I second your :confused:

[627PCFan]

JCCC.EDU

2 of those C's stand for community college. Consider the source, and enough said..

[Dan Crocker]

Ok Cliffy...congratulations?

[JImbothefiveth]

About the "gay" issue: what if she opposes that? As detached from reality as that college (and this article) is, it's probably not a concern. Just be careful when writing other people letters.

[neverjeg]

Ms. Harris,

You said, “While I would prefer the U.S. completely ban personal gun ownership”.

So, you agree with this guy…

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935 (In an address to the Reichstag)

I tend to agree with these.

Followed by a massive list of quotes from the Fathers...

[conw]

neverjeg, sorry man. See my sig.
So, you agree with this guy…

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935 (In an address to the Reichstag)
http://walsho.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/fail.jpg

[conw]

From http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html


Along with an enormous amount of good, well-researched evidence on the pro-RKBA side, there exist several items, mostly "quotations," which are popular, but in fact are "pious frauds." Whoever first put these items into circulation must have known that they were false, but figured it would "help the cause". It doesn't. Neither does spreading them around today.

JR spicer:

2 of those C's stand for community college. Consider the source, and enough said..

Dude, we really need community college goers more than anything. They sit on the fence and/or tend to be conservative more than 4-year schoolers. Plus many of them are doing the 2yr CC + 2yr university plan, meaning that if they are pro-gun they will voice a pro-gun opinion in the largely anti-gun 4-year systems.

[neverjeg]

Ouch. :banghead: I've seen that quote everywhere and this is the first time it has every come up (that I've seen) as bogus. Thanks for the correction.

[syh]

Ms. Harris,

I would like to respectfully address the your recent writings in the campus newsletter, "Hide and Seek Heat". While I appreciate the research done on conceal carry laws, and am relieved that you acknowledge the screenings and training required to obtain a license, there are a few points that might give you a different perspective on the topic.

As you know, our constitution is one of positive rights, rights to DO as opposed to negative protections that are common in other countries. Of course, each positive is somewhat balanced by a negative. The right to freedom of speech is balanced by the peoples' right to safety when it comes to shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. Likewise, as an editor, you could not ethically allow a newspaper containing results of HIV tests, voyeuristic pictures of students changing in their rooms taken without their permission, or the answers to the upcoming final exams. Your freedom of press and speech is limited by others' rights to privacy.

Following the same logic, the right to bear arms is also limited in a number of ways. The states have the right to dictate many aspects of firearm ownership, usage, and possession. Likewise, there are numerous federal controls on the same. However, the right to live in a gun-free society is not only ascent in the constitution, but the founding fathers explicitly, on numerous occasions, felt that to be worst possible situation. They trusted the citizens of our great country to elect their own officials, and to possess firearms for their own protection. It is very unfortunate that in some cases, the citizens have used the rights endowed to them for evil instead of good.

Your article brings up quite a few examples of "What Ifs" that could lead to issues with carrying on campus. How many times in campus history has a lover's quarrel resulted in a fatal stabbing with a kitchen knife, or one of the involved throwing the other off a balcony, or choking, or beating with a hammer or bat? How many have been killed in any of those ways over a sports rivalry? How many deadly explosions or murders have been committed to "get out of finals week?"

Have you ever had a substantially large amount of money on you? Or a prized family heirloom? If so, you certainly paid more attention to your surroundings, avoided trouble, and made sure you didn't leave it in the bathroom or allow your bag to get stolen. I once had $4000 on me for a vehicle purchase, and I can assure you, I knew right where it was at all times. This responsibility is multiplied when the object is a firearm. Beyond the legal penalties, the ethical responsibility of knowing for the rest of your life that your negligence led to another's injury or death is very evident within the gun community, and it is almost palpable among most gun owners.

I am licensed as a motor vehicle driver, aircraft pilot, Emergency Medical Technician, and concealed carry permit holder. Each of these comes with specific responsibilities with very real penalties for ignoring those responsibilities. As a motor vehicle driver, my car has never plowed through a kindergarten classroom. As an aircraft pilot, I perform a preflight inspection and keep up to date on all the information and education, and my aircraft had never crashed into an office building or burst into flames. As an EMT, I stay proficient in skills and treat each patient as I would want my loved ones to be treated, and by doing so I know that I've done all I could for each patient I've been called upon to help. None have gotten HIV or cancer as a result of calling me for another problem.

Similarly, as a concealled carry permit holder and gun owner, I follow the same basic rules as any other gun owner that 100% guarantees that there will be no "accidental" or negligent firings. Treat all guns as loaded. Don't point the gun at anything you don't wish to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger until you want to fire. In order for anyone to get shot, there must be someone standing on the other side of the gun who wishes to murder them, or at minimum doesn't care if they die.


Most importantly, however, is the practical aspect of the situation. For better or worse, we live in a country with guns. We can write a thousand laws to ban them, but why would that succeed when the bans on alcohol during the Prohibition Era, and present day bans on drugs, are unsuccessful. Unfortunately, there is very little that an individual can do to protect himselves from the repercussions of illegal drug use. Thankfully, while criminals can gain access to illegal (banned for them) firearms, we, as law abiding citizens, have the right to protect ourselves against them. Think of the tragedies that could have been averted in Virginia Tech, Columbine, and countless others if there was a single person who was carrying while an individual with no concern for laws or human life murdered many.

If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me, or at least research both sides of the contraversial topic. As an editor-in-chief, I'm sure you understand the importance of reading both sides of the issue, and there is overwhelming evidence in support of gun rights based on statistical evidence from the FBI, as opposed to "feelings" and "What Ifs."

Thank you for your time.

[JImbothefiveth]

who was carrying Keep in mind that someone who doesn't read gun forums might not know what that means. Be sure to clarify, write "carrying a handgun" instead.

[SpecialKalltheway]

I think that in the context of his letter writing just "carrying" is good enough. On the other hand she does go to a CC....:D Just kidding, I went to a CC before I got to CSU

Great letter syh, perhaps my favorite so far.

[kyo]

jharri34@jccc.edu
I would like to say that I read it and had some opinions for you. The first would be that, because of our Bill of Rights, you get to write that article without the government coming after you. The second is, that because of people who are personally armed, crime rates do in fact drop. I do not understand how you can think that "bad" things can happen and too many things can go wrong, when you clearly know the history of the world. The fact of the matter is, that no matter what "gun" laws you have, or rules against carrying them, people will still get them illegally. I am talking about criminals here. Do you know what happens when criminals know they have guns and they know you don't? They know that they have an easy time.
Have you seen the shootings that go on in the countries of the world? You should take a vacation in Israel. They have kids with fully automatic weapons in schools. This is because the kids know when to use them, only to defend themselves against crazy people who want to hurt others. God forbid this to ever happen, but I feel that if you ever experienced someone saving your life, or someone you love because they had their carry weapon on them, you would totally change your mind. Think about it. If a bad guy decided to hold up your campus, and started spraying at the kids there, don't you think you would wish that someone would stop him? What if a classmate could? Would you be mad at him for carrying? Or would you be grateful? I already know the answer to that.
To answer your question in your article, if you want to live in a society free of guns, I suggest you try Africa, or Washington D.C, where killing is rampant and crime is everywhere because the bad guys know you can't protect yourself.
I hope you are not offended by this email, I just think that from one college student to another, you should try to hold a new perception to the whole issue.
Thank you for reading- my name here
To the trustees.
Hello, my name is ___. I have recently read the article created by Jen Harris. I am writing to you to complain about the one sided slant of this article. I am asking you to hold responsible the unethical actions of your Editor-in-Chief. I understand that the rights of the citizens of the United States are free to write what they want, but that title should have responsibilities. It is in my opinion that a writer should explain both sides of the story, even IF they believe in the issue one way or the other. If you would like I invite you to respond and have a dialogue with me about ethics of writers. Thanks for reading!-___

[BhmBill]

LOL. That was the funniest thing ive read in a minute.

"please, leave the shooting to the professionals" (who typically have less range time than many conceal carry persons)

[Delaware_Dan]

Mine was quite short.

In your article: HIDE AND SEEK HEAT (Opinion) you stated: While the appropriate precautions are in place to keep concealed carry permits out of the hands of the irresponsible and incapable, what are the rights of the citizens, such as myself, who want to live in a society free of guns?

You have the right to move to a different country where they don't care about the saftey of their citizens.

[conw]

neverjeg, no prob! I realized so many were false when I was looking for sig lines myself once.

No shame in falling for a false gun quote, but I'd certainly like to give whoever originated them to "help the cause" a piece of my mind.

As for the pic, I just thought it was funny :neener:

[Martyk]

Hey Tyler .. any feedback from the Campus???

[Davionmaximus]

Nope.. no response. Surprised??

[Neverwinter]

I'm going to have a little fun by writing a super anti-gun letter:

Dear Ms. Harris,
Your pro gun position is misguided and will do more harm to the college community than good. Arming the campus police endangers the students and faculty while not providing a proportional benefit.
Unless your campus has been supplied with cops from the municipal police or sheriff department, I would not be confident that they are sufficiently trained in the proper use of deadly force. Without that training, they present a similar danger to that created by any student carrying a gun.
Arming campus safety officers also presents similar dangers to student ownership. The statistics of police shot with their own guns suggests that the gun of a campus officer could become the gun of a murderer. The theft of firearms from police might go for some time without being noticed. In that time, the madman would have ample opportunity to prey upon the community.
The numbers of school shootings don't justify the proliferation of arms within campuses. Those events are sufficiently rare that students shouldn't worry about them. I was in high school when Columbine transpired, and in college during the Virginia Tech massacre. I made more efficient use of my time by focusing on studying and partying than worrying about being shot. But by placing guns in the hands of campus officers, I would be afraid any time that they were called over.
Sincerely,

[tyler500e]

Hey Tyler .. any feedback from the Campus???

No response from Jen, the board of trustees, or the student senate. I'll continue to spread the word though.

[Martyk]

Thanks Tyler, let us know if you hear anything. Even grumblings around campus. We'd love to know if our efforts had an impact (or not).
Thanks,
Marty

[conw]

Tyler, why not ask in person and/or submit an op-ed piece? It would be an interesting coup de grace to point out that 20+ people who wrote in didn't even get an acknowlegement.

[drjoker]

The author, Jennifer Harris's phone and extension:
DELETED

PLEASE, keep it short and polite on the phone. Be informative with facts, not a knee jerk emotional response like her article.

Moderator note: The editorial included an email address. That is the appropriate way to contact the author. Calling her at work does the RKBA movement no favors. --Jorg

[Birddog1911]

Here was my reply:
Ms. Harris,

I recently read your editorial, Hide and Seek. It was obviously filled with emotions, and very little logic or thought. While you did a very small amount of research, this editorial might not have even been necessary had you done more.

First, I contend that by simply writing this editorial, that you do not support the constitution. I find it infuriating when members of the press, which you claim yourself to be, make comments like your first line, then try to point out in every way why we should not have firearms. Ms. Harris, whether you like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is a guaranteed right, just like your beloved 1st Amendment is. I will go even further to say that without the 2nd, there would be no 1st. You should perhaps read some of the works of our Founding Fathers. Perhaps your for limiting the 2nd, not allowing semi auto rifles, etc. Perhaps there are those who think that you should not have the right to publish freely; maybe you should have to pay ridiculous amounts of money in order to be a member of the press. Maybe the press should only be limited to one article per month, and then have article heavily regulated, or even censured. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't want that to happen. Am I right?

Secondly, I would like to address your desire to "live in a society free of guns". Ms. Harris, the entire world, every single country, will always have guns. That will never change, no matter how much you and other lofty dreamers may want it. I do not know if you have studied the human specie, but we are essentially predators, and with predatory behavior, comes violence. The human race is very violent; there is plenty of history that documents this. If there was a society free of guns, that society would be utterly wiped out because of those who would prey on them. Guns do not make humans violent, our nature does. But I will grant you a theoretical gun free society. Then those predators would simply kill you with some other device. My firearm gives me the possibility to protect myself from those who would prey on myself and my family.

I will go even further to give you a very small history lesson. Two nations in the first half of the 20th Century implemented strict gun control. As a result of their doing so, upwards of 40 million citizens were massacred. Clearly, those two gun free societies were happy and peaceful. Those two nations were Germany, and the Soviet Union. One of the greatest purposes of our 2nd Amendment is to protect Americans from an unjust and despotic government. Look at Great Britain and Australia. They passed sweeping gun control laws. Now their rates of violent crime have sky-rocketed. Gun free is certainly working for them. Look at South Africa. Citizens aren't allowed to have guns, and violent crime is an hourly occurrence there.

Then there was this comment: "Living in a country that condones gun ownership and growing up in an era of school shootings, I feel safer knowing that adequately trained men and women will protect me if called upon." You go on from here to say leave the shooting to the professionals. Again, I thought it was the responsibility of the media to do research. You failed in this aspect. Most police departments only qualify with their service weapons once or twice a year. And even then, many officers fail their qualifications. A large number of citizens who have their concealed carry permits do not stop with the minimum 8 hour (your reference) safety class. Many go on to training classes that are far more advanced than what your average police officer or sheriffs deputy are trained in. Not only that, but many firearms owning citizens shoot several times a year. Did you interview your campus police to see how often it is that they train and qualify with their service weapons? I don't believe that you did your research, since you did not cite it.

"Too much could go wrong and the potential for innocent bystander or death grows exponentially." Again, a basic lack of research. A study conducted in 1994 showed that 11% of police shootings killed innocent people. Only about 2% of shootings by citizens resulted in the death of an innocent person.

"Think of all the students whose backpacks are stolen on campus each year. A lover’s quarrel? A sports team rivalry? An excuse to get out of finals week?" This is the same, basic drivel that has been asked by every opponent to concealed carry. It has also been completely dispelled as nonsense. Did "blood flow in the streets" as some suggested when Florida passed it's concealed weapons permit? No. "Or maybe, just maybe, a crazed madman disarms a person licensed to carry a firearm and turns the weapon on the campus population.
There are just too many “what ifs.” " Again, emotions will always lead you to the wrong conclusion. By allowing LEGAL concealed carry by students, there would be no way that your fictitious crazed madman would know who had a firearm, and who does not. There are not too many "what ifs", as you suggest.

Finally, I will address your last line: "As one professor pointed out, “I’d like to be able to fail a student without worrying about getting shot.”
Shouldn't we all?" This is just emotional garbage. That one professor should try to utilize a little logic as well. There are several college campuses in America that do allow it's students who are legally licensed to carry concealed, and not one of them have had this theoretical incident happen. As someone who is trying to earn a degree, shouldn't you be required to think about a topic with logic, and not run away emotions?

Ms. Harris, I urge you to do some further research. Legal gun ownership in America has been shown to have prevented an average of 2 1/2 million violent crimes per year, and in many of those cases, a shot was never fired. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to us, just as is our right to free speech. Who should say that you do not have the right to protect yourself against someone who would want to violate you in a hideous manner? Who says that the single mother doesn't have the right to prevent someone from violently killing her children when they broke into her house?

Ms. Harris, why don't you find one of the students on your campus who is a proponent of concealed carry, and have a dialogue with them. Ask them to take you shooting, and teach you the basics of shooting and safety fundamentals? Why don't you interview a citizen who could have perhaps averted a violent crime against them, had they only had a firearm available? Please, Ms. Harris, do some research. I would like to see you do so, and then write another article explaining what you have learned.

Sincerely,

[conw]

Bird, didn't have the concentration in my current setting to read it all but the intro rocked.

[RobMoore]

the intro rocked

I agree, and its a good thing it did, because that is probably where she stopped as well.

[n00b]

Has anyone got a response from our response to this issue?

How has Ms. Harris responded to our response?

[conw]

Her non-response to our response to her non-article is a response in itself

[jbkebert]

I emailed her again and inviting her to attend the next Hunter Education Course we teach. I am sure she won't attend but worth a try.

[lesterg3]

Email completed.

[sernv99]

waste of effort for a two-bit community college student. I went to a cc for a couple years, and I can tell you, 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the students are only there because they don't want to be working at McD's for the rest of their life. Hardly any of the students are pro-active in politics. Thinking about what chick/guy they are gonna bang this weekend and who has a source for some weed is what's on their minds, not gun control:rolleyes:

[SpecialKalltheway]

it only takes that .000000000000000000000001% to be vocal enough to get school policies changed. Works just like the Federal government, not everyone one voted granted it was a 64% turnout in 2008 which was impressive. Here at CSU we are lucky to get a 20% turnout of eligible voters, but those that do vote people into power get to make the rules. The 99.9999999999999999999999% that just want to get laid and smoke illegal drugs don't need to be active in school politics for there to be changes in policy. So, by writing the few that are I can hardly see how it is a waste of time.

You should write her a letter and tel her your stance on students carrying. I'm sure she would lap up how she is to dumb and irresponsible to carry a gun.

[RobMoore]

I don't think a 64% turnout is impressive. It would be impressive if it were a 64% informed voter turnout. People who just vote because "its the right thing to do" but don't know the issues only muddy the water.

[nitetrane98]

Here's mine.

Simply put, Ms. Harris, your right "to live in a society free of guns" exists only in your imagination. It would be similar to my right to live in a society where everyone would be required to be armed at all times. That right doesn't exist either.
My right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I'm at a loss to detemine where the right that you assert is guaranteed.

It'll be too late, by the time she's read through some of these tomes, she'll just hit delete.

[tyler500e]

If you guys sent an email to Jen Harris, and did not copy it to the board of Trustees, I would encourage you to do so. They need to know about this too.

Copy your old message and forward it to the Board of Trustees at skuder@jccc.edu

[hso]

I'll second the suggestion that the board and the administration receive reasonable letters from some of the more thoughtful members here. Since our erstwhile "journalist" doesn't support our rights we certainly shouldn't have any problem silencing her.

[hso]

I'll second the suggestion that the board and the administration receive reasonable letters from some of the more thoughtful members here. Since our erstwhile "journalist" doesn't support our rights we certainly shouldn't have any problem silencing her.

[Bronx]

Being that "The pen is mightier than the sword", she ought leave the writing to the professionals.

[sernv99]

she probably will get an A for her journalism class, since she was able to elicit a formidable response to an article she published. That's how most journalism classes are. Now if this person was a university student, at a nationally recognized school, I can see the value of sending her an email to respond to her opinion piece....

[Martyk]

Hey.. don't Poo-Poo the COMMUNITY college... You never know.. The O-Man was a COMMUNITY organizer !@!! :neener::banghead:

[tyler500e]

Johnson County Community College has a larger student body than any other college in Kansas. This includes University of Kansas and Kansas State.

[hso]

Ok, this one's starting to drift and get into off topic discussion so we'll close it and hope folks here pay this much attention to other important opportunities for activism in support of RKBA.