Desertdog
Member
At last, someone that publishes the true story about firearms. 
Gun laws won't protect you from someone bent on violence
W. Clark Aposhian
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2624269
We at Utah Self-Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN) are deeply saddened at the senseless loss of life that occurred last week at Red Lake High School in Minnesota.
This situation, like other recent mass shootings, is frustrating to us in that we believe they are largely preventable.
This is yet another shooting in another place ignorantly perceived as safe because of signs and policies that prohibit weapons. Yet these places take little, if any, affirmative action to ensure safety, let alone allowing for lawful self-defense. They pay lip service to security procedures and personnel and place "feel good" signs restricting weapons.
These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing as they take the attention off the real problems. They further a sense of complacency with respect to security. Ignorantly we assume a sign stating "No Guns Allowed" will protect us.
I look forward to an enlivening and enlarging of the debate regarding firearms in schools. US-DIN has never been more committed to maintaining the ability for lawful concealed carry in Utah's schools and elsewhere.
Utah, as one of few states that allow concealed carry in schools, is watched carefully as a "laboratory" of sorts for concealed carry in these environments. Concealed weapons have been allowed in schools since 1995 that has been recently re-enforced with legislation. We have also resisted efforts that would have mitigated lawful self-defense in schools and churches.
Utah's and, for that matter, the nation's permit holders have proven they are safe and many times more law-abiding than the general public.
Such debate will certainly reveal the goal of the anti-self-defense groups which seek to promote their ideologically driven agenda by fear and untruths which fuel and perpetuate the public's misunderstanding of the facts.
These groups had an ideal situation at Red Lake High School:
No guns allowed per Minnesota and tribal law.
A guard and metal detectors present at entrance.
The shooter was on home study, barred from school grounds.
He was too young to own, let alone possess, firearms, per state and tribal law.
The firearms were not obtained from a gun show.
The firearms were legally registered and came from the home of a law enforcement officer.
What additional laws would have prevented this?
There are some commonalities among the recent shootings in Wisconsin, Georgia and Minnesota:
They all occurred in gun-free zones; 95 percent of those shot were not allowed to carry a firearm.
Police were "targeted" because their weapons were visibly a threat.
Shooters were able to kill unimpeded, knowing that there would be no return fire.
Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and enact "rules against firearms." These rules are only effective against that segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not influence compliance by someone bent on violence.
We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure safety. Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be inhibited by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.
Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed firearm. However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when lawful concealed carry was disallowed.
We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents to increasingly unsafe environments.
---
W. Clark Aposhian is chairman of US-DIN, a network of Utah concealed firearm instructors, and a member of the Utah Department of Public Safety/Bureau of Criminal Identification's concealed carry review board.
Gun laws won't protect you from someone bent on violence
W. Clark Aposhian
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2624269
We at Utah Self-Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN) are deeply saddened at the senseless loss of life that occurred last week at Red Lake High School in Minnesota.
This situation, like other recent mass shootings, is frustrating to us in that we believe they are largely preventable.
This is yet another shooting in another place ignorantly perceived as safe because of signs and policies that prohibit weapons. Yet these places take little, if any, affirmative action to ensure safety, let alone allowing for lawful self-defense. They pay lip service to security procedures and personnel and place "feel good" signs restricting weapons.
These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing as they take the attention off the real problems. They further a sense of complacency with respect to security. Ignorantly we assume a sign stating "No Guns Allowed" will protect us.
I look forward to an enlivening and enlarging of the debate regarding firearms in schools. US-DIN has never been more committed to maintaining the ability for lawful concealed carry in Utah's schools and elsewhere.
Utah, as one of few states that allow concealed carry in schools, is watched carefully as a "laboratory" of sorts for concealed carry in these environments. Concealed weapons have been allowed in schools since 1995 that has been recently re-enforced with legislation. We have also resisted efforts that would have mitigated lawful self-defense in schools and churches.
Utah's and, for that matter, the nation's permit holders have proven they are safe and many times more law-abiding than the general public.
Such debate will certainly reveal the goal of the anti-self-defense groups which seek to promote their ideologically driven agenda by fear and untruths which fuel and perpetuate the public's misunderstanding of the facts.
These groups had an ideal situation at Red Lake High School:
No guns allowed per Minnesota and tribal law.
A guard and metal detectors present at entrance.
The shooter was on home study, barred from school grounds.
He was too young to own, let alone possess, firearms, per state and tribal law.
The firearms were not obtained from a gun show.
The firearms were legally registered and came from the home of a law enforcement officer.
What additional laws would have prevented this?
There are some commonalities among the recent shootings in Wisconsin, Georgia and Minnesota:
They all occurred in gun-free zones; 95 percent of those shot were not allowed to carry a firearm.
Police were "targeted" because their weapons were visibly a threat.
Shooters were able to kill unimpeded, knowing that there would be no return fire.
Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and enact "rules against firearms." These rules are only effective against that segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not influence compliance by someone bent on violence.
We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure safety. Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be inhibited by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.
Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed firearm. However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when lawful concealed carry was disallowed.
We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents to increasingly unsafe environments.
---
W. Clark Aposhian is chairman of US-DIN, a network of Utah concealed firearm instructors, and a member of the Utah Department of Public Safety/Bureau of Criminal Identification's concealed carry review board.
