A Rebuttal for Gun Control

A Rebuttal for Gun Control By Georgia McDow This article is written in response to the San Diego County Gun Owners post by guest writer Kaylee Allen titled “Gun Control is Killing Our Kids” published on August 14, 2020. https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/gun-control-is-killing-our-kids/ Guest writer Kaylee Allen opens many controversial doors in her editorial titled “Gun Control is Killing Our Kids” posted by the San Diego Gun Owners website on August 14, 2020. The piece opens with an anecdote detailing her actions on the day of the November 14 shooting at Saugus High School, as well as her personal thoughts and experience with guns. Allen brushes over facts released by investigators of the attack, including the use of a “ghost gun,” and the jamming of that weapon after the first shot was discharged. She then proposes the theory of arming school teachers and administrators as the solution to “save the children.” Allen’s editorial is not only poorly-organized and based entirely in opinion with factless claims, but also neglects to thoroughly address and assess angles on both sides of the political spectrum. Throughout the article, Allen utilizes the phrase “good guys” in an attempt to simplify and diverge the population of gun-owning Americans into two groups: “good” and “bad.” Phrases like these are relative and hold ambiguity that can easily be shifted and morphed to support any political posture. In her piece, the term is inconsistently referenced, used to substitute both police officers and school faculty. A scenario briefly mentioned by Allen poses a hypothetical solution in which a “good guy,” presumably a campus supervisor or faculty member, carrying a weapon would have been able to take down the gunman after the weapon temporarily jammed. This theory, unlikely and distasteful given the circumstance of loss, omits to mention the length of the gunfire lasting a mere 16 seconds. To argue that the presence of a nearby weapon would have saved the lives of our classmates is naively oversimplified and insensitive. Allen also uses the popular argument “guns don’t kill people” to prove an opposite extreme: guns don’t kill people, but rather it is the “gun-free zone” signs that tell potential gunmen that unarmed targets may easily be accessed where “no one will stop you.” Allen misunderstands or construes the purpose of these signs, as well as “tobacco-free zone” signs as uses for public knowledge instead of for criminal procedure. Allen loosely asserts that the use of a “ghost gun” is reason to negate all trauma and activism in response to gun violence. A “ghost gun” is a weapon assembled from parts or kits that do not require a background check to purchase and also do not require a serial number. Though not explicitly stated, Allen makes the point that greater gun control would do nothing - or perhaps even cause a rise in - ghost guns being used to commit crimes. In making this assumption, the possibility of regulating ghost guns is entirely ignored. In an interview with TIME Magazine for an article about the rise of ghost guns following the shooting at Saugus, David Chipman, a former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives (ATF) agent and senior policy advisor at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, described possible legislation requiring the sale of receivers and frames to be exclusively sold at gun stores and requiring the same background checks as is required to purchase an already-assembled gun. The same article also references recent change in New Jersey law which effectively bans ghost guns entirely, prohibiting the sale or acquisition of unserialized parts which may be assembled into ghost firearms, the use of a 3D printer to create these parts, and distribution of computer coding that holds the capability of creating these pieces unless a licensed manufacturer. Allen, though resentfully pushing against the politicalization of our collective trauma, makes the radical motion for the arming of all teachers and administrators on school campuses. The editorial ends without further delving into this idea and is ineffective in creating any effect but confusion. The proposal is not a new one. Backed by President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, lawmakers in six states have already proposed or even passed legislation allowing for teachers with minimum training to carry weapons, though opposition has been widespread and fierce in nearly every case. One NPR/Ipsos poll found that the leading category of voters in favor of arming teachers is held by GOP Men, with 71 percent expressing support for the idea and overall voter opinion totalling only 41 percent in favor. Individuals and organizations alike, including The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association--the two largest organizations representing teachers--strongly oppose this motion for three major reasons: Guns are more likely to be accessed by students, multiple large liability risks are introduced, and access to firearms increases shootings significantly. On numerous occasions, guns that have been brought into school zones have been misplaced and found by students. In 2016, Beth Jean Dixon, a now former teacher, accidentally left her pistol in a restroom where it was discovered by four elementary aged students. In 2019, a woman found a gun in the bleachers at a sporting event that had been misplaced by a school faculty member. In 2012, teacher Jennifer Ellen Paul had her gun stolen from her purse where it was found in the possession of a juvenile who snuck into her classroom. In 2018, a teacher in Riverview Garden’s School District in Missouri noticed that her weapon had been stolen in one of her classes and was later found in possession of her student. In addition to the risk of students accessing their teacher’s weapon, allowing teachers to carry concealed guns poses new liabilities for school districts. Insurance companies are unlikely to insure such practices. One insurance company in Kansas, EMC Insurance, released the following statement: “Concealed handguns on school premises pose a heightened liability risk. We have chosen not to insure schools that allow employees to carry concealed handguns.” Most insurance companies posed with this same idea have followed suit. And lastly, access and presence of guns in any situation increases the number of shootings and death. According to a 2014 journal of Annals of Internal Medicine, and stated by Everytown,

“Access to a firearm, irrespective of age, triples the risk of death by suicide and doubles the risk of death by homicide.” Law enforcement officers average 840 hours of training to use firearms. Kenneth S. Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services (no relation to the president), offered this comment on the issue: “Suggesting that by providing teachers, principals, custodians, or other school staff with 8, 16, 40, or even 60 hours of firearms training on firing, handling, and holstering a gun somehow makes a non-law enforcement officer suddenly qualified to provide public safety services devalues our highly trained police professionals and is a high-risk to the safety of students, teachers, and other school staff.” Educators are just that: those who educate students and often play a nurturing and supportive role in the development of students. Putting them in any other position is unfair and unsafe to the students they lead.