The Soapbox: More guns don’t equal more safety

By John Cappelletti

I am a retired teacher who does not agree with President Trump’s proposal to equip teachers with guns and echoing the NRA’s position that “The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

But if the government is going to equip teachers with guns to prevent tragedies like the one in Florida on Valentine’s Day 2018 which was the 18th gun-related incident on school grounds this year, it must equip workers in other professions to prevent more tragedies in places where large groups congregate.

For example, if you’ve seen “The Godfather,” you know that hospitals are not necessarily safe. Shouldn’t the government require all doctors and nurses to have a Glock at their hips? And since we’ve had shootings in churches, shouldn’t priests, ministers, rabbis and imams display small handguns around their necks like pendants? Workers in government buildings like the post office in Edmond, OK, should have guns as well as those who work in shopping centers, theaters and concert halls, restaurants and sporting events like the Super Bowl and the World Series. Maybe the players could carry guns as part of their uniform. Think Tom Brady. Then James Brady.

And what about train and bus drivers? If you’ve seen “The Taking of Pelham 123” about a gunman who seizes a subway train you know they need guns. Maybe if bus drivers had guns, passengers, with a hot coffee in one hand and a phone in the other, wouldn’t eat or drink on a bumpy bus as if it were a mobile coffee shop.

According to the NRA, just about everybody in America should carry a gun. Not necessarily an AR-15 because that weapon could be cumbersome. Unless it rode shotgun next to an infant in a baby carriage. And what about blind people? Shouldn’t they be allowed to carry guns? After all, we Americans live in a dangerous place. No one is safe. And there are no superheroes of any color to watch out for us, our children or our seniors. We all live in one state, the state of fear. That’s why some states allow blind people to carry guns.

Since our government wouldn’t be American if it didn’t equip its leaders with “arms” as they are referred to in the Second Amendment, which is so frequently misinterpreted, I suggest we arm all members of the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court with the arms our Founding Fathers used.

Muskets may not be automatic but with so many leaders being non-partisan as they fire their single-shot musket simultaneously, DC will sound like Las Vegas. Or Orlando. Or Virginia Tech. Or Luby’s Cafeteria. Or Sandy Hook Elementary School. Or Sutherland Springs Church. Or San Ysidro McDonald’s. Or the University of Texas. Or Stoneman Douglas High School. Or San Bernardino. Or Columbine High School. Or Binghamton. Or Camden. Or Wilkes-Barre. Or the Fort Hood military base. Or the Washington Navy Yard. Or Geneva County. Or Atlanta. Or Red Lake. Or Umpqua Community College. Or the Edmond, OK post office. Or the movie theater in Aurora where a superhero on screen was defending the people of Gotham while the people in the theater were shot to death.

Unfortunately, superheroes on screens or in comic books are not real. The only way we will see real superheroes is if Congress follows the examples of Australia and the U.K. by buying back all guns and making gun ownership illegal. The only people legally allowed to use guns, besides hunters who eat what they kill by using an old-fashioned rifle, should be those who belong to “a well-regulated militia” such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, FBI and Police.

But I’m afraid that members of Congress are more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing them. So it’s unlikely that Americans will have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” anytime soon. But if you’d enjoy hearing more of those Congressional “thoughts and prayers” for Americans killed by gunfire, you won’t have to wait very long.

According to the CDC, firearms were the cause of 38,658 deaths in the 12 months of 2016 or 106 per day. If you want a stat update, you might have to wait a year or two. If you live that long. Are you listening, Congress? Better start that thinking and praying BS.

7 thoughts on “The Soapbox: More guns don’t equal more safety

  1. You sir are a damned idiot. This has to be the most agenda driven piece of transparent propaganda this week. Or, by bringing super heroes and the godfather film into it as naive as hell. Do idiots like you ever learn? I mean ever? JFK once said the past is prologue but you people want tyranny. The Australian example cannot be used in this argument. False flag.Why? Go do some intensive research. Dunblane? Again, on the surface a tragedy yet if one looks into the connections of the detanged ‘shooter’ and Lord Robertson who incidentally was promoted to NATO chief shortly after the gun ban. A promotion way, way above the abilities of a mediocre scottish politician. We clearly see a pattern. So stop trying to destroy the second amendment and the constitution because, hello! communism does not work. It murders. Murders millions.

    • Without the sarcasm, what John Cappelletti said was simply this: If arming teachers is such a good idea to protect students, why don’t legislators arm themselves forf their own protection? Why must we, the pubic, be forced to submit to metal detectors and searches of our property when we wish to see our lawmakers in action? Think of all the tax dollars we would save too.

      While we’re at it, how about arming athletes so we dont have to submit to the same indignity when we wish to enjoy a sporting event. That goes for boarding an airliner (arm the cabin attendants), or any other venue that currently uses metal detectors to screen for the presence of weapons. Any weapons.

      The answer is obvious. Armed teachers provide an after-the-fact defense to an attack in progress. At best, they only reduce the number of deaths in an active shooter situation. At worst, they add the handgun equipped teachers to the list of victims to the better armed shooter.

      Our children and grand children deserve the same protection as the groups named above. They deserve to be protected by a a preventive measure. Metal detectors at the entrance stop all weapons before they enter the protected spaces.

      The idea that the solution to the misuse of guns can only be solved by more guns is a narrow, short-sighted, and – since you brought it up – a violation of the rights conferred by the Constitution, including the Second Amendments purpose which is to ensure a well ordered militia. That, Mr. Dransfield, is the road to anarchy.

  2. The facts in the Maryland shooting this very week make this entire post mere drivel. Without that SRO with a gun there would have been many dead children. Thank God he was there…with his gun!!

  3. “The answer is obvious. Armed teachers provide an after-the-fact defense to an attack in progress. At best, they only reduce the number of deaths in an active shooter situation. At worst, they add the handgun equipped teachers to the list of victims to the better armed shooter.”

    Would that be your response if one of those “At best, they only reduce the number of deaths in an active shooter situation.” kids was one of yours? I’d rather my kids have some chance than no chance. Perhaps, your kids could convince the shooter to shoot them first since you simply don’t care? Additionally, wouldn’t the unarmed teacher already be on the list of victims, thus making your point moot?? The answer is only obvious if you don’t care at all or have completely given up.

    Once again the shooting in Maryland this very week proves you’re wrong, but hey, why let actual facts get in the way of your argument. After all, it’s all about the talking points.

    • How about giving our kids a better chance?

      You loudly praised the SRO in Baltimore, a trained and experienced full-time law enforcement officer, but that only tied the score with the Security Officer in Parkand, who was also a trained and experienced full-time law enforcement officer. In other words, it only worked to reduce violence 50% of the time. Is that the “fact” that you say gets in the way of my argument?

      That’s kind of a weak fact that doesn’t work too well in reality. How do you think that will work out if the dedicated professional is replaced by a hastily trained teacher for whom this is only a sideline? It brings your talking points (a euphemism for a self-serving opinion) into question.

      Or do your talking points include that our children and the future of our Nation are less important than professional athletes, airline passengers, and officials who were elected to protect the public but, according to your plan, only after they protect themselves.

  4. In Maryland the shooter had a handgun and was stopped by the school resource (not a gun-toting teacher) who also had a handgun and was doing the job he was hired to do.

    In Parkland the shooter had an AR-15 semi-automatic. What’s particularly deadly about the AR-15 is its low recoil. It hardly ‘kicks’. Which means it can be quite accurate. Much easier to hit what you aim at. Most handguns have a kick.

    An AR-15 can pull off 2-3 rounds per second with very little kick. Hand guns about 1 round per second. Because of the kick, you have to re-aim after each shot with a handgun. Just a slight adjustment with the AR-15. So the AR-15 is a much more effective firearm if you’re interested in killing people.

    Not relevant in this case, but the AR-15 can take an extended magazine so in the case of a prolonged shootout, the school resource with a handgun is at a big disadvantage.

    So far as effect is concerned, the fact that Maryland and Parkland happened within a school is irrelevant. The shootings could have taken place as school was letting out, either in front of the school or in the parking lot…maybe with more devastating effect.

    So Maryland proves that a shooter with a handgun (not an AR-15 with or without a bump stock) may not be stopped before doing harm but a handgun without an extended magazine can do far less harm than an AR-15 and under these circumstances, a responsible school resource can be effective.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.