Ore. teacher wants to take gun to school

[Andrew Green]

Did it cross anyone elses mind that this might be nothing but posturing?

He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.

We're not getting the whole story, as news stories rarely tell it. Is it possible he is right? Even at the bottom it says:

Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.

If it was for her protection how would it being known matter?

I've seen women do some pretty excessive posturing after a divorce in order to get sympathy, or maybe to convince themself that they needed to break away because the other person is evil?

Regardless, I don't think 2nd ammendment rights where ever meant to apply to being able to carry anywhere, many government building must still be off limit. Court rooms, parliment, etc. are they not?

 

[thardey]

Since this is from my city, I can fill in a couple of details

First, from another thread on this that slipped under the radar, to quote myself:

The issue's still going pretty hot here, with lots of opinion/editorials posted pretty much every day. So far public opinion seems pretty evenly divided, but it's hard to tell from the news.

To me the issue is not on a per-teacher basis - as one of the editorials pointed out today, if this woman is in fear of her life, and is around kids, then the school is responsible to protect the kids around her. I say more power to her.

The part that had me worried was from a different perspective: Most people didn't know that a CHL (Concealed handgun license, in OR) was an exception to the ban on firearms in and around schools. I only found out because I did my own homework, and stumbled across this useful bit of information.

For those who aren't familiar with the process in OR, the exception is at a federal level, See 18 D.S.C. § 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii). But, as I understand, the States have the right to remove the exemption. Oregon has simply kept quiet on the issue.

I was afraid that this would outrage a lot of people who think that a school is truly a gun-free area - but I was wrong. The exemption doesn't seem to be bothering many people. Apparently, some people tried to remove the exemption a couple of years ago, and failed.

Most of what we are getting is the old "what if she is totally irresponsible?" kind of questions, where people are afraid that a student is going to get a hold of the gun, because you know, us gun nuts apparently don't know how to keep control of our own weapon, and are likely to leave it laying around in a classroom somewhere. One of the dumber questions that's come up is "where is she going to keep it? In her desk? In her purse under the desk?" Yeah, she's going through all the trouble to bring a gun to work, to leave it in her desk. Uh-huh.

Besides, it's "obviously impossible" that said evil students who are salivating over the chance to steal a teacher's gun could never just bring one from home, but have all of their hopes on a future life of crime pinned on a forgetful moment of their teacher.

As to the questions about the 18 Y.O -- in Oregon, 21 is the legal age for owning/carrying a handgun, and you cannot get a CCW until you are 21.

However, anyone who has a CCW can carry a loaded, concealed pistol onto school grounds, even into a classroom full of students, or an assembly.

(And no, cops don't have to check in their pistols at the front desk).

It falls under the same category as carrying it into a mall, or movie theater. If the owners/managers have a sign barring firearms, and you carry one in concealed, you are not breaking a law. However, if they find out that you have it, they may ask you to leave, or take the gun to your car. If you refuse, then it becomes more of a trespassing-type issue. At least, that's how it was explained at the safety course I took to get the CCW. If I carried my gun into my wife's school (she's a middle school teacher), I'm in a perfectly legal position, but if they know it's there, they can ask me to leave it in the car, but they can't call the police and arrest me for having a gun on school property. But they would probably try. Make sense?

She's trying to widen this understanding, and actually setting a precedent for more of an issue of - if you carry concealed while at your job (whatever it is, public or private), can you get fired for it? The news stories have made it clear over and over again that she already has the legal right to carry it -- the question is whether she can be fired for it.

It's telling, though, that the superintendent, a retired cop, issued a statement saying that if she brought the gun to school, she would be arrested. They would have nothing to charge her with!

This is one main source of confusion, here, and some of the arguments going on locally don't distinguish between the two.

---

On another note, South Medford High School is one of two High schools in the area where gang activity is growing, and growing very, very fast. It's one of the lower-income schools, with a lot of people moving in from S. California. It's not so much a terrorist threat we're talking about, but the problem of a Columbine-style massacre is a definite threat here.

It was not long ago that one happened in Eugene, only a couple of hours from here, and in the same type of community. It's also very common for kids to get expelled for bringing pistols to school -- it happened last year to one of my wife's own students, in Middle School! Somebody reported it, and they found it in her locker. It turned out to be an airsoft pistol, but she had brought to intimidate other students.

No, this place is ripe for school-shootings, and S. Medford is the likeliest place. Perhaps not a massacre, but a gang-related shooting is very likely.

----

BTW, since the exemption is at a federal level, you all should check your state laws about CCW on schools, your state may be the same as Oregon, but it's not widely known.

 

[Danny T]

I would asked;
Does one have the natural individual right to defend themself and/or family? I believe we all would answer and emphatic "Yes"! Do they need the constitution to state and another person to tell us that it states they have that individual right to protect themself? No!

It is our natural right and responsibility to protect ourselves and families and the constitution "is" our conceal carry permit.

We have allowed our natural right and responsibility to protect ourselves to be taken from us and have allowed the permit of the 2nd amemdment to be watered down.

Danny T

 

[Kacey]

Amendent II states:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases, a constitutional right can, indeed, be infringed - the 1st Amendment, for example, has been infringed repeatedly... or we wouldn't have laws about slander/libel, nor about profanity, hate speech, or parade routes.

Do I think this woman, having legally obtained a gun and a permit to carry a concealed weapon, has the right to carry that gun anywhere not prohibited by law? Yes. As a middle school teacher, do I think that a middle school (or any other school) is an appropriate place to carry it? For most people, no.

In the given situation, the woman is claiming that she needs to be allowed to carry her concealed weapon for defense against her ex-husband. So unless she's planning on concealing it on her person at all times, she will have to find somewhere appropriate to store it while on school grounds. Now, I store my purse and other incidentals in a file cabinet, which I lock while I am at school... other teachers I know store such things in a desk drawer (also locked) or in an office (also locked), as pilfering by students, visitors, and staff is not unheard of... or even, sadly, particularly uncommon. So, unless she is planning on wearing a holster concealed by her clothing, she is going to have to store this weapon in a locked drawer, cabinet, or office - which means that if her ex comes calling and she needs it, she has to go get it. My file cabinet is at the back of the room, and would not be immediately accessible from the middle of the room, which is where I teach - so if someone with a weapon and murderous intent were to enter my room while I was teaching, I would be unable to reach any weapon I had concealed... making it meaningless. I would suggest, from my experience (and yes, we've had guns, knives, and various other weapons show up at my school), that unless she's going to carry it constantly, it won't do her any good...

As far as other school personnel carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise, the same issues would occur - either the person must carry the weapon constantly, like our SRO (School Resource Officer, a member of our local police force who is stationed in the school - and his weapon is not concealed, he's in uniform, and his gun is in a standard holster), or they're going to have to find a secure location in which to store it. In case of a murderous person coming in unexpectedly, having the weapon stored seems less than ideal, and possible counter-productive, as I could see someone who feels threatened with death, who has a weapon that is not immediately accessible, moving for the weapon rather than choosing another course of action. In the case of a mass shooting, a concealed weapon might be a more use, as long as the shooter(s) didn't start in the same room as the concealed weapon (see previous point).

So... do I think it should be possible to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds, assuming the person is properly licensed? I can see times when it could be appropriate. Do I think it should be commonly allowed? Not really... the risk, it seems to me, outweighs the potential benefits. This is just my opinion, and I certainly understand the reasons given by some people about why concealed weapons should be allowed - I just don't think that they are relevant for most people/situations; some, but not most.

 

[Cruentus]

That is a very weak argument that fails at establishing a cause and effect. Mass shootings are rare, and I don't think there is anywhere near enough of them to establish a cause and effect connection based on one state not having had any.

I get the feeling that most of these shooting sprees are carried out by people that have no intention of living through it, just going out in a blaze. Good people with guns might have ended it earlier, but I doubt it would have prevented them.

My argument is not weak at all; it is a counter to an already weak argument; that argument being that our children won't be safe if licensed citizens carry in schools concealed. Naysayers erroniously claim things like kids will be exposed to guns, it will spawn more violence and shootings, etc. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. When you look at test samples like in Utah, however, the evidence actually supports the opposite argument: that law abiding, productive and safety concious citizens will stay that way, and therefore we don't need civil liberty violating laws to protect people from themselves.

 

[Gordon Nore]

As written: [SIZE=+1]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.([/SIZE]

Thanks for putting the Second Amendment in big letters for me.

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at [SIZE=-1]BREAK[/SIZE]
transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : [SIZE=-1]DEFEAT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]FRUSTRATE[/SIZE]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe)[size=+1]

The Webster's reference -- with the sound clip -- was dandy too.

I don't see any qualifiers, such as; except in certain places, but, not concealed, etc. As written, which is the only sane way to look at it, it allows people to bear (carry) arms and adding qualifiers, such as rules against concealment, etc would seem to defeat and frustrate the armed citizen.
People that are attacked don't deserve consideration or help either...
Because BOTH her safety and her rights were endangered and she was too honest to sneak a gun to work. Gee, nice to see how being honest helps...

There are competing versions of what the Constitutional framers intended. Being Canadian, any debate of the Second Amendment will be half-hearted on my part. The aspect of this debate (gun rights) that always cracks me up is this: Gun owners who oppose control won't simply leave it at... I have the right to own / carry a gun. They are bound and determined to lecture everyone else on how safe they should feel because of it.

I'll put it to you this way -- just because my neighbour feels safe with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have too. Nor does someone's legal or constitutional rights to carry a gun stop anybody else from using their right to free speech and challenge that belief.

 

[Cruentus]

In the given situation, the woman is claiming that she needs to be allowed to carry her concealed weapon for defense against her ex-husband. So unless she's planning on concealing it on her person at all times, she will have to find somewhere appropriate to store it while on school grounds. Now, I store my purse and other incidentals in a file cabinet, which I lock while I am at school... other teachers I know store such things in a desk drawer (also locked) or in an office (also locked), as pilfering by students, visitors, and staff is not unheard of... or even, sadly, particularly uncommon. So, unless she is planning on wearing a holster concealed by her clothing, she is going to have to store this weapon in a locked drawer, cabinet, or office - which means that if her ex comes calling and she needs it, she has to go get it. My file cabinet is at the back of the room, and would not be immediately accessible from the middle of the room, which is where I teach - so if someone with a weapon and murderous intent were to enter my room while I was teaching, I would be unable to reach any weapon I had concealed... making it meaningless. I would suggest, from my experience (and yes, we've had guns, knives, and various other weapons show up at my school), that unless she's going to carry it constantly, it won't do her any good...

You make a really good point here. While I don't think we'll agree on all points, this is one I agree with you on. If she carries her weapon concealed, then she absolutely has to carry it on her person for it to be effective. A CCW doesn't give a person the right to leave their weapon lying around anywhere they want to, as that would be unsafe and therefore an infringement on others rights to saftey. So there are rules as to how you must secure your weapon; usually that means if outside of the home it at the very least must be in a locked container, and usually it has to be unloaded and the ammo has to be seperated from the weapon. This renders the weapon useless as a protection device.

I do believe that people should have the rights to self-defense, meaning that she should have the right to carry concealed. But, that doesn't mean leaving it lying around. If she exercises her right, it needs to be on her person for it to be both safe and practical.

C.

btw... I really like your signature, Kacey!

 

[Gordon Nore]

I do believe that people should have the rights to self-defense, meaning that she should have the right to carry concealed. But, that doesn't mean leaving it lying around. If she exercises her right, it needs to be on her person for it to be both safe and practical.

So she shouldn't coach swimming.

 

[Cruentus]

There are competing versions of what the Constitutional framers intended. Being Canadian, any debate of the Second Amendment will be half-hearted on my part. The aspect of this debate (gun rights) that always cracks me up is this: Gun owners who oppose control won't simply leave it at... I have the right to own / carry a gun. They are bound and determined to lecture everyone else on how safe they should feel because of it.

I'll put it to you this way -- just because my neighbour feels safe with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have too. Nor does someone's legal or constitutional rights to carry a gun stop anybody else from using their right to free speech and challenge that belief.

Well, I am not sure where your coming from here. I respect that fact that many people choose not to carry firearms. That is their right and choice; carrying a firearm is really a lifestyle choice, and comes with a certain responsibility that not everyone is willing or wants to take on. And that's cool. I just don't want those who choose not to carry to try to impose their choice on me through lobbying for government regulation, and so forth. It is at that point when that healthy choice turns into a disfunctional one.

As to the consitution, and so forth. I am greatful for the 2nd amendment, but I personally don't care so much about the laws as I do with this really being an ethical issue.

It is a simple case of whether or not we believe that people have inalienable rights as human beings or not. If we agree that people have rights as human beings, then we must agree that the right to safety is fundamental. And if this is true, then self-defense as a means to keep one safe is also a fundamental, inalienable right.

If self-defense in an inalienable right, then it is only ethical to allow people to take proper measures to ensure their own safety, and to infringe on peoples abilities to take proper measures would thus be unethical. Since the only thing that will reasonably (with reliability and efficiency) allow physically weaker individuals to equalize the threat of deadly force (from a firearm, another weapon like a knife, multiple attackers, etc.) is a firearm, then to not allow people to carry firearms is an infringement on their inalienable right to self-defense.

It is a very simple equation, and in my opinion an ethical issue. If one cannot agree on the ethics, then one won't see eye to eye when it comes to legalities.

 

[Cruentus]

So she shouldn't coach swimming.

Or she would have to have it properly locked, unloaded, and secured (most likely in her vehicle), rendering the tool obsolete for her when she is coaching swimming. Or she would choose to leave it at home. Or, she would have to make the choice to not coach swimming. Sometimes, people have to make tough choices that will effect their lives and careers in situations like this. Such is life.

But the point is, as rooted in the ethics of not infringing on inalienable rights and civil liberties, the 2nd amendment ensures that what she does here is her choice to make, and not the collective will of the government or her employers or the masses to decide.

And that is what it means to protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens...

 

[thardey]

In the given situation, the woman is claiming that she needs to be allowed to carry her concealed weapon for defense against her ex-husband.

Actually, from what I understand, the "needs" part was invented by the Newshounds. What she is arguing for is that she has the right to bring it, without being threatened by the administration.

I've seen a lot of crap posted in newspapers around here, that just don't understand the issue, so they fill in the blanks with their own ideas. I was reading a local column yesterday that claimed the argument was about whether it was legal for her to have the gun. WRONG AGAIN! Then, at the end of the article, after all the "reporting" had been done, it had a little brief on how "Oregon law gives an exemption to CCW holders" (I'm paraphrasing). Again, wrong! Oregon does not give an exemption. Federal Law does.

So unless she's planning on concealing it on her person at all times, ... from my experience (and yes, we've had guns, knives, and various other weapons show up at my school), that unless she's going to carry it constantly, it won't do her any good...

From the very first articles published locally, she had stated that she intended to carry it on her person, when she carried it. Also, that she's been quoted as saying "It's called 'concealed' carry for a reason." Then she went on to explain how before her name had to be made public (for the lawsuit), she didn't want her students to know it was her that had it, or even which Medford school she was at. The news did get it right in that it didn't publish that information, even though they knew it, until she came public.

So, she does intend to keep it on her when she has it, and it doesn't appear that she intends to have it all the time. She wants the option to carry it.

So... do I think it should be possible to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds, assuming the person is properly licensed? I can see times when it could be appropriate. Do I think it should be commonly allowed? Not really... the risk, it seems to me, outweighs the potential benefits. This is just my opinion, and I certainly understand the reasons given by some people about why concealed weapons should be allowed - I just don't think that they are relevant for most people/situations; some, but not most.

Also remember that this would open up the option for all teachers in Oregon who have a CCW to bring a gun to their classroom, not just her. They're actually trying to change the state-wide school policy, and make it public that they are doing so. This isn't just about whether she would be justified, or if her particular needs warrant a gun, but whether School administration across the state could discipline any teacher for bringing a loaded gun into the building. She's just the poster child.

(Current law does allow for a gun to be on school property, for any legal owner, as long as it is locked in a car, and unloaded, BTW).

Most of the Newspapers are caught up on the OR law that prohibits a county or state to "preempt" state law, which is also a question, but wrongly applied.

ORS 166.170(2) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances, including but not limited to zoning ordinances, to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition. Ordinances that are contrary to this subsection are void. [1995 s.s. c.1 §1]

People seem to think that the School districts "outlawed" guns themselves, and so they invoke this law to say that the School district's policy is void. But, this would be the law that get precedent set by the lawsuit (since it's the only OR law that's applicable at all to this situation), which means the meaning could be extended to include all employee policies, anywhere in the state.

Again, this issue raises questions about whether anybody could be fired for bringing a gun to work. We could have mall employees carrying while working, postal workers, doctors, hospital staff, DOT workers, whoever, regardless of the employers' policies regarding firearms. At issue is whether employee rights are the same as state (or Federal) rights.

 

[Dave Leverich]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html

I think I'd want to pack as a teacher too.

 

[Kacey]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html

I think I'd want to pack as a teacher too.

Such events are so widely publicized because they are so rare. I once saw a statistic claiming that more people died slipping in the bathtub than in plane crashes (can't remember where now) - but that no one ever heard about the tub accidents because they were (a) too common and (b) did not involve enough people.

I am a teacher, and have been for 14 years. I work in a school with a high-needs, at risk population - we've had guns, knives, etc. brought to school by kids, and Columbine is maybe 30 miles from here - and I see no reason to carry a gun at school. Others have different experiences, different perspectives, different opinions - that's their choice - but for myself, I see no real reason to carry a gun at school.

 

[Dave Leverich]

I hear you Karen, it's like it being safer to fly in a 747 than drive. They just make a bigger splash. I personally don't carry, never felt the need to, but my dad has since the VN era.
Things like VT though, man if one or two of the people that are licensed had them on themselves... well I guess hindsight is 20/20, but still sucks when people think the answer is a video game shoot-up.

 

[thardey]

Such events are so widely publicized because they are so rare. I once saw a statistic claiming that more people died slipping in the bathtub than in plane crashes (can't remember where now) - but that no one ever heard about the tub accidents because they were (a) too common and (b) did not involve enough people.

Perhaps, but I would think a stronger argument would be for how few auto accidents make national news, because they aren't news, even though it's like the #1 cause of death outside of health-related problems.

I think it goes to the news quicker because the gun is such a powerful icon, that anytime it is used in a perverted way, we can't help but focus on it.

Also, even though the odds may be rare, whenever we're faced with a situation where our most valuable possession is attacked, our collective blood boils.

I am a teacher, and have been for 14 years. I work in a school with a high-needs, at risk population - we've had guns, knives, etc. brought to school by kids, and Columbine is maybe 30 miles from here - and I see no reason to carry a gun at school. Others have different experiences, different perspectives, different opinions - that's their choice - but for myself, I see no real reason to carry a gun at school.

Then please don't! If you don't truly believe that the use of a gun is the answer for these bad situations, you won't be able to manufacture that belief if you have a gun, and in that hesitation, you could cause more problems.

It goes back to what's in my sig line: "Don't think dishonestly" I read that to mean that when the bad things happen, that is not the time to hope in something that you're not sure you believe. Don't lie to yourself - do what you believe to be right.

Myself, I have a CCW, a concealed holster, and of course, an appropriate gun, which I train with, both the holster and the gun. I don't carry all the time, but I don't always need a reason to slip the gun on, other than "things just don't feel right". I don't have problem with carrying a gun to school, any more than carrying a gun to work, or in the movie theater. I do have a problem (for myself) taking it to exercise, or to Karate, because of the issues in securing it, while leaving my clothes in a changing room.

Say you're someone who carries whenever you're not in your own house, but are not LEO. You always have a gun on you, whether you're grocery shopping, running errands, whatever. Continuing to wear it while at a school is not anything special to what you're doing.

Now, if you were investing your time and effort into carrying a gun for the purpose of being armed in school, I would have to question why. That would make about as much sense as thinking "I'm going grocery shopping, I'd better grab my gun!"

In this particular case (even though I said above it's not really about this particular case), she carries a gun already. She's already made the decision that it's worth it to be armed, in her regular life. She's wanting to carry it at her work, which also happens to be a school. She didn't go get the license to be the school defender, although she could, if the rare situation came up.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Such events are so widely publicized because they are so rare. I once saw a statistic claiming that more people died slipping in the bathtub than in plane crashes (can't remember where now) - but that no one ever heard about the tub accidents because they were (a) too common and (b) did not involve enough people.

One of the many unfortunate outcomes of school shootings is the political hay-making. It really doesn't matter if it's VT, Columbine, or for that matter, Taber, Alberta, Ecole Polytecnique, Montreal, Quebec, or the more recent shooting at Dawson College, Montreal. I noticed this especially in the aftermath of the VT shootings: Some of my online friends who identify as 'pro-gun' or 'pro-Second Amendment' warned: Just you wait, now those liberals are gonna try to take our guns away. Come to think of it, they were right.

Then, at the same moment, someone else gets up and says, If those kids and teachers were packing... All of a sudden, Guns-don't-kill-people-People-kill-people goes out the window, and the new killer is the Virginia State Legislature for not allowing guns on college and university campuses. It's like Cho never killed anybody, which, ironically, sounds more like an extreme anti-gun argument.

My point: If we're going to have a discussion on the relative merits of gun control and gun ownership, it can't reasonably be based upon extraordinary incidents of rage and violence. The shooters in the Canadian stories I referenced above live in a country with a lot more gun control than the US has. They decided they were going to kill someone, and they did. They used legal weapons; they used illegal weapons.

Even as one who has all the gun control I could realistically want in my country, I know that someone who determined to do great harm will find a way.

I am a teacher, and have been for 14 years. I work in a school with a high-needs, at risk population - we've had guns, knives, etc. brought to school by kids, and Columbine is maybe 30 miles from here - and I see no reason to carry a gun at school. Others have different experiences, different perspectives, different opinions - that's their choice - but for myself, I see no real reason to carry a gun at school.

Knives yes, guns no. I would prefer to avoid that in my career, but the day may come. Even if I could pack concealed, I wouldn't.

 

[Cruentus]

My point: If we're going to have a discussion on the relative merits of gun control and gun ownership, it can't reasonably be based upon extraordinary incidents of rage and violence. The shooters in the Canadian stories I referenced above live in a country with a lot more gun control than the US has. They decided they were going to kill someone, and they did. They used legal weapons; they used illegal weapons.

Even as one who has all the gun control I could realistically want in my country, I know that someone who determined to do great harm will find a way.

Which emphatically proves that gun control laws aren't what stops crime, and that they only are obeyed by those who aren't threats (law abiding citizens who would obey such laws), and that such laws only reduce the possibility of armed citizens protecting against threats.

Good. I am glad you brought up that point.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Which emphatically proves that gun control laws aren't what stops crime, and that they only are obeyed by those who aren't threats (law abiding citizens who would obey such laws), and that such laws only reduce the possibility of armed citizens protecting against threats.

Good. I am glad you brought up that point.

Hmmm. I wasn't actually trying the make the argument against gun control. I just happen to think that many of the rather extraordinary shooting sprees we've witnessed do not form the basis for a discussion pro or con gun rights. Further, I find it invidious that the NRA or its opposition primp and preen for the cameras after a bunch of kids get shot at school.

 

[Cruentus]

Hmmm. I wasn't actually trying the make the argument against gun control. I just happen to think that many of the rather extraordinary shooting sprees we've witnessed do not form the basis for a discussion pro or con gun rights.

Well, in order to have an effective argument, you have to look at evidence; school shooting incidents are a form of evidence, whether extraordinary or not.

And the evidence that we do have available does not favor gun control, as can be seen by the evidence you brought up in your previous post. In a way, it is good that you weren't trying to make that point specifically, as that just made the conclusion regarding gun control more effective. Because when observing these arguments, too often people decide what they want the conclusion to be first, and then look for the evidence to support the claim. This lacks intellectual integrity. What should occur is people should instead look at evidence for it's own sake to see what conclusions the evidence builds too, look at the possibilities, and then make a claim of the most likely conclusion(s) based off that evidence. You presented evidence with no motive of bolstering either argument, which is exactly how one should look at the evidence before making a claim.

When one does that, usually it is difficult to come out in favor of gun control, because as you can see, the evidence just doesn't build to that conclusion.

 

[tellner]

And the important fact to note is that these shootings are incredibly rare. Their prominence is due largely to the "if it bleeds, it leads" school of journalism.