by Mark Kohler
Mark_Kohler308@hotmail.com

The Mobile Register's Oct. 26 editorial, "'No weapons' policy not just for kids on campus" is so seriously flawed that it defies belief. It rests entirely on the assumption that normal individuals are incapable of safely carrying a firearm and using it effectively for the defense of themselves and others, and that doing so is somehow more dangerous than not doing so. Not only does the preponderance of evidence not support this idea, but instead the evidence clearly refutes any such notion. From the very start, this editorial takes a misguided approach of focusing solely on the apparent need to make laws restricting people from carrying guns into schools, while ignoring many other pertinent facts from this incident. Publishing such a clearly biased and unenlightened editorial as this one was nothing short of careless.

This article is backward from its first statement that, since students are banned from carrying guns, and this woman carried a gun, she should be fired. What kind of thoughtful, sane person would compare a student carrying a gun with a trained adult safely and inconspicuously carrying one? There is simply no valid basis for comparison. There were no laws, nor was there any school policy, preventing Karen Lanier from carrying a firearm with her. More importantly still, the United States Constitution specifically protects the right of the people to keep and bear - that means carry - arms. As if that weren't enough, she also had a permit to carry her gun. So the school has no right to fire her because she carried a gun for self defense; despite this, the Mobile Register merely states that "she may have been within her rights to carry a gun." What garbage!

Dramatic reductions in crime that have followed from states' allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns, without consequent increases in accidental shootings, seem to have eluded the Mobile Register. Also lost on the Register is the fact that at least one recent school shooting was stopped because the principal had a gun in his car. After retrieving his pistol, and returning to the scene, he held the shooter at gunpoint until the police arrived several minutes later. Is it unreasonable to imagine that, had he been allowed to carry the gun on his person, fewer students may have been shot? Is it not completely obvious that a concentration of defenseless people makes an enticing target for cowardly, deranged criminals? Next, the author harps on the tragedy that is certain to result if teachers and other competent adult employees are not stopped from carrying guns into schools, a presumption entirely without rational basis. Though Israel has its problems, school shootings have never been among them, since teachers there are permitted to carry firearms. One should note that Israel has never had a problem with students getting their hands on teachers' guns, and accidents happening as a result. If firearms are carried safely and responsibly, there will be no firearm accidents in schools resulting from teachers being armed.

Another troubling aspect of this editorial is that it so casually dismisses a person's right to self defense. There is no physical point at which that right ends or begins; it exists everywhere. Perhaps the author believes that some magical boundary separates schools from the rest of the world, and that gangs and criminals are impeded from trespassing or otherwise doing harm on school grounds by this remarkable aegis. His tone, however, suggests that he may simply be insensitive to victims of violent crime, because he does briefly recognize that a legitimate purpose exists for being armed, even in a school. Perhaps the author is also unaware that, while examples of students being injured with teachers' firearms are highly irregular, teachers are murdered, raped, and severely assaulted on school campuses with significant frequency. Perhaps, due to an irrational hatred and fear of guns, he cares more about reducing gun possession than gun crime. Or perhaps he just hasn't fully considered the issue. 

When the Mobile Register decided to address this subject, it should have done so in such a way as to emphasize what is really important for society. It's common knowledge that allowing concealed carrying of firearms by the law abiding citizenry reduces crime. All but the most rabid anti-rights extremists accept this; they understand that being armed does not turn a good person into a cold blooded killer. The true challenge, and the one that offers the most potential benefit to society, if the Mobile Register wishes to accept it, is to educate the public as to the proper carrying of concealed handguns. The details of how Karen Lanier's purse were stolen were not made clear in the editorial, but they are nevertheless important. 

With any right comes responsibility. In this case, Karen Lanier had a responsibility to ensure that her gun was not left in a place where a student, or anyone else who is not responsible, can get the gun. That means that, if she carries the gun in her purse, it's not acceptable to leave the purse unattended in a place where someone can walk in and take it (without breaking into anything). If a gun is to be left in such a place, it needs to be locked up. This is not only common sense, but federal law as well. Specifically, it's a violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act to make a firearm accessible to a child. If Karen Lanier violated this law, she should be prosecuted, and that should be the grounds for terminating her employment - not the fact that she exercised her lawful right to carry a gun for self defense.

Sincerely,

Mark Kohler
Fort Worth, Texas

Special appreciation goes to Oleg Volk for his great photography, and more of his careful and creative work supporting the right to keep and bear arms can be seen on his website at http://www.A-Human-Right.com.