Anti- Gun Teacher: Better my child die than be protected by a gun. Gun self-defense is a crime.

[TPaine7]

The letter to the editor is from last December, but I just read about it online and tracked down the original. In any event, it may open some eyes.

I AM a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.

...

Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.

Source: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/12/28/guns_teachers_and_self_defense/

This is a very short letter to the editor, but Mr. Van Gorder also argues that in spite of the fact that evacuating students could save lives, it would unfairly reward the more resourceful students. In other words, better dead than unfairly rewarded for resourcefulness.

I've encountered such people before, though I never expected to see their thoughts expressed in first-person print.

When sane people, people who respect the rights of gays, respect other cultures, hate unnecessary war, desire health care reform, and stand for many democratic values run in to such "progressives" they instinctively recoil. This is part of the reason Democrats get defeated. "Progressives" like this need intensive counseling and professional mental care; I don't blame anyone for not trusting them to govern.

The more distance the Democratic leadership can put between itself and such "progressive" thinking, the better.

[TPaine7]

1. Thanks for the drive-by unrec.

I'm sure, by how fast you did it, that you didn't take time to read the short op-ed. You probably didn't even read the OP.

Why bother, though? Actual thought might stain the purity of your emotion.

[Brickbat]

2. Gah. That letter is disgusting.

[NoNothing]

3. Equally disturbing that such a person is a teacher, IMO

His POV reflects a basic inability to distinguish right from wrong.

[brendan120678]

4. That letter is either very good sarcasm...

or else Mr. van Gorder is an idiot.

[TheWraith]

5. It's guys like this that present a bad face for liberalism.

Unfortunately there are plenty of DUers who agree that the victim of a violent crime is somehow morally superior if they don't fight back, or aren't allowed to fight back. Self defense is one of the most basic egalitarian progressive concepts in history: the idea that no matter your situation or station in life you have an equal right to live without being dominated by someone more powerful, and that you have the right to enforce that fact.

[Demoiselle]

6. Do you really think the letter writer is for real?

It sounds almost like parody to me. Especially the bit about a lock-down being more fair to the slower moving less resourceful children!

[TPaine7]

7. It's not out of the question

based on mind-blowing conversations I've had with an utterly sincere woman I know personally. There are people on this site who think that guns are only useful for murder--which is a crime.

It could be fake, too, but the local paper should have done a little research due to the extreme views expressed--such as contacting the school and the teacher at work.

[Abq_Sarah]

27. Here's another letter to the editor he wrote

In the Patriot Ledger:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/quincy/news/opinions/letters/x1599182261/YOUR-OPINION-Better-to-spread-rights-than-to-hoard-them

I think it's safe to say his uh... letters.... don't reflect his true feelings.

[hughee99]

8. Nice use of the "fish in a barrel" analogy...

Since he's referring to school kids actually getting shot.

Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.

It sounds like his concern is not the violence, but fairness. It's more important to make sure that each child is exposed to an equal amount of danger than it is to protect as many of them as possible. My freeper brother makes the argument that progressives seek equality pulling everyone down to the lowest standard. I 100% disagree with that, but after reading this idiot, I can see where he might get that idea.

A lot of people in the comments are suggesting that no one can be this much of an idiot, and that this piece must be sarcasm, but I've learned never to underestimate the idiocy of an individual, so I'm not convinced.

[benEzra]

9. So, she wouldn't call the police or an armed guard if someone were trying to kill her child?

Or would she just insist that they defend her child without resorting to weapons, like in action movies?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that "Mr. Van Gorder" is a false-flag letter written to parody the "self-defense is morally wrong if you use a firearm" position. I wonder.

[X_Digger]

12. I have to agree. Someone forgot the *sarcasm* tag. n/t

[slackmaster]

10. Maybe he's trying for a Darwin Award

Or maybe he's just a bliss ninny.



Or an idiot.

[SteveM]

11. Self-defense with violence may be the real divide twixt pro 2A, anti-2A folks...

There seems in many of the posts reacting to incidents of self-defense a hard questioning of the "defender's" right to use violence against a home-invader, robber, etc. I can appreciate anyone who wants to ascertain the facts of a given incident, but when the incident clearly represents a self-defense action, the right is still questioned by some.

I'm not sure where this denigration of the right to self-defense emanates, but "vulgar pacifism" may be the source. Gandhi described the pacifist who failed to perform the duty to protect his family, property and religion, whether by non-violent means (stopping an assailant without hurting him or "Ahimsa"), or by using violence to stop an attack, as "cowards." The attacked should not to stand idly by and let the attack continue.

Overlaying this misconception is a modern-era disposition against war and foreign entanglements within the "progressive" community. I am of this disposition as well, but do not see aversion to war as equivalent to personal "pacifism." One has global consequences; the other, personal consequences.

[liberalhistorian]

13. Um, okay, I'm not a gun owner (although hubby is)

and I'm in favor of reasonable gun control and I hate how guns have seemingly taken over this country. BUT. This is one of the stupidest fucking things I think I've ever heard when it comes to this issue. It's as bad as the "guns uber alles, guns for every man, woman and child, as many as they want" rhetoric from the fanatics.

You'd better believe that defending your life, or that of another, especially including your own family and particularly your own child or children, with guns is not only not a crime, it is the honorable and right thing to do, sometimes the only thing to do. I don't understand someone who would let their own child die when they could be saved just because they'd have to use a gun to do so. I certainly more than understand the reluctance to have to use one if required in such circumstances, and how you'd feel afterwards even if you knew it had to be done. And, as a Christian, I see nothing "anti-Christian" or "anti-peace" about it. Christians, like everyone else, are permitted to use force to defend themselves and others, especially their families, if necessary.

[TPaine7]

14. Whether or not this op-ed is satire,

I have had a detailed, heart-to-heart conversation with a very beautiful woman who said that she could not shoot a felon to save her child from death or serious harm.

I maintained politeness and kept things cordial, but as far as I'm concerned she might as well have two heads--at least on that subject.

[liberalhistorian]

17. I think many people feel that way (frankly, who in their right mind

really DOES want to shoot anyone!), but it may be an entirely different matter when they're actually facing that situation. People are usually surprised at what they can do when the circumstances demand it. I'm the last person who could ever imagine firing a gun, let alone shooting another human being. But I don't think I'd have that much of a problem with it if I saw my son's life at stake, hinging only on my action. At least, I'd hope I wouldn't.

[TPaine7]

18. Thanks. You may be right.

I certainly don't want to shoot anyone or to kill anyone by any method. But it would be the height of immorality, IMO, to let someone die because of my desire.

Perhaps she was just saying what seemed right to her at the time and she would rise to the occasion in an emergency.

From my perspective, it is more rational (and moral) to have the unpleasant decision made in advance. If a person does have to use deadly force, it helps to know already--as you do--that it is right to do so in certain situations and that such deadly force aligns with your innermost core beliefs. Making up your mind in the moment of truth can cause fatal hesitation and lack of conviction.

Perhaps we--the two headed lady and myself--are more alike than I thought. Thanks for the insight.

[cognoscere]

35. I recall a police officer telling me that

his philosophy towards people was to be courteous, be respectful, and have a plan how to kill them if necessary. To me that means he already had the decision made, all he needed to do was be sure of any threat that would require it to be acted on.

[TPaine7]

36. A cop told me that too! n/t

[-..__...]

15. I've encountered the type of people whom you speak of myself...

but Mr Van Groder isn't one of them...

Focus should be on revising police policies


August 03, 2008

Regarding the Yarmouth police shooting, the public seems more concerned with debating whether the officer should be investigated for violating department policies than in deciding whether such policies are valid.

Police department policies forbid an officer to shoot if he has reasonable expectation of escape by backing away. If it be judged the Yarmouth officer could have backed away, policy holds he was wrong to shoot. And we're OK with that?

Police department policies forbid an officer to pursue a suspect who is driving to endanger. If it be judged the Yarmouth officer should have ended the pursuit, policy holds he was wrong there, too. And we're OK with that?

Our ire should not be based on the fact that an officer accomplished a positive good and is nevertheless being investigated; if he did violate policy, all we could say is, "Gee, I guess everything is OK then."

Everything is not OK. What should enrage the public is that we allow our local governments to hogtie our police officers with policies overly tolerant of criminal behavior. Rewrite police department policies to maximize protection for officers and the public, and let those who challenge law enforcement maximize their own protection by standing still and placing their hands over their heads.

Doug Van Gorder

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/OPINION/808030349/-1/rss08

Sorry, but this one requires a paid subscription for the complete letter...

Article: Bad Quincy gun policies

Article from:
The Patriot Ledger Quincy, MA
Article date:
September 7, 2005
Author:
Doug Van Gorder, Quincy CopyrightCopyright 2005 The Patriot Ledger Quincy, MA. Provided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)

A recent Patriot Ledger article informed readers that Quincy residents are planning a rally across from the police station on Sept. 17. They do so to protest Chief Crowley's policy that Quincy residents should be denied the right to carry firearms in Massachusetts for what he terms generic self-defense.

Criminals must applaud the chief in his attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the general population. They find it hard ...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9444975.html

[TPaine7]

21. Thanks...

Many people see no conflict--in their twisted ideology, that is--between the total disarmament of ordinary folk and the enhancement of police power. And it's been a long time since 2005. Perhaps our hero is a new convert to "progressive" thought?










Ok, I'm joking. Thanks for exposing the satire.

[Callisto32]

31. My post to the op was that I couldn't imagine anyone that sick.

I guess...it was satire.

[JoeyT]

16. Yep, we've got our crazies too.

The difference being that we tend to call our crazies out instead of following them off the cliff.

The vast majority of liberals and progressives aren't anywhere near that insane, and we certainly don't try to emulate our most deluded brethren(and sistren). It's one of our best features.

[spin]

19. Maybe he could become a future president of the Brady Campaign. (n/t)

[gordianot]

20. There is a key phrase here by Mr. Van Gorder "unfairly rewards resourceful children".

I wonder if he is capable of rewarding resourceful students in any endeavor. Granted as a teacher they should never have a gun in school if for no other reason than to protect resourceful students from taking a firearm, Mr. Van Gorder's statement qualifies as the single most stupid comment I have ever heard coming from a teacher. Having lived through violent assaults as an administrator (although I was not assaulted) by a parent(s) in school (actually 3 incidents I can recall one with a baseball bat). I made plans to respond in kind if I was unable defuse the situation (and without firearms). Every teacher I have encountered in my 34 years in education would be willing to do anything to protect their students, Mr. Van Gorder needs to find another profession.

For me an intruder in my home if necessary will be met with deadly force. It pays to be resourceful a quality educators should encourage.

[Tim01]

22. Nutcase. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

23. I don't think the article is serious. Perhaps poorly done satire or sarcasm, or a troll. N/T

[DissedByBush]

24. Sarcasm or absolutely demented?

It's one or the other.

If it's sarcasm, it's very good, showing the absurdity of some policies.

If it's serious, someone needs professional help.

[Duppers]

25. OMFG!

This has to be satire or he's a world class nutcase.

[mistertrickster]

26. Anti-gun is not a progressive position. FDR fought WW2, didn't he.

Truman sent the marines into Korea.

Guess what, they used guns.

[Tejas]

28. Wonder if his child has read that? nt

[chrisa]

29. I think this is a joke.

Every reasonable person would do whatever they could, even killing, to save themselves or their family members. May nobody be forced to be tested under those circumstances, though.

I'm 99% sure this is a joke, though. The writer also said it should be everyone for themselves in the hallways when a shooter starts shooting instead of locking kids in their rooms, because it keeps the shooter from shooting preselected targets. A very twisted, bizarre satirical piece.

[-..__...]

34. It is a joke/satire...

but when we at least one person here that actually supports the idea of inviting foreign troops on US soil to confiscate firearms, it only makes VanGroders 'belief' seem all that more genuine and believable.

[Callisto32]

30. I am suffering from cognitive dissonance, right now.

I just can't bring myself to believe that there are people out there who are this sick.

[The Green Manalishi]

37. Sounds pretty much like many gun confiscators here and elsewhere

right in line with the Brady bunch, VPC and the others of their ilk who do would like to do a happy dance on constitutional freedoms of which they do not approve. Essentially the same rationale as those who believe that innocent people should die or get raped waiting for the cops instead of taking out the trash by ventilating the thug(s).

[GreenStormCloud]

32. The NRA has picked this up and is spreading far and wide.

I got it yesterday in an NRA email.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. That dude isn't a progressive. He's an idiot.

End of discussion.

[kctim]

38. How could he

be a teacher at the site of a school shooting, when there are laws that made those schools gun-free zones even for teachers?