“I have no previous firearms training. I have no idea what carrying a gun entails. I don’t have the mindset to shoot and kill; I admit this about myself, which is why I have never had any incentive to become familiar with guns or permits for those weapons. So could I really say that I could protect the children that I’m watching over at any and all costs if I am unwilling to carry a gun in the classroom or on my person to protect them?” – Brittany Jordan, Guns in Schools: Not the Answer [via collegian.com]
No. No you can not.
But some day you might wish you had.
This.
You might not have the inclination to possess, train with and carry a firearm. No problem; I hope it works out for you, I truly do. The odds are everything will be fine but ask yourself this: if you had been one of those heroic teachers at Sandy Hook, would you have wished for the means to defend those children? What would you do to have given those brave souls a fighting chance? If you found yourself in a similar position with your students wouldn’t you want the chance, however small, to defend them? Are you willing to lay down their lives for your principles? If not, do you possess the dignity to die the same way those teachers did?
Citing your own complacency and mental fragility is anecdotal at best. Simply because you are too soft and weak does not mean that all teachers are. Many would and COULD fight for their students. Do not dismiss their chances simply because you are incapable of doing the same.
The only thing pro-RKBA people want is to give you a capability. That’s it. If you choose not to exercise it, that’s fine. We’re not demanding that you carry a concealed weapon. However, we seem to be the only ones facing reality here. If you call a spade a spade, your push for gun control isn’t going to happen. Period. You can accuse us of putting our rights before the safety of others all you like; you would be correct. Liberty-loving peoples do not sacrifice their rights on the altar of public opinion. This is especially important at times when the people have become bloated, decadent and weak.
Keeping that in mind, what is your solution? Lay down and die? You’ll have to forgive us. We want you to have a better option than that.
I am also forced to add, would your conviction be a strong if the odds were different? As it stands, the chances of you becoming a victim in a school shooting are incredibly low. You probably have the same chance of winning the power ball. I wonder if you would so casually dismiss the RKBA if you believed you were actually going to become a victim yourself. It’s very easy to talk the talk when you will never be tested.
“Are you willing to lay down their lives for your principles?”
That is one of the most epic questions a person could ever ask a pacifist and/or civilian disarmament advocate.
Better yet, let’s ask her how happy she is to lay down her life for my principles.
Dang Hal, she got told. I hope you emailed this to her.
What this guy said!!
Hal, I am gratefull that you wrote this. Your post is one of the best I have ever read and I will be quoting you in the future.
YES! Well said my friend.
Brett,
I took your advice and posted it to the website’s comments section. It was promptly removed, presumably by the folks moderating the comments section. Seeing as how I did not flame the author or use bad language, I am forced to assume that it was removed because I had the audacity to question her premise. Good to see that academic honesty is alive and well at collegiancentral.com.
I don’t see anything in her article that is anti-RKBA. She thinks a better solution is that parents with guns need to keep them way from kids. I would amend that to keeping them away without parent permission. That is part, but not all of a solution. She also makes a point that I hadn’t considered: can a teacher dedicated to teaching children pull the trigger on a kid with a gun without hesitation? I think that this is a good indication that teachers carrying a gun in school may need extra training to overcome this built-in bias against killing a kid.
Anybody unwilling to use force to protect their life has no right to said life. If history has taught us anything, it’s that the meek will not inherit the earth.
“Anybody unwilling to use force to protect their life has no right to said life.”
They have no right to stay alive based on what?
The refusal to take advantage of one right doesn’t negate the others. It just means evil people will have an easier time robbing someone of all the rest.
A man has only those rights that he is willing to defend.
I strongly disagree. All human beings have the right to life until they attempt infringe upon others’ right to the same.
If you are not willing to defend a right… You effectively don’t have that right.
Sorry Hal – You only have the rights you are GIVEN… NO ONE is born with any rights, any duties, any responsibilities, prejudices, bias’ or anything else outside our own skin. Others aranged for us to be born in a place where you are given, can earn, or learn these things… but it’s fundamental law of nature we as a people keep overlooking or omitting from the conversation..
As for this young lady, as a shooter since I was 10 years old- hey, I was a ranch kid – I’d rather poor pale creatures such as she admit she cannot do it than have a weapon she is unwilling to use, have it taken, and then used on her and or the children… One thing young folks like this do is use absloutes – inferred or spoken, she cannot use a firearm “at this point in her life.” She sees children killed, is assaulted herself or witnesses needless dealth and she likely will change her mind. In the end, I know an Israeli school teacher who has carried a firearm into class for years, to her it’s a tool like any other. As she put it, she’s never had to use it YET but then, she says she’s never had to pull the firealarm either but is glad it’s there.
pwrserge, I am going to apply your logic. Hypothetically, let’s say I find you and kill youYour inability to defend yourself in that situation would therefore imply that you had no right to life. As you had no right to life, I should be immune from any legal consequences because what I did wasn’t wrong. I did nothing wrong because I deprived you of something you were never entitled to in the first place. We could apply the same scenario to property; I am pretty sure if I broke into your house tonight and took your TV, this principle of yours wouldn’t stop you from pressing charges against me. Although it should, because your unwillingness to defend your right to property means you have none. Is that what I am to take away from your assertion?
Old wolf, you and I will have to agree to disagree friend. The “everything is relative there are no absolute truths” is a way of thinking I have encountered before. It is a very sad lens through which to view the world.
I am incapable, therefor everyone is.
Edit: this was not meant to be a reply, i just forgot to cancel the original.
pwrserge wrote:
“A man has only those rights that he is willing to defend”
Are you claiming that a young child, an ill or disabled person, perhaps an elderly person does not have the right to their life if they are not for any reason willing to defend themselves?
Do you mean able to defend vs. willing to defend? What about even if you are willing but can’t defend yourself then you don’t have the ability to practice the right to life or any other right?
If you can’t defend your life or another person’s life from a more powerful and deadly attacker or oppressor (even if you try) then you don’t have the right to life, true?
If you couldn’t kill to protect the lives of the innocent, then you are selfish or weak, or a combination of the two. I bet if they were your own children, your maternal instinct would cause you to do anything to save them. I wouldn’t want a coward such as yourself having charge over my children for length of time.
“Guns in Schools: Not the Answer”?
How about: “Brittany Jordan in Schools: Not the Answer”.
Fickst ti fer ya’.
Right on SD3! A person with this mindset has no business being in school because she herself has no interest in learning!
As certified high school teacher in 3 states with 8 years in public schools and four in two colleges, she is all the proof we need that all colleges of education should be bulldozed immediately!
She says she doesn’t have the mindset to kill, I don’t think many people do. But the vast majority of us have the mindset to defend ourselves from assault or imminent death. Seems she is missing that instinct or simply denying or doesn’t realize she has it. She hints at it, “I will do whatever it takes”, but apparently a single proactive step isn’t what it takes.
Then don’t. Just don’t impede those who are willing to fight for their young charges by denying them access to the best tools for the job. If you choose to be a sheep, so be it, but don’t leash the sheep dogs.
+1
Spot on. Not everyone has the mindset and even fewer are unable to cultivate it. But don’t punish those who can and will step up.
Well said.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Maybe it’s not for her, but don’t deny the ability to those that will.
Sad, really. I completely understand her views of herself, and I have respect for them.
I do NOT understand why that means that someone else, who DOES have the necessary mindset, training and equipment, cannot be in a position to defend their mutual charges…
I cannot wrap my mind around this. Projection, progessive, blah blah blah… I just cannot understand it…
In case you didn’t link to the article from which the quote was taken, on the whole, her piece isn’t as innocuous as the quote. It’s not a die-hard gun phobic rant but it’s not as “it’s just not something I can do” as the quote might lead you to believe.
Again. Brittany knows that she would be useless in a bad case scenario. Which is fine. Know your limitations. But she insists on limiting those around her to helpless sheep because she believes that all people should be as useless as her in these situations.
The daughter of the principle killed at Sandy Hook has made similer statements about her mother. A woman that had the courage to advance, unarmed, against a maniac. I’ll bet that womans last thoughts weren’t,”Thank god I’m not armed. I would just make this situation worse.”
It’s a good point as long as it’s followed up with “but just because I don’t think I can, doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t.”
+1
Or that given the right motivation she could get the training to do those things.
“When you stick your hand into the goo that was your best friend’s face you’ll know what to do.”
General George S Patton
If you go read the article she makes a couple of CYA disclaimers and points out the obvious “guns locked up at home with kids” and “more mental health”.
But she falls back on the same self referential logical fallecy thats really explains the gun grabber/ hoplophobe worldview: because I CANT do it I dont want others (her staff other teachers) to have guns to defend themselves.
I saw a chicken run to cover her chicks from a circling hawk once. The hawk got the chicken but not the chicks she was covering. Eventually the hawk came back for more.
I suppose she could do just as well.
Yeah, while she says “I don’t think I can,” my guess is if push came to shove, she’d probably surprise herself.
And to that point, the question isn’t “Can you, at this dispassionate remove, imagine yourself protecting your children at any and all costs?” The question is, “When (not if) you find it necessary to provide that protection, wouldn’t you want every reasonably possible tool at your disposal?”
Zombies gotta eat something. More time for the rest of us to take aim.
When they chompin’ on Brittany, they ain’t chompin’ on me. That way, she’s done her part to help others survive. Thanks, Brittany!
Why do these morons assume that everyone thinks like they do? And why do they assume that self-protection is always about “killing” someone else?
Moreover, why do idiots try to write about things they know nothing about?
And your other options are…?
Perhaps the solutioin is more male teachers and adminstrators in schools. Obviously Ms. Jorden believes that women are incapable of learning how to use a firearm in self defense, be able to think on their feet and have the moral fiber to protect others.
This won’t happen. Bad women have a stranglehold on the K-12 teaching profession.
Perhaps I should have added the \sarc or \ironic to the end of the post.
WORD.
If I were a parent of a student in her class, I would put in for an immediate transfer to another class. That’s fine that you accept that you won’t protect yourself or others, I accept that I cannot trust you around my child and do not want you teaching them.
THIS JUST IN… Bloomberg says he will sign a new law banning smoking unless your 21 in New York. I don’t smoke, I hate second hand smoke, but I do believe in personal choice for adults…
I feel the same about helmet and seatbelt laws. I use both and would do so regardless of the law. But it pisses me off that it’s mandated.
The master(bater) puppeteer at it again.
More of this to come now that the gov’t is in the healthcare business…
Welcome to N(ann)Y state!
Soon we will here about the need for National Cigarette Control since those 18-21 year old children will be able to go outside of NYC to get their illegal cigarettes. We will also need expanded background checks to buy cigarettes to prevent “straw purchases by friends of these Children.
My daughter teaches music in an urban elementary school. Her attitude is “those are my kids!” and in many ways she provides more support and structure than they get at home. She has told me she absolutely would carry at school if that were possible.
It is possible.
Consider the following scenario that is actually somewhat common. What if some of your daughter’s students were so allergic to bumble bees that they would promptly die from a single bumble bee sting … unless receiving an epinephrin injection within two minutes of the sting? Of course your daughter would want to keep an EpiPen for that scenario. (EpiPens are small, spring-loaded self-injection syringes with epinephrin.) And yet the school has a “zero tolerance” policy for drugs and drug paraphernalia which prohibits your daughter from keeping an EpiPen at school. Furthermore, state law only allows physicians and paramedics to administer epinephrin injections.
Would your daughter comply with the school’s policy and leave her EpiPen at home? After all, the probability of a bumble bee entering the school and stinging one of your daughter’s students is extremely low. And even if a bee did sting one of your daughter’s students, maybe paramedics would just happen to be driving by and could arrive in time with their EpiPens. Finally, should your daughter leave her EpiPen at home because state law only allows physicians and paramedics to administer epinephrin injections to her students?
Or would your daughter discretely hide an EpiPen some place in her classroom where it was accessible only to her just in case? I guarantee that your daughter can find a place in her classroom to hide a small item like an EpiPen. It is just a matter of deciding to do it.
Note: I know that drug bans at schools do not presently apply to prescriptions but you get the idea. The point is that your daughter’s school and state have said that it is politically incorrect to have life saving devices on school property. Does your daughter comply because others say it is politically incorrect?
Brittany, if that’s the case, fine. Just don’t assume we all have your shortcomings.
Woman, this sounds like your personal problem. Key word being “yours”. I have no problems protecting myself or my family/friends. If you dont fight for what you love, dont cry for what you lose.
WHOA! I agree with every single word. Except “woman”; Brittany is a CHILD, not a woman. She’s NOT self-empowered (though I’m sure she thinks of herself as an “empowered woman), and her kids have as good a shot of saving themselves as she does saving them.
That’s fine, not everyone can physically hurt someone else.
Some of us can, so don’t deny us that ability in the event that SHTF.
Why has no one made fun of her outfit yet?
I will at least point out that her position is made more unfortunate by the fact that she could easily conceal an M4 or a platoon of marines under that . . . whatever that is.
To the extent that I bothered to give it thought, I thought it looked good.
She’s not a bad looking young lady and that style is pretty common with the early 20’s crowd, my 22 yr old sisters wears outfits like this all the time.
I’m waiting for Dirk….
He’s stalking MILFs at the moment.
Maybe he’s reading Brittany’s article on “Friends With Benefits”
http://www.collegian.com/2013/04/friends-with-benefits-can-it-work/28858/
BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice find!
Well, how come she espouses such daring in her sexual life (presuming she knows whereof she speaks) and yet eschews all forms of courage in the vastly more important arena of life or death armed confrontation? Just a little cognitive dissonance? Methinks, symptomatic of the extreme left wing attitude that everything belongs to everyone, marriage and fidelity are obsolete concepts, and oh yeah Psychology is really, really a REAL science, not fakery or perception tricks at all… I could not with confidence place my children in the care of a woman with such low standards, let alone such a coward. Thank God I don’t have to.
Because this is a website about guns, FACTS and informing those who come here for that. Not fashion. Not sexual ego gratification. If I want to engage in low class personal insults and petty snark I’d go to HuffPo or Kos or DU or any of a dozen hipster/gamer sites where thats the sort of limited wit that applies…
+10
Would or could Brittany use tools such as a baseball bat or a knife/scissors to protect her young students and perhaps her own young children someday from an attacker? If not then she needs to work on herself before she works with children.
Well Brittany, that is perfectly fine, if you don’t feel comfortable with weapons then you can continue on as you have been.
However, do not assume that others feel the same way and insist on imposing your will on everyone else.
I couldn’t teach 30 snot nose kids everyday without losing my damn mind, but that doesn’t mean someone else can’t or shouldn’t, see how that works…
so… if survival of the fittest happened upon her by chance, I guess she would lose.
If the United States were filled with people like her from the beginning, we would have all been subjects of the British crown until the mid 1940’s. After that, the east coast would have had to learn German and the west coast would be learning Japanese.
So if I couldn’t spend the day with 30 whiny brats who belong to other people and try to mold them into something resembling an educated human being, does that mean:
A) Teaching is not the answer; or
B) Teaching is something best left to others, who are better suited for it?
Would it be too much to ask if we could get these folks, or all teachers, some bean bag shotguns or high potency OC squirt cans and OC grenades? Something? Anything? Ammonia filled super soakers for crying out loud!
A victim protecting potential helpless victims
Gotta wonder what her stance is on drugs and Bullys in school is!
Children and guns don’t mix? I guess she has missed the many defensive gun uses where a child stops someone much stronger than them with a firearm.
I made it to the first time she wrote “but”…
then I knew. When I used to need sitters for my kids, they were always the older kids of friends who I knew they knew how to shoot. After the , here’s the name of the restaurant, place we’ll be at, it was, the 870 is in the coat closet, chamber empty.
Formula and diapers are over there.
Glock is on the top shelf, mags are over there.
She lost me at the second paragraph when she wrote that on October 23 a student in
Danvers, Mass. shot and killed a teacher and dragged her body into the woods. It just proved how pre-programmed and misinformed Brittany is. If someone was murdered, it had to be gun violence, right, Brittany? Truth is, the teacher was killed with a razor knife, not a gun.
yeah I noticed that. wonder where she got her info?
Probably slipped it in subconsciously. Even the NYDN got it right (much to their chagrin, I suspect).
That’s the second time in 2 days that piece of disinformation has shown up in an anti’s article.
It is nice to see the toga make a comeback. Good job Brittany
I give Ms. Jordan credit for being honest.
So what now? Violent people can attack any time, anywhere. How is Ms. Jordan preparing for that occurrence?
I understand that some people are so kind hearted that they lack the mettle to strike back at an attacker. If that is the case, that kind of person has to then seriously consider:
(a) helping prepare and empower other people who are willing to stand up to attackers.
(b) finding a different line of work where she does not have children in her care
The teacher she claims was shot and killed in Danvers, Massachusetts was actually murdered with a box cutter (a la the Sept. 11 highjackings). I guess we should pass laws limiting minors’ access to sharp objects. Of course, blunt objects can also be used to murder people too, so maybe we should limit minors’ access to those as well…. On second thought, maybe we should just ban minors.
I am sure that the parents of Sandy Hook victims are just so grateful that the responsible adults at that school were prohibited from carrying firearms.
Because, you know, it’s for the kids.
I would challenge the deniers to name one mass shooting where there was an armed citizen who failed to stop it, when an armed citizen stops a killing spree,the spree never happens.
Sort of like ant vaccine activists challenging you to name one child saved by a vaccine, you can’t cite what never happened to support your cause. This is not the same as being wrong.
Pay close attention to that headline, folks.
That right there is the enemy we face.Ultimately, one of the drawbacks of a civilized society is that evil becomes hidden from view-and what is out of sight, becomes out of mind.
Part of the problem we face is that armed self defense, fortunately, is rare.Why lug around a handgun, spend money to train with it, and risk social marginalization for an event unlikely to happen?
Those of us who know the stakes can answer that question.This teacher, and millions all over the nation, can’t-because they don’t know the stakes.
The problem isn’t that a 20 year old doesn’t think she should have a gun, it’s that she’s lying to further the anti-guns rights agenda. The teacher in Danvers, MA was killed with a box cutter, not a gun. The draconian gun laws in Massachusetts didn’t stop the teenage killer.
Why do we keep seeing the same book over and over; “I don’t do it and you can’t too!” I don’t want to, and cannot, physically go through pregnancy, does that mean I should crusade to end all pregnancies? Oh wait, it’s for the children…
Because she can’t, obviously no one can’t. Perfectly describes the progressive mindset.
“I. I. I; I myself, I. I I I’m I my?” – Brittany Jordan, Guns in Schools: Not the Answer
Wow.
Her self-indulgement runs so deep that the thought of someone else being more capable, willing or responsible couldn’t even occur to her. The I..I..I… me.. me.. screams it.
Is it just my browser acting up or have they disabled comments on the article now? Instead I see “Feedback of all varieties can be sent to [email protected]“.
It’s your browser. I see 25 comments and a box to leave more. It’s powered by Disqus, so it may be getting blocked by an adblocker or script blocker, if you’re running one of those.
Why are we presented with an opinion piece by an undergraduate psych major? Who cares? Further, beating up on an undergrad psych major is equivalent to tripping a blind person, an abuse of the disabled. Her logic, for example, includes this line of reasoning, paraphrased: “I’m sure I can’t do that because I have no training in that, and I’m not going to get any training because I can’t do that!” Makes sense? No. Thus the self-disabling reality.
She CHOSE to broadcast her thoughts and ideas in a publicly accessible setting.
Can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
She misses the point. The point is not to have armed teachers in a shootout with gunmen. The point of arming teachers (or someone in the school) is to provide a deterrence. Criminals take the path of least resistance to their crimes, aka gun free zones.
People who lack the will defend their own lives should not carry a gun. Instead, they should pray for someone better than they are to come along and save their lives. The weak-willed should also pray that a rescuer will put a higher value on their lives than they do.
Continue not owning and leave everyone else’s rights alone.
The article begins with a lie:
“Oct. 22, a student shot and killed a teacher and dragged her into the woods in Danvers, Mass., where her body was later uncovered.”
No, she was killed with a boxcutter; the special little snowflake slit her throat in the bathroom.
May you never need a gun; may you have one handy when you need it.
I think it’s fair for her to say that she does not like guns and does not want to carry a gun. As an American, it’s her right to make that choice for herself.
It is not her right to deny me mine, nor is it her right to refuse to protect children by whatever means necessary when she knowingly went into a profession where she would be responsible for the lives of students. This will get a lot of flack from the left (and possibly from TTAG, but whatever), but here it goes:
Teachers should go through the same background check and selection process as police officers. Before being put in a position of absolute authority over a crop of youth, they should be thoroughly vetted and trained. They should swear an oath, similar to that of any elected official, soldier, or police officer, to protect the students under their authority at any cost.
I’m currently in college, and I’ve meat a ton of f*ck head Education majors who have no business teaching anything. I’d like to see more responsibility in deciding who educates children.
She is still pretty young. I am sure she is surrounded by liberals at college and Psych majors were among the most liberal when I was in college. My wife changed when she had kids. I think the NRA approach is good if a school district or city has the money to keep trained LE folks in the schools. It works here in some schools in the Seattle area (a very liberal area) If not teachers who volunteer should be allowed to carry. Some women have the gene to shoot and kill in self defense. Some women change when they have kids too.
More power to you, babe. One quibble, however: that a gun in school isn’t the right answer for you does not flippin’ mean that it’s not the right sodding answer for someone else!
You freely admit virtually complete ignorance of the subject matter. That is your right.
However, you’ve no thrice-cursed right to pontificate on a subject in which you cannot distinguish guano from manure!
YOU ARE MEDDLING WITH THE PRIMAL FORCES OF NATURE! Am I getting through to you, Ms. Beal?
I heard the same logic from my formerly anti-gun mom. “I’d rather die than have to kill someone.” When my mentally unstable brother attempted to poison my parents she locked herself in their room and took my giant maglite for “protection”. Her being kidnapped later on totally changed both my parent’s perspective on self defense with a firearm. Nothing like a good dose of reality to encourage some real common sense.
It’s wrong of her to advocate a decision on behalf of others based on her admitted willful ignorance and cowardice.
i would be furious if i heard my child’s teacher say that.
OK, fine, she doesn’t have what it takes to use a gun for self defense or defense of the children she’s teaching. That’s not t o say that arming teachers is a bad idea. Seriously, following her logic and applying it to some other random activity reveals the absurdity. Since I have never been inclined to learn how, and do not know how to teach, no one should be allowed to teach.
And the winning quote of the day goes to the person above who said:
“Citing your own complacency and mental fragility is anecdotal at best. “
Comments are closed.