I am confused. In your March 20 paper you reported a gun was brought to DMS by a student. This gun was apparently "found" by the student.
The article said our sheriffs were "pleading" with the community to take care securing guns. Yet two pages later I read the sheriffs are neutral on requiring safety training for packing a concealed weapon and oppose universal background checks to see if those trying to buy guns are irresponsible or dangerous. If securing guns is important, why not have laws encouraging it?
Another incident you reported was a sheriff exiting a domestic violence hang up call response because a man was "locked and loaded" with a rifle and threatening to shoot the officer. Though I was raised with many guns, they were used exclusively for hunting so I'm again confused why the sheriffs support concealed weapons being packed on our college campuses so guns can be drawn and fired with ease, yet the officer in this incident had a gun and didn't use it. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad he didn't use his weapon but it seems odd that a group claiming guns are needed to solve dangerous dilemmas didn't use a gun when threatened. And I can't help wonder if the man who threatened the officer had had an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds, as the Aurora theater shooter did, if things might have gone differently. Yet your article says the sheriffs support this man's ability to have both assault weapons and as many rounds of bullets as he wishes to continually fire. Very confusing.
Your DMS article said, "... our students are our best resource ..." for dealing with guns at school. They are a smart group indeed if they can wade through these confusing attitudes toward guns and come up with safe solutions.
Lois Hawk Todd
(Editor's note: To clarify, it was the chief of police who pleaded with community members to secure their guns after the incident at DMS.)blog comments powered by Disqus