ShareThis Page

The day I took a gun to school

| Thursday, May 2, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

One day in eighth grade I took a gun — a fully operational .22-caliber rifle — into my public school in New York.

That morning, the school bus driver eyed the gun and asked why I had it. I gave an explanation that apparently satisfied her, since she shrugged and said nothing more.

Once we arrived at school, I carried the rifle into the building — plain as day, not in any case. Two teachers passed me in the hallway and said hello. One raised an eyebrow and nodded toward the gun. “Wood shop,” I explained. She smiled and walked away.

The shop teacher, Mr. Wilcox, greeted me when I reached his room. “You finally remembered it,” he said. He took the old rifle, which had belonged to my grandfather, and admired it. “This'll clean up nice.” I'd seen Mr. Wilcox refinish the wooden stock of one of his rifles and asked if he would help me do mine.

After a couple of weeks I took the refurbished gun home, again walking freely through the halls and again taking the bus, without incident.

This was in 1981. But what made this now-unthinkable episode possible was less when it occurred than where.

I lived in Upstate New York, between Buffalo and Rochester. My neighbors were farmers and lunch ladies and truck drivers, and most of us faced lives of hard labor.

Guns were unusual in my school ­— I never saw another student bring one — but knives weren't. Many kids brought hunting knives to class. On my belt I often wore a five-inch lock-blade knife I'd received as a gift. It was proudly displayed in a leather sheath I'd made from a Tandy kit. My math teacher once asked to see the knife, which met with his approval. I was never asked to stop wearing it.

The thing is, I don't recall a stabbing at my school — ever. Or a slashing. Or any knife or gun violence. Not that there was universal peace, but we fought only with our fists. It didn't occur to us to use knives or guns on each other. They were tools, works of art. We didn't think of them as weapons.

Soon guns and knives would become less important to me. I'd always dreamed of hunting for deer and bear, but my hunting career ended early when I killed a songbird and then wept when I held it in my hands. I later went to college and began to hang around people with strong thoughts on all sorts of things, including gun control. Those thoughts began, for the most part, to make sense to me. Today I don't own a gun and I have no particular desire for one.

Yet I can still appreciate the supple feel of a well-made 12-gauge. I understand why guns are so important to people in rural America and why those people distrust any government that seeks to regulate their ownership.

I'm not exactly sure where the gun debate stands now, but as far as I'm concerned, I'd let just half a dozen people decide what to do. I'd take three random citizens of Aurora, or Newtown, or any place affected by tragic gun violence. I'd take another three from a town where they actually close school on the first day of deer season because so many students and teachers will be out anyway.

I'd put those six folks in a room, give them beer and pizza, and encourage reasonable discourse. No politicians, no lobbyists, no newspeople, no shrill talk. They wouldn't be allowed to leave until they came to agreement, like a jury.

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to live with whatever they decide.

Scott Dalrymple is dean of the School of Liberal Arts at Excelsior College in Albany, N.Y.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.