Referencing your front page article on Jan. 29 about NIC and guns on campus, it is interesting how culture changes. Not many years ago I taught a "Self Defense Class for Women" on the NIC campus with live and dummy firearms. It was highly regarded by not just the students who attended but by NIC staff and administrators at the time.

The concern then was actually having a female student or staffer being able to protect themselves, not political correctness. It was understood that behavior is the issue, not tools. People should be able to carry a concealed weapon to be able to protect themselves on a college campus the same as anywhere else.

I well realize that we have far less accountability and responsibility amongst some of the public these days, but I still believe the vast majority of law abiding citizens are worthy of our trust. More accountability and responsibility needs to be applied to criminals. We let known repeat offenders roam the land at risk to citizens and police because we want to "give them another chance." Yet if you are a gun owner wanting to exercise fundamental civil rights, you are suspect and hampered in ways that would make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. What has happened to presumption of innocence in this country?

Having trained over 10,000 students in the judicious use of lethal force, I can attest that a properly trained armed citizen is an asset to the community. I borrow that sentiment from retired Spokane Police Chief Terry Mangan. Prohibiting citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights and in that process putting them at greater risk during a criminal attack, is wrong. Before concealed carry permits were as prevalent as today, citizens had to make a choice: obey the "you aren't allowed to carry a gun" mentality and risk the repercussions of a criminal assault, or disobey the law and carry illegally. Many did the latter and then had to look over both shoulders, one for the criminal and one for the police officer who was otherwise their friend and ally. Given the opportunity the law abiding citizen prefers to carry legally, hence the huge increase across the country in concealed carry permit holders.

A number of our students have had to use their guns to defend themselves without firing a shot. The fact that they were armed allowed them to deter threats that all reported would have resulted in death or serious injury to them and/or other innocents. There were no shots fired, situation controlled, threat fled or was controlled by them until taken into custody by police. Of course these instances only made it to a police report and not the news. There wasn't a body count so not newsworthy perhaps? Or is it that some people with an agenda only wish to portray citizens as helpless and generally irresponsible? Only trained police can defend themselves or others? The facts say otherwise. The normal response in a dangerous situation is "fight or flight." We are creating a new response in people, learned helplessness.

At SAFE we taught the use of the gun as similar to a first aid kit or fire extinguisher; a life safety rescue tool. If it was suggested that a person not have a first aid kit at home or in their car, or that they not render first aid or CPR because that was the arena of the paramedic, what would we say? If we told people not to have a fire safety plan or to use a fire extinguisher when it was safe to do so because that is the fireman's job, what would we say? When we teach citizens these skills and urge them to have these tools, we are not trying to make them firefighter/paramedics.

When we train citizens in use of arms and the "when and when not to use" aspects of self-defense we are not training them to be police officers. We are simply giving them the tools and skills with which they may "hold the line" until the police professionals arrive, just like the fire or medical professionals. Any of us who have served in these professions can tell you that we have response times, sometimes lengthy. If you don't know how to "hold the line" with an arterial bleed or an immediate criminal threat I can tell you that we will be there too late. I have seen it over and over which is why I taught in all these disciplines for so many years. It is your responsibility to know these things, not just the cop or fireman. This is true ethically, legally, and morally. Remember, when seconds can mean life or death, we are only minutes away.

Civilian concealed carry permit holders who have taken the Idaho enhanced program, not to mention more extensive training, don't appear to be welcome on the NIC campus. Supposedly, according to the article, some NIC Board members don't think they possess enough training or skills. Yet NIC doesn't even want retired police officers armed on campus, with their years of experience. How many college students at adult education institutions like NIC are also veterans? I am pretty sure many of them in recent years have handled firearms in high stress, rapidly changing scenarios. Or let's just keep the failed, gun free zone, but victim rich environment we have created with these "feel good, feel safe" laws and rules. I don't want good citizens to feel safe, I want them to be safe. Criminals of all stripes, and certainly psychopathic killers DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. Wishing criminals to not be on campus will not make it so. Disarming innocents is an invitation to criminals.

Whether a student, a security officer, or a staff member, all have the fundamental right to life. It is up to them to best decide how to protect their lives. Once it becomes known that an armed individual may and can interrupt a felonious assault of a public gathering place, such attacks will lessen and stop. This has been shown numerous times since Columbine, with lives saved. Lives saved should be the bottom line. The most recent school shooting lasted 80 seconds when the assailant realized that an armed person, in this case the School Resource Officer (SRO) was coming, causing the shooter to kill himself. At least we aren't waiting 80 minutes any more, like Columbine. This is a common outcome today in these situations. When confronted by someone who is armed the criminal very often shoots themselves, ending any or further loss of innocent life.

An armed citizen is not the problem on a college campus. To reiterate an oft used statement, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It may sound trite to some, but is a demonstrated fact.

Robert Smith is director of Security Awareness and Firearms Education (SAFE).