21 Dec

NRA Press Conf — “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

William A. Jacobson @ Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, conducted a press conference today.

He did not back down on the issue of gun control. He ripped into the media, politicians, the culture and the failure to protect our children. LaPierre called for a police officer in every school, and pledged NRA resources and members for training and implementation.

The line of the press conference was “”The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The press conference was interrupted twice by Code Pink

Needless to say, Twitter went crazy. Here are some of the more restrained tweets:

One thing is clear from my Twitter feed. Reporters really do not like the NRA:

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

101 Responses to NRA Press Conf — “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

  1. Nan G says: 1

    I overslept and missed the news conference.
    The web has a transcript:
    http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/transcript_statement_by_nation.html

    A couple of his points the media missed:
    How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

    The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

    And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
    …..

    So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years!
    …..

    And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

    Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?
    …..
    [F]ive years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?

    Will you at least admit it’s possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared?
    ….
    [D]o know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year’s budget, and scrapped “Secure Our Schools” policing grants in next year’s budget.

    ~~~~~~~~
    No wonder the loonies on the Left went nuts!

    ReplyReply
  2. Aleric says: 2

    As always Facts are Kryptonite to the Liberal Media. When it comes to actually producing results the Liberals can not produce anything but good intentions and that has caused more bodies than guns evee have.

    ReplyReply
  3. WAYNE LAPIERE
    HAD THE RIGHT IDEA TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN
    AND WHAT A SMART SPEECH,
    it made BLOOMBERG JEALOUS, IT MADE CODE PINK STUPID, AND ANYONE
    WHO HAD A COMMENT AGAINST HIS SPEECH DUMFOUNDED

    ReplyReply
  4. Nick Bolanis says: 4

    One solution to safeguarding a Public School is “The Mousetrap.”

    I can’t reproduce the video, but I saw one on YouTube .
    A High-End Diamond Dealer from Manhattan had the device installed. (There WAS a breech of security, but read on).

    Install one,two,three or four of these babies at the main entrances of any school and the chance of a Newtown or Columbine attack diminish to a fraction of a percent.

    First of all, all schools need to retrofit their ground floor windows, using masonry, to less than 1-foot wide. Use columns. Ask any brick layer. It’s easy and cheap to do. These narrow windows open for ventilation.
    All other doors, besides the “Mousetrap Doors” cannot be opened from outside. And an alarm will sound if opened from within.

    During normal student drop-off hours, plenty of supervision is there. (Note the time of the Newtown attack).

    After normal hours, entry is gained ONLY through “The Mousetrap.”

    The Mousetrap:

    In the video of the diamond dealer, (Estimated $75 Million in stock there) the “customer” approaches an outer door that opens like one at Wal-Mart. The the customer stepped forward some 15-feet to the second set of doors. (The outer doors closed). After stepping on the pad, the second set of doors do not open. And BUCKO: THAT’S A BULLETPROOF CLASS BOX OF SOME 500 SQUARE FEET YOU’RE TRAPPED IN.

    So the store owner says “Take off your jacket and hang it on the hook. Show me your hands. As Marines say ‘Hands KILL, In God we trust, everyone else…SHOW ME YOUR HANDS.”

    So the guy get’s let in. But WHOA! The video was posted because the perp had a small .22 cal pop-gun, and he drew it on the owner!

    As he did that, the owner pulled a .44 Bulldog! Seeing this, the perp ran to the exit. The inner door was still open. (He said the outer door will not open if the inner door is open too).

    So once the perp approached the closed outer door, the inner door slammed shut. The perp tried two rounds from his .22. He’s lucky that he was not injured from the ricochet.
    The perp was trapped, and the owner calmly called the police to harvest the scumbag.

    But what do these two simple and cost-effective measures (The narrowed ground floor windows and The Mousetrap) result in?
    A) You can’t blast your way in.
    B) Even if you get in, you won’t be carrying a rifle and two pistols. That tiny gun you hid up your ass won’t massacre 20 children.
    And nobody’s rights are violated. Genuine Visitors still get access. Suspicious ones get momentarily detained.
    Any doubts, keep “the visitor” in that dry warm mousetrap until authorities arrive.

    Cheaper than paying for manned metal detectors. No signs (to the students) of “A LOCKDOWN” or a police state.
    And also I would recommend that all classroom doors be made of steel, not wood. 5 properly placed rounds around the latch on a wooden door allows a lightweight to bash it in. Not so with a steel door. (And you are not doing that anyway with a small pistol). And most modern hotels can “lock down” all the room doors with the flip of a switch, in case someone get’s through, or is allowed entry through another door from within (Remember: alarm sounds in that case).

    The Gem Dealer had this system installed because he had $75 Mil in the place. What is the sum total of a town’s school children worth to protect?

    ReplyReply
  5. Nick Bolanis
    that sound’s good idea, first time I hear of it,
    a special mouse trap made to measure,
    it might sell for the right interested people,
    you got the good guy armed waiting
    on the other side of the mouse trap,
    thank you

    ReplyReply
  6. Greg says: 6

    Wayne LaPierre is misreading public opinion as badly as the GOP has been doing, and likely represents the views of the average NRA member about as accurately and effectively as the GOP represents those of the average republican.

    Most Americans believe that military-style firearms, commonly referred to as assault weapons, should require special licensing, owing to the specific purpose for which they were designed. The same is true of high capacity magazines. The intention of such special licensing would be to make them much more difficult to acquire, and to bring about a significant reduction in the total volume of sales. Such firearms aren’t really needed or best suited for home defense or personal defense, and are not commonly used for hunting. The more of them there are in public, the less safe the public becomes.

    LaPierre’s attack on “gun free zones” only makes sense to people who buy into the idea that public safety increases along with the number of guns that are present in public places. Most people strongly disagree.

    ReplyReply
  7. Wm T Sherman says: 7

    @Greg:

    Most Americans believe that military-style firearms, commonly referred to as assault weapons, should require special licensing, owing to the specific purpose for which they were designed. The same is true of high capacity magazines.

    Most Americans do not believe that:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

    See second graph.

    Since you didn’t provide a source for your assertion, I would guess you either pulled it out of your ass or used Media Matters; but I repeat myself.

    ReplyReply
  8. johngalt says: 8

    @Greg:

    Most people strongly disagree.

    Show me the polling, Greg.

    Meanwhile, there are some facts for you to consider, assuming that you can rise above your emotional concerns for a minute, and actually engage the thinking part of your brain.

    -“Assault” weapons make up approximately 2% of all privately owned firearms in the US. Amazingly enough, they also make up only about 2% of the firearms used to commit murders. While they are, inherently, a dangerous weapon, they are no more dangerous to the public in general than any other type of firearm.

    -The Va Tech shooter used handguns, with significantly smaller magazines than the Newtown shooter, yet despite that, he killed more, and wounded more, even though he had to reload more often, and his targets were spread out in a much larger area(two buildings and the grounds between them, vice one confined building), and with his targets being markedly more mobile than the kids in Newtown.

    -And finally, you gun-control people are using an example of a person who obtained the weapons illegally, who entered a school with the weapons illegally, all after committing an illegal act at home, all to presume some moral ground upon which you desire to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

    Such firearms aren’t really needed or best suited for home defense or personal defense,

    That’s not up to you, or anyone else, other than the person desiring to defend their home or person, to decide, Greg.

    and are not commonly used for hunting.

    Who cares, Greg? Show me the testimony, or judgement, or written piece, that shows hunting to be the reasoning behind the Second Amendment.

    The more of them there are in public, the less safe the public becomes.

    That statement is a falsehood, as I explained above. Show me proof to the contrary, Greg.

    ReplyReply
  9. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 9

    Armed guards in the schools as a panacea? The only reform needed?

    Note: There was a highly trained armed guard at Columbine. Didn’t help in the least. And another nearby, who shot and missed also. Didn’t help.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html?utm_hp_ref=education&ir=Education

    I think that this is a real tipping point moment for gun restrictions. Credit the NRA for a big assist. They just shot themselves in the foot.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  10. DavidG says: 10

    @ Greg –

    Such firearms aren’t really needed or best suited for home defense or personal defense

    Is that why all those Law Enforcement Officers responded with such a firearm? They Carried them all over during the News reporting. Maybe they had them because they looked cool?
    So Law Enforcement and Priviate Security at some secure sites across this country carry these weapons but not for personal defense……….

    ReplyReply
  11. what a great idea, to get an arm guard in every school, it will save lives, don’t give us that shitty example,
    from the libs, who did not do nothing yet for those who are afflicted with mental disturbance,
    they where waithing for a tragedy to be force to do something to help the one who needed it yesterday and still need it now,
    LARRY AS A DOCTOR AND RESEARCHER, YOU DON”T YET UNDERSTAND , THE PROBLEM ,
    SHAME FOR A RESEARCHER TO PUT THE BLAME ON THE RNA,
    do you have nothing else to suggest? I did not expect it.
    edit; LARRY, I just see a POLICE OFFICER ARM AND WITH HIS DOG A GERMAN SHEFFARD, THAT WOULD ADD UP TO THE IDEA,
    YOU KNOW SOME STUPID PEOPLE see an officer with his gun in his hand pointing at the door,
    no no , the guard would be more discrete than what you have in mind

    ReplyReply
  12. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 12

    Hi bees,

    I think that selectively arming teachers and armed guards, when affordable, has a potential role, but it’s got to be a LOT more than that! Just as in the case of the financial cliff, we need a balanced approach. We’ll never totally stop it, but, with a combination of actions, including some sensible firearms restrictions, we’ll reduce future carnage.

    I’m well aware that no one on this blog (other than the token liberals) agrees with me (and all the liberals may not agree with arming the teachers); I’ve listened to all the arguments. My only point in writing the comment I did (#9) was simply to make a political prediction. The NRA just shot itself in the foot. Their press conference is going to generate a whole lot of anti-gun backlash. It was politically tone deaf.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  13. LARRY
    MR LAPIERRE GAVE THE BEST SPEECH ON THE SUBJECT WE NEVER GOT FROM ANYONE ELSE
    SINCE THE TRAGEDY,
    AND HE SAID A BAD GUY GUN SHOULD BE MET WITH A GOOD GUY GUN,
    NO COMMENT RIGHT?

    ReplyReply
  14. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 14

    Hi Bees, I simply pointed out that the bad guys in Columbine were met with two good guys with guns. – Larry

    ReplyReply
  15. Randy says: 15

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: I think you need to reread what happened at Columbine. If there had been one armed security guard in the school, all but 3 of the people killed would have been saved. If the Sheriff’s department had entered the school after they arrived, others would have been saved.

    Larry, you are as knowledgeable on the Columbine incident as you are on CA losing population, climate change attributed to CO2 and Obama Care. You should have quit when you were considered credible.

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt says: 16

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    There was a highly trained armed guard at Columbine. Didn’t help in the least.

    Larry, the armed guard at Columbine most certainly did help. He kept the shooters occupied while many of the students escaped. Then, with the backup he called (still no police presence at the time), they ended up forcing the two shooters into the library, where the majority of the killings happened. When faced with the armed resistance, and no other innocents to target, the two shooters killed themselves.

    Given the plan the shooters put together, later discovered at one of their homes, there could have been many, many more casualties if not for the armed guard and the backup he called.

    You might wish to research more about what happened at Columbine before using that as an example you think supports your position.

    As for me, I don’t think that it’s having armed guards, policeman, teachers, or anyone else in the schools that will be the deterrent. I think that it’s removing that stupid “gun-free” zone advertising that tell the would-be mass murderers there are unarmed victims available. Again, just the idea that armed resistance might be present would be enough to deter most of the gun violence, in my opinion.

    ReplyReply
  17. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 17

    Hi John and Randy,

    You are asserting that things would have been worse without the armed response. I agree with you. “Didn’t help in the least” was a poor choice of words. I should have said “didn’t prevent.” Randy says things would have been better had the armed response been more vigorous. I agree also. I support armed response.

    But many of you have used the mere fact that massacres occur to claim that certain gun restrictions don’t help.

    I could also assert that assault weapons bans and magazine limits and much more stringent background checks (of both purchasers and weapons) in CA have made school carnage less. Through a number of mechanisms. Likewise, I could assert that the VA Tech shootings could have been even worse, had the shooter had 30 round magazines and a 100 round assault rifle.

    I stand by prior positions on CA population loss (owing to insane real estate prices, overpopulation, congestion, etc., with a comparatively minimal impact of tax and regulatory policies), climate change attributed to CO2, and ObamaCare.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  18. retire05 says: 18

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    You say there was a highly trained armed guard at Columbine. Where was he when the shootings started and how many students had already been shot by the time the first 911 call went out? Nevermind that the shooters set off a diversionary explosion the draw attention from the police, and the fire department, to the onset of their rampage.

    Yeah, let’s put school guards in bright yellow shirts like Columbine did so that any would-be mass murder can be sure to tell them apart from teachers and administration and monitor where they are.

    What was the response time at Newtown? And what was the length of time it took the shooter to create all that carnage?

    ReplyReply
  19. retire05 says: 19

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    And would the Columbine shooters have created so much carnage once forced into the library if Columbine would have had a Mr. Smith, math teacher and former Marine, monitoring the library at that time, and armed?

    Just like you don’t avertise what firearms you have in your home, you also should never be able to visibly identify what school personell is armed. Columbine did.

    There is another common thread among all these shooters; they are cowards who don’t want to be shot themselves. So they pick target rich environments where there will be absolutely no resistance.

    ReplyReply
  20. Tom says: 20

    @Greg:

    It’s telling that the NRA is so deeply in the pocket of their financial backers, the gun industry, that they wouldn’t offer even the smallest, most common sense concession on controlling the sale of firearms, if only to appear an honest broker. Instead they offer a plan that would pour more money into their backers’ pockets. Go figure. These people can’t even pretend to care about public safety.

    I wonder what the reaction would be on FA if a powerful left wing group with many Senators and Reps in their pocket called on Congress to federally mandate armed guards in every town?

    ReplyReply
  21. Randy says: 21

    @retire05: @retire05: There was no armed gusrd at Columbine. Larry made it up. There was a police officer who answered the call but was told not to enter. Larry always gets it wrong!

    ReplyReply
  22. Randy says: 22

    @Tom: I think we already have armed guards at every town. They are called police. I also agree that restricting the sale of firearms to those who would commit crimes should be implemented! Oops, there already are laws doing that. Maybe intelligent people should look towards restricting arms to criminals by enforcing the laws already on the books. They could use the success we have had keeping drugs out of our country!

    ReplyReply
  23. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 23

    Regarding the Columbine armed guard:

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

    Community Resource Officer Called to “Back Lot”

    Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner soon would complete his second year as the uniformed community resource officer assigned to Columbine High School. Gardner, a 15-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office, normally ate his lunch with the students in the cafeteria during first lunch period. His car would have been parked in his “normal spot” in front of the cafeteria doors – between the junior and senior parking lots.

    On April 20, however, Deputy Gardner and campus supervisor Andy Marton, an unarmed school security officer employed by the school district, were eating lunch in Gardner’s patrol car. They were monitoring students in the “Smokers’ Pit,” a spot just to the northwest of campus in Clement Park where the students congregated to smoke cigarettes.

    Gardner had just finished his lunch when he received a call over the school’s radio from a custodian. “Neil,” called the custodian in a panicked voice, “I need you in the back lot!”

    Gardner pulled out of the parking lot near the school’s tennis courts and drove onto Pierce Street in front of the school. The “back lot” being referred to by the custodian, he assumed, was the south student parking lot by the cafeteria. As soon as he pulled onto Pierce Street, he heard another call being dispatched over the Sheriff’s radio, “Female down in the south lot of Columbine High School.” He activated his lights and siren. It was 11:23.

    As soon as Gardner pulled into the south parking lot off of South Pierce Street, he saw kids running out of the school in every direction. As he drove around toward the south lot, he also saw smoke coming from the west end of the parking lot and heard several loud explosions. Students standing on the soccer field were pointing toward the building. He could hear gunshots coming from inside the school but could not pinpoint from where.

    Gardner pulled his vehicle into the senior parking lot where he had a good vantage point. He could see both parking lots, the cafeteria and the second story west entrance to the school. As he got out of his patrol car, he received a second call on the school radio. “Neil, there’s a shooter in the school.”

    Numerous patrol units and emergency vehicles already were responding to the school as the Sheriff’s dispatch center reported “female down” and “possible shots fired at Columbine High School.” There was so much traffic on the police radio that Gardner could not tell dispatch he was on scene.

    As Gardner stepped out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turned his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy. Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer uniform, was the target of Harris’ bullets. Harris fired about 10 shots from his rifle at Gardner before his gun jammed. Although Gardner’s patrol car was not hit by bullets, two vehicles that he was parked behind were hit by Harris’ gunfire. Investigators later found two bullet holes in each of the cars.

    Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.

    etc.

    I’m not arguing against armed guards (where feasible) or against armed teachers (where feasible). I’m arguing, for purposes of this thread, that the NRA press conference did a lot to increase the probability of a gun restriction bill passing and getting signed into law.

    Also, I don’t “make things up.”

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  24. retire05 says: 24

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    I could also assert that assault weapons bans and magazine limits and much more stringent background checks in CA have made school carnage less.

    And how do you prove that? Give us the number of people who intended to shoot up a California school but were stopped by any of the laws either on the books in California or federally?

    So you can “assert” that claim all you want, but you can’t prove an unknown. You have absolutely NOTHING to base that assertion on.

    ReplyReply
  25. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 25

    Hi Retire,

    I can’t “prove” it, anymore than it can be proven that things would have been better with a different armed response at the other venues. I was simply replying to those latter assertions. It’s logical that things could have worked out better with a more timely and robust armed response. It’s also logical that things could have been worse, had shooters been armed with more robust weaponry. It’s logical that more stringent background checks prevented would be shooters from obtaining robust weaponry. All can be inferred; none can be proven.

    – Larry

    ReplyReply
  26. Richard Wheeler says: 26

    Randy I’d say Larry’s #23 CLEARLY disputes your assertions in #21 and calls for a retraction and an apology Colonel.

    He doesn’t “make things up”

    ReplyReply
  27. retire05 says: 27

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    It’s logical that more stringent background checks prevented would be shooters from obtaining robust weaponry.

    You mean like how California’s more stringent gun laws have prevented the gangbangers of L.A. from obtaining robust weaponry?

    ReplyReply
  28. retire05 says: 28

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Time line of the Columbine shootings:

    http://www.portalofdallas.com/columbine

    Hope it works. Then you can tell me how many kids were already shot by the time the first 911 call was responded to.

    ReplyReply
  29. Tom says: 29

    @Randy:

    Maybe we should do nothing, Randy, but sell more guns. That seems to be working well. Of course protecting the right to bear arms and indiscriminantly pushing the sale of the most guns to the most people are two completely different things, but the NRA has done an impressive job making them one in the same in the eyes of their followers.

    ReplyReply
  30. Richard Wheeler says: 30

    Larry I certainly agree the NRA made few new friends with today’s comments.Solution is more guns.
    Sherm You’re Gallup Poll was taken 10/2011. I believe if poll taken today,or whenever next Gallup poll is taken, it will look more like 2005-2007.We’ll see.
    NRA can’t stem the tide of the majority that this time will loudly demand reform— HOWEVER basic tenets of the 2nd amendment will remain protected.

    Retire05 Was Gardner an armed guard assigned to Columbine as Larry’s post asserts or was he not? It notes he normally ate lunch with the students in the cafeteria and parked in front of school.If you are suggesting he should have been inside the school all day that’s another question,isn’t it.

    ReplyReply
  31. Randy says: 31

    @Richard Wheeler: I believe the Unarmed guard from the school was having lunch with an armed employee in the parking lot. There was no armed school security guard! Larry even conrtadicted himself. No appology needed!

    ReplyReply
  32. Randy says: 32

    @Richard Wheeler: Armed employee of the sherrif’s department. Correction!

    ReplyReply
  33. retire05 says: 33

    @Tom:

    And pushing the sale of alcohol, and automobiles, both of which contribute to the deaths of Americans every day, is OK with you?

    You wanna blame the gun manufacturers, then you have to blame the breweries and the automotive manufacturers for the fact that their products are also used to kill people every damn day. But you won’t. No, you won’t, because you have no problem with those companies producing products that contribute to deaths, just the gun makers.

    You are just pathetic, Tom. Pathetic.

    ReplyReply
  34. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 34

    Randy, the armed guard was a deputy sheriff who was regularly assigned to provide security at the school on a daily basis. On most days, he’d have been eating lunch in the school cafeteria with students. On the day in question, he was eating lunch in his patrol car, overlooking part of the school. My statement was accurate and your statement was libelous.

    Retire, we are talking school shootings and we are not talking urban gang banger street crime. Also, your “time line” confirms that the sheriffs deputy was indeed on site at the time the shootings began. The 911 call has nothing to do with the failure of the sheriffs deputy to prevent the shootings. If you want to assert that the presence of the armed deputy made a positive difference, I’ll agree that it’s logical, but it’s only an assertion, which you can’t prove.

    The two shooters planned their crime meticulously. It is very likely that they knew of the presence of the armed deputy sheriff. They just worked around him. That’s what would likely happen at all schools with armed guards. Which is why the NRA proposal for armed guards wouldn’t prevent these shootings. So we are left with training and arming teachers. That may work at some schools, but it won’t work at all schools and that leaves movie theaters and shopping malls, etc. Which is why gun restrictions are needed, in addition to armed guards.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  35. Tom says: 35

    @retire05:

    Homicidal maniacs don’t walk into schools with alcohol or cars and intentionally slaughter innocent children with them. The fact that people like you fetishize guns and place your fetish above the safety of children is something I and most Americans couldn’t care less about.

    ReplyReply
  36. Randy says: 36

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, all this was happening as I was getting my son ready for school. I watched it live on TV The armed Deputy was told not to go in the building. He did get a few shots off, but missed. He argued with his command about their policy of waiting and lost the argument. If he had been in the school and armed, he would have stopped the situation rather quickly. If this had been the school I attended as a kid, they would have been stopped as soon as they needed to reload. All of we farm boys who trained on guns from 5 years old would have rushed them and beat the crap out of them before they killed anyone else.

    Instead, the students hid under tables waiting to be killed. None except one teacher fought back. He died because the Sherriff did not enter soon enough for medical personnel to save him. Texas had these stupid gun free zones until the Luby Cafeteria incident. You should see the utube video of the woman who had to leave her concealed carry weapon in the car as she watched the gunman kill both of her parents. Texas was smart enough to allow concealed carry into public places after that.

    ReplyReply
  37. Randy says: 37

    @Tom: No Larry, they just run them down on the streets. We have had several in COlorado recently. Both drivers were Muslems. One illigal alien drove into an icecream store full of kids. He was drunk! I guess you are right. If the kids are not in a school, then the death of a child doesn’t count.

    ReplyReply
  38. Randy says: 38

    @Tom: Tom, my guns have not killed anyone. They have no intention of killing anyone. So you want to deprive my guns of a friendly law abiding home because some loony kills kids with weapons he stole? Who is the irrational person here?

    ReplyReply
  39. openid.aol.com/runnswim says: 39

    Hi Randy, I don’t know what else I can do. I got my information from a CNN article, which gave a detailed description of the actions of the Deputy Sheriff in question. I didn’t “make it up!” The article said that the Deputy Sheriff was armed and was regularly assigned to guard the school on a daily basis. Thus, he was indeed an “armed guard.” The article further said that, on most days, he’d have been in the cafeteria at the time of the attack. On this particular day, he was eating lunch in his car, overseeing another part of the school from the side entered by the shooters. This is what happens in the real world. School campuses are quite large. Students are dispersed. Armed guards have to eat lunch. They eat lunch in lunchrooms or, on some days, they eat their lunch in their cars, on site, overlooking the school which they are assigned to protect. Meticulous shooters plan their crimes long in advance, case the joint, and account for these things.

    As stated, I don’t know what else I can do to satisfy you. You tell a different story from the CNN article, but your story doesn’t contradict mine.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

    ReplyReply
  40. Tom says: 40

    @Randy:

    My name is not Larry, and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Bottom line is we know sensible gun control reduces gun violence. If it comes down to your hobby or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics, which do you think i care about more?

    ReplyReply
  41. Tom says: 41

    @Randy:

    If you are not a criminal, what are you worried about? The NRA opposes all sensible legislation, most of which is aimed at keeping guns from criminals. Why don’t you support that?

    ReplyReply
  42. Curt says: 42

    @Randy:

    He did get a few shots off, but missed. He argued with his command about their policy of waiting and lost the argument.

    Yeah, before Columbine that was the policy of pretty much every department. Contain and call in SWAT. Since then pretty much every department has changed that policy. If there is an active shooter we train now to enter with as few as one partner and engage the shooter. We train quite frequently for this nowadays (at least with the department I belong to).

    ReplyReply
  43. Tom says: 43

    @Randy:

    So do you think people on the terror watch list should legally be able to buy guns, because the NRA does?

    ReplyReply
  44. Hard Right says: 44

    Since tom insists on repeeating B.S. that has been disproven, I’ll repost this.

    Anti-Constitutional translations

    Common sense/sensible gun laws = radical and useless proposition that will only disarm law abiding citizens. Most pushing theses laws know they are useless, but want more control over others regardless of whether it violates the Constitution.

    Gun Show Loophole = Person saying it has no clue what they are talking about. Thinks that licensed gun dealers can sell guns at gun show without conducting backround checks. OR, they want to require ALL PRIVATE sales of firearms subject to instant backround check.

    Assault Weapon = pretty much any weapon the left wants banned, but currently the incorrect tag placed on semi-autos which are also incorrectly called machine guns.

    Sniper Rifle = according to the left, any rifle with a scope

    High Capacity Magazine = Per bloomberg, any magazine with more than 3-5 rounds

    Semi-Auto (auto) = firearm only meant to spray bullets everywhere and kill people according to those who want to violate the rights of others so they can feel good about themselves.

    Reply

    ReplyReply
  45. Hard Right says: 45

    BTW Tom, people get put on the watch list by mistake. That is why the NRA insists on them being allowed their rights and due process. No surprise you are against due process too.

    I bet you work out to “Goose Stepping to the Oldies”.

    ReplyReply
  46. Greg says: 46

    @johngalt, #8:

    “Assault” weapons make up approximately 2% of all privately owned firearms in the US. Amazingly enough, they also make up only about 2% of the firearms used to commit murders. While they are, inherently, a dangerous weapon, they are no more dangerous to the public in general than any other type of firearm.

    Right. If we put the average security guard armed with a handgun up against a homicidal lunatic armed with a Bushmaster AR-15, who would we think would likely have the advantage?

    There’s a reason why soldiers aren’t commonly armed with handguns or civilian model firearms. Military weapons are designed with a specific purpose in mind. Shall we guess what that might be?

    ReplyReply
  47. retire05 says: 47

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    You say I can’t prove an assertion. Correct, but then, neither can you.

    Yes, the Columbine worked around the assigned school security guard. How many school employees do you think were wearing yellow shirts with “Security” written on them that day. In order to deter shootings, the wannabes have to be unaware of who is armed. Funny, I don’t remember the NRA saying “Hire armed school guards, then dress them up in bright yellow shirts.” That makes as much sense as gun “free” school zones do.

    The reason I provided the time was was a FYI. Not to dispute what you said but also to show you that there is no such thing as “rapid” response when that kind of situation exists.

    As to needing gun restrictions, which we already have, well, that simply punishes those who are NOT committing these murders. The bad guys are going to get their hands on weapons if they have to buy back the ones our government sold to the Mexican drug cartels. Remember, this administration, that now wants to have a “conversation” about gun ownership in America is the very one that allowed ONE straw buyer to purchase 700 weapons, only to watch those weapons walk across the Mexican border.

    Perhaps we should talk about that first. At least 11 of those weapons have been found at U.S. crime scenes since Brian Terry was murdered.

    ReplyReply
  48. Tom says: 48

    @Hard Right:

    So let’s err on the side of letting terrorists buy assault weapons, eh? Because god forbid someone was denied a gun, no matter what the reason.

    ReplyReply
  49. Hard Right says: 49

    @Tom:

    So an innocent person placed on the list in error should be denied their rights to make someone like you feel better? Tough sh*t you fascist wannabe.

    ReplyReply
  50. retire05 says: 50

    @Greg:

    There’s a reason why soldiers aren’t commonly armed with handguns or civilian model firearms.

    And that reason is named Bill Clinton. Before Clinton issued his executive order banning our military from the wearing of side arms while on base, soldiers often wore their sidearms while on duty. Thanks to Bill Clinton, and the push for political correctness by the Democrats, Nidal Hassan was able to murder 13 people, wound many more, and still hasn’t gone to trial yet.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>