Put guns in the schools, because that’s the only sane thing to do

We all understand how this works by now, don’t we?

There was a shooting at a Colorado high school on Friday.

It was headline news for about 43 minutes, then it became a little side story, now, according to the media, it might as well have never happened.

They’ve moved on to other things. And why is that? Well, he was an avowed left wing socialist who hated Republicans and capitalism. Not exactly the sort of profile that a mass shooter is “supposed” to have. I guess that’s why the Denver Post actually edited the word “socialist” out of their report on the incident.

I’m not claiming that his politics necessarily motivated him to commit this crime — it looks like he was driven more by a personal vendetta — but every rational adult in this country knows that this thing would still be in the headlines if only the guy had been described as a “Tea Partier” or a “radical right winger.”

So be it. We get it.

The media doesn’t report truth — they advance narratives. It’s all scripted and plot-driven; it’s a combination of propaganda and entertainment. Propatainment. Entertainaganda. You get the idea. Violent liberals just don’t fit into the story they’re telling, so dudes like Pierson are left on the cutting room floor. If someone in the writer’s room can come up with a clever way to incorporate him into the plot, then maybe we’ll hear about him. Otherwise, crickets.

That’s how it works. We all know it. No reason to harp on the point.

There is something else about that incident on Friday — something important. It’s the reason you should pay attention to this story, and another reason why the media would prefer you don’t.

The carnage was limited. The shooter took his own life after critically wounding one innocent girl and inflicting minor wounds on another bystander. It’s still a tragic situation, as that young girl barely clings to life, but it wasn’t the bloodbath it could have been.

And why?

Because Pierson wasn’t the only armed man in the school that day.

He came equipped to slaughter dozens of kids, but ended up murdering only himself. The reason: this school had a resource officer. The armed cop cornered the would-be killer in the library, causing Pierson to give up and take his own life.

If a good guy with a gun hadn’t been there, this tale could have a drastically, horribly, tragically different ending.

I do not bring this up to score a political point. I’m not a politician, and I’m not trying to “win” anything. I bring this up because it is nothing less than cowardly and despicable to ignore it. This, everyone, is the formula for stopping, or at least mitigating the severity of, school shootings. It played out on Friday. There it is. That’s it. Are you paying attention?

If we care about our kids, we will see to it that they are defended. Period.

I cannot tolerate or even stomach one more blabbering fool insisting that we ought to gather our children together in a central location, and then ADVERTISE the fact that they are vulnerable and defenseless. This is beyond mere stupidity. It’s reckless endangerment.

Make sure there are armed good guys in every public school in the country. For all the money we spend on education, and all of the unnecessary frills and thrills we add to the experience, you can not tell me that this is impractical or unachievable. Put resource officers in the schools. If not them, then armed security. If not that, then let capable, trained, and licensed teachers carry firearms. However we do it, it must be done.

Do you know why? Because Arapahoe High School.

Because pure logic, reason, and common sense ought to be enough to bring us to the conclusion that a “gun free” sign has never stopped one shooting or protected one innocent victim from harm.

They put armed security in some post offices. They put them in Social Security offices and court houses. They put them in government buildings to protect bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians who argue that guns can not defend against bad people with bad intentions, still go to work every day in buildings that are heavily guarded by the very guns they abhor. These hypocrites hide behind armed men and then insist that our children aren’t afforded the same protection. They couldn’t care less about your kid’s life, no matter what they say when the cameras are pointing at them.

Forget them.

Protect the schools. This should be done now. Tomorrow. Immediately. Why are we even talking about it? Are we delusional or indifferent? How else can I explain why we actually DEBATE the merits of defending our children against mass murderers?

Are you unconvinced? OK, imagine the worst case scenario. Imagine you turn on the news one afternoon and you see it: there’s an active shooter at your child’s school. Now, imagine the anchor comes on and informs the audience that this school has a resource officer, or armed security, or armed teachers. How would you feel? Would you actually be MORE concerned knowing that your kid isn’t utterly defenseless? Would you think, “Gee, I wish the shooter was the only one with a gun in that building”?

Or would you find some measure of tentative relief, and pray that the good guy with the gun finds the bad guy, and puts a bullet through his head?

Every single sane and loving parent would fall into the latter category. Every single one.

So, that’s it. Enough arguing. Leave your ideology aside. Let’s be rational. Let’s fulfill our obligation to shield our children from harm, to the best of our ability.

Let’s protect the schools. Now.


Find me on Facebook.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

515 Responses to Put guns in the schools, because that’s the only sane thing to do

  1. Wraith says:

    Or you could simply remove your children from the indoctrination camps/shooting galleries called Publik Skool. Two birds, one stone.

    • Natalie says:

      I find this just as offensive as people who say, all homeschooling is “indoctrination camps/home where parents who know nothing try to teach their kids something.” There are still very genuine teachers left in the schools and those who care. Teachers of all religions, races and ideologies, yes. But, that doesn’t mean we are all out to “brainwash and edumacate” your kids. I don’t go to work everyday hoping to get shot, I go to work every day because I love my job, love teaching students and care about our youth.

      • Brian says:

        Except that the public school is DESIGNED to indoctrinate and create automatons. Sure some try to buck the trend, but public schools are doing exactly what they are designed to do. Matt has another article on this very topic. The design has been around 100 years.

      • Brianna says:

        To criticize the design and intent of the public school system is not synonymous with criticizing or accusing every individual public school teacher of being in on the job.

    • Well Wraith, I’d be happy to do just that. Are you going to pay my salary or that of my wife so we can get this done?? Rather than parrot things like this, try being a little more realistic.

      • Jon says:

        There has been a lot of movement towards school choice. In Arizona there have been large gains that may, in the very near future, allow for parents to use education accounts with a dedicated amount per child that will allow parents to decide how the education money is spent. Either in private schools, online classes combined with homeschooling, or alternate versions of public school. Other states have also been working on improving school choice. This type of policy could help you to do just that.

      • ProtoSapien says:

        Bob, I make a middle income and my wife stays at home with our two kids and homeschools them. If my wife worked we could probably double our household income and live much more comfortably. Instead we’ve chosen to put our children’s futures first. If you’re interested in homeschooling your children, the sacrifice is yours to make. It’s about living on less and understanding what you need and what you want.

        • deelilynn says:

          Do you happen to know if Robert or his wife happens to make the same income as you?? Did you stop to think that they might not earn anywhere near as much as you do even on their combined income??

        • Brbrip says:

          you nailed it. What you NEED and what you the EGO WANTS!

      • I don’t know your financial situation, but you might seriously look at it and see if you absolutely need two salaries. My husband works and I don’t. He is now making a good salary, but early on when we stayed home, his salary was low enough that we would have been eligible for various programs like WIC and SCHIP, so it wasn’t super high. We made do. Sure, we don’t have smartphones or cable television or a gym membership, we spend $50 per kid on Christmas, we cut our hair at home and I don’t get my nails done. No Starbucks, etc. But these were choices that we made in order to be able to live on a single income and homeschool our kids.

        You may have heard that with taxes and paying for lunches, business clothes, etc., that a second salary isn’t always worth the cost of daycare. Sometimes those costs are insignificant, though (as they were when I was working). But another cost to look at is the cost of buying into a good school district. Homeschoolers don’t need to do this, they can choose a district merely based on whether it’s safe, affordable, near work, etc. That can help them save a lot of money on the mortgage. Our kids share a bedroom, rather than each having their own. That’s another choice we make to make it work.

        So no, homeschooling will probably never work for everybody. But I think that a lot of people dismiss it without really considering whether there are lifestyle changes they could make that would make it possible.

    • bombsnuffer says:

      Simply? Does the average, lower-income parent have the money to pay for private school? If not, then where do our children receive an education? Very few families can homeschool. I don’t disagree that public school is atrocious, but it’s all most parents have.

      • Joseph Lee says:

        Please consider backing your claims up with facts.

        You assert that very few families can home school, but provide no evidence. You also question how those who don’t make enough money can afford private school, which begs the question of who is paying for their government educations? Oh right, the governments are forcing your neighbors to subsidize a substandard education.

  2. Pingback: Latest school shooting - Page 6

  3. Stan Speck says:

    Who carries the heat in the high school? The English teacher has a 45 strapped to her hip..right? Should the real stopping power of the assault rifle be close by too? What about 18 year old students? Why should they be denied 2nd amendment protection. And the middle aged office secretary? She is after all the first person the public encounters. Of course the bus drivers should be packing.. that is obvious. How about crossing guards? The are important perimeter security assets. Who at the school play should NOT be packing? What about PE classes? Wouldn’t that be the best time for a mass killing when everyone is in shorts and t-shirts? Maybe parent volunteers with sniper rifles would help there.

    Just wondering…

    • your friend says:

      dear Stan
      if you and your ilk had bothered to raise your spawn to be, honest, thrifty, trustworthy and brave, we would not need to discuss this issue now, would we? in your lingo…I’m just saying.

    • J says:

      All of the above could be armed.

      By the way, way to blow something out of proportion. Wait until it’s your kids getting shot up, then we’ll see how your opinion changes, troll.

    • Jim says:

      Let me help you out, Stan. It appears you are making a lame attempt at being a smart-ass and/or don’t know squat about guns so I will answer appropriately. The English teacher? why not. Maybe she’s a Sarah Palin fan. The assault rifle? Dude, a school would involve close-quarter shooting, shotguns would be better (shorter range, less collateral damage) and the .45 has plenty of stopping power. The 18 year-old students? I’m sure we would limit it to concealed carry permit eligible adults, and being a student would be a disqualifier regardless. Office secretary? Again, Sarah Palin. Bus drivers? If they want to and qualify. PE classes the best time for mass killing because of shorts and t-shirts? Are you really that ignorant? What, you think street clothes give people some extra protection against bullets? Really? And actually, if you have ever read about these shootings you will note the shooters prefer enclosed crowded areas for maximum target opportunity, PE class out in the open gives too many escape routes. (hope that didn’t make me sound too creepy) If there is anything else you are “Just wondering” about let us know. Cheers.

    • Uhhhh… was there a point here somewhere?

    • Shirin says:

      your point is just as irrelevant as saying everyone in court houses, government buildings should be equipped with firearms. Well they are not and still the crazy gun men have second thoughts about entering such premises .

    • Tyler says:

      This is the typical reaction of anti-gun folks: paint a scary picture of a school armed to the teeth. But the fact that you find this scenario to be so scary reveals your true objection to the proposal–you don’t like the idea of a teacher with a gun, because what if the teacher is the one who snaps? What if the bus driver is the mentally unstable guy planning to shoot up the elementary school? That’s a legitimate concern, but easily answerable. Because there is currently NOTHING to prevent the teacher or bus driver from carrying out just such an atrocity. Anyone who can pass the review process to become a bus driver can just as easily pass a background check to get a gun. So making a rule against bringing guns into schools (as if murdering people wasn’t already against the rules) is the equivalent of closing our eyes and imagining we’re safe because we can’t see the danger. Either schools will have to outdo airports in terms of security screenings to ensure that NO ONE can enter the premises with a gun, or else we need get it in a would-be-murderer’s head that ANYONE on the premises COULD have a gun, thereby discouraging the attempt (or stopping it quickly). The latter option would certainly be more affordable, and arguably more effective (didn’t the school in Newtown have security doors that failed to keep the murderer out?).

    • Zero Foo says:


      I’ve been to banks that have armed security, yet the tellers, managers, and customers were all unarmed. The security professional was the one with the gun.

      Similarly the armed security professional did not try to sell me on a checking account.

      I believe this is called division of labor. Those that have the training do the jobs.

      Do you really have a hard time wrapping your head around this concept?

    • Let's be honest. says:

      If you don’t trust the teachers, authorities, and bus drivers of your children GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT!!! If you send your children anywhere out of your protection you better trust the people watching them. And if they’re packing should you not feel more secure?

      CAUTION: If you don’t trust the people watching your children and you close your eyes and hope nothing bad happens you are asking for them to get hurt, perhaps a much more common tragedy i.e; bulling, assault, kidnap, or rape.

    • Mina says:

      I don’t find the picture of a school armed to the teeth scary. Guns in the hands of good guys, the more good guys the better. A gun on every hip, a rifle/shotgun in every classroom. Why not?

        • D says:

          First time shooters, awkward protective gear, and a highly-trained firearms instructor who quickly enters the room. Not quite as realistic as a trained security guard without protective head gear chasing down an inexperienced, crazy shooter. Go to your local gun range and watch some of the gun enthusiasts in competition, then go watch police officers doing a semi-annual qualification shoot and see who’s a better shot.

    • Brianna says:

      You don’t need to turn schools into armed camps. You just need to get rid of the “gun free zone” signs that actually advertise to bad guys that everyone inside is helpless. Let teachers with CPLs exercise their CPLs. We already trust them with our children in the classroom, just as we trust them with guns in the movie theaters and shopping malls. Is combining those two situations really such a big difference.

    • Tim Mason says:

      In reply to Stan:

      Why shouldn’t the folks we trust to educate our cherished children, to instill not only knowledge, but also values and mores, to mold and shape our progeny…these are the folks you don’t trust with guns?!?

      Glad to see you have priorities, though they might need some examination.

      No, you don’t simply hand out firearms at the front door. That would be ridiculous. However, if one of the aforementioned teachers, administrators, supportive staff all of whom (I think) have already passed background checks is a licensed CCW holder, and they actually felt the need to, why shouldn’t one or more of them be allowed to arm themselves? The argument that one of these folks ‘might snap’ is invalid, because there is NOTHING stopping these folks from snapping right now, except maybe the thought that one of their colleagues would put a quick stop to it. Face it, our schools have become soft, target rich environments…and the folks who have thoughts of mayhem know and recognize this.

  4. Pingback: Armed Individual at Colorado School Prevented Mass Shooting - Page 2

  5. KnitWit says:

    I said this once to a public school librarian. Her answer? “There are some teachers at this school I would NOT trust with a firearm!”
    My response: “Then why the HELL would you trust them with a CHILD?”

    • Tyler says:

      Exactly. And what is keeping these untrustworthy teachers from bringing their own guns to school? Oh that’s right, a rule. Kinda like the rules against killing people. So, nothing.

    • To imply that a person that can be trusted with a child can also be trusted with a gun or vise versa may be a bit humorous, but is an idiotic statement. My wife is a teacher at a high school only 3 miles from Arapahoe, works with top intellectual prospects and is a great teacher. If she had a gun in her classroom she would be useless to use it for defense and an armed intruder would very likely have an easy chance to add to his arsenal. My brother was also a student at Columbine in 1999 where unlike Arapahoe, there was next to nothing done to defend the innocent students targeted that day. I fully support the intelligent and tactful introduction to firearms for defense in our schools and believe that it is ludicrous to have our most precious resource in one location and then advertise that there are no guns allowed by anyone. Staff members who wish to participate in carrying weapons should absolutely be allowed to do so, given they are able to fulfill the necessary requirements and also complete an on going training course. Something of this measure obviously needs to be done but we must be careful not irresponsibly advance unreasonable ideas. Requiring unqualified and incapable individuals to carry a gun would not only turn away good teachers, but is outright and irresponsibly dangerous. The number one quality for every teacher is that they are able to teach children, not hit a mark from 100 yards. Statements like these do little to separate ourselves from our over the top liberal counterparts who wish to carry out the unreasonable idea of getting rid of guns all together.

      • KnitWit says:

        Translation: “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!”
        Think about it, man. A teacher who can’t be trusted with a gun is going to be impulsive, hot-tempered, unwilling to listen to reason when angry, and likely has some psychological issues that need working through. Put a person like that in a high-stress environment, where half the kids don’t pay attention and the ones who do may or may not pass the tests (regardless of intelligence—face it, public school testing doesn’t favor the smart kids but the ones who are good at regurgitating facts and figures), where they are under constant scrutiny from other teachers, administration, and parents, where every day is different yet very much the same. Now give that person power over the students, and a high likelihood that if there is a student-teacher dispute, the teacher will be favored. How do you think that impulsive, hot-tempered, unreasonable-when-angry person is going to handle that sort of environment? Do you think that person will be kind to the students that bother him or her? Or do you think that person will bully the “problem” students because they can? Trust me, I’ve seen it happen and I’ve been the victim of it. Those are exactly the sort of people who cannot be trusted with a firearm, and they should NEVER be trusted with a stranger’s child.
        Give the teachers a psychiatric eval at the time of hire. If they pass, keep them and put them through mandatory police firearms training. If they don’t, tell them to seek employment elsewhere.
        And don’t give me that bullcrap about teachers and cops performing different jobs. Yes, they’re different, but the teacher’s job is more important and delicate. We should want only the best performing that job—and that means “least likely to snap under stress and bully a student.”

    • PeterK says:

      Awesome. 😀

      I think the same thing about the “I am afraid I would do something if I had a gun” types. Seriously? What kind of person has that little self control? I have my angry moments, but I have NO fear that the gun will start whispering to me to kill. Just because YOU are crazy and shouldn’t have a gun doesn’t mean I am.

    • guitarharry says:

      What are you talking about? Teachers teach. Cops use guns. These are two completely different jobs. There is a reason people go into certain lines of work. In fact, most teachers are not what one might call “type A” personalities; they are skilled at interpersonal relationships. Cops, are skilled at taking charge. Most elementary school teachers are middle-aged women: nice, soft-spoken people good with children and concerned parents. Are you seriously suggesting these individuals should also be required to point a weapon at some dude with an assault rifle and scream in a commanding voice, “GET ON THE GROUND!! DROP THE WEAPON NOW!!!” ? That is just ludicrous. Knowledge of firearms has nothing to do with teaching. If you think otherwise, you are just an idiot. Now, there is a chance that some teachers could be trained in procedure to confront an armed assailant, but it is VERY dismissive to the cops (who undergo extensive training in arms) to say ANYONE could do the job they do. So your statement is not only offensive to teachers, but also to cops. So what is your point? Do you just routinely disrespect everyone, or are you an idiot?

      • I have seen cops that are not well trained – nepotism often reigns in small towns. So using the word “All” never applies. Some can and some can’t. We have people with military fighting experience (as apposed to being a desk jockey in the military), who then become teachers. Basicly you want someone who will run TO the sound of gunfire, rather than away. Being a teacher and wearing a gun is difficult: you don’t want a student going after your gun. Women can wear small caliber guns that attach to the underside of a bra making them mostly unobservable. Men teachers would almost have to wear a jacket. The other option would be to have a safe that quicly opens on a fingerprint, or guns that activate based on the the hand holding it. Those are not yet as reliable as we would want and would mean that in a serious battle no one else could use the gun.
        The final thing to remember is that in most shootouts, the shooter will refuse to stand and fight. So at the first sign of armed resistance the shooter kills himself. They do not want to be taken alive.

      • Brianna says:

        Yes, because as we all know, every single human being is only capable of learning one skill and exactly one skill, and picking up a second skill such as how to handle firearms and deal with criminals on top of the the skill of teaching is simply impossible.

        At Newtown, one of the teachers who died was lauded as a hero because she hid her students and told the assailant they were at gym class. She potentially saved the life of every kid in the room. But how much better would the story have been if instead of being helpless, she had been able to hide the students in the closet, pull out her concealed pistol, and shoot the perp walking into the room? You honestly going to suggest to me she was brave and quick enough to save her kids’ lives, but wasn’t brave or clearthinking enough to be able to defend her own as well?

  6. Tina says:

    I think those are all valid thoughts. All responsible adults have the right to bear arms. You are correct.

  7. There was only one military trained teacher on my middle school campus and he was the only other person I would trust with a gun. Many of us are licensed to carry and are trained, but I would not trust a single adult on campus with a gun. Most of our teachers cant find their keys, their phones, their laptops…etc…at any given moment…and we want to give them the responsibility of carrying a weapon on campus???Teachers are already over paperworked, under paid, and stressed out…they are the last people I would want to see with a gun. And to KnitWit above…I couldn’t agree more!!!

    • Robert Russ says:

      I don’t think people are suggesting we assign guns to random teachers. However, there are well trained, permit carrying teachers out there. They should be able to bring their gun on campus. It’s just plain stupid to create known gun free zones and expect they won’t be targeted when some loon decides to revenge all his problems. How is it possible people read this article and are still arguing against having responsible gun carriers on campus? Half our country is brain dead.

    • pwrserge says:

      If you can’t trust those teachers with guns, why do you trust them with kids?

      As for “burdening”… I cary a gun every day, it is in a holster that only I am physically able to draw from. (Positive retention holsters require a specific grip on the firearm to draw.) Why would this cause any burden to anyone? If you don’t want to carry a gun… Don’t carry a gun. Simple, no? The whole point is that the perp will face SOME resistance rather than Zero… A single armed adult can turn a Sandy Hook into a non event like this.

  8. Honestly, I’m sorry, but there is a big difference between someone who can handle a gun and handle a child – sometimes you get those two qualities in one mold, and that’s fantastic, but when I think back to some of my best teachers, I could never see them with a fire arm – not due to incompetence, but more due to nature and just the fact that in danger, they would never pull the trigger. That said, More guns is not the answer. That’s like saying the solution to the drug problem is more drugs. That said, I can also point out that the shooting at the military yard had plenty of armed men and the shooters still caused plenty of problems. This is not an argument of absolutes and until we realize that, we won’t fix it. We are not going to have ONE easy solution. It is going to have to be a multi-faceted solution, starting first with how we discuss problems with our nation, leading to how we deal with mental illness, thirdly with how we as a society treat teachers (They are crapped upon for the most part. It’s ridiculous. If we had any respect for them as a society, our children would have more respect for them) and fourthly with the organization of our school system and seeing it as something ACTUALLY worth putting money into and improving. However, I’m very doubtful this will happen. A. No one wants to actually talk openly. They would rather be defensive and protect ” Their rights”. B. No one wants to acknowledge mental illness exists. Oh sure, we talk nice, we talk big, but ultimately, everyone is still squeamish and scared of admitting some people just have things that can’t be fixed with a hug. C. We have no respect for teachers or parents. Seriously. We don’t. Society basically treats everyone we trust with our children as a burden – Hell, we treat CHILDREN as a burden. Because we can’t be bothered with seeing beyond the end of our own nose, people of our culture just think children are an irritation, not considering that it will be our children today that lead tomorrow. Yes, cliche, but also truth. You want to prep for a good future, we should be maximizing our education system and improving things for our kids (IE, I don’t mean freaking coddle. I mean challenge, push, and allow them to fail so they understand the value of success) and D. Our education system sucks mostly because parents are too overwhelmed to take the time needed to help their children so they simply blame the parents, and the non parents are too engrossed in the ” WHY SHOULD I PAY TAXES FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S KIDS” (Here’s a hint – do you drive? Do you ever go to a hospital…who do you think will provide those services in 20 years when you are old and decrepit). Maybe we can consider security on school grounds, but frankly I think its more about better education on guns, better RESPECT of guns as a weapon, not as a toy, and as something that shouldn’t be used carelessly.

    • “That said, I can also point out that the shooting at the military yard had plenty of armed men and the shooters still caused plenty of problems.”

      — Umm military bases are by law, gun free zones.



      To be more specific, they can have guns, but not ammo to use in those guns – so what good are they?

      And more guns by law abiding individuals absolutely means less crime. This is why states see a decrease in murder rates of 8.5% after they enact CC laws. It is also why virtually every mass shooting we’ve had in the past 50 years was carried out at a “gun free zone”. That is the reason so many people call them; “Gun Spree Zones”. For countless statistics that show this is the case, please read the book by John Lott; “More Guns = Less Crime”.

      • Paul says:

        *For countless statistics that show this is the case, please read the book by John Lott; “More Guns = Less Crime”.*

        John Lott? Oh…you mean Mary Rosh: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards

      • Paul says:

        PS: Lott/Rosh’s research was funded by the John M. Olin Foundation, a grant-making foundation established by John M. Olin, president of Olin Industries, an ammunition manufacturer. A mere coincidence…?

      • Tyler says:

        @Paul: The article you posted is just embarrassing. The argument against John Lott’s analysis amounts to “he used advanced statistical techniques, which I don’t understand.” If you have a shred of integrity, I challenge you to apply the same arguments to the statistical sleight of hand done by global warming “experts”.

      • Paul says:

        Tyler: Lott ADMITTED TO creating a fictitious online persona to defend himself against criticism. Any “academic” with his history of misconduct that wasn’t funded by AEI and the NRA would have been laughed out of the debate years ago.

        PS: This isn’t about global warming. Why are you bringing up global warming?

    • Ashley says:

      Very well-said as well as giving very logical solutions as precautionary measures. I personally believe that we have taken away the public’s responsibility to our public schools by giving school choice. It is society’s responsibility as a whole to put into our schools, raise up our children, and identify mental illness.

      • The world is not utopian so your statement doesn’t make sense in the real world. You are defiantly a socialist or communist with trying to put the onus on society to make everything right. There will have to be a lot of dead children before you wake up and realize it is first the individual’s responsibility to protect their children, and that children belong to their parents first, not to society. Your utopia is not a dream, it is a nightmare.

  9. Avrilanna says:

    Love it, Matt! Thanks for putting this utter common sense out there. And kudos on getting right “couldn’t care less”. Pet peeve there. 😀

  10. Brad says:

    Such BS totally ignorant of the facts! This shooter went to the school to get revenge on a teacher not to kill innocents! The armed resource officer would not of stopped that as he didn’t stop 2 from being wounded.

    • Oscar says:

      ‘”his intent was to injure multiple people,” Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said… The quick actions of a deputy sheriff working as the school’s resource officer and an unarmed security guard undoubtedly saved lives, Robinson said.’ ~ Denver Post


    • Shirin says:

      first of all, it is not “would not of stopped that”, it is “would not have stopped that” Brad. that tells something about your point right there, second, your point is totally irrelevant .what if there was a motive to kill several innocents? Or like in Sandy Hook Elementary where the shooter also had personal revenge motivations but ended up killing several other innocent children.

    • unklethan says:

      What’s your definition of innocent? I’m going to be teaching in a public school within about a year and a half, and I need to know what I could do to accidentally set a student on a course that would bring him into a school with a gun and shoot children.

      • deelilynn says:

        This young man was seeking revenge for simply being kicked off the debate team so I would venture to bet by his reaction to that it would have been the same if he had been sent to the principle’s office and/or suspended …

      • In this society where hatred is spouted daily on TV, and “us vs them” is a common denominator, where crack and other drugs unbalance children in the womb for the rest of their lives, there is nothing you can do or say that will completely protect you or others. When no child can be left behind, but 20% refuse to learn or let others learn by disrupting the class room, you cannot reach all of the children. Even if you could, the teacher’s union would want you to change so as to not stand out among the crowd. You have to make your own way, take your own risks, and be the teacher you want to be. Life is not for the timid.

    • Dana says:

      Yes and he somehow thought he needed a knife, gun, extra ammo and three Moltav cocktails to deal with that teacher. The girl in the coma was sitting talking with a friend when he shot her point blank in the head. But he was just there to deal with the teacher. The resource officer couldn’t stop him from harming two people but they did stop him from harming any more.

      • mamaYak says:

        I Guess According To You, The Teacher He Went There To Kill Wasn’t One Of The Innocents…

      • mamaYak says:

        My Reply Wasn’t To Dana, Deelilynn, It Was In Response To Brad’s Statement That He Went There To Take Revenge On A Teacher, Not Innocents. MyPoint Is That The Teacher Is Innocent Too:)

      • deelilynn says:

        Thank you for letting me know that, mamaYak … You must have accidently hit reply to Dana instead of Brad because your comment shows that it’s to her …

  11. megan says:

    I’m pretty sure most schools have officers at least every middle and high school I know of does but what post office are you going to cause I’ve never seen a cop at a post office or SS office either. Also being for gun control doesn’t make you a socialist. But at least your advocating cops in schools which I’m all for just not arming every adult in a school.

  12. Pingback: About that school shooting in Colorado… | Pages Left Unturned

  13. Shakespeare's Fool says:

    My wife organized a free concealed weapons class for all the teachers in her school that wanted to get it. You come into her school to cause problems, you’ll never know who puts and end to you. Carefully select another school socialist malcontents.

  14. Paul says:

    Going by the “logic” of the “guns in schools” argument…why do we bother to have security in airports? I mean, like we used to say in the credit industry, “the bad guys are always a step ahead of us.” Just think of it…no standing in lines, no taking off your shoes, no Chertoff porno-scanners. Just be sure there’s a visible sky-marshal on every plane (you know they’re lazy, overpaid federal employees, right? I mean, I’ve never met a sky marshal, but I ran into some Immigration & Customs agents and those guys couldn’t catch a cold). Plus, all that will stop a terrorist attack on an airplane is a “good guy with a gun.” It’s inevitable: terrorists WILL get on airplanes. All we can do is be sure there’s someone on the plane with a gun and that will solve everything.

    Get rid of airport security, because it’s the only sane thing to do.

    • Kelsey says:

      Has the airport security theater since 9/11 successfully stopped a single terrorist?

      • Robert Russ says:

        Airplanes are no longer good targets because there is no way a terrorist will get all of the passengers to cooperate. The best and only chance you have to survive a terrorist attack on a plane is to kill the terrorist. Simple as that and terrorists know it.

    • Tim says:

      You’ve never met an air Marshall, but have no problem generalizing them as all being fat lazy slobs. Nice.

  15. Lindsay says:

    If I remember correctly, there was a school district in Arkansas that got around the “no guns in school” policy by allowing teachers to train to become security officers. Then they were dually employed as both an educator and a security officer, therefore allowed to carry a firearm in the school.
    This is one of the many reasons I homeschool. My kids’ school is always defended by their teacher.

  16. Adam Schoen says:

    This argument seems more plausible this time than when I first heard it after Sandy Hook, but I’d still have to disagree (sort of). Though an armed guard may prevent larger shootings, I believe it threatens to make things worse if it were society’s only response.

    Here we go:
    Matt Walsh’s argument seems to want to solve the problem, “How do we make school shootings less deadly?” His main solution, to put an armed guard in a school, uses the case in Colorado as evidence that it’s an effective solution. Let’s say that every other case would follow exactly like that, the bigger problem (overlooked or ignored) is, “How do we stop school shootings altogether or decrease them?”

    Matt probably believes an armed guard would prevent shooters because it would threaten the shooter. And I don’t really believe this argument here. School shooters almost always die or commit suicide, so the threat of getting shot is accepted and doesn’t prevent them. More likely, the shooter would just target the armed guard first. (A problem with another of Matt’s thoughts: I don’t think it’s safe or smart to rely on teachers to be police officers.)

    The solution of putting another (but good) gun in schools most likely guarantees the death of the shooter, who’s almost always a kid. And, I don’t even think it would prevent the shooter anyway. However, (and this is definitely a theoretical point) Matt’s solution might increase shootings.

    The thought is that if society all around believes that guns are the only solutions to violence, kids (and adults) would believe that guns can solve their problems, increasing gun violence. I don’t think this argument is entirely implausible though, because if you look at the south side of Chicago, where more than 1 kid is killed every couple days, there are tons of guns, and worse, everyone uses them as the best solution to their problems.

    If an armed guard makes school shootings less deadly, it seems like it can do some good. However, if it were the only response to a bigger problem of violence in the US, I think things would get worse. For those who think that guns are always the best solution to gun violence, I really disagree.

    • Kelsey says:

      Stop equivocating. No one is suggesting that this should be the ONLY response to school shootings or any other kind of violence. OF COURSE we need better care for the mentally ill. OF COURSE we need to reevaluate what makes kids decide to do this.

      We ALSO need to take effective measures to stop shootings after they start, and that means arming and training those who are wiling to take on that responsibility.

      Having an armed guard at a school won’t necessarily keep a crazy person from going on a shooting rampage. The point of having an armed guard isn’t to stop shootings entirely but to keep the students safe. That means 1) being present, which is already likely to cause the shooter to choose a different target, 2) being willing to use lethal force, which will limit the amount of damage the shooter is able to cause.

      Guns are not “a solution to violence.” I’m honestly not even sure what that phrase means. Guns are tools, and like any tools they can be used for good or evil. Those who claim that more guns = more crime point to places like Chicago, Detroit and DC, but what’s interesting is to also look at the gun laws in those areas. Are they strict or permissive? Are the people with guns generally “good guys” or “bad guys”? Guns themselves will not magically stop violence. Putting effective weapons (guns) in the hands of capable, responsible, well-trained individuals WILL lead to a decrease in crime and violence.

      • Adam Schoen says:

        I don’t think we’re disagreeing on much here. I think we agree on:
        1. An armed guard could potentially limit the deadliness of school shootings.
        2. The deadly threat of an armed guard could potentially deter some school shootings, where shooters aren’t going to commit suicide anyway or where the shooter doesn’t just target the armed guard. Still, many school shooters seem to plan on dying, so there are many cases where an arm guard isn’t sufficient prevention.
        3. There should be preventative plans beyond just an armed guard.

        I think what we disagree on is how much we think is being accomplished toward #3 (other preventative plans) and how much attention it’s getting. I haven’t heard as much talk about preventative measures as I have about people saying we need armed guards now. You sound like “of course” all that preventative (mentally ill care and child psychological care, etc.) stuff is getting taken care of. But I honestly just haven’t heard as much about it. It’d be good to read more articles about prevention.

      • Carma says:

        @Adam, you construct a lot of straw men to argue against.

        First, as @Kelsey pointed out, no one said armed guards in schools should be the ONLY measure.

        Second, the reason you don’t read as many articles about preventive measures as you do about arming schools is because the media is not touting how peaceful everything would be if we just took away sick people’s mental health programs. See, no one is arguing that the solution to school shootings is to do away with mental health measures; whereas there are plenty of loud voices saying the best solution to school shootings is to disarm the entire populace, at least the law-abiding portion of it. Therefore it is perfectly natural to find plenty of arguments against these voices to disarm the populace and reduce our ability to defend ourselves and our children, which naturally focus on pointing out the efficacy of armed guards rather than the efficacy of mental health assistance, because no one is creating a national platform to argue against mental health.

        Third, arming school officials is not primarily meant to be a PREVENTIVE measure. While armed guards may deter some would-be shooters, you are correct that it won’t deter them all; so the purpose of good-guy guns in schools is to PROTECT the kids in school from the shooters who are not deterred. Yes, most shooters seem to expect they will end up dead, either at their own hands or that of the law, and they are therefore not deterred by the thought of facing guns inside; but I don’t think it’s a big stretch of the imagination to guess that most of them also plan to take as many people with them beforehand as they can. The armed guards are the last-ditch PROTECTIVE solution, the one that comes AFTER the preventive measures of mental health assistance and reconciliation attempts and “Gun Free Zone” signs have failed, and the shooter has entered the school armed to the teeth with guns and ammo and ambition to go out in a blaze of blood and glory.

        So, you are correct that guns in schools may not PREVENT shooters from entering the schools, but they do have great efficacy to PROTECT once the shooting starts. When the victims have to wait for police to arrive, many more of them will die. The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police who must travel to the scene is 14.29. The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by an on-the-spot civilian is 2.33.
        Stats from: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

  17. Paul says:

    If “more guns equals less crime,” then shouldn’t Chicago, Atlanta, Compton and Oakland be the safest cities on Earth?

    No, but seriously: most of the people reading and commenting on this blog have been conditioned via hours of right-wing media to fear and distrust “The Federal Government” (well, at least since 2008) and view every “government employee” as an incompetent, overpaid buffoon. But, the funny thing is, I bet that if there was a federal program to put one of those Incompetent Government Employees in your kids’ school-WITH A GUN-you’d all embrace it with open arms.

    • Cam says:

      Do you think that government employees are the only persons worthy of fear and distrust for the average parent? As if I’ll leave my kids in the care of anyone, so long as they’re not a government employee?

      The rights which would be protected by a government employee with a gun, are inherited from me; they are my rights and the rights of anyone in my care (my children). I am the curator of those rights. So if I think that standing guard while being armed is an acceptable way to defend the rights of my family, and I am confident in the competence of a government employee to do so in my absence, why would I object?

      I entrust those rights to my local police department everyday. But it’s important to understand that they don’t provide me with the rights. Their job is to assist me in preserving the rights I am already afforded.

    • Robert Russ says:

      Our Founding Fathers taught us to fear and distrust the Federal Govt. Hence, The Constitution of The United States of America. I suppose those on the left may not realize that because of repeated attempts to blur our history by removing important historical information from school books. Or maybe you think the same way as those who caused people to flee to this country in search of true freedom. Those who want guns in schools could care less what their political affiliation was you idiot. As long as they are trained, responsible adults.

      • Paul says:

        *Our Founding Fathers taught us to fear and distrust the Federal Govt*

        You mean the Federal Government they CREATED??!

        If ANYBODY here is guilty of re-writing history, it’s the hysterical right.

      • Brandon says:

        @ Paul

        Apparently you haven’t studied the American Revolution and surrounding time period much. The founders not only advocated for all citizens to have guns,.but they had a healthy distrust of government (yes even the government they created). Here are just a few quotes;

        James Madison: Americans have “the advantage of being armed” — unlike the citizens of other countries where “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

        Patrick Henry: “The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

        George Mason: “To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

        Samuel Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

        Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

        Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure”

        Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

        George Washington: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”

        Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restraint he people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

        The only re-writing of history here is being done by you. The Founders expected citizens to be prepared to serve as soldiers and feared the possibility that our own government would overrun it’s constitutional limits. If these quotes aren’t enough go read the federalist and anti-federalist papers and get back to me.

        • deelilynn says:

          You beat me to it, Brandon! Thank you 🙂

        • joeschmo77 says:

          You do realize that was a different time then? They obviously didn’t know about the assault rifles and other weapons that could kill whole lots of people in an instant. Also most liberals don’t support banning all guns just controlling them and keeping military grade weapons out of people’s hands.

      • Jean2 says:

        Considering the Constitution was created to devolve into our current mess?
        And the first act (ratificiation by the states) was ham-fisted by the Federalists, directly addressing “the people” and bypassing the states and elected officials?
        And, By the Way, the Constitution was NOT the intended outcome of the Convention; the representatives were there to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to rewrite them, or to destroy them. IE: The Constitution was a coup, a revolution.

        Lastly: LEft and Right in the US are meaningless, sorry to tell you. Both are essentially fascist. They just want THEIR gang to be the ones in power.
        I _WAS_ a Republican… Then I realized I was still allowing someone else to OWN me. THAT is what this government is all about: OWNING you, and the profits of your labors. And your children, and children’s children’s, etc. Until they have us tagged like cattle, merged into a Borg Collective of “Individual” identity. (Note that deciding whose jeans to wear in the morning does NOT equate to liberty….)

        Many people are expating from the US.
        But surprisingly: Many people who USED to want to come here, are now staying home. India, Peru, Brazil, even Cuba. And Russia is no more free… (13% income tax – nothing more.)

        Bad times coming – and buying into the illusion that these aprties work for us, or want to help us, or are even different – is foolish and a waste of time.
        We need to fix things here.

        The hard way, unfortunately.

        (And those who “just want to be left alone” will probably NOT side with those who want freedom. They still fear self-ownership, because it means RESPONSIBILITY and HARD WORK. )

    • Brianna says:

      Until only a few years ago there was a total handgun “ban” in Chicago. I put “ban” in quotes because of course criminals broke the law and had guns and shot people with them. It has only been in the past year that IL has finally, FINALLY passed laws permitting people to obtain CPLs, and even now the restrictions on obtaining and using an IL CPL are probably some of the strictest in the nation.

  18. Albanian Lord says:

    Great post, watch the anti-gun folk make odd logically leaps to still try and defend their side. The facts are right here. The evidence is right here. To stop school shootings you allow responsible adults to choose to arm themselves or hire an armed resource officer (in plain clothes so as not to be easily identified). Or do what I will do, home school (unschool).

    • Paul says:

      Actually, a child in a public school is safer than a child being homeschooled in a house with unsecured weapons.

      • Tyler says:

        Evidence, or shut up.

      • Paul says:

        Tyler: I’ll let you do the research on this one.

        1) What is the probability that your neighborhood school will be the subject of a Sandy Hook-style attack?

        2) If a gun is kept in a home, what is the likelihood that gun (accidentally or intentionally) will harm or kill a member of that home?

        So, my SPECIFIC QUESTION: if a gun is kept in a classroom (either on the teacher’s person, or locked-hopefully-in a “special place,” what event carries greater probability: the likelihood that gun will be used to repel a hostile intruder, or that gun will be misused to harm or kill a teacher or student?

        Show your work.

      • deelilynn says:

        Tyler asked you for the evidence, Paul, so why are you playing the turn it around game by trying to make Tyler site the evidence for your comment?? You do the homework!!

      • Paul says:

        Odds of a shooting at your neighborhood school: around 1 in 1 million: http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/27/tragic-but-rare-odds-of-dying-in-a-school-shooting-as-in-chardon-at-least-one-in-a-million/

        Odds of death by accidental shooting (as compiled by the National Safety Council, which I’m sure I’m about to find out is “biased”): 1 in 6,609. http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf

        Odds of death by DELIBERATE shooting: 1 in 321 (see above)

        Plus, we’re finding that the number of “accidental” gun deaths among children may be twice as high as recently believed due to inconsistencies in reporting: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0

        Bottom line? Harvard researcher David Hemenway sums it up: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

      • Tim says:

        Wow Paul, you have the the evidence they were clamoring for and not a peep since. I frankly have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who has a family member accidentally hurt by a gun in their house. They only have themselves to blame.

      • deelilynn says:

        Paul, thank you for siting your original comment instead of continuing turn play however three of the four links were reporting opinion pieces … The one link that appears might site original stats (National Safety Council) I’ll have to search for because my computer won’t allow me to open the link you supplied … Will check back with you later today or tomorrow morning 🙂

        Tim, you do realize that Paul left the links yesterday evening and your smarty pants comment was only about three hours later (three hours and two minutes to be precise) … Did you know that some people do have other things to do (like eat, sleep, work, spend time with family) and can’t respond sometimes for a day and maybe even two?? 😉

  19. Robbin says:

    My only comment is that it is sad that we have to put armed resource officer’s in our schools, I agree that people have the right to our 2nd amendment but guns should not have to be in our schools. Our kids should be able to go to school without the threat of guns but we live in a different time these days.

    • Tyler says:

      I agree it is sad. But how do you get from 2nd Amendment to school shootings? Specifically, by what argument would stricter gun laws (which only law-abiding people will follow) prevent criminals from using guns to commit horrible acts? The instinct some people have in response to these awful crimes is to pass more laws, but that really is like the guy who drops his keys in the dark and goes to look for them under a lamppost fifty yards away–because the light is better. We need to solve the difficult problem, not just implement the easy (non-)solution.

  20. Amanda says:

    There are so many things wrong with this post. First Matt, statistically we know that more people are injured and killed by gunfire accidentally than on purpose. Having a gun just increases your chances of being harmed. Personally, I know I would not feel safer knowing that there were multiple weapons in the school. Second, while the news reports of these events happening are horrible, it makes it seem like it happens a lot. It does happen a lot more than it should, but there are thousands of schools in the country that never have any issues like this. I think putting armed personnel in these schools just as an open policy will invite more violence, not less.
    Third, I would argue that the newspaper “edited” out the word socialist because it was a word used to describe the shooter by one fellow student. This hardly means its true, and even if it was, he didn’t go into the school with a weapon because of his belief in socialism.
    Last, there are armed personnel in government buildings and court houses and the like because they have a MUCH higher chance of some kind of attack. Don’t paint politicians as cowards for this reason – it is protection of the government, a necessity in a representative democracy.

  21. Paul says:

    This Just In: studies funded by gun manufacturers prove that “more guns equals less crime”:





    In related news, RJ Reynolds released a study announcing that cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer, and the NFL funded a study debunking the myth that being hit in the head repeatedly causes brain trauma.

  22. Paul says:

    If a gun, as a matter of policy, is kept IN A CLASSROOM (on the teacher’s person or in a ‘special place’) is there a higher statistical probability it will be used to repel an attack from a hostile intruder, or that it will be used to accidentally shoot a child or teacher? I’ve asked this question until I’m blue in the face, and nobody’s answered it.

    • deelilynn says:

      Maybe it’s because you ask these kind of questions all too often and then berate those who answer them??

      • Paul says:

        Maybe it’s because nobody’s answered it.

      • Jeff Johnson says:

        @ Paul, there is a lack of data to prove or disprove your question. The only thing I know of is the most recent incident when there was an armed guard on duty at the school and fortunately but sadly only one other person was shot. History has shown us over the past 5-10 years that those with the intention of harming others choose areas that are gun free zones, research that my friend. That in itself is terrible but who is to say the guard (also aware of by the student body) there did not prevent any additional victims. That point could not be proved or disproved no matter how you argue it. Point so many are arguing is that where there are a lot of guns there is a lot of violence. True (when you selectively choose) but one thing you are conveniently leaving out is those are illegal guns, owned mainly by criminals in the hoods! Obviously all the laws in those areas (which are normally high incident areas) have not done one darn thing to curb the violence. That is a society problem not an object problem because the killing would still continue. Be it by knives, cars, baseball bats, poisons, etc. As for big numbers, there are more individuals killed annually by cars, knives are equal to or greater than guns, poisons are real close as well. All these excessive laws are just feel good laws giving the blind the false security that most laws give! I for one would want a well trained/qualified individual in a school my child attends. At least it would give my child a chance at survival. Without it, it is just a shooting gallery in a “gun free zone”… jmo

      • Paul says:

        *there is a lack of data to prove or disprove your question.*

        Chance of a gunman storming your kids’ school: 1 in 1 million.

        Chance of dying in an accidental shooting: 1 in approximately 6,600 (according to the National Safety Council).

        Hmmm….seems like “data” to me.

      • Paul says:

        My point being: put a gun in a room where there was no gun before, and the odds of accidental death or injury SKYROCKET. They HAVE to.

      • deelilynn says:

        And there you went berating again 😦 Did you even read everything he wrote?? Obviously no 😦

    • Paul says:

      *who is to say the guard (also aware of by the student body) there did not prevent any additional victims*

      Going by your logic, who is to say the guard wouldn’t have wounded or killed someone else by mistake. The guy who wrestled the gun away from Jared Loughner at the site of the Gabby Giffords shooting almost got shot when a “good guy with a gun” saw him with Loughner’s gun.

    • Brianna says:

      If a gun is concealed on a teacher’s person and nobody knows it’s there but her? I find it hard to understand how that gun could be stolen by a student who doesn’t know it exists.

  23. Paul says:

    Most countries limit weapons that individuals can carry to non automatic limited clip sized long guns and ban semi automatic, automatic, clips that carry more than six shells, handguns etc with the exception of police and military. Most countries don’t have mass shootings. America where all these weapons can be found has the shootings every couple months. Ban weapons from ordinary citizens and there would be no need for armed gunmen in schools. Laugh if you will scoff all you want I’ll go to bed tonight and feel safe.

  24. Joel Saint says:

    Paul, I call pure bull$hit on your National Safety Council or whatever it is “statistics.”
    Full Disclosure: I’m not a statistician.
    Even More Full Disclosure: I don’t have to be; check this out: Your source, http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Library/News/web_graphics/Injury_Facts_37.pdf, states, among other things, that the odds of death by legal execution in 2008 were 1 in 111,779.

    OK. Let’s do a little math. According to this source, http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table, the population of the US on July 1st, 2008 was over 304 million.

    Now, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1757, there were 37 legal executions in the US in 2008.

    Get the picture yet? If there was a 1 in 111,779 chance of dying by legal injection in 2008, then the US population must have been a mere 4,135,823 people. If you want to know how I got that number, I simply multiplied 37 times 111,779, and came up with 4,135,823.

    So, according to the pathetically bogus National Safety Council, the US population must have been 4,135,823 in 2008.

    Way off. Horribly off.

    4.1 million (approximately) from your “source” vs. 304 million? Your source is off by a factor of over 73.

    So, Paul, if they are off by a factor of over 73 on legal executions in 2008, I wonder how much they’re off by everything else?

    This just in: Fake serial statistic manipulating gun-grabbers either can’t do math, or tell the truth; or most likely, they can’t do either.


  25. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/18 | Free Northerner

  26. Ashley says:

    I can’t speak too much on this issue because I have an emotional interest, I’m a teacher. I practice lock-down drills seriously with my 2nd grade students and do my best to express the seriousness and discuss scenarios/possibilities in as friendly as kid-terms as I can to not scare but prepare; prepare for when and where they might be, what to do if I can’t help them, and how to take care of each other no matter what.
    I personally would not carry or have a gun on my person or in my room. Yes I would feel more safe knowing that if I heard gunshots and was locked into my room with my kids that I would be praying to God (yes, literally) that our armed person would be quick to save the day. However, the knowledge of a gun on campus daily does make me very nervous for various reasons that many people have brought up in the comments.
    My biggest worry is something I am seeing even here in this ADULT forum. I read disrespectful sarcasm, outright name-calling, complete disregard for others’ opinions and even scoffing at information that people are sharing. How can we expect our children to treat others with respect especially when we disagree if ADULTS aren’t doing it on their own even with children not around? We know that bullying, students not feeling heard, or being taught and expected how to control their emotions has lead to many of these school shootings. Let’s break the chain now and here, each of us. It’s not easy, but when we hear ourselves saying something mean, rude, or disrespectful, stop yourself, apologize, and vow to stop yourself next time before it even comes out.
    It sounds like rainbows and ponies but I ask that we remember that ONE GIANT solution is to LOVE people. We can disagree, listen and learn from each other, be willing to change our minds or just alter our perspective and still do it with LOVE. We do it when nobody’s looking, we do it when children are looking, we teach children how and why to love, we praise when they show love to others, and we teach them to do it when nobody’s even looking to “reward” them.
    And when people are in desperate need of mental health services we must not turn a blind eye, make it shameful or taboo, but identify these conditions/diseases as early as we can, intervene however necessary, and put up the money as a society to keep everyone safe.
    This is an emotional topic because it involves kids and we love kids. I love kids and would do anything to keep them safe. We have seen many teachers in these situations that have put their lives in the line of gunfire to protect their children. Please do not belittle ANY teacher based on your personal experiences. 99.9% of teachers are loving, selfless people who spend around 7 hours a day with your kids and to think any less of them than what they deserve is offensive. Before I get any more emotional than I already am I will bow out as some perhaps should think about doing before they type any more comments that are not necessary to a thought-provoking conversation.
    I must get to bed to be ready for our children of the future! 🙂

    • Brianna says:

      “I love kids and would do anything to keep them safe.”

      Really? Would you take a CPL class and learn how to responsibly carry and use a small 9mm pocket pistol?

      • Ashley says:

        Just because I wouldn’t carry a gun on myself, especially in my classroom, does not mean that I wouldn’t do what needed to be done in the moment to protect my children. Your comment insinuates that by not doing that makes me less sincere for my students’ safety. I hope I’m assuming incorrectly and that you respect my personal decision to not be a gun carrier, and that you trust my abilities as a teacher.

  27. Russ Buchanan says:

    Interesting comments, but let’s cut to the meat of the matter, shall we?

    First, I have a sister who retired from teaching in Arkansas after 35 years. I have a girlfriend educator who is nearing retirement age in Kansas. I have a dear friend who is a current teacher in Texas. The only comment I’ll make here concerning them is that they all seem to be or have been frustrated regarding the curriculum they are forced to teach by their respective states, and the fact that they currently do or have at one time lived in fear of their students. What’s the career expectancy of a teacher right out of college these days? Five years? Ten years? I never had anything but respect for my teachers and never seriously considered doing them bodily harm. What happened? Guns have been around for a long time. They didn’t just appear and jump into the hands of these sadly ill individuals who are doing these shootings. My girlfriend says that for the most part, her kids are good kids and willing to obey school regulations and do their work, but there are a few who cause problems, and instead of school officials handling them the way they used to, they are coddled and treated with kid gloves. Their “helicopter parents” will bite at the throat of anyone at the school who would dare to speak negatively of their “little angels”. Amazing. Something needs to change there. Our schools are not daycares and our teachers are not babysitters.

    The other point I’d like to speak to is the idea of carrying weapons. This is not something to be thought of lightly. I live in Oklahoma and I have a CCW license. I wear a Glock 30 on my hip at all times. It is my constitutional right to do so and Oklahoma law allows it. I wear a light jacket over my weapon at all times to conceal it. I’m wondering, to all of you folks who are talking about carrying – are you ready to kill someone? If you were/are a teacher and an angry 16, 17, 18 year old person walked into your classroom armed with a weapon, would you be prepared to draw down on them and kill them? In class we were taught to empty our magazines into the individuals torso as quickly as possible and to keep firing until the threat was eliminated. In other words, shoot them until we are certain they are dead. I would think that when taking into consideration the fact that the teacher is responsible for the safety of 20-30 children in the room that he/she would be able to pull the trigger. My point to this statement is don’t carry a gun unless you’re ready and willing to use it.

    Why do I carry a gun, one might ask? Very simply, for protection. These are hard times we live in and there are some very desperate people out here. If I see someone threatening someone with a deadly weapon, it is my intention to draw my gun and kill them. Whether it be in a convenience store, a movie theater or wherever; it makes no difference to me. I have taken it upon myself to exercise my personal belief that we all have a right to protect ourselves and the lives of innocents around us from deadly force by using deadly force in return. I know myself well enough to know that I would have no problem shooting someone to death who is either threatening my life or the life of someone else with a deadly weapon. I choose to be a participant rather than a bystander. I choose to kill and live rather than stand there and die. Are you all ready to take the life of another human being for the sake of the safety of yourself or others? I am.

    • deelilynn says:

      Well written, Russ!!

      My wish is that everyone felt comfortable and willing to defend themselves and others with a gun … However I realistically know that those who do not want to carry would potentially cause more harm than good if they did simply by the nature of their mindset … Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying they are bad or wrong for their beliefs/feelings …

      Anyway, I am with you and am ready and I have been in the situation of needing to decide if I would actually take someone’s life when they were breaking into my apartment … I am disabled and can not defend myself otherwise so when the perpetrator got my door open I was waiting with gun pointed … Thankfully he ran away like a jack rabbit and I say ‘thankfully for him’ because I would not have hesitated to shoot; in the head, chest and stomach!!

    • Brianna says:

      Very true. Anyone who is going to carry a gun has to accept the possibility as well as they can that the gun is only effective if they are willing to kill an armed assailant who is threatening them.

      Just remember, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent.

  28. Pingback: My Blog Is Unnecessary | TRAILS PLOWED UNDER

  29. DAN says:


  30. This is the same story as the Pearl High shooting. Armed vice principal, only two deaths. Pretty much unknown. Oh, that liberals had common sense.


  31. Annngeo Inc says:

    Armed resource officers are great (my old school district contracted with the Sheriff Dept. & local police). But there can be a wait for one to show up (particularly elementarie’s). The idea of NO gun-free zones and concealed carry permits allowed at schools and malls, et.al. appeals to me. Criminals and lunatics need to think anyone might be carrying. We have proof that this fact alone reduces violence.

  32. MissAmazed says:

    I am amazed at people who like to be so opinionated on matters where they have no experience. This blog is a perfect example. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD become a teacher for ten years and then repost this same article. I have been a teacher for ten years and I know that there is no money in education. My school is in a run-down, low-income city and we don’t have money for aids or arts educators. I teach third grade, as well as the art, music, PE, and computers in my classroom. I would never bring a gun to school because I have students in my class who would be glad to steal it and injure anyone in their sight. Lock it up, you say? Oh, please. Tell me how quickly I will get my key and this “hidden” gun in time to defend myself in front of a shooter. Also, tell me how I can SHOOT anyone with no experience. Great idea! And please, let me know when my school will get all this extra money to afford to hire a full time armed guard to protect our school. Sounds like a Hunger Games Saga. Load of Shit.

    • Brianna says:

      The Newtown teacher who saved her students had time to hide them all in the cabinets. There are pistol cases which can be opened with fingerprints or a numeric code, they open very quickly and are very secure. She would almost certainly have had time to punch in a numeric code and grab a pistol from a locked case. And guns are not *that* expensive, you could always buy your own and keep it on your person without telling your students (theoretically, if it were legal).

  33. iodine9 says:

    really? banks are often equipped with armed guards but that doesn’t stop people from trying to rob them…how would a school with an armed guard be any different?

  34. iodine9 says:

    and thanks for fear-mongering. you’re very good at it.

  35. Good guys with guns in schools is the rational solution to create doubt in the minds of bad guys with guns. It would not take very many of these scenarios to play out and we would see a significant decline in children shot in schools. People need to put their emotions on the sideline and deal with this problem head in a logical manner.

  36. Kim says:

    I had a two month discussion with a Tea Party friend (I am not Tea Party) after Sandy Hook shooting. We agreed that making schools secure is going to take more than another gun.

    At my son’s school, after Sandy Hook, they decided to lock all exterior doors except the front door. Imagine me falling out of my chair at the school board meeting learning that the doors are unlocked. My father noted at my nephew’s school that the office is near the middle of the school, having to pass many classrooms to get there. My daughter’s high school is an open campus, meaning students can come and go at will. A comment on an website (don’t remember where) asked why kids are in classrooms and not evacuated?

    My friend and I agreed that physical security needs to be upgraded. After 20 years of shootings, evacuation procedures needs to be designed. The NRA would be wise to shut up and invest in these two things alone.

    My son’s school locked the door and put a sign in/badge system in place, yet I didn’t have to do that for teacher conferences. I responded that this was unacceptable. Posting someone at the door, double check appointments, teacher coming to get you is how we can stop people wandering around the school.

    As for teachers carrying guns, my friend and I decided this is not a good idea, because teachers need to concentrate on teaching. I think the secretary would be a better choice.

    • deelilynn says:

      “My friend and I agreed that physical security needs to be upgraded. After 20 years of shootings, evacuation procedures needs to be designed. The NRA would be wise to shut up and invest in these two things alone.
      My son’s school locked the door and put a sign in/badge system in place, yet I didn’t have to do that for teacher conferences. I responded that this was unacceptable. Posting someone at the door, double check appointments, teacher coming to get you is how we can stop people wandering around the school.”

      Kim, you do realize that Sandy Hook had all locked doors including the front, sign-in set up, someone coming to the door to let you in and had just recently completed teacher training and school evacuation drills don’t you?? The only thing they did not have in place was a security guard at the door!! And you do realize that how security is put in place is the schools decision so what does the NRA have to do with it?? In saying that why should the NRA shut up and not strongly suggest a weapon holding person to protect the children??

      • MommyMoose says:

        You are absolutely right! He shot his way through the glass. No locked door or sign it sheet will stop these monsters.

  37. MommyMoose says:

    Thank you, Matt! I have tried telling this to my husband ever since Sandy Hook and he has said I am crazy. I just had him read this and he actually caved a little. He may not agree 100% (yet)but he is definitely thinking twice about it.

  38. Jenny says:

    Thank you for this article. I would like to contribute a thought though. As a former junior high teacher and current mother of four small children, I suggest that there would need to be some control of who is allowed to have a gun in a school or this solution could actually create more problems. Armed security would obviously be the first, best choice, but the thought of teachers with guns is a little scary. I am 5’7, 150 lbs. I grew up in Montana and am well acquainted with guns. Even if I were to receive more gun safety training, me having a gun in a junior high or high school could cause problems, because a group as small as two boys could overpower me and turn my defensive gun into a weapon.

  39. Palestinian terrorists used to shoot up Israeli schools. An AK-47 is dirt cheap, and the high death tolls seriously damaged Israeli morale. So Golda Mier asked for a law allowing parents, grandparents, retired police and IDF personnel,and other interested parties to act as armed guards for the schools, and Knesset passed it. Result? These days, Palestinian terrorists use bombs, which are expensive and require much more effort to make or get than an AK-47, because a shooter, even with an AK-47, doesn’t last long enough against the armed guardians to develop a newsworthy body count.

  40. Eva says:

    Or…you could make sure that crazy people and hormonal teenagers can’t get hold of guns? You could make sure they’re parents can’t get hold of guns that their kids can then get hold of? Then NOBODY would have been shot. That guy might have just punched someone in the face like any other angry teenager and that’s it.
    Here in Britain we had a horrible school shooting in Dunblane back in the 90s and our Prime Minister banned gun possession for any old Tom, Dick or Sally and guess what – no more school shootings. Barely any shootings at all in fact. Coincidence?

    • deelilynn says:

      One thing you fail to mention while pointing fingers at your neighbors here across the pond is the fact that since your gun ban the violent gun rate in Britain has not been reduced and the replacement weapons are now knives (and assorted other sharp instruments) and head butting!! Perhaps you should look in your own mirror before placing foot in mouth …

    • Joseph Lee says:

      So banning firearms didn’t stop all shootings? Tell me, how did it affect other crime rates? Tell me, did you know that even excluding 3D printing, it is possible for people to make their own guns? Have you tried applying your reasoning to other areas? It gets pretty ridiculous when you remove respecting people’s rights from “crime prevention”.

  41. deelilynn says:

    TYPO: ‘violent crime rate’ NOT ‘violent gun rate’

Comments are closed.