Mayor Bloomberg claims that he doesn’t know what good a gun would do in stopping a school shooting. Allow me to remind him of Pearl High School and a would be massacre that occurred on Dec. 17, 1997. “Would-be” being the operative term.
Bookish and overweight, a 16 year old kills his mother with a butcher knife, puts on a trench coat, hides his .30-30 rifle under it and drives to school. Upon arriving in the parking lot he opens fire killing two and injuring others.
He would have continued his killing spree, killing countless others, until hero assistant Principal Joel Myrick heard the shots and ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. “I’ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,” said Myrick.
The shooter, surprised that anyone would be armed and that his life might actually be in danger, tries to talk to Myrick but eventually drops to the ground and is subdued until police arrive.
This just strengthens my argument that mass shooters, by and large, are cowards and that is why they go to gun free zones. They do not need to fear an unarmed population. But the minute someone steps up to confront them with a firearm (be they police or a lawful citizen) they cower and either give up, flee, or kill themselves.
Chances are you never heard of Joel Myrick. Most periodicals that ran the story at the time, just wrote as little as they could about him. It is as if the press only grudgingly acknowledged his role. An armed principal stopping a school shooting? Nonsense, according to gun control zealots and their media accomplices that just never happens.
I am sure there are dozens of people who are alive today thanks to the heroism of Joel Myrick. The shooter, upon his arrest admitted that after he was done shooting up the high school he was going to make his way to the Junior high and continue his rampage. That was before an armed principal stopped the carnage in its tracks.
But for the media and ghouls like Bloomberg who feed their agenda with tragedy, such things apparently never happen.
Gun Owners of America 
SSGT C M Hackett
December 19, 2012 at 10:34 am
Actually, I’m surprised Mr. Myrick wasn’t charged with something! He’s my hero now! Along with the elderly gentleman in Florida who took on two armed thugs who burst into the diner where he was eating. When he fired the first shot, I swear the first thug pooped! They lit out of that place so fast, the door couldn’t open fast enough.
AL Bruckelmeyer
December 19, 2012 at 2:21 pm
LMMFAO Love the way you descibed it.
Jarhead1982
December 20, 2012 at 5:14 am
Had the same experience when we caught a rather large burglar trying to break in the back sliding door. Told him to leave, he said FU, wrong answer. Slipped my 4″ Model 29 out, centered on his face and began squeezing, never seen that shade of white before and you could see him staining his pants as he ran off the deck faster than Carl Lewis in his prime!
KATHY BERTRAM
December 19, 2012 at 10:35 am
what does he care…he has body guards that carry them I’m sure.
RH Brooksea
December 19, 2012 at 11:14 am
I would imagine Myrick would be protected under the good samaritan clause in a litigious situation.
Anonymous
December 19, 2012 at 11:17 am
This is an important example of a school official using his gun to stop and psychopath and save the lives of students. Please post a link to the article so we can share it with others.
Richard Wagener
December 19, 2012 at 11:20 am
Bloomberg is a Looney Liberal. First he had to change party’s to run, then he had to get the law changed so he could run again. Sounds like something Obama will try and do. I am fed up with Looney Liberals Period. But how do we get rid of them, they are like a bad cold, or a bad dream. They think they are problem solvers and the world needs them whether it knew it or not. When the reality is they are at the base of all the worlds problems. Stuck on stupid, and being proud of it is hard to reason with for normal people. I don’t know how we get rid of such determined ignorance. I have reached the peak of frustration numerous times, dealing with idiots is like pounding your own head against a solid rock wall. Obama is a loser through and through. Obama lives in his own little world, surrounded by adoring ignoramuse who dote over him like royalty.
Will Pierson
December 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm
With 50 years access to guns as a Marine and later 40 years in law enforcement I choose not to carry a gun even though I am entitled to under the law. I have investigated far more shootings of gun owners injured or killed by their own guns. I investigated the suicide of the 11 year old son of a judge who kept numerous guns locked up in his study. The boy was upset over getting a low score on a test. I investigated the suicide of a school superintendent who was upset over a citizen’s criticism. I have investigated numerous other deaths that should not and could not happen if it weren’t for the immediate availability of a gun. Suicides and accidental shootings far out numbered those shootings by criminals. I investigated only three homicides committed during the commission of a crime. The point is that in my experience and research far more people have died from guns available to them in their homes than have died than the number killed by criminals. Check the suicide numbers of the past ten years. And yes some one intending to commit suicide can do so with out a gun. Only the gun is immediate and without availability of second thoughts or intervention by others. Finally I am politicaly conservative not what you call “a looney Liberal.” Gun owner organizations need to rethink their “a gun in every pocket” posture for one that is reasonable and addresses the reality of gun ownership.
Scott
December 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I question all of your facts, especially you calling yourself a conservative. You must have been in law enforcement in a very peaceful town. Go to the big cities and you will find more homicides committed by criminal home invaders and right on the street compared to suicides and accidents as you claim. Read John Lott’s “More Guns Less Crime” to find some real research rather that giving your personal opinion and thinking you know more than everyone else.
Wayne Hansen
December 19, 2012 at 5:13 pm
50 years of duty as a marine then 40 years of law enforcement later. I call BS on your entire statement.
msalzbrenner
December 19, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Will Pierson must be over 90 years old. Must have been a full life. Although at this point it sounds like time is catching up with him. He is sounding a bit on the senile side. As if not having a gun available would make ANY difference WHATSOEVER in the outcome of a truly delusional person committing suicide. No offense to anyone who may have had to endure this type of event. But speaking from personal experience, my final realization in the end was that they were better off, as were the rest of us. Honestly, its my opinion they are doing society a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool. If they are that mentally deficient, and deranged then I hope they achieve their wishes. After all it is THEIR choice. And I have said on MANY occasions. I COMPLETELY BELIEVE IN PERSONAL CHOICE!
dave
December 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm
So I guess that would make you about 108 if you joined up when you’re 18. YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT, I’M LAUGHING UNCONTROLLABLY…..
KFS
December 19, 2012 at 5:37 pm
50 years as a Marine? Mandatory retirement prevents that possibility. Then additional 40 years in law enforcement? Let’s see…..earliest enlistment age 17, plus the 50 years would make you 67 and then another 40 years in law enforcement makes you 107. I’ve never seen a 107 year old cop before. I’m sure we would have seen that on the news.
amanduh huggenkis
December 19, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Wow, 90 years of experience…rock on
Bob
December 20, 2012 at 2:47 am
No one ever said that there should be a gun in every pocket. If you do your homework, you will find in every case that training and personal responsibility is always stressed. Not to mention that not everyone will be willing to jump though the hoops that the federal and state government will put them through. The point being made is that there is the possibility that someone around you may be carrying, will be a deterrent to any crime.
I also question your conservative status and your statistics. More gun laws equal higher crime in every instance. Free gun rights always equal lower crime in every instance. Gun regulations have no impact on the suicide rate whatsoever. The right to carry is meant to stop crime against others.
Stubbleduck
December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
Pretty chipper for a 90 y.o.
Mstreeter1319
December 20, 2012 at 11:55 am
The point that is made here about the quick availability to a firearm increasing the chances that some one would not have “second thoughts” is completely rediculous. How long does it take to slash a wrist, or how long does it take to choke down a bunch of pills, or leap from a building? These all seem like fairly expediant and accessable means of self termination to me. The point that you are arguing is that a person who has decided to ignore his rational instinct for self preservation will, with only a little more time, return to his right state of mind. It also appears that in the examples you listed above the “bad test grade” or the “public critcism” are the single and instant causes for the victim’s actions. It however seems very unlikely that a child with an otherwise happy and fulfilling life will choose, in the spur of the moment, to kill himself over one bad test grade. It would seem much more logical that this child had been suffering from issues for and extended period of time. The child had probably been having these thoughts for a long time and the test was the straw that broke the cammel’s back. Secondly as far as the “immediate availability”, the child had to go and aquire the firearm. I doubt very seriously the gun was in his right hand as the teacher put the bad grade in his left. The point is the child had time to think about this, and he made a regretable choice. The child could have just as easily aquired a rope, or as mentioned before downed some of some kind posion. It is just this kind of illogical rational that make me fear for the liberty of this nation. An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a peasant.
Mike the Limey
December 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm
If you care to check, you will find the availability of firearms has no effect on the number of people who take their own lives, with the US suicide rate being on par with that of other Western nations such as Norway, Denmark, Austria & Germany & less than France, Sweden, Belgium & New Zealand.
Apart from that; suicide has no relevance whatsoever to the current debate, which concerns mental illness & protecting vulnerable groups from homicidal maniacs.
calpatriot
December 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Every person has a right to defend themselves. With that right, come responsibilities and some people just aren’t bright enough to take care of themselves and their family safely.. Police will gladly respond and provide the chalk and crime scene tape. Your decision to NOT want to protect yourself is magnanimous, but you shouldn’t attempt to impose your values on others who may have a higher regard for their life than you for your own.
dan
January 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm
many years of experience has dimmed your common sense and turned you into someone that wants to tell others what they need to do pertaining to owning guns…thank you very much but I can and will want what I want as far as weapons go..sempher fi
Philip
December 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm
You said it, Richard. I couldn’t agree more! I have thought countless times of the exact phrases you used. None of this makes sense to normal, reasonable people. Conversing with a liberal is literally about as productive as slamming your own head into a wall. The frightening thing is, while some liberals really do buy into their own lies, some of them, like Obama, know full well their agenda is a lie, but have a more sinister agenda. I truly hope people wake up and realize we are beyond the point of seriousness here.
Mother
December 19, 2012 at 11:26 am
This is NOT the WHOLE story!!!! Tell them what really stopped the shooter in his tracks!!!!
Joy
December 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Okay, Mother, what IS the “WHOLE” story?
Aaron Ceraldi
December 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm
yeah this is the whole story, that’s what happened. a gun in the hands of a good person stopped the killer.
amanduh huggenkis
December 19, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Do tell you’re an expert, were you there?
Alesis Saturday
December 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm
According to the wiki, the Assist. Principal detained the cowardly little shit until the cops arrived. What the fuck are you going on about?
Chicago News Bench™ (@ChiNewsBench)
December 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm
THANKS very much for the link. I enjoyed reading your own comments about the heroism of Joel Myrick. We need more like him. Keep up the great work on your website.
MM
December 19, 2012 at 4:17 pm
If the principal did that against a want-to-be mass murderer today, the principal would be dead. These days the bad guy would be wearing body armour.
Dino D'Angelo
December 19, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Body armor is nothing new. An aware, concerned CC citizen would know that & place the first 2 rounds where they’d do some damage and stop the shooter in their tracks. Should they turn on you go for the kill shot, if you stop to think about it YOU will be next in the box not them.
USMC ’66-’70 Vietnam ’68-’70
Jarhead1982
December 20, 2012 at 5:17 am
Laws of physics still apply, put 3 center mass the idiot gets knocked on his arse and as he lay gasping for breath with some broken ribs,
you walk up and put one in his head, or as I would, make sure he couldnt ever breed!
Ajent Oranje
December 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm
When has a school shooter worn body armor? Not a single school shooter have ever worn body armor. You are confusing a tactical vest, a clothing item with pockets to hold ammo, with a bulletproof vest. Educate yourself.
MM
December 19, 2012 at 7:39 pm
This isn’t a war zone, it’s a school zone. The mindset is worlds apart from the start.
We’re not talking about some kid that’s going to wet his pants and fall to his knees when someone points a gun back at them, we’re talking about someone that’s on a suicide mission and wants to take as many others down with him as possible. The principal could very well have a child the same age as the aggressor at home – of course there’s going to be hesitation on the “good guy’s” part.
Besides, what’s the end game here? To have everyone armed, trained and wearing body armour?
Great. Then the murderer isn’t even going to bother with the schools, offices, hospitals, ect. The people that he’ll go after is going to be the ones that can’t afford weaponry. Maybe go to a poor part of town and start taking out some people there.
Or maybe the murderers will start to acquire some RPG’s, Should schools maybe be built with 6″ steel plate?
What kind of world do you want to live in?
Ban violent video games, assault rifles, pistols. You can have hunting rifles and shotguns. Getting thrills at the shooting range isn’t worth all the lives that are being lost.
It’s not going to be easy, but start getting rid of the dangerous, good-only-for-killing-other-human weapons.
msalzbrenner
December 19, 2012 at 9:23 pm
“good-only-for-killing-other-human weapons” Hmm lets see that would be ANY DEVICE THAT CAN BE WIELDED AGAINST ANOTHER HUMAN BEING! So we have to get rid of ALL trees. Wouldn’t want anyone stabbing people with a branch. – Most household cleaning supplies would need to be eliminated. Can’t have anyone making bombs or drinking deadly poisons. – Rocks? Oh well, I suppose we can start a campaign to remove them all from ANY surface where they might have collected, but I suppose we would have to specifically select individuals whom had the “mental capacity” to do so in a “safe” and “nonthreatening” manner. – Cars have to go. But in this we get a twofer. Not only do we save the planet from pollution but we save all those innocent lives that are taken by vehicles every year. – Silverware, Hammers, Axes, Chainsaws, Everyone’s hands and feet, plastic bags, rope, sexual organs, um I think this will take a while. But oh yes, you did say “good-only-for-killing-other-human weapons”, and specifically you expressed “violent video games, assault rifles, pistols”. Well I think “video games” already opened the door for my suggestions. As for “assault rifles” they are ALREADY banned, but you would know that if you even knew what an “assault rifle” is, and not what you have been spoon fed to believe. As for pistols. I suppose I will agree with you. A pistol is utilized to defend ones self, ones family and ones property. And I only hope that any 6’4″ tall 285 pound man whom attacks, beats, and rapes a 5’2″ 145 pound woman, gets to find out VERY quickly EXACTLY what a pistol is for. If YOU want to be a victim that’s fine. But I will be DAMNED before I LET YOU FORCE ME, MY FAMILY, OR MY FRIENDS, TO BE ONE TOO! So go read articles that you LIKE, and spew your crap to people who WANT to hear it, and leave us the HELL ALONE!
jeromefromlayton
December 19, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Excuse me, but if someone comes in with anything (gun, knife, club, etc.) intent on carnage, that IS a war zone and those involved need to act accordingly, hopefully with better preparation than that brave Principal.
ian1775
December 20, 2012 at 8:08 am
…if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. -Jesus
Mike the Limey
December 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm
RPG’s?
Your fantasies are running away with your mind.
Have you considered seeking psychiatric help?
Do you think it will make one iota of difference what restrictions are placed on the lawful possession of firearms when there are three hundred million of them in circulation?
The best thing when attacked is to be prepared & defend yourself, not ensure you cannot have an effective means to do so.
Brandon Brooks
December 20, 2012 at 11:15 pm
hunting rifles have more powerful rounds, and are accurate at a greater distance. the shooters in these scenarios are not trained fighters. any armed response is going to give them pause, and more than likely the death they were looking for to begin with. it doesn’t matter what kind of world we want to live in. soft targets are killing fields. a place for angry people to hurt all of us. when the next attack isn’t some sad kid who wants us all to be sad too, but a trained fighter, willing to kill as many as possible for whatever cause they believe in do you want them to pick the school in your town? or the mall? or the little league field? people said it can’t happen here about school shootings, even though they’ve been steadily happening since the 1700s. people said a violent mob will never come and burn your home and business, with you inside it, or kill you in the street with news cameras rolling, even after the la riots. thieves and thugs wont kick in your door to take what little you have left after katrina. the sad truth is no matter where you live, or who you are, other humans are the most dangerous animal you are likely to encounter. the supreme court said the police have no constitutional obligation to save you from attack. the supreme court did say you have the constitutional right to defend yourself. whether its your pistol at the mall, or your ar-15 from the roof of your home when the mob is trying to kick in your doors.
c johnson
December 19, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Quit whining liberal losers. if you want a world with no guns move out of the USA and make your home somewhere else.
Jaques Pratt
December 20, 2012 at 12:48 am
Let me dispel a myth about body armor that seems to have everyone confused. Body armor may save your life, but it does not make you invincible. There is a massive amount of energy contained in a bullet that is traveling at high velocity. Take the weight of the bullet, and the velocity, and you can compute the force contained in the bullet, expressed in foot-pounds. Here’s the formula Energy = Weight times Velocity Squared divided by 450395 (fixed constant)
NOTHING anyone wears is going to change the amount of energy contained in the bullet. What body armor does is spread out the energy over a large enough area so that it does not go through the body. In fact, those wearing body armor get hit ‘harder’ wearing body armor, than if a bullet had the opportunity to pass through the body (retaining energy as it exits). Body armor retains 100% of the bullet’s energy, and passes it on to the wearer.
Getting shot by any higher-power weapon while wearing body armor is like getting hit with a Louisville Slugger, hard. I’m not talking about a little league swing, I’m talking about a Barry Bonds home run swing, all jacked up on steroids.
More than likely, a shot from a higher power rifle, shotgun or handgun is going to knock them on their butt. Depending on the placement of the shot, they can probably expect some broken ribs.
Getting knocked on the ground would give time for you or others to attack and disarm the assailant. If that is not possible, a second shot to the head is usually quite decisive. Body armor doesn’t protect the head much, especially in the face.
Anyone who claims that wearing body armor will make armed attempts to stop an attacker futile is simply ignoring physics.
joseph Poston
December 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Teflon coated bullits will defeat body armor. I know they are out-lawed but what good dose it due to out-law somethink they are still out there.
MM
December 20, 2012 at 3:53 am
My point isn’t about the physics of body armour, or what qualifies as a weapon.
I’m trying to understand where the argument of “more guns for everyone” leads to. If you think we already live in a war zone, then I agree with you, arm everyone to the teeth. But a war zone is a crummy place to live. Look what Syria has turned into.
I thought that’s what the military was for – to protect our borders so we can live in peace, Why do we insist on trying to keep bringing the war inside our borders?
If a gun isn’t designed for use during hunting season, then it has no use here.
There will always be bad people that do bad things, but why give them something extra that they can just turn around and use against the good guys?
Jarhead1982
December 20, 2012 at 5:40 am
You mean Syria where the bad guys, the govt, had all the weapons at first and were killing at will. Then slowly, the freedom fighters, assasinated enough soldiers, took their weapons, and now are fighting back pretty effectively especially as more and more of the soldiers defect to the freedom fighters side, amazing how that works!
Since 92% of killings by illegal use of a firearm are recognised by the US govt. to be committed by career criminals, gang members, suciders and crazies, you might want to ask them why they are doing so.
Then of course this insane need to punish those who havent committed a crime, as if doing so will stop the bad guys from comitting a crime or the psychos from going postal when it never does.
You do realize that 85% of the existing 22,417 gun control laws dont apply to felons or any of the bad guys? See Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment which it affirmed. Since registrations, permits, taxes fee’s etc, etc all require identification, that would be self incrimnation wouldnt it, yeah it would.
Dont forget how the BATF refuses to prosecute more than 1% of the 1.83 mil felons and bad guys stopped by the background check since 1994, the 100% using a fake id that pass the background check, the 95% of felons who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, or the BATF refusing to allow civilians to access the background check for private sales.
Hey dont forget the politicians who refuse to implement a standard health system, much less fund or resource the mental health reporting function to the NICS as there are only 1.7 mil records of 23.15 mil severely mentally ill in the US in the NICS database.
Then of course since you are smarter than the US Supreme Court, you can by executive order repeal Miller vs US 1939, you know, where the govt. set the two pronged test for what is an acceptable weapon for militia service hence individual ownership. Geez, such a rifle as an AR 15 is indeed acceptable by law, repeal it if you can!
Then this fantasy about how a semi-auto rifle banned because it looks evil is somehow more lethal because you can fire more rounds without reloading.
Since those who practice tactical reloads can do so in 1.4 seconds what does having a ten round magazine versus a 30 round magazine mean when the intended victims are ducking and running from the shooter, your thinking they can in 1.4 seconds recognize the reload, get out from behind cover and cross the distance to engage, really? Must be Flash, able to cross 100ft in .11 seconds eh!
Like the 3 unarmed army personell at FT Hood that tried to engage the shooter, 2 dead, 1 crippled for life.
Which is more lethal a 12 ga where the shooter has 100 rounds of 2 3/4″ #2 shot with 50 pellets each of .177 cal pellets or 100 rounds of semi-auto rifle or pistol fire banned because they look evil?
Ever see the pattern from such a round out of an open choke shotgun at 20 ft, you aint missing anything, even the barn door!
100 rounds of 12 ga 50 pellets each x 100 = 5,000 .177 caliber projectiles
100 rounds of semi-auto rifle/pistol rounds = 100 projectiles.
Hmmm, do tell everyone how having 100 projectiles is somehow more lethal than 5,000 in a closed envrionment as all these mass shootings seem to occur in?
Oh I know, you can ask the military as it has done hundreds if not thousands of studies on round lethality in such an evironment as a class room!
So you were saying?
MM
December 20, 2012 at 5:59 am
You obviously have a lot of gun knowledge.
So at what point are there enough guns? Every man and woman has 1, 5 or 10 guns each?
What guns should be allowed, or should everything be allowed?
In your opinion, who should and who should not own a gun?
Should there be any laws at all, or the one with the biggest gun makes the laws?
Marcus White
December 21, 2012 at 8:11 am
MM, the big question is, why should the government be able to tell anyone how much of a legal product they may own? Every law abiding citizen should be able to make that decision for him/her self. “Should there be any laws at all, or the one with the biggest gun makes the laws?” Hmmm, the government (like the government in Syria) has the biggest guns, maybe we should be making gun laws for them.
johngalt
December 20, 2012 at 3:59 am
Reblogged this on YouViewed/Editorial and commented:
Peace Through Strength , My Friends . That Is The Way Of The World .
ian1775
December 20, 2012 at 8:23 am
To MM: There is a law: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
MM
December 20, 2012 at 8:32 am
Ian, I’m not saying you can’t bear arms. You just shouldn’t be able to bear ALL arms. The constitution was written in the times of the ball and musket. How about we limit your arms to that?
Otherwise, where does it end? Do you ultimately want your own nuclear warhead?
ian1775
December 20, 2012 at 8:45 am
Shall we limit your right to free speech to prohibit telephones & Skype?
Should governments be trusted with Nuclear Weapons?
The personal arms of a soldier were what was meant back then, and those in use today are probably sufficient.
Ajent Oranje
December 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Lets limit your free speech to printing presses since that is all they had back then. Lets not limit unreasonable searches to cars because they didnt exist back then.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 9:10 am
So, we should limit “freedom of the press” only to the ink & lead type that Ben Franklin used, is that it?
MM
March 10, 2014 at 10:15 am
Ian,
Maybe I phrased the question wrong.
Do you think there should be a limit to how many firearms one individual should be allowed to keep?
If not, then we will have to agree to disagree because I see something like that to be a risk to society.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm
I see “society” as a risk to the individual. I agree with Ayn Rand: “Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
What danger to society is posed by one individual having two guns, or three, or one hundred, that is not posed by one?
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm
What I didn’t cover in my earlier reply, was that the use of nukes by anyone(government included) is morally problematic, as they kill anyone near the detonation, not just those people you are defending yourself against. With bullets, you can be more discriminating, and there is nothing about a semiautomatic, or a large supply of ammo, that requires you to shoot more than necessary. That said, the threat of nuclear weapons can prevent their use. Ukraine gave them up, and are now being invaded by Russia, which didn’t. I do not favor my own nation making the same mistake.
ian1775
December 20, 2012 at 8:34 am
MM: I went to the linked article, in case you didn’t. This is instructive:
“Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding.
In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws, and nothing else, gave Woodham that time.” -Wayne Laugesen.
MM
December 20, 2012 at 8:51 am
There’s been no answer to my question yet – what do you guys ultimately want?
Or are you happy with the status quo – constant conflict with the government of the day?
Happy to be criticizing from behind instead of leading from the front.
ian1775
December 20, 2012 at 9:25 am
Mm: Personally, an end to all infringements of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, including such infringements as gun-free kill zones, especially where children are present. Civilian armament sufficient to the needs of the time, and the same for military armament. I’d rather not have a need to carry, nor have my government need nukes, but in the current state of the world, we need both. Are you really saying free government can exist without criticism?
MM
December 20, 2012 at 9:41 am
Ok, so a lifting of all restrictions regarding weapons. Fair enough. Thanks for stating that.
My problem with that, though, is that we would be eventually turning the country into a real world version of the virtual world war video games that are so popular these days. Those games are training grounds for people that wish to take out their frustrations or misunderstandings in real time and the weapons they so desire are just a threat away in somebody’s closet. – After that, it’s on to do the killing that they have envisioned and glorified in their damaged minds.
Our governments absolutely need criticism, but there comes a point in democracy where the decision of the leaders needs to be followed for the greater good, whether we agree with it or not.
Not everybody is a warrior, and by the the time they figure out that they needed to be, the killing is done.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 9:19 am
If those decisions are not, in fact, for the greater good, we should follow them anyway? Armed citizens on the scene have stopped every attempted massacre by gun where they have been on the scene. Those successful massacres (as well as most murders) have all occurred in “gun-free” zones.
Marcus White
December 21, 2012 at 8:22 am
MM, More freedom may not be the answer to EVERY question, but less freedom is never the answer to ANY question. As a child I remember doing school fire drills… My kids still practice these fire drills today along with other safety drills, i.e. Lockdowns. With the recent events, I hope schools implement real safety measures along with new drills to prepare for emergencies or life threatening situations.I believe that law enforcement should work with school officials and come up with an Active Shooter response drill including officer response and familiarity of school campus. I don’t have the answers but I believe something should be drawn up and implemented vs. just “hoping” it never happens… The thought of kids bunched up in a corner, crying, and being mowed down by some cowardly psycho just breaks my heart. One thing I do know from knowing a lot of teachers (4 kids one still in elementary) is that most would be able to handle the stress and able to learn how to use the weapon but would rather watch the kids be mowed down because of their anti-gun beliefs. At my daughters school though I know four teachers who I have absolutely no doubt would gladly take on the responsibility of carrying for defense and would be able to do it.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 9:22 am
Exactly what’s wrong with anti-gun beliefs, and those who spread them. I consider the latter to be accessories to murder.
Mike the Limey
December 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm
What is needed:
Removal on restrictions to the lawful carrying of firearms in or near schools.
Training provided to school staff who wish to carry in defence of their charges.
Either volunteer or paid armed security for schools that do not already employ such measures.
A review of how mental health issues are dealt with within society as a whole & in the medical profession & services.
A campaign to break the taboo on discussing mental health issues, so that those who are at risk of harming themselves or others are identified, diagnosed & restrained in a manner that protects them & society at large from harm.
What isn’t needed is another AWB; CT has one & it did nothing.
Nor is “closing the gun show loophole” needed because it doesn’t exist & not one of the recent mass shooters bought their guns from a gun show.
A magazine capacity limit is pointless too; there are many millions of standard capacity magazines in circulation & even if there weren’t it takes only a split second to swap magazines.
MM
December 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm
If you got all those items that you listed, would that solve the excess gun violence problem, or would you need to add to that list?
Mike the Limey
December 21, 2012 at 9:36 am
Of course it wouldn’t solve it but it would certainly reduce the number of victims.
So would some other actions successive administrations have failed to do: Jail those convicted of violent crimes with firearms for a lot longer than the 18 month average they currently serve.
Prosecute those felons who attempt to buy firearms from dealers.
Decriminalising & then regulating “recreational” ndrugs would go a long way to reducing the violence too, plus it would free up prison places for violent felons.
JohninIA
December 20, 2012 at 9:39 am
To MM: You are correct. Jarhead does indeed possess much gun knowledge. Many of us do. While I would never presume to speak or answer for him, I’ll take my own tun at answering the questions you asked of him. “At what point are there enough guns?” When enough people carry, in enough places, to serve as a deterrent to monsters. “What guns should be allowed?” In accordance with the writings of the founders, ‘every terrible weapon of the soldier.’ If it’s not a “crew served” weapon that is used in the military, civilians have the right to the same weapons. “Who should, and should not have a gun?” In the words of another very knowledgeable gun rights activist; ‘If a person can’t be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted without a custodian.’ “Should there be any laws at all?” Sure, the only laws necessary are the ones that say I can pretty much go about my life in any manner I choose, as long as my actions don’t interfere with YOUR rights to do the same. See MM? It’s really not that hard………
jay c
December 20, 2012 at 10:36 am
Here’s what we did to the redcoat gun grabbers once: http://www.historycarper.com/category/battles/american-revolutionary-war/lexington-and-concord/
Phillydude
December 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Guns get blamed as the cause for shootings, ignoring the fact that the shooters have murderous intent. Do cars cause speeding? If the drivers didn’t have such easy access to cars, they wouldn’t speed, right? Therefore the only recourse is to get rid of any cars that go over 70 mph. No one needs to go that fast, it’s just dangerous. We don’t want our streets to turn into race tracks, what about the safety of our kids? We need to ban High Powered Race Cars like Mustangs and Corvettes. That’s just too much power for an untrained civilian to have. This is the argument we get from the anti-gun crowd. They demonize weapons by creating a false perception of what they are (hence “assault weapons”). They use phrases like, “No one should have access to these killing machines,” and “We don’t want our streets to turn into war zones”. My argument for banning “High Powered Race Cars” is actually stronger than the “assault weapons” argument, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects our right to own and drive cars. Even if there was, it would only apply to horses and buggies right? “The founders couldn’t imagine the ridiculous power we get from modern automobiles.”
Jaques Pratt
December 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm
An excellent analogy. I am a big fan of comparative logic, as it readily exposes flaws in logic without the confusion of the issue itself. Thank you.
MM
December 20, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Of course guns are going to get blamed for gun deaths. Guns are built specifically for killing what you point them at.. Cars are built for transportation.
Apples and oranges.
Justice
December 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm
The anti-gun crowd seems to have forgotten why the 2nd amendment exists…
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)
Now we need to use and enforce Title 18 USC Sec 241 and 242.
USMCrodeo
December 20, 2012 at 9:54 pm
On that train of thought MM, there are relatively few accidental gun related deaths per capita. But there are thousands of accidental deaths involving an automobile which, your words, “are built for transportation.” Wouldn’t it make more sense to severly regulate a machine which causes hundreds of deaths even though it wasn’t designed for that purpose? If a few deranged individuals decided to take their Chevy’s on a Death Race 2000 style spree would the politicians immediately look at procedures to restrict or ban any vehicles or would they limit themselves to blue sedans with upgraded bumpers? If you allow someone to take ONE freedom, it won’t be very long before they will want to come for another.
Liam
December 20, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Will thanks for such a reasonable and thoughtful expression of your experiences and position, You are certainly not a looney Liberal, As a motorcyclist I have seen so many careless and needless accidents caused by poorly trained and irresponsible riders over the last 40 yrs that I harp on the subjects of safety and training all the time. I hope we can find a middle ground and cut off both ends of the extremes. The question that I cant answer is what is reasonable yet still allows people to be responsible for their own protection and doesn’t unnecessary change our rights under the Constitution?
MM
December 21, 2012 at 9:02 am
The approach of “more guns for more people” will surely result in circle firing squads.
One bad guy decides to start shooting and every good guy decides to return fire, taking many others down with the shooter.
Can you imagine the extra carnage in the Colorado theater shooting if everyone started shooting back?
The only answer is to remove guns from the situation completely.
I know I differ from most people here with that opinion, but where we are the same is that we each get one vote.
So far the approach of “more guns” has made the US the most violent country in the industrialized world.
Mike the Limey
December 21, 2012 at 9:27 am
It is clear that you know little if anything about either firearms or those who carry them.
There are two instances that immediately come to mind which belie your proposition; the ccw holder who didn’t shoot Loughner but used physical force instead because he couldn’t take a clear shot without risking hitting others & the ccw holder who had his gun on Roberts at the Clackamas mall & again didn’t shoot because someone was in the line of fire behind his target.
We’re most assuredly NOT “trigger happy” Dirty Harry wannabe’s & many train far more often than the Police do & shoot to a higher standard too.
Saying the only answer is to remove guns completely is a cop-out, because you are asking for the impossible. Thus the next best thing is for potential victims to have the beast means of defence immediately available & that isn’t a cop 10 minutes away; it’s a firearm in their possession.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Not true. The murders are happening where guns are prohibited: Chicago, New York, Schools. Removing guns completely is not possible, and the attempt to do so, counter-productive.
MM
December 21, 2012 at 10:29 am
After every tragedy, more and more people are going to be thinking about how to make the impossible possible.
Mike the Limey
December 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Governments have thought long & hard about how to counter an armed madman & they all come up with the same answer: A man with a gun.
If it’s right for them, then please explain why it isn’t right for those actually at the scene when it happens – surely they are in a better position to intervene.
Kyle
December 21, 2012 at 8:32 pm
MM, I first thought you were just an anti-gun idiot. However you do seem to be trying to learn, or at least talk in a respectable manner above others that are anti-gun leaning.
First is “the excess gun violence problem” is not what the issue is. That statement is one sided and places blame on the tool. The issue is how do you protect people from people who are broken. The answer is the same for world peace, eliminate the human race. This, hopefully, will never happen. The best solution we have is to prepare to manage the damage, nuke goes off get in your bunker.
Come under attack you must fight back. To do so you must have a means. There is not an arm, gun or other, that should not be able to be owned by any citizen of the world. Governments are just groups of people, how can they be trusted more?
The problem we have is a decay of the family structure and the moral fiber of society. Being Gay is wrong, it should be a source of shame not pride. Abortion is MURDER, not having sex is the best way to not have a child.
Things people would die for doing or saying is now the social norm. My great grandpa was almost beaten to death for cheating on and thinking of leaving his wife. We now not only have people having multiple family’s but kids who are not known to exist by their father. Yes these things have always occurred but never on this level.
MM can you tell me how, on any level, is it a solution to actively disarm people in a quasi-prison environment, barren of even (effective) improvise-able weapons.
When i was in school i some times wondered what to do if their was a madman who attacked. I first thought of counter attack, you quickly lose 99%. Then i figured barricade the room and buy time, time you need to get everyone organized. The issue is how to block the door effectively if you are in-front you get shot if not the door can be compromised relatively quickly. I was left with trying to find a quick escape route and hope i don’t get seen in the wide open running and get shot. To quickly escape you have to leave everyone on their own.
Every solution i tried to find is, to me, unacceptable. Leave no one, don’t die, and stop the attacker are the goals that the solution must meet. The only solution i could settle on was to alter the environment. You MUST add an offensive weapon to the mix. It needs to be readily available to those who are willing to use it. Teachers, and other adults, should be able to carry just like they can outside of school. That would be an instant solution to the majority of attacks by the broken people. If they do still attack they are quickly killed, end of problem.
Sorry for the long post, this is a topic that i feel strong about. I hope you continue being open to conversation.
MM
December 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Kyle, I do understand my position, no guns = no gun violence.
I want to know if you understand your position. If you want to be one of the ones that are designated to protect the citizens, then that is honorable and more power to you.
Those are the only people that should be trained and have those weapons and we should let them do their job. The problem is where everyone wants to be a soldier, or at least own soldier type guns, but really only wants them to show off to their buddies.
Perfect shopping ground for criminals.
chinrednek
December 23, 2012 at 10:31 am
MM- I enjoyed reading your arguments. Many of which I could understand the logic behind, although I didn’t agree. Until your December 20, 2012 at 4:31 pm, comment- was totally off base. A gun is designed for one thing-hitting what it’s aimed at, nothing else. The user determines what it his. I target shoot a lot. No harming anyone, not even a deer. My guns have never hurt anyone except myself when I dropped it on my foot. Self defense is an added plus of my guns, like a baseball bat. As a pro race driver, that analogy is spot on.
MM
December 23, 2012 at 12:24 pm
I recently came across an article : http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-gun-owners-in-america-2012-12
It’s from a left leaning website, but I believe the captions are from the gun owners themselves.
After reading the captions, my immediate impression was that gun owners are afraid. Afraid of everything and anything. Fearful people make irrational decisions, based on emotions. Most people simply are not capable of switching from leading normal lives minding their own business to one of effectively confronting an armed attacker.
You’re trusting that all gun owners will store their firearms safely and securely. Obviously that doesn’t always happen. Criminals have 2 extra areas that they can obtain firearms. Taking them from people that are not prepared to use them and taking them from unsecured situations.
In my 49 years, I cannot think back to one single instance where a gun would have proved useful to me. I live in an area where law enforcement is a minimum 1 hour drive away, at highway speeds. Every year I have legal hunters and poachers on and around my property. I have dealt with both of them, and never have felt the need for a firearm. If I had a firearm, I think the fear factor definitely would have been raised. Hunting to me is not something I really want to do. We have excellent butchers around that provide great meat – elk, bison, beef. I think the fun of hunting ends once you pull the trigger.
I’ve been thinking of purchasing a gun recently for the rare instance where I find myself in an uncontrollable situation, but I probably live in a different situation than most of you. In looking for information on gun use, I came across this website.
Someone’s comments above mentioned improved mental health care. That’s probably another area that we can agree on. You cannot prepare for someone who simply is not right in the head.
In my case, I have a possibility of a sick or starving grizzly, cougar or black bear decide that they are gong to break into my home no matter what. The healthy predators keep their distance and keep to their normal food supply.
The latest NRA statement tells me that they are out of ideas.
No mention of tighter gun controls, more in-depth registration checks, helping the mentally ill of our society. Even an acknowledgment of the serious responsibility that comes with gun ownership would have been helpful. The decision of the mother of the killer ( I do not want to mention his name) in the recent Sandy Hook tragedy to take her mentally challenged son to a shooting range showed terrible judgement. Putting more guns out there only increases the chance of another situation of a terrible lack of judgement.
Mike the Limey
December 23, 2012 at 2:09 pm
MM You haven’t said why those on the scene when an armed response is warranted shouldn’t be armed, yet the police should. This despite those already present being better placed to react. It should also be noted that the police have a wose record for shooting innocent people than ccw holders do.
“Putting more guns out there” wont make any difference, as the genie was never in the bottle to start with & trying to control the 300 million firearms now in circulation will only affect the law abiding citizens who have no desire to do harm.
Mental health care is THE issue in need of addressing, as without doing so, no other action has a hope in Hell of reducing the inevitability of another mass shooting.
MM
December 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Mike, the Columbine guard didn’t do much good, did he? Plus he was out gunned to start with.
School shootings are so rare you’re going to wind up with a lot of armed teachers, guards, volunteers, whoever, that fatigue is going to set in after decades of no action. Fatigue will bring on inattention and that’s all it takes. 10 minutes into an attack and the damage is done.
Besides, the attacker may just help himself to the weapons in the premises.
My approach is to not give the attacker access to a gun in the first place.
The current approach has to change, it’s obviously not working.
However, if one is already of the mindset towards military rule or anarchy, we’ll never agree. (not saying that you are)
Mike the Limey
December 23, 2012 at 3:43 pm
The Columbine guard was operating under a much different set of rules than today. Back then he was trained to wait for a SWAT team to arrive.
It was actually the Columbine shooting that lead to this policy being abandoned in favour of immediate intervention.
Don’t forget there are many schools & colleges throughout the US which already DO have armed guards.
It’s all well & good to suggest preventing an attacker from accessing guns but realistically stopping a determined nutcase from doing so by restricting certain classes of firearm just plain wont work.
I suggested earlier that the most effective counter to these madman attacks is a sea change in mental health care & I’ll stand by that. It would also have the positive effect of making millions of mentally ill peoples’ lives more bearable & reduce the US prison population by a huge number.
Of course this would have to be paid for & THAT is the real reason why pointless gun bans is the preferred option for the government. I doubt they have even considered the savings that better health care would entail as far as police, prison, education welfare & other budgets would make.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm
I would turn that around on you. I am not afraid of my neighbors having firearms. Quite the contrary, the broad ownership of firearms where I live (Boise, Idaho) contributes to preventing the violence common to the place where I left. (Oakland, California.)
MM
December 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Agreed. a major upgrade is needed in mental healthcare plus a major revamp of the “war on drugs”. What a waste of valuable resources.
Kyle
December 25, 2012 at 11:52 pm
MM,
You do understand that “gun violence” is a really biased term. It includes not only the crimes that people use guns in but suicide and self defense. If you are able to destroy every gun and the means to make them in the world and eliminate “gun violence” there will still be crime, suicides, war, murder…. and a lot less self defense. So even if you reduce supposed “gun violence” you will not reduce violence.
You are missing the problem that needs to be fixed. Mental illness has been brought up but it is not truly a problem. It is society; the moral and ethical values have gone through the floor, the increase of so-called “mentally ill” people is the result.
“If you want to be one of the ones that are designated to protect the citizens, then that is honorable and more power to you.”
Now this is a statement I have a problem with. Designated, that is a word that struck me with holding much meaning. It implies that I must not only seek approval but I am not worthy nor permitted my basic human right. It is my RESPONSIBILITY to protect my self and my family. It is my DUTY to protect those around me. This is some of what is required from a CITIZEN. If I must be DESIGNATED then I am less until I am PERMITTED to take part in a CITIZENS DUTY.
Once America was different from the world, with good cause. Why do you want to return to the life or forefathers left?
Travis K
January 1, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Please look at my petition to allow ccw holding teachers protect themselves and our children -> http://wh.gov/Ux5p ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Megan (a concerned mother)
April 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm
I find it interesting that this is a success story. 2 people were killed and 7 injured in this “thwarted” school shooting. Meanwhile, following the 1996 school shooting in Scotland, the UK outlawed firearms. Since then there have been NO school shootings. None in nearly 17 years. Now there’s a success story! So we have to ask ourselves, 1) is it possible that the absence of guns in the UK could be the reason that the data is so different from our own tract record with school shootings and 2) what/who do we love more – our guns or our children? Do gun rights supporters have the gumption to face these questions and face the possibility that the answers aren’t what they want?
Mike the Limey
April 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Firearms are NOT outlawed in the UK; handguns were. Get your facts right.
There were no school shootings in the UK BEFORE Dunblane either – none since the invention of firearms.
Firearms crime in the UK more than doubled after the 1997 handgun ban.
Meanwhile we DID have a mass shooting in 2010, with 12 dead; the same as in Aurora.
The difference being OUR mass shooter managed it IN SPITE of all our restrictive firearms laws, with a .22 rimfire bolt action rifle & a single barrel shotgun.
Now answer me this:
Do you love your car more than you do children?
If not, then get out there & campaign for motor vehicles to be outlawed, as they kill many thousands of children every year, DESPITE all efforts to make them safe & they aren’t even intended to be lethal.
Do YOU have the gumption to realise your methodology is both false & irrelevant?
Now go & sort out your messed up mental health system & the routine prescription of dangerous psychotropic drugs that have been involved in the huge majority of mass shootings ever since they were first prescribed.
Go on; I dare you to try & get the truth out of the Pharmaceutical industry, with their $billions available for political campaigns & lobbying.
Ask your hero Bloomberg how much HE has invested in the companies that make these killer drugs.
ian1775
March 10, 2014 at 1:25 pm
What are you doing bringing facts & logic into a political discussion?
levitra ireland
June 22, 2013 at 1:23 am
For most men with erectile dysfunction, Viagra works right
away. If you suffer from erection problems and take the 50mg
dose of sildenafil 30-60 minutes before sex, you are likely to get the
kind of erectile hardness you are looking for. Many
leading pharmaceutical companies sell them online through some reputed online portals.
MICHAEL STERLAND
June 22, 2013 at 4:49 am
You have a spam post:
________________________________