moonbattery logo

Dec 21 2012

Solution to School Shootings Already Known

“We must never let this happen again,” intone demagogues as they jockey to exploit the Sandy Hook killings to ram through their authoritarian agenda, pretending that their policies will prevent future mass murders. But this phenomenon has been studied before, and only one policy has been found to be effective — promoting concealed carry by law-abiding citizens.

This is because the more people carry, the fewer people a maniac can kill before someone stops him.

Ann Coulter lists just a few examples of guns in the hands of bystanders saving lives by stopping massacres:

—Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

—Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

—Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

—Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

—Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

—Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

Here are a couple more:

—Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: “Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their ‘gnawing hunger for crack cocaine’ fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled.”

—Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.

This is why mass murders virtually always occur in gun-free zones. Only the most clueless liberals don’t know this. Despite the phony tears and sanctimonious rhetoric, they could not care less about preventing mass murders. Their only objective, other than to steal our money, is to snuff out liberty.

Do they want a solution that works, or to push their agenda?

On tips from Muddypaw, Rich, and TonyD95B.

38 Responses to “Solution to School Shootings Already Known”

  1. AC says:

    …shall not be infringed.

  2. StanInTexas says:

    We call these people crazy, but it is amazing that they always plan these shootings in advance, collect the weaponry and ammunition they need (many times illegally), and select places where they are assured that their targets will be unarmed and at their mercy.

    And when even a single individual with a weapon opposes them, they stop.


  3. wingmann says:

    To go with your Free bammy phones:

  4. F.D.R. in Hell says:

    Nice! 38-40-24-36

  5. Maudie N Mandeville says:

    It may have been politically impossible for Wayne Lapierre to mention concealed carry for teachers but this is the simple answer. Two or three unknown school staffers conceal carry (ie background check, etc) is much more disconcerting to a shooter than one easily identifiable security person. Why do we trust a policeman (male or female) or an armed security guard more than a teacher. The amount of training a policeman spends on shooting is negligible to the time they spend memorizing litter laws.

  6. metalgarth says:

    took me a minute to realize there was a gun in photo

  7. Spider says:

    What they truly want should be quite obvious to all. They know exactly what they want, and that is nothing short of British-style gun bans. What they get all depends on how weak and gullible We The People continue being.

    Another thing we all should know about the Left by now. No matter what they get in the way of laws, rules, and regulations, IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH!

  8. Bo-Jangles says:

    Professional, highly trained, responsible, and disciplined school security? Wouldn’t that be a great way to utilize our returning combat vets, rather than see them going on welfare and food stamps?

    Or, perhaps they would like to do what Queen Bloomberg does in NYC, that is, empty the welfare rolls, give “them” uniforms, badges, and authority, tell them they are “school police”, then turn them loose. LOTS-A-LUCK with that one!

  9. Kevin R. says:

    Every single day crime is prevented by people simply owning and possesing guns for self defense. You don’t have to even shoot anyone to prevent crime with a gun. They are what is refered to in military terms a ‘force in being.’

    I think the great majority of crime prevention by the possession of a gun fits in this catagory. I know by personal aquantance people that were confronted by criminals and simply let them see they had a gun. It’s not as melodramatic as stopping a mass murderer but in the day to day world this takes place somewhere on a daily basis and unless these damn authoritarian assholes that would take away the ability of self defense want to act as human shields lined up in front of the rest of us and prepared to die for what they believe at the hands of criminals they better not try and take away our ability to defend ourselves.

  10. Joe says:

    This has been around a while, but it’s worth watching again. This lady lays it on the line, and look at the faces of the clueless boobs conducting the hearing. They don’t know what to think. They know she’s right but they can’t allow themselves to admit it. I’m so tired of political games while people die for no reason.

  11. AC says:

    The government established an otter-free zone, but the otters didn’t listen.

  12. Ummah Gummah says:


    Justin Bieber is guilty of “animal cruelty” for giving a hamster to a fan:

    Maybe he should’ve given his hamster to a person better suited to give it a good home. Richard Gere comes to mind..


  13. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    The left salivates over what you would surrender to a government when only they and the criminal (one in the same) enjoy a monopoly on force.

  14. Jester says:

    F.D.R. in Hell says:

    Nice! 38-40-24-36

    BWAAHHAHAHAHAA!! Thread winner!

  15. Tchhht!!! says:

    Nice cannons!!!

  16. Alphamail says:

    I definitely need one of these for my mental stability and happy shopping while at the mall, as well as under my jammies for security while in bed.

    I am also really interested in that holster as well.

    I’d like to get one of those elastic stomach bands for CC but haven’t been able to find the one pictured with the strap. Where can I find it – who carries it – Silent Partner and TufForce don’t seem to have this one.

    Another interesting holster (?) for special occasions or quick trips to the 7-11, for G-19 Gen 4’s (any Glock), is the #GS-B. Fast out, clip on, under t-shirt or tank top, non visible. (Modify) Bend the clip outward slightly – it’s too tight to the barrel for quick in and out – (carefully tho – don’t break the small black plastic screw cover plate). I put a handkerchief behind it in summer to avoid sweat and don’t have one chambered til’ use, which I do rapidly as I pull.

  17. Ummah Gummah says:


    Looks like the Justin Bieber hamster is actually doing much better than before:

    Any hamster worth his salts would rather be in her hands.


  18. Son of Taz says:

    “Only the most clueless liberals don’t know this.”

    That is an oxymoron. ALL liberals are clueless or they wouldn’t be liberals.

  19. Son of Taz says:

    @Alpha, search on “concealed carry belly band” and you’ll probably find what you’re looking for.

  20. Son of Taz says:

    Bo-Jangles, you’re absolutely right, using vets for armed security in schools would be a great solution. But, here’s the problem.

    Adding anyone to a municipal payroll means adding another public sector union job. The unions wouldn’t permit a non-union person in the schools, unless you’re in a right-to-work state. The unions couldn’t care less about safety; it’s about keeping a non-union employee out. Then, with the union employee would come the need to fund their lifelong 70% pension.

    Taxpayers are being asked if they would pay additional taxes to pay for school security. Who’s going to say “no?” Of course, we know the problem is not taxes, but the municipal and state leeches that suck up available funds for increased security.

    Too bad for the kids. Pray it doesn’t happen again.

  21. HardTea says:

    Seriously would that photo have its desired effect if she was flat chested?

  22. TonyD95B says:

    RE: Kevin R. says on December 21, 2012 at 11:19 am:

    “Every single day crime is prevented by people simply owning and possesing guns for self defense….I think the great majority of crime prevention by the possession of a gun fits in this catagory. I know by personal aquantance people that were confronted by criminals and simply let them see they had a gun.”

    Yes, that’s been my experience as well. As a civilian I have used a gun for self-defense twice, and the mere presence of a weapon is what de-escalated these situations and resulted in NO ONE getting hurt, including the criminals.

    I know plenty of other people with stories like that, too. The widowed mother of one of my buds used a little .25 Baby Browning to fend off a rapist (and held him for police with it), and I had a coworker who repelled three thugs that approached him at an ATM machine.

    The irony is that stories like that usually don’t make the papers. It’s almost as if the LACK of a statistic IS the statistic.

    There are also interviews and surveys with criminals that tell us that the two things they fear most during a burglary are dogs and encountering an armed homeowner.

    More guns = less crime. It’s that simple.

  23. Alphamail says:

    I was actually once thinking about starting a security firm to tackle this problem.

    My intent was to hire ex and retired law enforcement, as well as current law enforcement who wanted part time work. Retirees would love it and police would like the extra work. And of course the schools would be safer.

    I got the idea from my church and another nearby church who use uniformed county police who volunteer to help direct traffic outside the churches during services.

    They are allowed to wear their uniform.

    In the case of schools, the security personnel would not wear uniforms but would be well armed and equipped.

    The company would be a private contractor who offered security advice – upgrading windows, locks, cameras, etc – and a full-time officer per school. This would be handled at the local level and would be included in school measures with funds allocated for security. In the current environment, the security feature would surely pass.

    Consider a low-profile retired female officer in casual attire with a CC and other quickly available hardware…very laid back – very effctive.

  24. TonyD95B says:

    RE:Alphamail says at December 21, 2012 at 5:19 pm:

    “Or we could just use Bethany”

    ……or Bethany’s li’l sister Kendra:–abc-news-topstories.html

  25. Alphamail says:


    I just love feel-good stories about strong families

  26. Rich says:

    any comments on what the NRA had to say today??

  27. Nicki Thomas says:

    They should outlaw the psych meds, since nearly every school shooter was on meds that cause suicidal/murderous thoughts.

  28. Rich says:

    NRA conference today – Not hearing too much talk about on the radio..

  29. Rides A Pale Horse says:

    Signs, signs, everywhere are signs………

  30. TonyD95B says:

    Alphamail says at December 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm:

    Alpha: “I was actually once thinking about starting a security firm to tackle this problem…….In the case of schools, the security personnel would not wear uniforms but would be well armed and equipped…….Consider a low-profile retired female officer in casual attire with a CC and other quickly available hardware…very laid back – very effctive.”

    That’s a good idea and in certain communities would be economically viable – as you point out the current climate would definitely favor such a thing.

    Laid-back and unobtrusive is good, particularly in a school setting. At the same time, security has to have a certain level of visibility to be an effective deterrent and to provide the proper “warm and fuzzy” feeling of being protected…….which will have a direct relationship to continued funding.

    One tactical point we can’t overlook is this: If someone is intent on commiting an atrocity (and this ties in to Stan’s comment at 10:44)we need to make sure they don’t just shoot the lone security guard FIRST. Some of these punks might see it as a challenge.

  31. Jodie says:

    I like the ideas about the school security. And not just to protect kids from someone on the outside coming in and shooting up kids, but also, why couldn’t these people protect kids from some of the bullying that is going on? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was someone they could turn to when they need help? Someone who is armed and feared. There are some horrific fights going on in schools and unarmed teachers are helpless to break them up. Schools often try to cover these things up, but they are going on and they are escalating.

  32. Andy says:

    I know this will make me unpopular here and I know I will be told to but out because I’m not American, but here’s my two cents (pence) anyway. Gun crime still exists in the U.K (where I’m from), but strangely enough our murder rates per capita are significantly lower than those in the U.S. Could carrying guns prevent some atrocities? Yes. Does a large percentage of the population having access to firearms increase the likely hood of an atrocity in the first place? Absolutely yes. Background checks are no use whatsoever as they suppose that a persons past mental state and circumstances are a perfect indicator of future circumstances. This is not always the case. If a person ‘snaps’ II would much rather they did so without access to legally and easily obtainable guns and ammunition.
    Your solution to firearms is like saying every house should be made from Asbestos. Think of the number of deaths from fires that would be prevented because of Asbestos’ superb fire retardant properties(HUNDREDS), but compare it to the number of lives lost due to its carcinogenic properties that only arise when things go wrong (THOUSANDS). I’d rather not have the stuff around.
    Also, for those thinking that I don’t understand why victims of shootings would wish they had a gun, I can tell you that my wife was a pupil at Dunblane Primary when 16 children and 1 teacher were shot dead, by a man who had been respected enough to have been a Scout leader. I have never met anyone locally who wished that there had been guns in that school, and that is very telling.

  33. TonyD95B says:

    RE: Andy says on December 23, 2012 at 6:14 am:

    Actually, Andy the statistical data on guns indicates the OPPOSITE of what your Asbestos* analogy puts forth:

    The number of deaths PREVENTED by firearms ownership is much, much larger than the number of deaths that result from ready access to legally-owned arms.

    This is true at the micro and macro levels – at the individual level there are far more people who have examples of their lives, safety and property being protected with a firearm than there are who have had a suicide, accidental shooting, etc. from the presence of a gun in the home.

    As we “zoom out” and look at larger local, county, state and national crime data, it is even more apparent that gun ownership is a positive thing for the community at large.

    At the ultimate macro level, personal arms could have prevented tens of millions from being victimized and murdered by tyrannical fascist / communist / socialist “governments” over the last century.

    Here’s a little “light reading” for ya: Robert Franklin Williams’ “Negroes With Guns”

    From the Publisher
    First published in 1962, “Negroes with Guns” is the story of a southern black community’s struggle to arm itself in self-defense against the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups. Frustrated and angered by violence condoned or abetted by the local authorities against blacks, the small community of Monroe, North Carolina, brought the issue of armed self-defense to the forefront of the civil rights movement. The single most important intellectual influence on Huey P. Newton, the founder of the Black Panther Party, “Negroes with Guns” is a classic story of a man who risked his life for democracy and freedom.

    This book cuts right down the middle of the issue.

    Thanks for your opinion, Andy. Your country (Once Great Britain) needs for you to worry more about the issues that are destroying it. Leave America to itself. We’ll do just fine.

    *Asbestos is not inherently dangerous inless you inhale the fibers. Even then, it takes a tremendous amount of exposure to cause problems. I have had to do asbestos remediations before, and have some familiarity with the issue.

  34. Andy says:

    Re: TonyD95B

    Of course you have the right to self-governance and it would be idiotic for anyone from the UK to have influence over your own laws, but that doesn’t mean I can’t render an opinion. Wouldn’t it be great if the U.S took the same attitude with other countries (and I’m not just talking about the ones where you are involved in wars)? I also agree that America WILL do just fine (although an alarming number of your population seem to think the opposite is true and are forever bemoaning the decay of the U.S, including many on this site). It is a great and impressive nation and I love visiting it. However, I can admire it and still disagree with some of its facets, as all Americans do.
    You are also right that if the vast majority of the population is armed, then having a gun is the best way to defend yourself. However, this is not true in countries where the vast majority of the population is not armed. Basic global murder rates prove this. In the UK the murder rate is 1.2 people for every 100,000 per year. In the U.S that number is 4.2*. Over 3 times as much. I don’t believe that Americans are any more prone to violence than Brits, so what is the variable? Guns.
    And this statistic is shown time and time again in countries that have strict gun controls (Most of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan).
    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of times when gun carrying has prevented crimes, but the facts and statistics prove that these are outweighed by total amount being committed.
    As for the Asbestos, you are right that it is not inherently dangerous unless inhaled. But then guns aren’t inherently dangerous unless the trigger is pulled. So why have we stopped building with a material that is the best insulator and fire retardant we have ever devised? Because legislators saw that the chance of something going wrong was too great and it had to be controlled (when I say things going wrong for guns I don’t mean just accidents, but also people deciding to use them in a criminal manner).

    I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I genuinely enjoy having these kinds of political and philosophical debates, especially with intelligent people who disagree with me. It is the way that I best marshal my own thoughts and opinions as I don’t believe in holding to something without having first tested it against its opposition. In other words, I am not the foremost thinker of my age (much as I would aspire to be) and the chance of me properly considering all sides to an argument by myself is minimal. So thank you for presenting an argument which is inherently alien to me in a manner that I could at least relate to, even though I still disagree.


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy