rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You won't hear much about the latest shooting because

(1) the shooter was a Leftist and

(2) a good guy with a gun was at the school and saved countless lives.

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.

Here is the link to the blog post
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/15/put-guns-in-the-schools-because-thats-the-only-sane-thing-to-do/

Pictxterowner 3 D sbs

:thumbup:

saparoo Loc: Atlanta, GA

Well said......thank you.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

And don't forget what law enforcement said about it:

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

And if anyone is wondering if the media has an agenda...the answer is:

Yes..

They, very quietly, edited out part of the description of the shooter.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/denver-post-stealth-edits-out-socialist-from-profile-of-arapahoe-school-shooter/

wireman8 Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Don't know where your from, but that story has been in our local paper everyday since it happened.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Lol...that's great...how about the mainstream media reporting it from the rooftops as they would if it was a "tea partier?

Hankwt Loc: kingsville ontario

I like you Rpavich , you speak your mind , you use common sense, present yourself well, and I firmly believe you think before you speak.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Thank you very much...but if you're referencing all the words above...they are someone elses....I just pasted them there from the link at the bottom of the post.

Hankwt Loc: kingsville ontario

I was referencing you , I do realize the words were not yours however i was not at all surprised by the fact you posted it.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well then thank you very much for saying so!

dfran Loc: Dallas, Pa

Excellent article!!! Well thought out and well stated, unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears!

bsmith52 Loc: Northeast Alabama

The article made a good point about adults being protected. Every where you see adult government employees gathered they have adult armored protection.

Congressmen don't go to work a day without it...and wouldn't. But they will make laws for children to do what they won't do.

Oh that our Congress would consider human nature rather than human emotion when prescribing how the rest of us should live.

Skellum0

Putting an armed guard into every potentially vulnerable situation will
a: have to be paid for by you and me.
b: Inevitably business people will start trying to make a profit and so the the price for these armed guards will go up. This is a country which rewards enterprise after all. So even higher taxes and/or prices.
then c: Who is going to apply for these jobs? certainly not the kind of person who can make a decent living elsewhere
so d: then you have to ask yourself if you really trust the man with the gun to defend your children and also do you really trust him not to get frustrated one day and turn his guns on the children?

This is just the start of the arguments.

Meanwhile there are a bunch of countries who keep their children statistically far safer by imposing strict gun control. The merit of this system is that the times a person goes through an insane period and has access to a gun are so rare as to be almost never.

The more guns you put out there, the more shooting incidents will occur. Common sense for the simple reason reason of access.

Look at the statistics for Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Scandinavia, UK. You can add countries like Switzerland with high gun ownership and strict gun control. The combined population of these countries is similar to the US but I can only find reference to five mass shooting in the last decade. One of these was in Norway where, despite tough gun control, they have a very high gun ownership rate.

Statistically, these are amongst the safest countries on earth in terms of homicide rate and person on person violence. America on the other hand has several of the most dangerous cities in the World.

Guns are the problem, not the answer.

I have also seen several reporters recently claim that the most dangerous UK cities, London and Manchester, are worse than any American city for violence. Simply not true. The homicide rate in London is 1.6 per 100,000 compared with the US average of around 4.7. In the most dangerous US cities you are around 10 times more likely to be killed then in either London of Manchester.

The only grain of truth, and this is hugely exaggerated, is that violence goes up after gun control. It does, for a relatively very short time, then it goes way down on previous levels.

Gundamentalism is ruining America. Huge sums of money are being spent by the gun lobby to prevent people realising that gun control means far safer lives, it means lower taxes (because you do not need the same level of police) and it means less violence.

Kuzano

My nephew is a resource officer in a High School. I understand more schools are doing this, and these officers don't just sit around. They interface with students, particularly students at risk with problems in the system.

He splits time between two high schools. He is uniformed, AND the downside... he arrives at the schools in a standard marked police vehicle.

It's pretty easy for anyone to figure out which school he is at, at any given time. That's a mistake.

I don't have a problem with the uniform. I'm a little put off by the squad car in the parking lot.... Hey, let's just drive the mile to the other high school.

He really likes the work he does.