Our friends on the left had a field day after the press conference by National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre, and his suggestion that armed school attacks could be better prevented by having armed guards in the schools. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has a good, and well-documented, article on what he calls the Progressive Civility™ on this issue,1 as does L D Jackson and Kate of Victory Girls. Trouble is, though the left will present Mr LaPierre as a nut, Phineas, writing on Sister Toldjah’s site, noted the lesser known part of the Columbine massacre:
Posted by: Phineas on December 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm
In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school, some have suggested that perhaps, since “gun-free zones” have been shown to be ineffective at best and an invitation to disaster at worst, it might be a good idea to have people qualified to carry firearms at schools. Whether it’s faculty and staff, or police officers, or paid armed security, the idea is the same: take down the shooter as fast as possible, because every second counts.
In reply, some gun-control advocates have pointed out that there was an armed deputy at Columbine High School in 1999 when two teens went on their rampage. Fair enough, but that’s not the whole story. NRO’s Dan Foster supplies important information the anti-Second Amendment forces don’t mention:
…but it isn’t like the deputy was sitting around eating doughnuts during the Columbine massacre. He traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library. Harris and Klebold had an assault plan — a sloppy plan, but a plan nonetheless. They had dozens of IEDs, some of which detonated, others of which did not. And there were two of them. In this highly chaotic tactical environment, the deputy acted both bravely and prudently, and who knows how many lives he saved by engaging Harris.
This illustrates an important point liberty-advocates have been trying to make in this “debate:” the point of an armed defender isn’t just that he can (we hope) kill or otherwise neutralize the shooter. The armed defender also distracts the gunman, drawing his attention away from his intended targets, giving them time to escape. While 13 students were killed by Harris and Klebold, untold others were saved precisely because there was someone armed on campus. Far from being an example of the uselessness of armed, trained defenders (1) in schools, Columbine illustrates why we should want them on the scene.
It does not make one a drooling, mouth-breathing gun nut to wish someone at Sandy Hook had been similarly armed.
More at the link.
We can’t know how many students would have died in Columbine had there not been an armed deputy in the school; it seems probable that there would have been more casualties had the deputy not engaged Mr Harris. What our friends on the left don’t want to admit is that Mr LaPierre was right.
Sister Toldjah commented:
Excellent post. 1) I did not know there had been an armed deputy at Columbine and 2) I had no idea anyone (let alone him) had played a role in hindering any more murders by the perps.
Sis has been blogging for many years, and she’s almost always up-to-date on the news; she didn’t know — and I hadn’t heard about it either — about the armed guard at Columbine because that part of the story wouldn’t have fit the mainstream media’s meme. Columbine was only 13 years ago, but, at the time blogging and the non-traditional media were still in their, if not infancy, still toddler years. The information about the armed guard at Columbine wasn’t a part of the story that the professional media wanted to stress, so it was the buried-on-page-B17 part of the story.
As for the much-maligned-by-the-left idea of putting armed guards in the schools, Karen noted that the professional media had litte to say about it when President Clinton not only proposed but actually implemented that very policy. And Sister Toldjah added an article in the same topic.2
William Teach noted just how well the strict gun control laws have worked in the Windy City:
December 22, 2012 – 8:43 am
If there was a media that was interested in exposing facts instead of pushing a political position, someone might actually ask Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel “how’s that current gun ban working?”
(WGNtv) Gun violence is a daily occurence for mayors across the Chicago area and the state of Illinois, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is leading the push for stronger gun control.
“Whether you are a Democrat, whether you are a Republican, whether you’re rural or urban or suburban, whether you’re from Illinois or Gary, Indiana, given what goes on in some of the transfers of illegal guns – having comprehensive legislation at the national level doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what we need to do here in the state,” Emanuel said today at a City Hall news conference.
Mayor Emanuel urged state legislators in Illinois and Indiana to pass an assault weapons ban and other common-sense gun control measures.
In urban areas, straw purchases and gun-running are huge problems, so Emanuel and others are looking for ways to better regulate and track the sales of guns.
Except, the criminals who have guns have them illegally, and really don’t care what the laws are. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits most straw sales and transfers of guns to people who should not have them. Interestingly, they still get them. Weird, eh? Even more strange, murder violates the law, yet people still do it. Stranger still, gun running is illegal, yet, criminals still do it.
A lot more at the link.
There seems to be an almost inborn problem with liberal logic. If a liberal idea doesn’t work, doesn’t produce the results promised — think spending more money on public schools, higher salaries for teachers, strict gun control laws and $831 billion stimulus programs here — our friends on the left never seem to entertain the idea that maybe their idea was the wrong one in the first place, but seem to be able only to believe that the reason success wasn’t achieved is that they didn’t spend enough money, or the program wasn’t far-reaching enough. They are like the losing gamblers at the craps table; just double-down and if you don’t crap out, you’ll recover all of your losses.
They just can’t seem to understand the possibility of snake eyes.
Karen also noted the problems of a much better-looking Dana:
December 22, 2012 | By Lonely Conservative
I like being an independent blogger. When I make a mistake, I own up to it. There’s no editor to shut me up. The downside is no editor to make sure I don’t make the mistake in the first place. Another downside is that if you spend much time doing this, you might be able to make some money, but you certainly aren’t going to make a “living wage” which is so important to progressives, unless it comes to conservative bloggers. They prefer that we all just hurry up and die.
More at the link. And having an excuse to publish a picture of Dana Loesch pretty much makes this article a candidate for Rule 5 Blogging.
The story is that Dana Loesch was making more money, blogging for breitbart.com. Miss Loesch’s contract was not renewed, and she was continuing on as a month-to-month employee, when she decide to leave, giving a month’s notice, and a somewhat nasty fight over contracts has ensued; about which Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has more. That, to your Editor, isn’t a very big story, but Karen’s point — and she has more in her original — that an independent blogger is just that, independent, and that we make very little, or no, money doing this, is important. When your Editor posts something, unless it is specifically categorized as an advertisement, he is not being paid anything specific for it, nor does he have any contractual obligations which require him to adopt a position which is not genuinely his own.
Mr. Scott will replace Senator Jim DeMint, who is leaving to run Heritage Foundation. He will be the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction; the first black Republican senator since 1979, when Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts retired; and, indeed, only the seventh African-American ever to serve in the chamber.
But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress. . . .
Crazy thought here: maybe Scott’s appointment was aimed at getting a good man for the job. Oh no wait, that can’t be right, Mr. Reed assures us, because he’s black. If he were white, he might have been picked for merit, but since he’s black, it has to have been racial politics behind the decision.
Patterico has a lot more in the middle, and concludes:
Are there racist Republicans? Sure, just like there are racist Democrats.
But there are a lot of us who think our policies are actually best for black folks. And white folks, and brown folks, and all kinds of folks. Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.
I don’t accept the argument that black people in America have a separate set of issues that we have to cater to. They are Americans and we need to work to make the lives of all Americans better. If that happens, we should win elections.
And maybe black people will be allowed to think conservative thoughts without being called inauthentic tokens.
Nah. Who am I kidding?
Our friends on the left continually decrying racism and tokenism whenever a black American expresses a conservative position, or is a Republican, will end not when black Americans have achieved equality, but when they believe it is no longer politically useful.
How come the stereotype only works one way? I mean, if someone has every Republican stereotype rolled into one – he’s old, white, male, hopelessly heterosexual, rich beyond the dreams of the average American, and all with money he inherited and didn’t earn – how come he (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, just to name three) is allowed to be on the left, when blacks, gays, and women are not allowed to be on the right?
It’s very simple: our friends on the left cannot allow blacks, homosexuals and women to think for themselves, or they will lose elections! Behind that, the simple fact is that they do not respect the intelligence of anyone other than white males enough to believe that they can think for themselves.
However, I disagree with Patterico’s statement, “Letting the market work isn’t just for white people. It benefits everybody.” Letting the market work benefits people who will work hard, and strive to achieve, irrespective or race; it doesn’t work so well for those, regardless of race, who believe that other people somehow owe them a living and would rather sit on their fat asses than work. Letting the market work benefits those who bear adversity with equanimity, and move forward in working to overcome hardships; letting the market work is of little benefit to those who suffer adversity with resignation and just plain give up.
Let’s not forget that Kerry compared globull warming to 9/11. He compared it to Armageddon. As dangerous as a nuclear armed Iran. And plenty of other wackadoodle statements. Morano provides many smackdowns to Kerry in the article.
Let’s also not forget that John “Waffles” Kerry is a massive climahypocrite. He lives in a massive McMansion, which uses lots and lots of energy and water, and puts out huge amounts of CO2. And has several homes. He takes lots of unnecessary fossil fueled flights. He owns many fossil fueled vehicles, including SUVs. His “carbon footprint” is much, much higher than that of the average American citizen. He’s the same Warmists who told Senators to make “polluters” pay by instituting cap and tax, but refuses to modify his own lifestyle to become carbon neutral.
Oh, and Kerry was totally against the Cape Wind Project. He’s cool with wind turbines elsewhere, but not in his own “backyard.”
As far as your Editor is concerned, it doesn’t matter in the least: our foreign policy will be set by President Obama — who is a nutty enough “warmist” himself — and not the Secretary of State. We have four more years of President Obama’s bovine feces foreign policy through which we have to suffer — elections do have consequences — and it really won’t matter if Lurch is our Secretary of State, or some other hypocrite has the job.
According to Jason Scott, “Lewes was voted Delaware’s most overrated town?”