Ed "The Moron" Schultz, one of the many resident loudmouths you can find over there on MSNBC, on any giving day or night, made a rather bold claim on his radio show this past Thursday. Frankly, I didn’t even know the fat slob had a radio show. By his making this claim, he proved that ignorant scumbags like himself rarely bother with ever doing even the slightest amount of research before going out and shooting their big mouths off, as well as demonstrating the fact that they care very little if what they’re saying is anywhere near being true. You see, while arguing against having armed personnel in schools, his claim was that the U.S. has "never had a civilian stop a shooting. During his radio show, Schultz said a gunman might even view it as a "challenge" if there were armed employees at school.
Here’s what he said: "Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there’s guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn’t view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I’m just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense." And, I guess, after not having gone far enough in his determination to prove, to any of those who might have been listening, that he’s complete imbecile, he continued, "You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that, I mean but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? […] haven’t we had enough school shootings where this is necessary? We’ve never had a civilian stop a shooting."
His claim can very easily debunked. So easily in fact, that had old Ed spent less than five minutes doing a little research he would have known what he was saying was a lie. Which kinda begs the question, I think, did he purposely go on the air and lie? Look, judging by what a powerhouse ratings juggernaut MSNBC is, I think most of us have come to realize that it is a network manned by individuals who possess very little interest in telling the truth. And I find the fact that those employed by the network as on-air ‘personalities’ often refer to themselves as being journalists, pretty hilarious. But you see, it’s the truth that actually gets in the way of these people. They’re primary goal here is to add confusion to public argument, which now happens to be about guns, by spreading all manner of absolutely false information.
Numerous actual news outlets have reported extensively on all manner of situations where law-abiding gun owners have exercised their Second Amendment right to neutralize a threat. In December, 2012, Jesus Manuel Garcia opened fire at a movie theater in San Antonio, shooting and wounding an innocent 49-year-old man. An off-duty sergeant then fired four shots with her firearm, wounding the gunman and preventing any further injuries. In this case, the female who stopped the shooting was trained by law enforcement. On Dec. 11, 2012, a man shot and killed two people in a mall in Clackamas, Ore. before taking his own life. Nick Meli, a concealed carry holder, told KGW NewsChannel 8 that the last shot he fired after seeing his concealed handgun was "used on himself."
Mother Jones also released a report, and we know how concerned about the truth they are, last month claiming that out of 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years, "not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun." But The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway debunked this biased line of thinking. He writes: "There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don’t stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that ‘the shooter took the lives of at least four people.’" The Weekly Standard provides a list of just some of the examples where armed civilians, some off-duty cops, were able to neutralize a lawless shooter.
Here’s just a partial list just to give you some sense or truth:
– 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.
And Human Events as yet another example: In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have.
Mr. Hemingway concludes by adding, "These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I’m sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian — or in some cases, an off-duty cop — was present."
Newsbusters’ Jack Coleman quotes from John R. Lott Jr.’s "More Guns, Less Crime" book, in which Lott uses an example from across the globe to make the same point. "Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng (at a crowded venue in Jerusalem) managed to kill only one victim before being shot by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them." Coleman goes on to write, "It would be more accurate of Schultz to say we haven’t had a ‘civilian’ stop a shooting — in a ‘gun-free zone.’ That’s because law-abiding citizens, seeing a sign outside a movie theater or shopping mall or elementary school informing them that the site is a ‘gun-free zone,’ won’t enter the property if they are armed. Criminals, especially those intent on murder, do the opposite."
So I’ll pose the question to all of you, are clowns like Schultz correct, or can armed civilians prevent mass shootings? Personally I think the answer is pretty clear. And while many seem more determined than ever, especially those in the left wing, state-controlled media and the Democrat Party, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap that they have set for us. To allow ourselves to be convinced into willingly giving up our guns out of some false hope that somehow by doing so we can prevent bad people from doing bad things is the worst thing that we could possible do. Because if we become a "gun free" nation we all become targets. And instead of decreasing the odds for another Newtown, we will have succeeded in only making matter far worse. It will have been made much easier for those who wish to kill.
No comments:
Post a Comment