Oops, linked to an ultra-leftist site. Sorry about that. Bet the comment will be yanked.
“This is all so wrong. That school should NOT have armed guards. The liberal, leftist Democrats do not want that and I agree with them. Whoever made that decision should be fired.”
I don’t agree with you; nevertheless, Columbine HAD an armed guard on duty in 1999, who apparently had little skill with a weapon. He might have been able to save lives.
Look it up to confirm if you need. Neil Gardner was the guard.
“Columbine HAD an armed guard on duty in 1999, who apparently had little skill with a weapon.”
Gee, you are in total agreement with Micheal Moore then? Maybe YOU need to do some research instead of just spouting (and linking to) the ultra left lies. Bottom line, the Columbine Guard was outside of the school when the shooting began. He did try to engage the shooters, but could not get any closer than 60 yards before exchanging gunfire. He was only armed with his service pistol. He knew he was up against at least 2 guys armed with rifles. He choose to not rush in against that by himself. He waited for backup. You think you would have done something different? Troll perhaps?
You are correct. The problem was not that the guard was ineffective. The problem was that the policy was geared toward hostage taking, not active shooters. It was the same policy that brought us 911.. Do nothing... back away... negotiate... give them small things... make friends with them... finally get them to give up...
It can work when you are dealing with someone who wants to make a point or is just looking for attention.
When you are dealing with people who want to kill lots of innocents, and do not care if they survive... it is disastrous.
Policies where changed after 911.
“Look it up to confirm if you need. Neil Gardner was the guard.”
IIRC, the guard had left his gun in his car and was scared to death. He hid in a room until about 2 hours after the incident was over.