Posted on 01/12/2013 1:35:19 AM PST by Kaslin
Yeah, he really said this:
NBC's Ed Schultz Lies About Civilians Disarming Mass Shooters
Where did he get this idea? Jack Coleman over at NewsBusters thinks the claim originated from a Mother Jones article written in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, but Schultz doesn’t source the statement. The Mother Jones report states: “In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” (According to the criteria used in their research, a mass shooting is when the "shooter took the lives of at least four people.")
When armed civilians or off-duty police officers are present in active shooter scenarios they respond quickly—usually preventing the situation from becoming a mass shooting. For example, in 2007, former police officer Jeanne Assam volunteered to work security at her church in Colorado and prevented a mass shooting:
There was also the recent incident of a gunman opening fire at the Mayan Palace Theatre in San Antonio just days after the Connecticut shooting. An off-duty cop stopped the gunman.
Gunman Shoot Gun at San Antonio MovieTheater Mayan Palace Theatre
Of course, there are other examples of “civilians” preventing mass shootings. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard provides more examples:
-- Winnemuccas, 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.
Believe what you will, Mr. Schultz, but it’s more accurate to say that "civilians" have prevented more mass shootings than “gun-free zones” have.
Just sayin'...
Somebody needs to disarm Sgt. Schultz and the rest of the libs.
"Gun Free Zone" signs should already be at the recyclers.
ADT or other security services should be the norm... With signage all around the facilities in plain view.
With cameras all around the campus, I bet child sex abuse goes down, too.
When we had a new priest come to our Church, he immediately replaced wood doors with glass doors in the offices. No one could ever accuse him, or any of the staff, of any hijinks because they were visible through the glass.
Cameras all around the Church were installed - for reasons set up above and for stopping thieves.
I think the insurance policy assigned credits for taking these actions, so the policy cost went down. Win-win. "An armed society is a polite society." (don't have attribution, sorry)
Why isn't there a database with these kinds of deterred mass shootings?
*snort*
And one is not likely to be set up unless someone like NRA, John Lott, etc. does it. Not already set up because it doesn't fit the anti's template.
That deserved a re-post.
He needs to be overwhelmed with emails.
Shouldn’t he be called Mr. Ed? Certainly he resembles the Southern exposure of a horse traveling North
Shouldn’t he be called Mr. Ed? Certainly he resembles the Southern exposure of a horse traveling North
No, we never had a liberal tell the truth unless is served his interest.
The criteria was more than four people killed. These idiots truly don’t get that four or more weren’t killed BECAUSE the shooters were stopped by civilians.
Schultz demonstrates that at some point, stupidity is criminal.
Note that to the Left, “use” in this case means “shoot”. In most instances where an armed citizen uses a gun to stop a would be mass killing, all he had to do was display his gun to the attacker. The Left is incapable of acknowledging the mere presence of a lawfully owned gun as a valid deterrent.
And of course, if there are not a lot of people killed then it does not count as a mass killing. As an example which the Hollywood Left might understand, note the end of the movie “Source Code”: the project was considered an abject failure because it was, in fact, a complete success in preventing mass death.
Using guns to stop “gun violence” is simply ruled out by the Left’s axioms. It is a fundamental rule, not open to debate.
In most instances where an armed citizen uses a gun to stop a would be mass killing, all he had to do was display his gun to the attacker. The Left is incapable of acknowledging the mere presence of a lawfully owned gun as a valid deterrent.
I've been looking for stats on this, on the fact that in most cases the sole display of a weapon by a lawful citizen stops an hell-bent killer. But I have a hard time finding them stats. It would help when debating lefties.
See, that’s the problem: it works.
Display gun, attacker gives up, nobody dead, nothing worth reporting, no statistics.
The Left’s axioms require deaths to justify their goals.
Yes, yes, yes. It makes sense. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.