Jennifer Rubin asks a stupid question.

This is the quality of people who work for a Newspaper: Incapable of doing a wee bit of search in Google.

So, who is this “mocker”?

Conservative blogger at the WaPo? That reminds me of a woman I knew who would only have anal sex because she believed she was not actually cancelling her virginal status by taking it up the ass.

A sidearm versus a rifle? Agree that it is not the most advantageous confrontation possible, but if it is the only thing you have, you use it. There is an immutable principle: Nobody likes to get shot. And that includes with pistol rounds.

Now, if Ms. Rubin had bothered to check on previous attempts of Mass Murders, she would have found the incident at New Life Church where Jeanne Assam placed a 9 mm round in the body of a man armed with a semi auto AK-47 clone who ended up eating the barrel of his own sidearm. And then we have the Clackamas Town Center shooting where Nick Meli aimed his Glock 22 pistol in .40 S&W against an idiot with an AR-15 who decided to end his short-lived spree by killing himself. Or the Tacoma Mall shooting when a young criminal with a Chinese variant of an AK stopped his shooting when confronted by Brendan (Dan) McKown and his CZ 9mm pistol.

But why then Ms. Rubin did not search? Continuing with my “done giving the benefit of the doubt” policy, I think she is purposely lying to be in with the cool kids who are now screaming gun control.

And by the way, I do believe a teacher  bringing a rifle to school is good policy.

Israel does it and they pretty much eliminated school shootings.

9 Replies to “Jennifer Rubin asks a stupid question.”

  1. A key concept these folks fail to understand is that even if one cannot completely counter a shooter with an AR-15 (or similar), tying up the shooter by diverting his/her attention from their murder spree provides increased odds of the spree being stopped or casualties lessened. It’s a false dichotomy to say that any countermeasure must be 100% effective or else it is 0% effective.

  2. Another point is that bad guys are often lousy shots, so a handgun held by a good guy vs. a bad guy with a rifle isn’t as unequal a fight as it might seem. Not to mention that righteousness is an excellent motivator.

  3. And yet the advice from even the most ant-Liberty big city top cops is to run, hide and if all else fails, to fight back with the meager implements in the area, like chairs, fire-extinguishers, scissors, keys or your bare hands.

    YOU morons (libs) created this situation. You don’t want a solution, you just want to perpetuate it.

    Stupid libretards.

  4. In tactical training for home defense, doorways are used as an example of a “funnel of death”. In mil-speak, if you’re a teacher who carries and the shooting doesn’t start in YOUR classroom, set up a hasty ambush. He’s either coming through your door, or you’re in no danger. But if you’re ready, when he tries to come through your door you have the perfect ambush situation.

    I once heard a corporate hired “security expert” tell a TV news reporter to set up an ambush with a fire extinguisher. That’s a good third choice. The handgun is better. Another carbine would be better yet.

  5. It certainly could be extremely effective if you allow teachers or staff carry a pistol-caliber SMG. Maybe that new prototye FMG by Magpul.

  6. Hey Bitch look up Klakamas mall in Portland just prior to Sandy Hook. CCW holder (Pistol) against an AK-47 Clone armed Shooter. When confronted the shooter ran away and shot himself.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.