Colt 6920 M4 carbine (courtesy tacticallife.com)

“For some reason or another, I just can’t buy into guns in school. I’m not sure that’s the best way to (take care) of the situation.” – Gainesville Georgia school board member Willie Mitchell quoted in Gainesville board votes to put guns in schools [via gainsvilletimes.com]

Recommended For You

57 Responses to Quote of the Day: Don’t Hurt Yourself Edition

    • That’s the thing: he doesn’t have a better solution. Even if he thinks he does, the reality is that he doesn’t. None of them ever do. Not ever.

    • Willie’s better solution was demonstrated in Colorado.

      He thinks no guns, 13 dead and 24 wounded at Columbine is better than an armed guard, zero dead and one wounded at Arapahoe.

        • Unfortunately said deputy was only able to engage the shooter from a distance, outside the building, five minutes after shooting began. Ideally, any future murderers would be immediately engaged by multiple plainclothes individuals inside the target area, removing their will or ability to continue.

        • Ideally, as has been show over and over again, the mere POSSILTY that an armed good guy MIGHT be in the school would take it off the target list from the start. Prescription gasses are not an issue. The prescription is for the gun.

    • To Jozan, the Columbine shooting is what really started the Active shooter policy. Before that the idea was to simply establish a perimeter and wait for swat.

  1. Though it’s been a number of years I remember one could buy guns in school. As well as cocaine, marijuana, porn collections, alcohol, cigarettes, LSD, heroin came up more than once.

    Public high school was the place to go for anything you werent suppose to have.

    I guess this member just isnt looking hard enough or he’s willfully ignoring all that is in school.

  2. He may have a point with a quote later in the article:

    a gun in a cabinet, away from where probably the scene would happen, isn’t going to stop any damage

      • True. What I got from the article, though, was that the resource officer would be on campus. I was presuming he always carried a sidearm, and the rifle would be an additional weapon. This may be an invalid presumption; it’s based on the armed Sheriff deputies at my kids’ schools.

        • “In an emergency, your pistol is the tool you use to fight your way back to where you left your rifle.” – Anon

        • Yes.

          In my house, though, my pistol is readily available; my rifle is in my safe. If an attacker invades my home, the pistol is what I likely depend on to neutralize the threat. If I have to use the pistol to fight my way to my rifle and still haven’t neutralized the threat, I’m screwed.

        • Don’t write yourself off so easily. Did you read the FNS entry about the lady running to get her gun? There’s also a few great medal of honor stories about badass soldiers taking out groups of enemies with only their sidearm.

    • All security should be layers. School buildings need to be made more secure, school rooms need to be more secure, school resource officers need to be in place, and finally there should be strategic locations within the school where trained school staff can go get it when needed. Similar to having fire extinguishers- better to have them than not.

      There this mental barrier that schools should be this happy place, truth is they are not. Many schools have issues with drugs and other crime already. Let’s not pretend that students don’t bring social issues into the school.

      • Let’s not forget, doing away with GFSZs and allowing teachers and parents – who are allowed to carry by the laws of their state – to also carry in schools.

      • Yep. Everything that’s “out there” in the world is in the school system somewhere. It’s only a matter of who, when, and how much.

    • It is a fair point. I think it’s fine to have the carbine in the school, but I think that the security plan should provide for at least one or two of the administrators to have access to the safe.

      In the Arapahoe HS shooting, the resource officer ran directly to the scene to confront the shooter. If he had run to his office, gotten a weapon from there, and then run to the scene, more people might have been killed because of the delay.

      If some of the administrative folks had access to the safe, then the resource officer could go directly to confront the shooter (with whatever pistol he has on his person at all times), and someone else could then bring the carbine to the officer.

    • Y’know what would be even cheaper than that? Letting the faculty carry their sidearms concealed.

      Cost to the State: $0.
      Cost to tax-payers: $0.
      The ability to save their student’s lives and do so without anybody ever knowing they were armed: Pricless.

      For everything else, there’s MasterCard. 😀

    • That $6K price tag is pretty steep. I own that exact same Colt LE-6920 model. Even throwing in the cost of a safe, delivery, installation, extra PMAGS and ammunition, you get maybe up over $2K. Where’s the rest of that money going? Only thing I can think of is that their model is select fire. Although, mechanically that’s not that much different and shouldn’t carry too much higher a price. When the DoD buys 120,000 at a time, the price for full auto, not even 3 round burst, rifles is about $700/each or maybe less.

      • The $6k might be for all 3 rifles, safes, etc. The article describes one rifle at each of 3 schools, and the paragraph that describes the cost doesn’t say it’s per rifle/school.

        • Ah, that makes sense then. I must’ve skipped over the three schools part. Good catch, Don.

          Locked up in safes wouldn’t be my first choice, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Better to get rifles on campus now, albeit in safes, than not at all. They can modify the policy later on to allow full time carry by the SRO.

        • Assuming no price penalty and a competent operator I see no reason to NOT go FA. If it is not needed it won’t be used. One benefit would be cheap milserp access vs retail prices.

  3. Fine. If you can’t buy into having armed personnel in your school, don’t do it. But own the consequences should something occur. Those kids’ injuries and deaths are on you.

    And do not vote as such so that another school district with more brains and balls cannot protect their kids.

  4. In light of the recent CO shooting being mitigated by the presence of a firearm inside the building, I find this stance a bit ignorant.

  5. I think the most obvious solution is to either close the govt. indoctrination centers or sell them and convert them to private schools. Home school and security is handled by the parents. Private schools can handle security any number of ways. What’s the first rule of fighting? Avoidance if possible. Don’t be in stupid places…, etc. All the other solutions still involve the govt. and we already know they won’t do what is right. There was a time in the U.S. where a self-directed education created such greats as G. Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin to name a few.

    • According to those on the left, such great luminaries were all racist and misogynistic. I don’t think the likes of Shannon will be convinced even if they in turn rely upon other novelties these so-called racists dreamed up like freedom of speech and the 6th amendment

  6. We secure banks, sporting events and political events with armed guards but not schools because . . .well because . . .

    There are only a couple of logical answers to this dilemma and none of them are palatable to those who do not wish to secure schools.
    One could say that children are of less value that money or professional athletes or politicians but I don’t see anyone wiling to make that argument publicly.

    One could say that children are under less threat than money, athletes or politicians but that would be demonstrably untrue and thus not much of an argument.

    One could admit that the very idea that children are under threat of violence and that furthermore the only practical means of protecting them from said violence is to stand ready to do violence in their defense are a pair of concepts that a good many people simply cannot face even if it means that children have to die so that they can avoid making such a realization.

    I bet you wont see that headline in your morning newspaper: “BETTER THAT CHILDREN ARE MURDERED THAN TO USE GUNS TO DEFEND THEM” probably would sell a lot of papers but it’s hardly a plank to run on or a slogan you can stand by.

    So what’s left? Specious arguments that concealed guns are more dangerous to innocents than to bad guys? Demonstrably untrue but there are a great many people who don’t know that so maybe you can get away with saying it. However you still can’t escape the reality that whatever argument you’re using you’re still saying that it’s better to let children be murdered than to let teachers carry guns, even if you’re not saying it out loud.

    I suppose in the end advancing the leftist agenda and saving face by never having to admit being wrong are still more important to some people than the murder of children. They have a right to think it and we have a right to call them out on it. Liberty is a wonderful thing.

    • I believe Ardent; the leftists; by their actions; refuse to allow guns in school because subconsciously, they hate children and they want them dead.

      School children; defenseless against mass murderers- check.
      Support of single parent families; demonstrably much more harmful to the children- check.
      Promotion of the idea that not having children is some how “saving the planet”- check.
      Abortion- the legalized murder of unborn children- a very big check and final proof my theory.
      I believe the Liberal/progressive belief system is a cultural and societal death cult- completely hostile to all that is supportive of a healthy and vibrant culture; and especially lethal to the children.

      • Interesting side note to this.

        China has enforced a “One Child Policy” for a more than a generation. Ostensibly to limit the “strain” on the social systems and the environment (they bought into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation big time). Suddenly they’re swamped with elderly with nobody to take care of them through indifference or outright rejection by the “One Child” or their untimely and unplanned death due to war, the Red Guard, disease, crime, custom or accident. SUDDENLY there is a brand spanking new policy: You can have more than one child! Simply amazing what consequences can do.

  7. Sorry, Willie, but you and your ilk will have to live with the mess you created. From your statements, I can only assume you to be somewhat left of center, the land where laws make hopes and wishes come true. Gun free zones, a media driven exclusively by sensationalism, and deepening fractures in our society are all symptoms of la-la land. And guess what is an unintended consequence of legislating your way to feelings of safety, Willie? That’s right – school shootings.

    The question shouldn’t be whether M4s belong in school, but whether you – Willie Mitchell – belong on the school board. At least grow some stones, Willie, to help mitigate the risks and impact of the mess you helped create.

  8. Not meant to be a politically insulting post: The President Of The United States, as a guest on some talking head TV program recently, stated he was not too worried about his daughters’ entering the world of dating, he has men with guns watching over them. (Not a direct quote, Did not see the program, it was a sideline article in MSNBC/Yahoo News online).

    • Oh we need to get the video link to this! I read he had given an interview and was asked about his kids’ dating soon. We need to put that out there – the president doesn’t worry about his daughters getting date raped but it is ok for the commoners. After all, that is a tradition among the monarchy over their subjects!

      • The OTHER tradition in monarchies is that the Monarchs do the date raping and the men with the guns make sure you don’t complain about it.

  9. As I recall, Obama, David Gregory and other D.C. notables send their kids to Sidwell Friends School, which employs 12 armed guards (not counting the Obama kids’ Secret Service contingent).

    • With all that security, probably the greatest threat to Obama’s children and David Gregory’s own children is……David Gregory himself. After all, he’s the one breaking D.C. law by running around with standard capacity AR-15 magazines in violation of D.C. law. Where and when did we come up with a special rich, liberal media stooge exception to the law? One of the few delights of living under these statist slave masters is the occasional moment when someone like Gregory gets hoisted on his own petard. It’s frustrating when they get to play some sneaky, secret get-out-of-jail-free card and slither away.

      • An even bigger threat is the David Gregorys [sic] of the monarchy getting boozed/drugged up and taking it out on the family. And if it’s done with an illegally-owned weapon, it’s covered up by the “armed intruder who dropped his gun while escaping.” I haven’t seen that angle in public yet, but there have been plenty of celebrity domestic fisticuffs lately.

      • That may just fit under exceptions allowing transportation through the district, or it may belong to law enforcement agencies represented off screen or it may be modified so as not to be technical a mag or a high ( oops standard) cap mag.

  10. No, just stick with the “No Firearms Allowed” sign on the front door. That’s done such a good job of keeping mentally disturbed people from walking into the school and shooting children in the past. Just stick with what’s working.

  11. I’m always impressed by how many comment-folk here read the background material, and indeed demand links to sources in the posted articles.

    Would that more people educated themselves so well on the things they claim to care about.

  12. I though mace and taser guns were a good idea,but it was declined. Heck even a can of wasp spray would help.Locking glass doors is useless as we can all see in the Sandy Hook photos,but locking doors,staying quiet,and calling for help is still the mainstay.

  13. Assuming that one has to be fairly well educated to become a school board member in this era, why is the concept of deterrence so hard to grasp for this individual?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *