The Detroit Free Press, a slowly sinking dead tree publication, did a little dancing in the blood of murdered and maimed school kids from Oxford, Michigan in the aftermath of the failure of the local school to remove a student who had all but begged for for help. Instead of attacking the failures of government officials to protect their charges in the school, the paper’s editorial board blames…gun owners.
The Freep’s galaxy brains studiously ignore mountains of evidence of the proven benefits of firearm ownership including millions of defensive gun uses each year. Instead, they apply the the intellectual depth of kindergartners in claiming that if only we could ban guns in schools, daycares and churches — and pass a whole slew of additional gun control laws — we would all be safer from criminals who ignore such laws and social norms.
Maybe someone should ask the people in White Settlement, Texas about their views on banning good guys with guns from churches . . .
Live stream of Texas Church shooting (10 miles from my front door). Thank god the armed church members. pic.twitter.com/1FQCLaQoqr
— ⚡️teve 🅿️ippin (@Steve_Pippin) December 29, 2019
But back to The Free Press. Here’s the opening paragraph from the house editorial, trying to establish some common ground before the agitprop kicks in.
Our hearts are with the parents of the four students slain Tuesday in Oxford, a hell no parent should have to endure; and with the seven others wounded in the same attack. We pray for their swift, full recovery.
It’s almost like there’s a handbook for how to gaslight Americans to create a utopia through propaganda and government control of everyday people. Of course, personal liberty and freedom, including the right to firearm ownership and armed self-defense, have no place in such a society.
Let the propaganda begin . . .
Some will say that nothing can be done to prevent such attacks. Oakland County officials report that Crumbley’s parents met with school administrators over the boy’s classroom behavior just hours before the attack, but found no cause to send him home. Crumbley’s father, it seems, purchased his firearm legally.
The Free Press willfully and likely intentionally omits that government didn’t protect those dead and wounded high school students by failing to remove the red-flag-waving student to protect his fellow classmates.
It’s not like they had no clue. The accused killer wrote in a graphic note depicting blookd and violence, “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.”
Yet despite the cry for help, which to any reasonable might seem as subtle as a 2×4 across the forehead, the school’s administrators did…nothing. Nothing.
From Detroit’s WDIV TV:
Tim Willis, a lieutenant with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office, spoke in court Friday and described a discovery that alarmed Crumbley’s teacher so much, she took a picture of it with her phone.
“The morning of the shooting, Ethan Crumbley’s teacher came upon a note on Ethan’s desk, which alarmed her to the point that she took a picture of it on her phone,” Willis said. “The note contained the following: a drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointed at the words, ‘The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.’ In another section of the note was a drawing of a bullet with the following words above that bullet: ‘Blood everywhere.’ Between the drawing of the gun and the bullet is the drawing of a person who appears to have been shot twice and bleeding. Below that figure is the drawing of a laughing emoji. Further down the drawing are the words, ‘My life is useless,’ and to the right of those words are, ‘The world is dead.’”
So because government educrats failed to protect students, we now need to pass more gun control laws to further restrict the freedoms of the law-abiding? Did the editors draft their editorial with Crayons?
The Free Press continues . . .
Poll after poll confirms Michiganders’ support for prohibiting guns in schools, daycare centers and churches, enacting red flag laws that would keep guns out of the hands of people who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others, and other precautions ensure the safe storage and handling of firearms.
Frankly, the only poll that really counts remains the one on election day, and that poll doesn’t show the overwhelming support the mainstream media claims as it tries to gaslight Americans.
It probably won’t surprise you that the Freep is in a state of circulation collapse. Since 2011, it has lost half of its daily readers. Circulation has collapsed 24% in just the three years from 2018 to 2020.
It’s apparently escaped the Freep’s editorial board that it’s already illegal to carry a firearm in Michigan’s schools. Churches and daycare facilities can also prohibit them if they choose. Strangely, though, the insane and the criminally inclined don’t have much regard for those laws.
Given the intellectual power displayed by its editorial staff, it’s unlikely that Detroit’s incredibly shrinking dead tree publication will ever return to the glory days of yesteryear.
For the philosophically inclined, did the collapsing circulation of the Detroit newspaper result in its intellectually vapid editorial leadership, or was it dim bulb editors who caused the decline in readership? We’ll leave that chicken-egg analysis up to you, our fellow gun owners, to ponder next time you’re cleaning your personal defense tools.
So phukin predictable! But they’ll never touch the real reasons behind the atrocity, much too hard for em!
What’s with the grammatically twisted headline?
That hysterical woman in the church would have benefitted from a high-powered shot of a taser. Just knock her out until tomorrow and let the issue resolve itself without all the screaming and running around.
Wumingren,
I am almost certain that the women who is screaming hysterically is the daughter of one of the fatally wounded church members–she is literally watching her father’s untimely demise.
In my world it is quite reasonable and okay to scream hysterically when someone just shot your father in front of you with a 12 gauge shotgun at point-blank range and you know that he is going to die in front of you in the next several seconds.
When seconds may determine if You or a Loved One Lives or Dies. Law Enforcement is minutes away. You are Your own first responder. Arm Up Carry On. Or live the Reality described Above. Life is Full of Choices and Consequences. The best Choices are the Ones you can Live with.
OR you could do something useful. Like shoot back. But hysterical chick is hollyweird approved.
neiowa,
Some appreciable percentage of our population simply does not have the innate ability to immediately respond with deadly force to a deadly surprise attack. The screaming woman in that video is one such person.
That is a simple fact, not an insult. Just as we cannot expect toddlers to balance a checkbook since toddlers lack the innate ability to do so, we cannot expect our population which lacks the innate ability to immediately respond with deadly force to a deadly surprise attack–to immediately respond with deadly force to a deadly surprise attack.
And, just as we would never denigrate toddlers for lacking the innate ability to balance a checkbook, we should not denigrate our population which lacks the innate ability to immediately respond with deadly force to a deadly surprise attack.
uncommon_sense,
Nobody has an innate ability to balance a checkbook. What toddlers lack is the necessary education. Similarly, those who cannot immediately respond with deadly force to a deadly surprise attack–assuming they are able-bodied and of sound mind–are not limited a lack of some innate ability, but a lack of training and practice.
If you’ve had the training and practice to respond well to that situation, then good on you. I sincerely doubt it’s because you were just born better than the rest of us, and I don’t think that’s what you meant to suggest.
One trick pony. Ban guns is the only answer, eh? Obviously that is paid propaganda. Also insane. No wonder the gun control places are cesspools full of crime. Of course there are criminals everywhere, but we Texans have a way of quickly dealing with them, resulting in less (noncriminal) bloodshed.
Make Texas A County Again!
Or even a Parish
“If gun am illegal to bring in place then place safe from gun, right? We did a think. No more shooting happen in place where gun am illegal cuz bad people stay out cuz they won’t break law. Everybody safe. All good.” That’s pretty much what I hear whenever free fire zones, er… gun free zones are discussed.
An interesting incident occurred a few yaars back in my state. IN ALL bars taversn etc, it is ILLEGAL for anyone to possess a firearm inside, or in a cordoned off area where drinking is allowed. Felony bust, So lots of folks lock their carry guns inside their cars.. whish are easy targets for breains and theft of the banned firearms.
IIn a rural part of this state, a new fella begaon spending his evenings in a local waterning hole. His name is Bob. Friend;y he soon enough made “friends” with all the regulars.
Aafter some weeks of this, an incident ocurred that was unusual. Seems a robber decided to “make” the joint. Folks sitting at table, senjoyuing themselves, suddenly a shot went off. Perp wiht kerchief pulled up over his face (this was long before the WooFlew was a thing) That was a HEY EVERYBODY warning shot… no one was hit. But the perp now had his handgun aimed at Barkeep, and was demanding he empty the till into a plain paper sack. After the one shot, everyone was screaming, bumping into each other, panicked, so no one noticed Bob. He calmly got up from his table east ambled over toward the bar, drew his own well concealed handgun, drew on the perp’s head, and fired one round. DOWN went Mr. Dirtbag. Of course, more panic ensued, people further stumblig over each other, etc and plenty of screaming. Bob’s next move was to reholster his piece, and casually amble over toward the front door, and out into the evening.
after far too long the Sheriff came round to sort out the mess. After the DRT perp was haulled off to the basement for his toe tag, the Sheriff began “interviewing” everyone in the place. Averyone told about how Bob had walked ove,r drawn his handgun, fired one shot… touching off MORE panic and noise. By the time anyone recovered, no one saw Bob any more. Sheriff began to ask for specifics on Bon. NOT ONE PERSON knew his last name, what kind of car he drove, where he lived or worked, phone umber, or anyting else specific about him.Nor had anyone seen him leave.. he was just GONE. Sheriff let word tha tif anyone sawor heard from Bob again, tell him “I”d like to talk to him”. Sure, Sheriff, we’ll tell him. None ever saw Bob again. Sheriff never got a trace of him. We don’t know if the Sheriff would have charged him for possession in a bar, or while drinking. Nor is there any real assurance that bob truly was the shell of a man aboutwhom no one knew anytning beyond Bob, or were simply covering for him, knowing he COULD be charged for felony possession of a gun in a bar, despite the clear FACT he likley orevented a massacre inside there. What thief wants to leave behind any witnesses to tell the tale?
I find it satisfying that when ONE dirtbag violated the Certified Defenseless Victom Zone that bar was, by law, another Good Guy just happened to have ignored that law, and saved who knows how many lives with one well placed timely round. .
To my way of thingking, this was a proper use of a Certified Defenseless Victim Zone. Dirtbag thought he’d be unopposed, and could have his way inside that tavern. Wonder what he was thinking as he lay there on the floor, leaking red…..
“It’s apparently escaped the Freep’s editorial board that it’s already illegal to carry a firearm in Michigan’s schools. Churches and daycare facilities can also prohibit them if they choose.”
I believe a slight clarification is in order regarding Michigan’s firearm laws:
By default it is illegal to carry a handgun into schools, daycare centers, and churches, even if you have a resident concealed carry license. **
If you obtain permission from church leadership, you can then carry a handgun legally into a church. As you might imagine, some churches will grant permission to some trusted members. Many churches will NOT grant permission to anyone.
There is no way to acquire permission to carry legally into a school.
** Caveat:
Due to a quirk of Michigan firearm laws, a person with a resident concealed carry license can legally carry a handgun into a church or daycare center, without prior permission, if they carry their handgun plainly/openly visible (NOT concealed). Of course many/most (all?) churches and daycare centers would immediately order all such armed open carriers to leave. (Anyone who remains on site after a church or daycare center orders them to leave is trespassing at that point and subject to forcible removal.) Thus, the ultimate default legal situation–in practice–is that you cannot carry (neither concealed nor openly visible) into schools, daycare centers, nor churches.
Michigan’s firearms laws are a twisted mix of common-sense rules, decorated with unreasonable restrictions peppered with bizarre loopholes, topped with a firearms carry license that, somehow, is given more reciprocity than any other state’s (at least, the last time I looked into it ca. 2018.)
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/05/santa-claus-photographed-getting-concealed-carry-permit-in-co/
If Santa carries then those darn teachers can to! Children must be protected by force if it comes to that and an unarmed teacher is not fulfilling their duty to protect.
~just sayin….
If teachers had been carrying at Oxford and were trained there’s a good chance they could have saved the lives of four people and kept seven from being wounded. All of those happened before police arrived.
Schools talk a lot about how they will deal with a school shooting. Mostly its about plans and procedures that overall involve lock down, evacuation if possible, and waiting for the police to show up.
You ever wonder that “if the school was on lock down, and the schools procedures are effective, then how does a shooter manage to still kill or wound people?”
the answer is; school procedures like lock down are not about keeping all students safe, they are about keeping safe the ones that can reach or be in a lock down area. Sometimes a lot of students never reach those areas and need to find some other way to escape, unfortunately, some of them run into the shooter who during this time while the school was following “procedure” the shooter roamed the school unopposed without meeting resistance that could stop him/her.
In 99% of all school shootings in the last 30 years, collectively, a minimum average of 5 have been wounded or killed, after the shooter goes active and the school is aware and running procedure and on lock down and before police arrived, that average in all the shootings came at a time when resistance was lowest for the shooter because the police had not yet shown up and teachers and staff were busy trying to follow procedure (and locked students out in most of them) instead of actually having the means to defend when confronted with the violence. An examination of school shootings, even for Oxford, shows that more are injured or killed when the shooter meets no resistance to stop them from moving through the school.
It could be very suitably and correctly considered that lock down, evacuation if possible, and waiting for the police to show up are defensive. But as every one who has been in the military in combat, or engaged a bad guy, or under fire can tell you – hiding does not make the in progress violent threat go away so what about those “minimum average of 5” exposed and who is going to help them while you are locked down and before police arrive when the school shooter has basically unrestricted dominion ?
A school shooter is there for targets, motivated by what ever motivated them, but there for targets none the less and although hiding, and lock downs etc… can make the majority safer until the Calvary arrives in the form of police – what about those average of five (or more) that get injured or killed because no one provided a stopping deadly force to counter the in-progress deadly force threat?
The school shooter needs to be stopped as quickly and as early as possible, the teacher and staff are on scene already, the police are minutes away, and that “minimum average of 5 have been wounded or killed” because the school is on lock down and everyone is busy with “procedure”. Oh, and a “resource officer” … unless they get the drop on the shooter early or knows where the shooter is its pretty likely they are not going to hunt for him/her and are going to wait for the police to arrive like their “procedure” says.
Everyone following “procedure”, how nice and tidy, and the media eats it up with “the school followed procedures” and extolling the “heroic efforts” of teachers locking doors to keep their kids safe. The media never mentions that those “minimum average of 5” would have had a much better chance if the shooter had been stopped before the police arrived.
The shooter in the Oxford school shooting killed four students and wounded six students and a teacher before the police arrived. Lock down and “procedures” was not really the defensive thing the schools and media like to portray it as. The shooter moved unopposed, the could have stopped it before it even happened with just a phone call before it happened but failed to follow basic plans, they could have also stopped it after it started if teachers had been armed, trained, and prepared. In each case, for each opportunity to stop it they were following “procedures” instead of actually stopping it and people got killed or wounded because no one bothered to oppose or stop the threat nor could they because they were not armed.
Its a condition of the human animal that sometimes they do bad things, sometimes they suffer mental health issues, sometimes they harm or kill others, and school kids are no exception. But when that person starts bringing deadly force they need to be dealt with quickly and decisively and early, the only thing that stops, repels, or deters, in progress imminent deadly force threat is the threat or use of countering defensive deadly force. Teachers not only need to be armed, they need to be trained and prepared.
I’m not advocating shooting a kid with mental health issues who may not fully realize what he/she is doing. I am advocating that the threat needs to be dealt with quickly and decisively and sometimes that means shooting the threat. Apparently this kid at Oxford was subject-able to the threat of countering deadly force because he simply quietly gave up when the cops showed up with guns pointed at him.
He wanted someone to stop him, he literally asked for help by the notes he wrote on his drawings.
A few teachers (or staff members) with guns pointed at him early in his attack and prepared to stop him could have had the same effect as the police arriving and its possible four students would be alive today and six students and a teacher would not be wounded. So, we can’t say for sure it would have worked out that way, some would say – and you would be correct. But one thing is for sure their “procedures” did not save the lives of four and keep seven from being wounded, and its a fact that resistance with firearms offers the best chance of stopping an in progress imminent deadly force threat.
Its strange that schools pay so much attention to “procedures” for school shootings when its their “procedures” that result in or facilitate people being killed and wounded – by no one opposing or stopping the shooter before the police arrive.
Let teachers and staff be armed, train them to engage school shooters, prepare them to engage school shooters – they are the only “viable force” (not counting students, no, don’t get them involved, get them out or safe) available on scene to stop the shooter before the police arrive.
.40 cal Booger,
Allowing school staff to be armed and engage a spree-killer could certainly reduce the casualty count even further.
Keep in mind that it is impossible to totally stop an assassin (a spree-killer is an assassin) who does not care if he/she is captured or killed. Why? Because an assassin chooses the time, place, and manner of his/her assassination which is an insurmountable advantage. All we can do as good people is respond as quickly as possible and minimize the body count.
Even if every school staff member was armed, a student spree-killer could start his/her attack in the middle of a crowded venue (e.g. a lunch line) and be guaranteed to impart severe wounds (some fatal) to several people before the nearest armed staff member would be able to realize what was happening, draw a firearm, and then move to a position to engage the spree-killer.
What you say is true regarding someone willing to trade their life for yours, an observation I’ve made is that these ‘shooters’ tend to avoid places where they ‘might’ meet armed resistance. The theater Joker guy comes to mind and as we know, most schools are gun-free. Exactly where I would go if I was a deranged nutcase wishing mas casualties.
It’s the difference of having to initially avoid one, maybe two resource officers and “Holy 4h!t!”, every teacher/school official, including the janitor, is armed and prepped to engage.
lots of things could be or not be. But its a fact that the earlier a shooter is stopped the less risk that people be injured or killed.
In over 62% of school shootings on the last 30 years when police arrive on scene outside it took them another ~ 15 minutes on average before they actually entered the school and engaged the shooter despite knowing where the shooter is and shooter still firing. During that time after police arrive on scene outside the shooter on average (collectively) kills or wounds at least two more people and have done so with teachers in the area watching it happen and having seen the shooter before he/she encountered the victims.
In over 87% of school shootings in the last 30 years either teachers or other staff members have seen the shooter expose the gun for the first time, or before the shooting starts, at a distance of 30 feet or less before the shooting started and there was actually at least ~2 minutes before the shooter fired the first shot despite the media coverage that a shooter pulled out a gun and started shooting immediately and randomly.
In every case all the teachers and staff ran away to follow “procedures” or escape the school.
In school lock downs for school shootings over the last 30 years if the shooting happened during class changes on average over 70% of the kids were locked out of safe spaces and left exposed and had to get away the best they could or until they could convince a teacher or staff to open the door and let them in.
In school lock downs for school shootings over the last 30 years, 87% of those killed and almost 63% of those wounded were killed or wounded within proximity to locked down safe spaces. School shooters know people are going to try to reach safe spaces, remember, school shooters are most likely students them selves and have heard and maybe practiced the same emergency drill instructions – lock down safe spaces are hunting grounds for school shooters.
The old saying “the devil is in the details” applies here.
Just to add…
Why do I keep using the last 30 years?
because it wasn’t until the last 30 years where school lock downs started becoming standardized procedure across the United States.
“Detroit Free Press: To Be Safe, We Must Ban Guns In Schools, Churches and Daycares”
Detroit Really Free Press: To Be Safe, We Need To Enforce The Laws Already In Existence.”
In Michigan its already illegal to carry a firearm in schools, so enforce the existing law. Churches and daycares can also prohibit firearms as well by putting up the needed sign, and if someone violates that its illegal so enforce the existing law.
.40 cal Booger,
It is illegal by default to be armed in churches and daycare centers: thus neither of them have to put up signs to prohibit firearms.
Michigan state law does not prohibit guns at home child care facilities, but does require them to be unloaded and stored in a locked location away from children.
Michigan prohibits them in public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency (these, not being home based daycare/child care facilities).
Michigan prohibits guns in schools or on school property except – may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian. (This is about the same for some other states. States are free to preempt the federal law about school zones).
Michigan prohibits guns on any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials allow concealed weapons.
In Michigan; Its not specifically illegal in all cases. Its conditional, for example, its illegal in the school buildings all the time but legal on school grounds during drop off and pick up with the condition of staying in the vehicle – its legal in home child care facilities if they are locked up but not legal in public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency – its legal in churches if the presiding official or officials allow concealed weapons. To prohibit it in all day cares and churches would need people to know about it, that’s what a sign does.
Total BS is all I can say. Schools do not want to protect students or staff.
If they did, they would train and allow teachers and staff to concealed carry as a last resort.
Instead they whine about insurance and potential liability.
I have worked as a sub, aid and classroom teacher over the past 10 years. Superintendents and school boards are betting “it won’t happen here” with the lives of our children and educators.
P.S. All that stuff is already against the law anyway.
Ain’t no way in hell I’m sending my toddler to daycare unless he’s heeled.
To borrow from the FDR era, “In a crisis, do something, even if it is wrong.”
For those who perhaps think, “You can’t fix stupid.” is a relatively recent thing, I recommend this poynient observation on the subject, from about 1945.
http://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity-entire-quote/
Detroit Free Press “journalist” that would be a WoPo “journalist” reject?
Here is an easy solution that allows both private and public venues to choose what they allow.
IF a venue or location bans the right of conceal carry citizens to exercise their rights and there is a violent felony the occurs. The citizen will at the conclusion of the incident inform the management and will receive a payment of $10,000 (which will not impact any future damage payments) That will be transferred to the citizen within 5 business days of the filing.
Now lets say its a Mall…and there are thousands of people present..Heck you may be at the other end of the mall and not even aware of a disturbance, robbery, etc. But when the scene is clear you contact the management and identify yourself they simply send your contact information to their liability insurance and you get $10,000.
Imagine if 50 or 100 people show up to demand this? Imagine the cost in insurance to the venue. Heck 10 people would be devastating financially. So if Yutz Pudholm manages the Dorkmont Mall and decides to do it…he has to explain to his insurance why something as simple as a smash and grab robbery (violent) hit a mall kiosk..and the people push some people and steal some shit…The cops come…the scene is completed…and Then Yutz sends 1 or 2 million dollars worth of claims to his insurance…
This, x1000.
It’s long past time to stop letting these businesses have their cake (gun-free virtue signaling) and eat it too (zero liability). If you want to make your mall a gun-free zone, fine, I fully support your right to do that as a private business owner. However, in doing so you have taken on the full responsibility of making sure everyone in your business is kept safe. Failure to do so should leave you WIDE open to legal action.
I ran into the county Sherriff and a retired local school Principal in the coffee shop a couple months ago. Had a similar discussion with them about school teachers or staff carrying concealed. Both reacted with horror. Neither would concede the idea that someone on scene might be able to stop a threat to students before police could even get on scene. Both said the chubby rent a cop, resource officer would be able to handle any situation that developed. I asked the Sherriff if the resource officer had any experiance under fire or had any additional training in dealing with either mental illness or in dealing with an active shooter situation. No, he was just a small town cop with no additional training. But both reminded me that schools were a gun and drug free zone. I then asked if they ever recovered drugs in the schools. Both said they had. So, if kids can get dope into the school, what would stop an angry kid or a kid with some other issues from bringing a gun to school. Neither could formulate an answer. And at that point, both remembered they had other places to be.
That’s actually a pretty normal response for police and school administrators.
Most “mass” shootings happen in gun free zones even with armed security in the area. On the other hand there have been “mass” shootings (and other types of shootings) in gun free zones prevented by a good guy with a gun who did ignore the ‘gun free zone’ concept.
Comparatively, there have been lots of good guys with guns stop shootings in many cases even in areas that are not ‘gun free zones’, for example, a recent shooting at a mall in Pennsylvania in October this year > https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/10/19/bystander-with-gun-helps-stop-suspect-pa-mall-shooting/
The idea that one can say “gun free zone” or put up signs that its a gun free zone magically protects is one of the the most stupid ideas there has ever been. Yet, that’s what most people view a ‘gun free zone’ as.
Why don’t we advertise to everybody who feels a grudge how to take a gun, kill some people so you make headlines to get back at the world? Mainstream media loves the bloody headlines and always ready to glorify all that pain.
The private security provided to the Detroit Free Press building, the owners and the employees of the paper, should have their firearms confiscated. People who tell other people they should not have guns should also have their guns taken from them.
Okay let’s see we’re going to remove your ability to protect yourself against an armed criminal by removing your ability to possess a self-defense weapon. I’m trying real hard to see the logic here but it is nowhere to be found. There’s a difference between ignorant and stupidity.
Comments are closed.