He also said he was 60 yards away; hardly surprising that four shots missed a man sized target shooting back at him. Think it goes down that way if he is inside the building instead of having to rush BACK to the school before he can even get within 60 yards?

As to the other officer, before it was "columbine had two armed guards on the day of the shooting. they were both immediately fired upon," but now he suddenly "responded to the request for backup." So was he an armed guard at Columbine or not? Clearly he was not, and thus irrelevant to the original question of whether armed police STATIONED at Columbine would have prevented the shootings. Fact is, there was only one cop STATIONED there, and he had been dispatched elsewhere when the shootings occurred, meaning NO cops were stationed there at the time. Consequently, Columbine does not prove armed cops stationed at schools ineffective in preventing school shootings, because it had no such cops.

Which is what Officer Garnder strongly implied: Had he not been sent away from the school, where he belonged, he could have prevented the shootings.


They do not prevent massacres any more perfectly or totally than armed police do. Why did Klebold and Harris commit suicide, ending the massacre? Do you think it might have had anything to do with the fact the school was by then surrounded by armed cops? What do you think happens if there are, say, half a dozen trained and armed cops inside the school before a couple teenage Doom junkie gansta wannabes start blasting?

As far as training, how much do you think is necessary? Cops are already trained to look for suspicious behavior, weapons and in the proper use and justification for lethal force (all of which are very good reasons why I much prefer this idea to the insane idea of handing out concealed weapons to teachers.) We would almost certainly need more total cops, but I cannot imagine any of them would need much training cops do not already receive. Note also that the NRAs proposal considers that aspect by including the suggestion of recruiting retired police officers and military reservists.

Most gun right advocates, including NRA members, know well the value of training, and I genuinely think that the common ground we should seek. They do not want criminals, the mentally ill or the untrained carrying guns any more than you or I do. The problem is prefacing every gun control argument with "OMG EVERYONE HAS TOO MANY GUNS111" creates the impression you want to take away everyones guns (gee, I wonder what the connection is.... ) Trained, responsible and law-abiding gun owners naturally feel both insulted and threatened by that. They are doing nothing wrong and know gun safety better than what they see as paranoiacs trying to disarm them; that cannot help seeming radical. Common ground is the (only) way to what we all want; branding them gun nuts is counterproductive.