That is actually a good example of a case where armed cops on the scene when the shooting began DID prevent a massacre. A number of people were injured when bullets struck surrounding objects and sent shrapnel flying, and the video of that incident suggests those cops were HORRIBLY trained, but how many people would that gunman have killed had the cops not been there and acted? We need only look at Aurora and Newtown to learn the answer.

I consider Christie a non-factor, btw. He is governor of NJ, so Newtown hit close to home and I doubt he can be fully objective about it. He is also a Republican, which means he must run far to the left of his party to remain viable in NJ, and is an endangered species in the Northeast regardless. He may be a union-buster, but cannot afford to be seen as a typical Republican (which will probably toast him during the 2016 primaries, but that is another issue.)

Sure, if someone decides to commit a mass shooting when he sees armed cops in front of him they will be his first target, but I would rather it be cops trained and armed to fight back than unarmed children. All but the most deranged will not attempt a massacre where armed cops are present anyway, and while I do not consider that an argument for putting armed cops on every street corner and in every convenience store, the vulnerability of schools justifies it for them.


If the suggestion has merit, wtf cares whence it came? But more importantly, when they propose something reasonable and you automatically attack it because of the source, it is YOU, not they, who sound like you are shilling for a personal agenda. Either the idea has merit or not (obviously I think it does) and that is the basis on which it should be addressed. Attacking it simply because it is the NRAs is a classic ad hominem beneath you.