Shooter had a six shooter.

Principal had a semi, and was a former cop

You are getting pelted with an NRA anecdote. (They use rare events to signify reality)

Oh I forgot, shooter was starting to another school.

and, I'm sure I could come up with examples of innocent bystanders hit by civilians (or police) trying to subdue a shooter.

However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car.

anyone on FB who posts that nonsense gets defriended instantly

So because the story is true and flies in the face of what you believe you write it off and/or dismiss it as propaganda? The man prevented the perpetrator from continuing onto another school and saved lives. Maybe if the school wasn't a "Gun-Free Zone" he could've prevented the killings within the school. Obviously, that sign doesn't stop these shooters. Sorry, but it makes you look bad when you dismiss facts to bolster your own position.

need to be taken with a grain of salt, at best. Most of the time, they're flat out false.

True. That's why I don't watch mainstream news sources. I get enough propaganda from Facebook. But I think the same could be said for both sides of the media aisle.

We're never going to fix or come up with solutions to the problems we have if both sides are so entrenched in their beliefs that even when confronted with facts that we throw them out as fodder or propaganda. It was real, it worked, and if things were different that situation could've come out a lot different/better.

then left the building.

That is how the people who have been peddling this line of bullshit all day make it into a guy who "stopped" an "ongoing massacre."

In fact, the dude was sitting in a parked car after having killed his girlfriend and two others. There was no ongoing shooting, and the only way you even get the "on his way" is through some statements made subsequently by the shooter.

In fact, this event has almost nothing in common with the kind of shootings that the gun guts are trying to compare it with. It was not a random targeting of a group, but a specific targeting. The shooter was not stopped by the assistant principal, but stopped himself, then went and sat in a car. The principal did not shoot a Cho-Holmes-Landra type in the midst of an attack, but approached a person sitting in a parked car. The assistant principal never fired a shot.

Now imagine the scenario that the gun nuts have been pretending should happen: a random Cho-Holmes-Landra type in the midst of shooting people randomly, and a heroic armed civilian pulls out a gun and - with quick thinking and a better shot - shoots him down, ending the massacre. That's what they'd have us believe will happen. And this - THIS - is the event they use as evidence that it HAS HAPPENED?

The situations are completely dissimilar. That the gun nuts even use this as an example shows how fanciful and filled with utter horseshit their position is.

You're completely unable to do so, because I'm right and your wrong.

My post made you soooo mad that you signed up immediately for this flame-out! Haha. I can only imagine your little temper tantrum! That's your ass showing.

The fact that you signed up here just to try rebuttng me shows how desperate the gun nuts now are that their sickening culture - a culture that has visited a public health epidemic and nothing but corpses on our society - is now going to be forced to change. That you also failed miserably at posting anything coherent only further displays how laughable, how without merit, how easy to smash the gun nut arguments really are.

Keep whining, though. It's interesting and amusing to see the gun nuts screaming like stuck little piggies now that their free pass has been revoked.

Sooo....for the record....the Principal DID stop the kid from shooting any kids at the JR. High. But the kid DID kill victims at the HIGH school.....

The killings already occurred, the assistant principal was only responsible for subduing the shooter, he didn't stop the shooter in the midst of killing. 911 could have been called and the shooter would have been stopped by the police while pulling out of the parking lot. And you can't predict the future to even say whether the shooter would have killed more people.

but, this is one incident in how many years? The principal was also a former cop.

How many times have innocent bystanders been shot by civilians and police? Trayvon Martin? And, there were the 9 bystanders that were shot by NYPD police this past summer, though all 9 survived.

He shot his mother in the face, possibly while she was sleeping. All of the guns used were registered to her. Fat lot of good that did to keep anyone safe.

Enjoy your stay.

Jackson which is just south of me, and home to the most virulent, mean rednecks you will meet anywhere. A good place to stay away from....

Kids still died. And are dying. Every day. From guns.

They are the only thing whose only purpose is to kill. Your will be taken from you. We're not going to sit around waiting until you go nuts and decide you need to kill people.

Outlawing guns is not the answer ...we seem to forget that criminals don't follow laws... so it would put us law abiding citizens at a disadvantage ... say someone breaks into your house while you are home...what are you gonna do..? Just stand there and get robbed ....I think not.... the laws need to be slightly more strict .. but not to the extent of not being able to have a firearm

I will call 911.

The only people who need guns for this are people who live in remote areas.

The odds of it happening are not big enough for me to spend the necessary time and preparation for learning how to use a gun properly. So for most people the chance the gun will be misused or used for a suicide or accidental shooting are greater than the possibility someone will break into your house. And you can secure your house in many ways, too.

I will never disagree with your right to not purchase protection. I am particularly happy that you understand the risks of a gun and do not believe in your ability to safely operate and store.

So why are you so hell bent on attacking the rights of others?

Little experiment. Dig around and find the latest census figures for your city. Then find the total size of your local police force. Just run around with that ratio in your head. You may also find figures for average response time.

He had no criminal record. It's not that intrusive when you think of it that way.

Typical that you don't want to mention that he was "subdued" with a gun WHILE ON THE WAY TO SHOOT UP THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL in addition to the High Schoolers he just shot.

This is the great case for stopping the likes of Adam Lanza or James Holmes or Seung-Hui Cho?

Are you even fucking serious?

Gawd, the gun nuts are pathetic!

First they give us a scenario: if teachers or principals or movie theater patrons were armed, they could stop a shooter. The implication, of course, is that they stop the shooter in the fucking act of committing the massacre! OK, show us a single example where a civilian has ever stopped an ACTIVE mass shooting in this manner, we say.

Oh, well here's a case where a guy shot a bunch of people and then was sitting in his car later. But, you know, he was on the way to another shooting so, you know, it's kinda sorta like a civilian stopped him in the middle of the act, like, sorta, you know?

What a fucking joke.

What a monumental fucking joke these gun nuts are. they searched and searched and searched, and the best they could do was this example? It's not even close. It's not even marginally close to the scenario they use for their ridiculous arguments. There's a reason why: their imaginary Rambo scenario is fucking BULLSHIT.

In this particular shooting, the kid was using a .30 deer rifle. He managed to kill two and wound seven. Put a Bushmaster and a few 50-round magazines in his hand, and you can imagine what might have happened.

To bad you can't get your point across without using the F word. Shows your ignorance.

Any fucking poster who can't fucking get the fucking point across is fucked up ignorant.

Whatever. You can't rebut it.

With existing laws, it's hard to find an example of a CC permit holder stopping a active mass shooting. Why? Because the shooters pick "gun free" locations. CCP holders, being law abiding leave their guns in the car or at home. Pearl river, is a perfect example; the assistant principal, working in a "Gun Fee School zone" had to retrieve his weapon from the car before he could do anything. The evidence of rather or not the shooter was going to go to the jr high is inconclusive.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp#pearl

What if by chance, a CCP holder misses the sign declaring the location to be gun free? Well hey, that just happened last week. At the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon. Bet you didn't know that did you? Certainly most media accounts I've ran across don't mention it or otherwise provide an explanation as to why only two were killed by a man with an AR-15 in a packed mall. The CCP holder aimed but didn't even fire, because of bystanders behind the shooter. The shooters next round was into his own head.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Finally, when an armed patron stops a "mass shooting", it ends up not being a mass shooting and thus doesn't get counted as a "mass shooting." We all know one or too dead doesn't sell newspapers, drive traffic to a web site or entice you to "tune in at 11".
from http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

Most of these shooting happen in a fucking so called gun free zone and since most cc holders are law abiding citizens they obey the law and don't carry into these places,hence the reason you don't hear of it happening.A gun free zone is nothing more than a place for a criminal to be able to go into and shoot up without the fear of someone being able to stop them.Really now how many mass shooting have occurred in a police station?None that I know of anyways,wonder why that is?You think it's got anything to do with the criminal knowing everyone will be armed?Criminals love gun free zones and if you take guns out if the equation they will still kill,true maybe not with a gun but with another source,murder has been happening since the beginning of time and it will continue till the end of time.Country's that have banned guns obviously don't have high violence rates with guns but the overall violence rate has increased.All if you who think the gun is the problem are obviously not living in reality but rather in some damn fairy tale.

Who knows if when the principal stopped him what his intentions were, or if he even needed his weapon to subdue him? Does it matter? If he was going to another school AND the principal needed a gun to stop him, it is a good thing he had his own firearm.

The gun genie can never be put back in the bottle. 'Gun Free Zone' Stickers on windows and doors do not deter people that are looking to do the things that the guy in CT did. Unless you can make guns/assault rifles/etc disappear (which a ban will not do), the solution is not to stop law abiding citizens from arming themselves. If you lived in a neighborhood where crime was rampant and murder/rapes were not an uncommon occurrence, should you not be allowed to own a weapon that can protect you or your wife/children/husband?

Thorough background checks and caveats to gun ownership for felons, wards of the state, etc are helpful and no reasonable person can argue against that, as all of our guaranteed rights are open to interpretation. It is folly to believe we can legislate away events like this. If a ban was enacted tomorrow, what is the explanation when the next one of these happens in 1 year or 10 years down the road.

The criminals will never turn their guns in & so if all of the legal guns owned by responsible people are turned in, they are at the mercy of the criminals. If a deranged person sees a sign that guns are prohibited will that stop him? Ha ha that is funny if anyone in their right mind thinks that would stop him.

Facts, data, and real life situations will never matter to the anti-gun activist. Even real history and similar gun repeals from other countries has shown the criminals could care less. The even scarier fact is our judicial system doesn't care to actually punish gun-based crime. You look at other countries, you will at least see harsh punishment if caught with a gun during a crime.

Rights are rights only if they believe in them. That is a sick and flawed mentality. You do not want a gun, don't own it. If you want a limited gun environment, move to one. Try Chicago. I heard gun restriction is doing wonders for their crime and murder rate.

Here is one example of someone pulling a gun and stopping people getting killed

and the shooter was stopped AFTER killing 3 people. I've seen the FB thing too. Designed to be mis-leaading

So the shooter was stopped by principal... After 3 were shot or before others were shot is a half empty half full viewpoint.

The story is factual. If the principal had access to the gun earlier (inside the school) then we could assume he could have stopped the shooter BEFORE 3 were killed.