In response to:

Bloomberg on Unarmed Sandy Hook Principal: "I Don't Know What A Gun Would Have Done"

jeffar Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 8:55 PM
I agree. There are stupid statements and Bloomberg's fell into that category. Just the presence of a gun or even the perceived presence of a gun is a deterrent. This is why crime rates are lower in gun friendly states. If you put a sign in your yard that states, "This is a gun free home" it will be the first one targeted for crime. That is exactly what happened when we declared schools gun free zones. Now if the sign isn't posted there is doubt. That doubt alone can stop a crime before it happens.
Bear Trax Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 10:31 PM
Very articulate. Thanks. I made the point earlier today, that as soon as confronted with a first responder, the killer executed himself. Same goes for the Columbine shooters and the Virginia Tech shooter.

With that known, the principal might have been able to distract the gunman with a 'super-soaker'. That would have been a lot better than having to lunge unarmed at him.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy within hours last Friday, just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert's comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun. Bloomberg responded by saying, "There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements.....I don't know what the gun would have...