Sunday, February 3, 2013
On the Topic of Guns, Accoutrements, and the Idiots Who ‘Represent’ Us
I have had just about enough of the queue of lambasting idiots whose sole desire is to control every aspect of American's lives. Their bloated exhortations about things they obviously know nothing about has risen to the level of epidemic. What is more troublesome is that there seems to be an unending assortment and number of mixed nuts fully prepared to accept any edict these windbags hand down from their lofty "thrones" in the City of the Dead (DC) while the combined knowledge of both exhorter and audience, if melted down and strained couldn't fill a thimble!
I am sick to the point of retching of listening to the absolute nonsensical sputtering about firearms by those who can't differentiate between a butt stock and a flash suppressor so here is a short lesson in nomenclature to make you sound less stupid:
FIRST, they are not "clips", they are magazines and the semi-automatic AR-15 is not "an assault rifle" any more than a baseball bat, hammer, kitchen knife, scarf, rope, lead pipe, pipe wrench, automobile, hands, feet, stick, screw driver, torch, et al all of which have been used at one time or another to "assault" someone by a deranged person.
The "shoulder thingy that goes up" is a folding butt stock on a very few long guns most notably, the SPAS shotgun which is no longer manufactured. The correct description of what this particular dingbat in Congress was trying to describe, is, an adjustable butt stock. Its crime is making itself available for shooters of varying shapes and sizes - including women for whom many rifles are too large to fire accurately and painlessly.
A bayonet lug is a superfluous piece of equipment - for almost anyone, in or out of uniform and does not contribute to the mental deficiency that denies a person the ability to know it is wrong to kill. A sling swivel is a mounting point for a sling which is used in competition and to carry a rifle over the shoulder for most civilians and while there are some really neat 1, 2 and 3 point slings on the market, no one except a seasoned and well-trained professional has a need for it or would even know how to use it. And NO; it does not make the rifle more lethal or the operator more proficient.
A flash suppressor is not a lethal device. It is used to reduce the light signature of escaping gases from the muzzle of the rifle so the enemy has a more difficult time registering your position and dropping mortars and artillery on your head. Being as there isn't much in the way of danger from ordinance here in the civilian world, it is superfluous. And just because it is superfluous is no reason to ban it. It does not make the rifle more lethal or the operator more proficient. It does, however, make the rifle compliant with long distance rifle matches hosted around the country and at Camp Perry every year.
A pistol grip has sent many a "sensitive anti-gunner" into orbit. Here's the skinny: All things being equal, I prefer a straight stock. Contorting your hand and wrist to accommodate a pistol grip actually take some practice and again, does nothing to make the rifle more lethal or the operator more proficient. So, get over it!
A magazine with any number of rounds is of ZERO use to someone who is not well-trained with the rifle or handgun it supports and no; Newtown doesn't count because at the grand distance of about 25 feet, he could have caused as much damage with a pile of rocks.
Read more: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/on-the-topic-of-guns-accoutrements-and-the-idiots-who-represent-us#ixzz2Jrie9a6T
Dispelling a Common Gun-Control Myth
From the National Review Online, January 24, 2013
Gun-control advocates have recently been throwing around an impressive new number. President Obama used it last Wednesday, claiming: “as many as 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check.” Vice President Biden and everyone from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to USA Today repeatedly use it. That “fact” provided the principal support for his first announced gun-control proposal, “universal background checks.” But unless you include family inheritances and gifts as “purchases,” it is simply false.
The Brady Act background checks currently prevent someone who buys from a federally licensed dealer from buying a gun if he has a felony, or in many cases a misdemeanor conviction, or has been involuntarily committed for mental illness. Prior to Brady, federal law merely required that people sign a statement stating that they did not have a criminal record or a history of mental problems under threat of perjury. Obama’s 40 percent claim makes it look like a lot of gun buyers are avoiding these checks.
Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.
The number of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) today is only a fraction of what it was. Today there are only 118,000; while back in 1993 there were over 283,000. Smaller dealers, many operating out of their homes, were forced out by various means, including much higher costs for licenses.
The survey asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all FFLs do background checks, those perceived as being FFLs were the only ones counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the very smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no inkling that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and thus reported not buying from an FFL when in fact they did.
But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.
If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.
We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.
Nevertheless, even if few purchases avoid background checks, should we further expand the checks? It really depends on how the system would be implemented.
CONTINUED: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott
Gun-control advocates have recently been throwing around an impressive new number. President Obama used it last Wednesday, claiming: “as many as 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check.” Vice President Biden and everyone from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to USA Today repeatedly use it. That “fact” provided the principal support for his first announced gun-control proposal, “universal background checks.” But unless you include family inheritances and gifts as “purchases,” it is simply false.
The Brady Act background checks currently prevent someone who buys from a federally licensed dealer from buying a gun if he has a felony, or in many cases a misdemeanor conviction, or has been involuntarily committed for mental illness. Prior to Brady, federal law merely required that people sign a statement stating that they did not have a criminal record or a history of mental problems under threat of perjury. Obama’s 40 percent claim makes it look like a lot of gun buyers are avoiding these checks.
Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.
The number of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) today is only a fraction of what it was. Today there are only 118,000; while back in 1993 there were over 283,000. Smaller dealers, many operating out of their homes, were forced out by various means, including much higher costs for licenses.
The survey asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all FFLs do background checks, those perceived as being FFLs were the only ones counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the very smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no inkling that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and thus reported not buying from an FFL when in fact they did.
But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.
If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.
We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.
Nevertheless, even if few purchases avoid background checks, should we further expand the checks? It really depends on how the system would be implemented.
CONTINUED: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott
Saturday, February 2, 2013
The Patriot Post:
Immigration Bait and Switch
A group of eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- announced Monday their outline for immigration reform. A bipartisan group of House members is likewise working on a deal. On Tuesday, apparently unable to find a microphone in Washington, Barack Obama took a $1.6 million flight (not including other expenses) to Las Vegas to make his own case before immediately returning to the capital.
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) released their Bipartisan Framework for Immigration Reform, which has four prongs: 1. A "tough but fair path to citizenship ... contingent upon securing our borders"; 2. reform the current legal immigration system; 3. expand and strengthen the employment verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers; 4. and improve the process for admitting future workers. At first read, it sounds reasonable.
The sudden push is thanks to the election. Republicans are facing the fact of once again losing the Hispanic vote in a blowout and are looking for love in all the wrong places. But merely signing on with Democrat legislation isn't going to win the Hispanic vote for the GOP -- not when so many Hispanics in this country are low-income workers who believe in big-government redistribution.
Of course, Democrats are always eager to pretend to make a deal, only to make it so "comprehensive" and unpalatable in the end that the GOP rejects it and, voila, Democrats can scare voters about racist Republicans all over again. They're already signaling to their base that talk of enforcement is just smoke and mirrors to pacify the GOP base. As Chuck Schumer said, "We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. [The trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country."
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
And we've seen this movie before. In the 1986 amnesty (and similar legislation passed in the 60's and 70's), enforcement was promised and never delivered. So here we are, 27 years later, hearing the same promises -- legal status first in exchange for promised (if that) enforcement later. Schumer admitted, "On Day One of our bill, the people without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally." Once illegals obtain even provisional legal status, it's game over, and the idea of it being "contingent upon securing our borders" is just window dressing.
The proposal includes some positive enforcement provisions, including better tracking of people entering and exiting the country, which would indeed be an improvement. Eight years after the 9/11 Commission highlighted this dangerous gap in security, it's certainly about time. Restricting the soon-to-be lawful probationary immigrants from receiving federal benefits is also good -- at least in theory. But does anyone think that the same nation unable to keep them out in the first place will successfully keep them off the public dole?
Advocating for the bill in a Las Vegas Review-Journal op-ed, Marco Rubio wrote, "It's not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society." It would be positive if legal status leads to true assimilation instead of cultural segregation. He added, "[W]hat we have now is de facto amnesty." He is correct, but only because of a lack of enforcement, and it doesn't mean amnesty should become law.
We believe Rubio, a likely presidential contender in 2016, is attempting to negotiate in good faith, looking for a workable solution in a Democrat-controlled capital. He isn't naive or disingenuous, and he promised to oppose the bill if what Schumer says comes to pass. One of his fellow senators, Texas Republican Ted Cruz, said, "To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with Rule of Law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally." CONTINUED: http://patriotpost.us/editions/16538
A group of eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- announced Monday their outline for immigration reform. A bipartisan group of House members is likewise working on a deal. On Tuesday, apparently unable to find a microphone in Washington, Barack Obama took a $1.6 million flight (not including other expenses) to Las Vegas to make his own case before immediately returning to the capital.
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) released their Bipartisan Framework for Immigration Reform, which has four prongs: 1. A "tough but fair path to citizenship ... contingent upon securing our borders"; 2. reform the current legal immigration system; 3. expand and strengthen the employment verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers; 4. and improve the process for admitting future workers. At first read, it sounds reasonable.
The sudden push is thanks to the election. Republicans are facing the fact of once again losing the Hispanic vote in a blowout and are looking for love in all the wrong places. But merely signing on with Democrat legislation isn't going to win the Hispanic vote for the GOP -- not when so many Hispanics in this country are low-income workers who believe in big-government redistribution.
Of course, Democrats are always eager to pretend to make a deal, only to make it so "comprehensive" and unpalatable in the end that the GOP rejects it and, voila, Democrats can scare voters about racist Republicans all over again. They're already signaling to their base that talk of enforcement is just smoke and mirrors to pacify the GOP base. As Chuck Schumer said, "We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. [The trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country."
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
And we've seen this movie before. In the 1986 amnesty (and similar legislation passed in the 60's and 70's), enforcement was promised and never delivered. So here we are, 27 years later, hearing the same promises -- legal status first in exchange for promised (if that) enforcement later. Schumer admitted, "On Day One of our bill, the people without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally." Once illegals obtain even provisional legal status, it's game over, and the idea of it being "contingent upon securing our borders" is just window dressing.
The proposal includes some positive enforcement provisions, including better tracking of people entering and exiting the country, which would indeed be an improvement. Eight years after the 9/11 Commission highlighted this dangerous gap in security, it's certainly about time. Restricting the soon-to-be lawful probationary immigrants from receiving federal benefits is also good -- at least in theory. But does anyone think that the same nation unable to keep them out in the first place will successfully keep them off the public dole?
Advocating for the bill in a Las Vegas Review-Journal op-ed, Marco Rubio wrote, "It's not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society." It would be positive if legal status leads to true assimilation instead of cultural segregation. He added, "[W]hat we have now is de facto amnesty." He is correct, but only because of a lack of enforcement, and it doesn't mean amnesty should become law.
We believe Rubio, a likely presidential contender in 2016, is attempting to negotiate in good faith, looking for a workable solution in a Democrat-controlled capital. He isn't naive or disingenuous, and he promised to oppose the bill if what Schumer says comes to pass. One of his fellow senators, Texas Republican Ted Cruz, said, "To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with Rule of Law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally." CONTINUED: http://patriotpost.us/editions/16538
North Carolina: 2013 Legislative Session Convenes
The North Carolina General Assembly convened this week and several pro-gun reforms have already been introduced.
House Bill 17, introduced by state Representative Justin Burr (R-67), would remove the prohibition on Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders carrying a concealed firearm into any establishment licensed to serve alcohol. In addition, the legislation would make information regarding permittees accessible only to law enforcement. (Representative John Bell is a primary sponsor and Rep. Michael Speciale is a cosponsor.)
Also introduced, House Bill 49 by state Representative Phil Shepard (R-15), would prohibit employers from imposing restrictions on employees that would not allow the employees to store firearms and/or ammunition in their locked motor vehicle while parked on the employer's property.
In the Senate, state Senator Stan Bingham (R-33) has introduced Senate Bill 28, which is similar to the provisions of HB 17 that would offer confidentiality for CHP holders. (Senators Norm Sanderson and Bill Cook are cosponsors.)
The NRA is working with several legislators on introducing additional pro-gun reforms, as well as analyzing legislation that may have a negative impact on gun owners and hunters. We will be sure to continue to provide updates on North Carolina legislation, but please contact your state Representative and urge him or her to support HB 17 and HB 49, and contact your state Senator and urge him or her to support SB 28.
CONTINUED: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/2/north-carolina-2013-legislative-session-convenes.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
NC Rep. Michael Speciale is my hero!
How wonderful to have NC State Representative that actually has courage, tells it like it is, knows both the US and NC Constitutions and is not afraid of a bully (no matter how big)!
~ Lynn
The latest from the ‘It Needed to Be Said’ Department … The “rules” of political correctness suggest that white folks are to merely sit back and TAKE whatever nonsense scam artists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and NC’s very own William “Jabba The Hutt” Barber dish out. State Rep. Michael Speciale (R), a freshman legislator from down East, took a recent opportunity to tell it like it is to The Round Reverend™:
CONTINUED: http://dailyhaymaker.com/?p=4812
Civitas Calls on NAACP’s McSurely to Retract Lie--The President of the Civitas Institute today called on attorney Al McSurely to retract a lie about Civitas he told at a press conference today. State NAACP President William Barber held the conference to castigate efforts to require voter photo ID, and to denounce Rep. Michael Speciale, R-Craven, who had objected in a letter to comments from Barber. Near the end of the conference, Al McSurely, legal redress chair of the state NAACP, took the podium. In his remarks, he assailed conservative groups, and said of Speciale’s letter, “I don’t think he really wrote this letter. I think he gave it to one of his Civitas people and said, ‘Let’s go after Reverend Barber.’”
CONTINUED: http://www.nccivitas.org/2013/civitas-calls-on-naacps-mcsurely-to-retract-lie/
THE REAL STORY re: Speciale vs Barber--AgentPierceSaid: Feb 1, ’13: HEY, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT that eeeeevil Republican that insulted Reverend Bill Barber ??? I bet “what you heard/read” was either from WRAL.... or picked up from them by local “mainstream media” around the state. What you heard/read was exactly what Bill Barber and his media cronies wanted you to think. In other words TYPICAL BARBER MEDIA CRAP! .....
Here's what really happened......“The Reverend” Barber sent out a mass e-mail this week to all the members of the NC General Assembly extolling his race-hustling agenda re: The Voter ID issue. Barber is totally within his “rights” to do that. You could do the same on some issue you are passionate about and want to influence legislators on. That is exactly what eeeeevil lobbyists do. Reverend Barber is a lobbyist (boo hiss, yuck – “eeeeevil lobbyist!!) on issues involving the NC NAACP. The N&O says "all lobbyists are eeeevil"...... EXCEPT their boy Bill Barber of course. Huh?? The e-addresses of every state legislator are available in a directory that any citizen can procure. That Barber has those addresses in a database he can access is fine.
CONTINUED:
~ Lynn
The latest from the ‘It Needed to Be Said’ Department … The “rules” of political correctness suggest that white folks are to merely sit back and TAKE whatever nonsense scam artists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and NC’s very own William “Jabba The Hutt” Barber dish out. State Rep. Michael Speciale (R), a freshman legislator from down East, took a recent opportunity to tell it like it is to The Round Reverend™:
CONTINUED: http://dailyhaymaker.com/?p=4812
Civitas Calls on NAACP’s McSurely to Retract Lie--The President of the Civitas Institute today called on attorney Al McSurely to retract a lie about Civitas he told at a press conference today. State NAACP President William Barber held the conference to castigate efforts to require voter photo ID, and to denounce Rep. Michael Speciale, R-Craven, who had objected in a letter to comments from Barber. Near the end of the conference, Al McSurely, legal redress chair of the state NAACP, took the podium. In his remarks, he assailed conservative groups, and said of Speciale’s letter, “I don’t think he really wrote this letter. I think he gave it to one of his Civitas people and said, ‘Let’s go after Reverend Barber.’”
CONTINUED: http://www.nccivitas.org/2013/civitas-calls-on-naacps-mcsurely-to-retract-lie/
THE REAL STORY re: Speciale vs Barber--AgentPierceSaid: Feb 1, ’13: HEY, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT that eeeeevil Republican that insulted Reverend Bill Barber ??? I bet “what you heard/read” was either from WRAL.... or picked up from them by local “mainstream media” around the state. What you heard/read was exactly what Bill Barber and his media cronies wanted you to think. In other words TYPICAL BARBER MEDIA CRAP! .....
Here's what really happened......“The Reverend” Barber sent out a mass e-mail this week to all the members of the NC General Assembly extolling his race-hustling agenda re: The Voter ID issue. Barber is totally within his “rights” to do that. You could do the same on some issue you are passionate about and want to influence legislators on. That is exactly what eeeeevil lobbyists do. Reverend Barber is a lobbyist (boo hiss, yuck – “eeeeevil lobbyist!!) on issues involving the NC NAACP. The N&O says "all lobbyists are eeeevil"...... EXCEPT their boy Bill Barber of course. Huh?? The e-addresses of every state legislator are available in a directory that any citizen can procure. That Barber has those addresses in a database he can access is fine.
CONTINUED:
http://boblee.agilesite3.com/Blogs/BobLee-Says/February-2013/AP-THE-REAL-STORY-re-Speciale-vs-Barber.aspx
Friday, February 1, 2013
House freshman calls NAACP chief 'racist' in email
A Republican House freshman will be in the spotlight Friday at an NAACP press conference for an email he sent to the state organization, calling the group and its leader "racists" and "race-opportunists."
Rep. Michael Speciale, R-Craven, along with all other state lawmakers, received an emailed version of a statement last week by NAACP state president William Barber on proposed voter ID legislation.
In the statement, Barber calls voter ID initiatives "national propaganda efforts by the far-right to justify the obvious tactic to suppress the votes of minorities, youth, disabled and the elderly," and urges Republican legislative leaders to abandon their push for such a law in North Carolina.
WRAL News obtained the email below that Speciale sent in response:
From: Rep. Michael Speciale
Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: NC NAACP Statement as Read at Morning News Conference on Voter Suppression
To: "northcarolinanaacp@gmail.com" northcarolinanaacp@gmail.com
Dr. Barber,
This is as insulting a diatribe as I have seen in years. The NAACP has a proud history of working on behalf of black Americans to address the problems of society directed at them. You tarnish that with your racist diatribes and your race-baiting attitude. The photo requirement to vote is to prove that one is who they say they are. Nowhere in anyone’s minds but yours and your fellow race-opportunists is race, ethnic background, or color of one’s skin mentioned, insinuated or inferred regarding the proposed voter ID laws.
You do minorities and the elderly a disservice when you assume that they are incapable or incompetent to the point that they cannot provide a photo ID to vote. Photo ID’s are required in nearly every aspect of American life, and most Americans over the age of 16 have some form of photo ID. Your talking points make no sense, as you ramble on with Constitutional phrases to give an impression that you know what you are talking about, and it is apparent that you are grasping at straws. Your attempts to make minorities and the elderly believe that they are victims in this effort is contrary to common sense but apparently necessary to your economic survival
CONTINUED: http://www.wral.com/house-freshman-calls-naacp-chief-racist-/12050778/
Rep. Michael Speciale, R-Craven, along with all other state lawmakers, received an emailed version of a statement last week by NAACP state president William Barber on proposed voter ID legislation.
In the statement, Barber calls voter ID initiatives "national propaganda efforts by the far-right to justify the obvious tactic to suppress the votes of minorities, youth, disabled and the elderly," and urges Republican legislative leaders to abandon their push for such a law in North Carolina.
WRAL News obtained the email below that Speciale sent in response:
From: Rep. Michael Speciale
Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: NC NAACP Statement as Read at Morning News Conference on Voter Suppression
To: "northcarolinanaacp@gmail.com" northcarolinanaacp@gmail.com
Dr. Barber,
This is as insulting a diatribe as I have seen in years. The NAACP has a proud history of working on behalf of black Americans to address the problems of society directed at them. You tarnish that with your racist diatribes and your race-baiting attitude. The photo requirement to vote is to prove that one is who they say they are. Nowhere in anyone’s minds but yours and your fellow race-opportunists is race, ethnic background, or color of one’s skin mentioned, insinuated or inferred regarding the proposed voter ID laws.
You do minorities and the elderly a disservice when you assume that they are incapable or incompetent to the point that they cannot provide a photo ID to vote. Photo ID’s are required in nearly every aspect of American life, and most Americans over the age of 16 have some form of photo ID. Your talking points make no sense, as you ramble on with Constitutional phrases to give an impression that you know what you are talking about, and it is apparent that you are grasping at straws. Your attempts to make minorities and the elderly believe that they are victims in this effort is contrary to common sense but apparently necessary to your economic survival
CONTINUED: http://www.wral.com/house-freshman-calls-naacp-chief-racist-/12050778/
Armed Guard Stops School Shooter After He Opened Fire at Atlanta Middle School
A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.
Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown about 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.
The wounded boy was taken “alert, conscious and breathing” to Grady Memorial Hospital, said police spokesman Carlos Campos. Grady Heath System Spokeswoman Denise Simpson said the teen had been discharged from the hospital Thursday night. Campos said charges against the shooter were pending.
Police swarmed the school of about 400 students after reports of the shooting while a crowd of anxious parents gathered in the streets, awaiting word on their children. Students were kept at the locked-down school for more than two hours before being dismissed.
CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/armed-guard-stops-school-shooter-after-he-opened-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
