The anti-gun media bias is ridiculous. Thankfully, we now have the blogosphere. It’s one thing to say that the shooter could have been subdued if bystanders were also armed; or to say that, despite its gun ban, DC is a dangerous place (arguably, because its gun ban ensures that criminals have victims that won’t fight back); it’s another thing to say, objectively, that we KNOW what happens when school shooters are faced with armed victims.

I’ll look into Second Amendment issues. My understanding is that it’s a no-brainer, designed to ensure that the government alone does not have firepower. Also, there was not supposed to be a standing militia (the Congress may only call out the Army for two years at a time), which meant that the defence of the country was in the hands of ordinary citizens. Hey, I grew up in Massachusetts and am a huge fan of the whole Minuteman thing!
Remind me if I forget.

Great post.

Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the “intervening” students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.

With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.