Thursday, January 10, 2013


There's been a school shooting in Bakersfield, California:
Officials have said that [two people were] shot at Taft High School.

The shooting happened at about 9 a.m.

The shooter was taken into custody at about 9:20 a.m. officials said.

23ABC News received phone calls from people inside the school who were hiding in closets....

Reports indicate that the first person shot was airlifted to Kern Medical Center and the second person denied medical treatment....
Sam Stein asks the obvious question:

I'm not sure, but when I search, I find requests from the county sheriff's office for approval of the cost of placing a full-time, 40-hour-a-week deputy sheriff on the Taft campus. Here's one from 2009; here's another from 2008 (both PDFs). So I think an armed cop was there. And still two people were shot.

I suppose the gunners would respond by saying that, hey, only two people were shot. So the system worked! Suck it, libtards! (Because, see, we shouldn't even bother trying to prevent incidents like this. They just, y'know, happen. The best we can do is hope that only a couple of people get shot. Besides, would you rather have no violence, or the vicarious thrill of knowing that some "good guy with a gun" was a hero and stopped the violence after it started? For gunners, the answer is obvious!)

And the gunners will point out that California has strict gun laws, and that schools in California are designated as gun-free zones. So, see, we foolish liberals will get the blame again.

(News story via Memeorandum.)


UPDATE: Gawker confirms:
Taft High School's website claims it employs a Kern County Sheriff's deputy to patrol the campus at all times.
That plus the budget requests tells me that Taft did everything the NRA expects.


Victor said...

Only two.
The system worked.

Maybe one per school is insufficient - if every room had an armed security guard, this would NEVER have happened.

Obviously, the militia's talked about in the Constitution, were meant to guard our schools.

Guns legal, according to the SCOTUS?
Large magazines, ok?
Then outlaw bullets.
THAT ain't in the 2nd Amendment.
There ain't no right specified there.

The gun and ammo manufactureres, their paid shill and stooge, Wayne LaPierre, and, by association, ALL members of the NRA, are evil and sociopathic @$$holes.

Kathy said...

And on the same day, we had this guy saying he's going to "start killing people" if the President goes forward with minor changes. I bet he's already had visits from the Secret Service and local law enforcement. Or at least I hope he has.

The New York Crank said...

If I use the Garden State Parkway or the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the Triborough Bridge in New York, I pay a hefty toll.

So why should the cost of armed guards in the schools be placed on unarmed taxpayers? Put it on the people who keep all that murder weapon hardware in circulation.

There ought to be a tax placed on every gun, every bullet, every magazine and every sniperscope sold in this country.

Call it the "Armed School Guard Tax."

Annd then, yeah, as long as the murder weapon manufacturers and owners are paying for it, put an armed guard in every school room.

Very crankily yours,
The New York Crank

Steve M. said...

I agree 100%.

Victor said...

Nice, NY Crank!
Ditto - 100%!!!

Ten Bears said...

Bakersfield is a pretty good sized city where the "minorities" are the majority and Taft isn't exactly a one room school-house. It should probably have two or three deputies, as just one can't be everywhere at once.

Examinator said...

If I were The Prez, I'd offer the republicans their own logic.
e.g. they are big on user pays and they complain about “free loaders” on Social Security (sic I'll ignore the fact that the 'free loaders' are vital consumers and integral to consumerism etc without which many of their businesses and cheap stuff would become non viable).
And offer the following they can have their fire arms but they and the manufacturing corps have to pay for the portion of the Police involved in fire arm crime. And their churches can start paying a flat 30% no deductions tax like all other corporations etc. And everyone else will pick up unemployment dole and unmarried mothers Benefits.
Any body want to guess who'd be better off? Hmmmmm :-)

Nick81 said...

I don't believe a Nation wide ban on anything is a MINOR change. Ever hear of a little minor change called Prohibition? If not it made the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol illegal. That worked out real well didn't it? The writter of this blog needs to add in some more facts before high capacity magazines get thrown out there... the gun used was a shot gun, no high capacity magazines involved, just an ordinary shot gun used for hunting. So we need to ban all guns in general then, or just the bullets as Victor stated? Just remember what gave all of us the right to sit here and say what ever is on our minds, NON-MILITARY trained farmers, hunter, trappers, and many other ORDINARY people who owned thier own guns, that fought and died for our country. I'm not saying don't rant, I'm just saying think about what gave you the right too that First Amendment we all hold near and dear to us. And to the Examinator... if you tax churches a non for profit organization, you'll have to tax all other non for profit organizations that help out the unemployed people and unmarried mothers with day to day needs so you'll really be making that situation worse and might be spending more than what you think, just saying. :-)

Steve M. said...

Just remember what gave all of us the right to sit here and say what ever is on our minds, NON-MILITARY trained farmers, hunter, trappers, and many other ORDINARY people who owned thier own guns, that fought and died for our country.

Plus a hell of a lot of professionally trained Hessians.

Nick81 said...

Estimates say about 30,000 Hessians and about 200,000 ordinary colonists; quite a difference in numbers there wouldn't you agree?

Steve M. said...

So I suppose we should have fought all subsequent wars with yeoman farmers brandishing their own muskets. Bet that would have sent Hitler packing in six months.

Nick81 said...

Funny you mention that, most of the best marksmen in the military learned to shoot before they joined the military(i.e. farmers and people who hunt). Oh and as far as the musket comment goes, the people I mentioned earlier (farmers and people who hunt) were also able to purchase, if they wanted to, some of the same model weapons used by the military as technology continued to get better. So they were shooting at home with equipment that gave them an edge as sharpshooters before they even joined the military. Because as any gun owner knows not all guns shoot the same and in order to be a good shooter you have to practice. Thats why these dumb @$$ gang bangers can't hit the broad side of a barn and end up killing innocent people, because they find a way to get thier hads on guns illegaly, don't practice with them and just start shooting hitting all kinds of people. Did you know that after the Sandy Hook shooting China, who has taken all firearms away from its citizens years ago, that in the wake of such a terible crime the United States must Disarm it's Citizens too, but just weeks before Sandy Hook a 36 year old man stabbed 22 children as they came out of a primary school, and there have been many more instances of that happening in China in previous weeks.
Perhaps there are two things we might be able to agree on.
#1. Those who are anti-gun and those who are pro-gun will never see eye to eye with one another on the issue of the second ammendment.
#2. It seems violence is going to happen no matter what anyone does as long as there are sick people running around out there who have the desire to kill others.

Steve M. said...

It seems violence is going to happen no matter what anyone does as long as there are sick people running around out there who have the desire to kill others.

Except that somehow murder happens much, much less often in developed countries with stricter gun laws. Natural law must be different in those countries, right?

Ten Bears said...

What are you people afraid of, Nick? Unless that's the success of trickle-down your fear stinks, even through these tubes.

No fear...

Nick81 said...

Oh my gosh you guys are sooooo right, what have i been thinking all this time. My goodness, I should just quit thinking for myself and let the government do it all for me, after all that is what has made this nation great. Not taking a stand against anything you believe in. I'll just sit back and do nothing as my rights are stripped from me so that you feel a little bit safer. Just don't bitch when you can't blog anymore because your freedom of speech is taken away too... oh wait, you won't be able to. Hmmmmm.

Nick81 said...

I've got a great idea, lets ban automobiles too. I mean more people are killed in car crashes every year than killed by guns. Think of how many lives we could save by banning cars and guns together, or should we just ban sports cars for now since they go the fastest and therefor are more dangerous. We'll have to ban the cars that look sporty too, and it doesn't matter if the owner is legal or never had an accident or has good insurance, because other people have used that same type of car to kill people. Besides you don't need cars, you have legs and can walk. Life will be safer that way. Plus think of all the money you will save on gas and insurance.