Anti-Gunner Shannon Watts Tries Schooling Gun Safety Instructor

Anti-Gunner Shannon Watts Tries Schooling Gun Safety Instructor

Anti-Gunner Shannon Watts Tries Schooling Gun Safety Instructor

Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action—a gun control organization partnered with Michael Bloomberg of I Want to Be Your President fame—has me blocked on Twitter. She has a lot of folks blocked on Twitter. Why? Because she’s allergic to the truth about her beloved Gun Control Crusade.

And her latest Twitter verbal vomitous is emblematic of the manure she spreads throughout the interwebz every day.

Behold her latest made-up “facts” on guns, screen-capped by yours truly since I’m on her No Facts list (I’m betting some of you reading this are as well):

This is her response to a story about how some Utah teachers, as has happened in Colorado, are arming themselves to help harden their soft targets—which describes the lack of effective security measures at so many of our public schools—as shared by a lowly Free Beacon reporter-slash-gun safety instructor:

First of all, to Shannon Watts: mind your own damned business. You don’t get to dictate what teachers in the school districts of states you don’t reside in choose to do to secure their schools.

Secondly, Watts’ assertion that staff of a certain gender don’t want to be armed, while the other is foaming at the mouth to do so, is sexism at its most preposterous. And it’s patently false.

Women are one of the fastest-growing segments of firearms ownership. And some of them are teachers willing to protect their students:

Did you notice the make-up of the attendees? Yeah, some of those were women, Ms. Watts. It may come as a shock to you, but there are millions of us out here; women who have every intention of putting up a fight when it comes to saving lives.

And about Watts’ claim that more gun control leads to less violence committed with guns…

Um…insert obnoxious guffaw here.

Let’s take a look at a shooting, unfortunate and heartbreaking as it is, that happened just yesterday:

At least three people are dead after a Monday morning shooting at an Oklahoma Walmart, authorities confirmed…”

“Family members told Fox 25 the shooting was the result of a domestic dispute between a husband and wife. Witnesses told several local television stations the suspect shot the two people inside the car before an armed shopper approached with a gun—prompting him to shoot himself.”

“While authorities did not go into specifics about the incident, Ford told reporters Monday that ‘at some point the shooter did walk up to the car,’ and added that while an armed civilian was at the scene, he cannot confirm if he intervened before the shooter killed himself.”

So, if eyewitness accounts are accurate—and we all know initial reports can be tricky—the shooter was hindered by that proverbial Good Guy With a Gun. In Shannon’s warped world, more people could have died yesterday. Just like what happened at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas two years ago, when Stephen Willeford, a former NRA gun safety instructor, interrupted a mass shooting with his own AR-15, a rifle the brain trust that is Shannon Watts would forcibly confiscate from him if she had her way.

Not to mention the rash of shootings occurring as of late in California, where you’ll find some of the most Draconian guns laws in America. How’re all those stricter gun laws working out there, Ms. Watts?

It’s a proven fact—one that many on the Left don’t want us to know—that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times a year.

No, people like Shannon Watts don’t genuinely want to address mass shootings and how to reduce them, particularly those that occur on school campuses (and no, as tragic as they are, mass shootings at schools are not an epidemic). Because if they did, they’d be willing to look at every avenue that leads to safer schools: metal detectors, multiple exit locations in each classroom with at least one leading outside, student instruction on surviving a mass shooting, bullet proof doors, windows, and walls, special door locks, hiring trained veterans and/or retired law enforcement, and yes, arming volunteer staff who are willing to step up and attain the necessary, and ongoing, training.

And yes, Shannon, despite your ignorant protestations otherwise, there are teachers and other staffers of both genders—plenty of them—who are willing to arm themselves in an effort to act as sheep dogs over their precious flock. And no amount of lying from the Gun Control At All Costs crowd is going to stop them.

The truth is: what works for one school may not work for another, with some combination of security options the reasonable answer for most campuses. And gun control? Well, that’s not one of them; unless, of course, you’re not serious about reducing crimes committed with guns by people who shouldn’t have them in the first place (there’s another discussion the Shannon Watts’s of the world refuse to have).

And for me, Watts’ unwillingness to have an open mind on the things that are proven to work, and the things that don’t—hello! Can we burn all those moronic Gun Free Zone signs?!—is just further proof that some on the Left don’t really want to protect kids while they’re at school. They want us, all of us, disarmed, no matter the collateral damage. And that’s a real danger to students, and those who cherish them, everywhere.

 

Feature Image Credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia; creative commons license; image cropped.

Written by

13 Comments
  • Anna A says:

    I guess Ms. Watts forgot about the Parkland murders. There was an armed deputy on duty there and he played chicken while those inside were being shot and killed.

  • GWB says:

    So, if eyewitness accounts are accurate—and we all know initial reports can be tricky—the shooter was hindered by that proverbial Good Guy With a Gun.
    Well, not really. He might have been hindered. But, if it was a domestic dispute, it’s unlikely to turn into a mass shooting – he had shot the people he came to shoot and was done. This is not to say that good guys don’t stop bad guys – this is just a likely poor example of it.

    with at least one [exit] leading outside
    I think this is actually a bad idea, as it introduces more problems than it solves (as you mention, school shootings are rare).

    student instruction on surviving a mass shooting
    I don’t really disagree on this, except that most instruction is 1) unnecessarily alarming to the students and 2) not the right idea at all. Instruction on surviving should be placed on interposing in front of the most vulnerable, bringing down the shooter, and promoting courage. Primarily because those things will 1) serve the kids later in life, even if they never encounter an “active shooter” and 2) are likely to reduce the incidence of school shootings, since that would promote a meaningful self-esteem and caring for others (rather than the mealy-mouthed “compassion” the progs push).

    bullet proof doors, windows, and walls
    Do you have any idea how expensive it is to build this way? Again, I think it’s unnecessary. You don’t need schools to be Fort Knox. You need to not take away the natural right to defend oneself.

    arming volunteer staff
    While I agree with this, I see a danger in perpetuating the “heroic savior” mentality we see in society – where everyone says “get the ‘professional’, he can save us!” What we need to do is stop treating schools as some precious repository of our fragile children, where they’re kept beyond harm. Let schools be “real life” – merry-go-rounds and armed citizens, both. Dodge ball and freedom of speech. Let the teachers simply arm themselves as free citizens who see a responsibility to protect themselves and others, carrying to and from. And let other citizens carry to and fro, as well – that armed mom or dad might be the guy who stops a potential school shooter. Why should teachers (or police) be required?

    They want us, all of us, disarmed,
    I see three groups of people in the disarmament community: those who would disarm us so they can rule us, those who would disarm us because guns in the hands of “non-professionals” scare them, and those who are scared of guns altogether. The last group is semi-coincident with the second, as many of them nervously trust someone who has had training, but don’t really like them at all. The last group can sometimes be reasoned with – taken to a range with some small caliber firearms and shown that shooting can be fun and the training is not onerous. The middle group can sometimes be reasoned with by demonstrating that many of the so-called “professionals” they trust really are much worse with firearms than your average armed citizen. The first group can always be reasoned with – by application of tar and feathers or a rope and a lamppost.

    • Jodi Giddings says:

      GWB: where do I start? Let’s go with doors leading outside. After much research for an address I did to our school board, I found that an exit leading outside (no door handle that would allow a shooter to enter) was what could have saved lives at Sandy Hook. Students were asking law enforcement as the shooting was going on if they could exit the door leading outside. They were reportedly told to stay put and wait for help. Guess what happened to them?

      Student instruction: again, I’ve researched this. I’m referring to exactly what you’re referring to: training like ALICE (https://www.alicetraining.com/). Kids are being taught how to hide which translates to how to be victims and how NOT to have a survival-by-all-means mindset. We agree.

      Bulletproofing: to answer your question: yes. I know the costs. My husband is developing a product that can be retrofitted into walls at less cost that other methods and has had interest from several schools already. I didn’t think it was appropriate to include it in my post. Suffice it to say: Parkland was the inspiration to do something that’s a balance between “gun free zone signs” and “arm all the teachers,” the arguments made on the extremes of the debate, arguments that are counterproductive to addressing the issue. And there’s anther company that’s developed a type of film that can be retrofitted to windows to make them bulletproof. People have died recently by shooters firing through windows and walls. I think the cost is worth it if it saves lives.

      I agree on teachers carrying. I didn’t say anything about a hero mentality. Let them carry if they want. Period. I won’t comment on whether I carry in places where I’m legally not supposed to…wink wink.

      Agree on the types of disarmers.

      As always, thanks for your input. 😉

      • GWB says:

        I think the cost is worth it if it saves lives.
        My concern is how slippery a slope that is. After all, the progs’ commonly mocked refrain is “If it saves even one life!” Absolutely no understanding of marginal costs (especially non-monetary ones) among those folks, whatsoever. (Not claiming you haven’t thought about it, but it’s so very easy to get into that way of thought.)

        In general I think the idea of turning our schools into fortresses is a very, very, very BAD idea. It’s a psychological retreat from the field, and cedes all non-protected space to the enemy. A more “mobile” defense is entailed in increasing self-esteem based on work, values and achievement, while repealing the already present “fortress mentality” of gun-free zones and “zero tolerance” policies that make firearms out to be evil spirits capable of destroying your soul merely by brandishing a totem of one (a finger, a drawing, a pop-tart….). (Yes, it really is a religious concept to many of these folks, though they don’t realize it.)

        A good “mobile” defense (IMO) would include a firearm safety class with optional shooting laboratories, conservation studies (including hunting), study of warfare (on the basis of si vis pacem, para bellum), study of practical arts (shop, home ec, lost in most modern schools in favor of STEM), and an emphasis on moderated risk-taking. AND an on-going emphasis on having friends and being friends to people (this would require moral instruction currently banned in many cases by secularists), as well as inculcating classical virtues (more morals, as well as “classical” education via Greek/Roman literature, etc.).

        All those items would significantly reduce the problems that lead to school shootings.

        (Oh, and the comment about the “heroic savior” mentality was a concern with the current way forward on arming teachers, not necessarily against you.)

  • Kevin says:

    Jodi Giddings … You mention at the beginning that Sharon Watts blocked you on Twitter. Would you be willing to share what you wrote on Twitter that caused Sharon Watts to block you?

    • Jodi Giddings says:

      Hi, Kevin! Sorry for the delay in response. I don’t recall what it was I tweeted; it was many years ago. I can say it was likely a fact-based response that challenged her nonsense.

  • They also conveniently forget their “greatest example” – Sandy Hook. It is never mentioned that the school HAD a system that supposedly kept the people inside safe; nobody needed to have firearms!

    You had to be seen on a camera from the office, and then buzzed in by the person seeing and recognizing you. Worked perfectly – to make the entire building a killing zone.

    • Jodi Giddings says:

      Exactly. One “solution” won’t work. There’s got to be a combination of security methods based on the needs of each individual school. Parkland had at least one teacher who owned and carried a firearm and had training, but couldn’t carry it at school at the time. He died trying to defend students with his body. 🙁

  • Charles N. Steele says:

    Watts and the rest of the “gun control” crowd talk only about disarming us law-abiding citizens, and they spew hatred when they talk of us. They never address criminal gangs, never propose anything to disarm them. They are only interested in disarming citizens, and at that only those with whom they disagree politically. (Michael Bloomberg gets to keep his armed guards.)

    That tells us all we need to know about them.

    • Jodi Giddings says:

      Indeed. Why in the world would you give up your firearms to people who routinely dehumanize you? They are telling us what they’d do with us if they could.

  • talgus says:

    disarming is always about law abiding citizens and not criminals. Soft targets, ya know

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram