GOOD GUY WITH A GUN: Armed school officer stopped Arapahoe High School shooting

Tags

2nd Amendment, Arapahoe High School shooting, Bill of Rights, disarming the American People, Gun Control, gun violence, gun-free zones, kids with guns, Progressive agenda, protection, safety, school shootings, US Constitution

Posted by Bob Owens on December 15, 2013 at 8:34 am

Authorities are dramatically revising the response time of law enforcement officers to the Arapahoe High School shooting on Friday.

Originally, it was claimed by multiple outlets that responding law enforcement agencies took 14 minutes to arrive at the school, and that the shooter was not located until 30 minutes into the event. As we noted based on this information, this proves that schools need armed staffers and/or faculty on campus because it takes far too long for outside law enforcement agencies to respond to stop an active shooter.

It now appears that our original thesis was confirmed because there was an armed officer on campus who was the reason the shooter was stopped after only shooting one student.

They are now stating that the entire incident was over in just 80 seconds because there was an armed sheriff’s deputy on staff who was alerted over the school’s radio system, who cornered the shooter in the library. It now appears that once the shooter heard the deputy identify himself as a law enforcement agent, he committed suicide.

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”
The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”

READ MORE HERE!!!

[PC ALERT!] Why the Liberal Intolerance for New Family Structures Study?

Tags

Progressive agenda

Why the Liberal Intolerance
for New Family Structures Study?

Jennifer Marshall @ The Foundry
June 15, 2012

The author of a new study showing some negative outcomes for young adults whose parents had same-sex relationships is under attack because his findings conflict with what, in some corners, has become conventional wisdom.

Apparently, the idea that there is “no difference” between children of same-sex parents and their peers raised in traditional married mother-and-father households has become so entrenched among some advocates that new research presenting a contrasting picture is unwelcome—to put it mildly.

University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a large, nationally representative random sample of 3,000 young adults ages 18–39. It found better outcomes for those raised in intact biological families when compared to peers in seven other family structures.

Despite the quality of the sample and the wide range of findings, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) called it a “flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents.” A writer at The American Prospect said it was “appalling and irresponsible.” An assistant editor at The New Republic called Regnerus a “retrograde researcher” and suggested that this study should “mark the beginning of the end of Mark Regnerus’s credibility with respectable news outlets.”

And these are the folks who urge us to be tolerant of differences and respect scientific research.

The peer-reviewed study that some are writing off as “dangerous propaganda” has in fact been credited by its critical reviewers for advancing research through its use of a large, nationally representative random sample. In a response that appears in the same issue of the journal Social Science Research, demographer Cynthia Osborne says that “the Regnerus study is more scientifically rigorous than most of the other studies in this area.”

Similarly, Penn State sociologist Paul Amato writes that the NFSS “is probably the best that we can hope for, at least in the near future.”

Another Penn State sociologist, David Eggebeen, concludes that Regnerus’s study and Loren Marks’s analysis of prior studies, published in the same journal, “offer reasonable arguments for…more caution when drawing strong conclusions based on the available science.”

“Caution” is not what we’ve seen to date in judicial activists’ use of social science in decisions that overturn society’s understanding of marriage. For example, in his opinion overruling California voters’ Prop 8 marriage amendment, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker included in his findings of fact this statement:

Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

>>>>>>>>> READ MORE

NOTE: It occurs to this blogger that what we are learning about the Progressive agenda that they claimed was scientifically supported (global warming & green energy are another example of this unsubstantiated, i.e politically correct liberal agenda) is that the “science” is/was simply agenda-driven rather than objective study. In other words, Progressives state the agenda then manufacture the “scientific” support and the media gleefully cooperates in spite several millenia of human development that contradicts the Progressive’s Politically Correct position on same-sex parenting/family units!

RELATED READING:

DOMA Under Attack in Senate: A Rising Disrespect for Marriage