Michael Moore: Columbine's armed guards were no help

Unfortunately, the armed guards at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, were not able to prevent the murder of 12 students and 1 faculty member that occurred at the hands of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The guards probably saved many lives, however. As Daniel Foster notes at National Review Online,

It isn’t like the deputy was sitting around eating doughnuts during the Columbine massacre. He traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library. Harris and Klebold had an assault plan — a sloppy plan, but a plan nonetheless. They had dozens of IEDs, some of which detonated, others of which did not. And there were two of them. In this highly chaotic tactical environment, the deputy acted both bravely and prudently, and who knows how many lives he saved by engaging Harris.

Does anyone seriously believe the students and staff of Columbine High School would have been better off if the deputies hadn’t been armed?

  • Bob Cordon

    Nurse, please take Mr. Moore to the Quiet Room. He’s out of control again. And double his meds tonight, please.

  • J.R. Salzman

    Says the guy protected by armed body guards.

  • Lexikin

    Go home Moore you’re drunk!

  • E Mims

    I’m curious. Is he deliberately lying, or is he so delusional he can’t see that an armed guard exchanging fire with Harris prevented Harris from shooting more kids/teachers?

    • TheLordRegent

      Take it from a former lefty: he’s lying.

      • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

        Always glad to know I’m not the only one.

  • Jack Deth

    Whenever Mr. Moore tries to be smug and sanctimonious. It always comes off badly.

    Then again, if Mr. Moore had been at Columbine during the tragedy. He could have effectively blocked off one corridor all by himself.

    • Frustrated Teacher

      When does Moore NOT try to come off as smug and sanctimonious? I would pay to see that!!

      • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

        I suspect he’s not very smug and sanctimonious when he’s sitting on the toilet trying to pass the remnants of all that garbage he eats.

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Klebold and Harris’ victims were students who were surprised by their attack or trapped in the library when they suddenly retreated into it. They didn’t go back into the halls, or anywhere the cops who were covering the masses of students getting out.. Given the effort these two psychos had put into their plan, there should have been 100 people dead. The fact that there were 13 is horrendous, and yet it’s a testament to what an armed guard does in the face of killers equipped with explosives, body armor, and weapons.

    • TN05

      If their bombs in the cafeteria had went off they could have killed at least 100-200 of the 500 people in there instantly and then picked off the rest as they tried to escape it. Since the bombs failed to go off they had to go in with guns alone, and quick action by security kept them from getting very far. They realized the police would be coming so they shot everyone in the library and then killed themselves. The idea the bodyguards didn’t help is simply stupid.

  • BeyondPolls

    Basically, Michael Moore doesn’t really want kids to be protected. He’s just gunphobic.

    • TheLordRegent

      Why should he want them protected? Since the original 1990 gun-free school zone was introducted violent psychos and lefties have exploited these zones for their personal gratifaction and polictical gain, respectively.

      • BeyondPolls

        Exactly. They care nothing about kids. Rather, they care about undermining the Constitution.
        Public school zones are liberalism on display: they are Constitution-free zones in our country and look what happens on them.

  • https://jcrue.wordpress.com/ jcrue

    So I guess his hypocritical largeness is saying that no guards would have made for a more desirable result? what a twisted POS.

  • Purple State

    Mr. Moore doesn’t seem to be arguing that the students and faculty of Columbine would have been better off without the armed guards. He’s arguing that armed guards do not prevent mass shootings. That was LaPierre’s suggestion. Moore is pointing out that there are historical examples of mass shootings despite armed guards being present.

    • Joe W.

      That’s not what he said, pea brain. He inferred that they were of no help at all.

      • Steven M. Smith

        No, you believe that he implied it. You inferred it. Glass houses.

        • Joe W.

          Glass houses,my butt, Padre. You know damned good and well what he said. AND what he meant.

    • vino veritas

      If he was arguing that, then why doesn’t he just come out and say it? Perhaps because even he knows how factually wrong and ludicrous a statement like that would be. He and all fascists like him are flat out wrong on this issue and he is either severely ignorant or purposefully ignoring (much more likely) the many documented cases of on-site armed response teams or individuals preventing either mass shootings, deaths and/or severe casualties merely to further his own sick demented narcissistic agenda. It is his kind of politicization of this issue that this country does not need now nor do we ever need in the future.

      • Purple State

        He did come out and say it. “Armed guards in schools? Hmmmm… Oh! That’s why the 2 armed guards that were at Columbine HS that day were able to prevent the 15 deaths?”

        • kiki

          It’s unbelievable some of the stuff I’m reading on here. The same people saying criminals are going to break the law anyway so why bother having stricter regulations on guns? Criminals are gonna break the law anyway and shoot security guards so why bother having them? Let’s just stick a gun in everyone’s hands the moment they’re born and say, “Shoot when you feel mildly threatened or have some trouble in life.” Let’s not regulate military grade assault weapons or address mental illness in the U.S. Stand Your Ground and Shoot To Kill. (And sue me if there is a typo, my keyboard sticks and if that’s what you attack me on, then you’re a lost cause).

          • Jay Stevens

            The AR15’s that nearly “everybody” seems to have are not ” military grade assault weapons”. They merely look like an M16.

        • vino veritas

          No, he didn’t make a general blanket statement stating “armed guards don’t stop massacres” but instead made a moronic logically flawed inference suggesting those 2 armed guards should have or were supposed to prevent 15 deaths. They, in fact, did save may lives, however Mr Moore seems to think a skeleton crew of 2 armed security guards are supposed to somehow have become superheros just because he they have loaded guns. Simpleton doesn’t even begin to describe the blathering fool that is Micheal Moore.

    • Frustrated Teacher

      I love it when one person tries to ‘interpret’ what a liberal says for us to make more sense out of it. It really doesn’t help. We can read and interpret quite well and after all of his ignorant rants of late, we pretty well know where he stands on this type of issue. NO it won’t stop everything, but only an ignorant jackass would assert that having armed security in schools won’t help. Hey I hear Sidwell Friends is advertising for them…..

      • Purple State

        I wasn’t trying to interpret something for you. I was correcting Twitchy’s interpretation above.

    • ceemack

      And plenty of historical examples of armed guards or armed civilians stopping mass shootings and preventing additional casualties.

      Whereas traditional “gun control” doesn’t seem to work at all, as there are plenty of examples of mass shootings happening under very tight gun restrictions.

      Not to mention mass murders that didn’t involve guns at all. How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use?

      • Purple State

        No one is saying that banning all guns will eliminate all violence. The point is, 3/4 of the mass shootings in America since 1982 were carried out with legally-obtained guns. The system has to do better, and it can.

        • MrPete

          Yes: the issue is a culture of mayhem, promoted by the entertainment and media industries.
          Responsible gun ownership is NOT the problem.

    • TocksNedlog

      How many students were there that day — 1700?
      How many died? 12.
      How many were saved? 1688?

  • disqus_bmrHxbMAhv

    Is he still holding Princess Leia captive?

    • TocksNedlog

      Naw. He got hungry and needed a snack.

    • MKFenris

      Well played. A Jabba the Hut joke.

  • BrotherMatthias

    I believe in armed guards at most public schools. The REASON folks are wrong on this.

  • Frustrated Teacher

    ONLY a liberal POS would make a statement like this. It is getting so his tweets reveal more and more of his ignorance about most issues. That’s what happens when you live the life of an insulated, rich, Hollywood Celeb. No, the guards didn’t prevent 13 deaths (they were trying for two, right?), but they may have prevented 50- 100. Math and reality is SOOOO hard in Progville USA!

  • http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/ Susan Duclos

    Also less might have died had they been at the doors instead of monitoring the “smokers pit”- Who assigned them to that duty?

  • jenndee

    Did that souless lib, just round up the death toll to make a point? Stay classy Michael.

  • http://OccupyBawlStreet.com OccupyBawlStreet.com

    yea, 1 day 1 of us has to get gobs of video of his security “detail” guns & whatnot…

  • MKFenris

    All in favor of making this waste of a human life go through training so he can get an idea of how the real world works, by deploying him to one of those countries he loves so much, say aye.

    • jenndee


  • Bob Smooper

    Moore does have a point. Kind of. But I do want to see armed democrats guarding schools. You cannot trust right-wingers: of course most of them are so spectacularly obese they wouldn’t be suitable. All that biscuits and gravy they eat while watching the moving picture box.

    • michelle

      Have u looked at left winger Michael Moore? I guess he joined those right wingers at the biscuit and gravy table. Think before you type on your obamaphone.

      • Jay Stevens

        Michelle, I am pretty certain that was not so thinly veiled sarcasm.

        • michelle

          Looking at his past posts…I am not so sure…..?

    • Let’em Crash

      Mark is a fun guy. Rarely offending and always a contrarian.

    • TocksNedlog

      Q: Do you know what you call an ‘armed Democrat’?

      A: Grand Kleagle

      • Bob Smooper

        I am not clever enough to get that joke

        • TocksNedlog

          No argument here.

  • kiki

    The point of this post is that having armed security forces did NOT discourage crazies from going on a killing spree…….the NRA is suggesting armed forces as a way to prevent more mass killings at school. (More likely so they can sell more guns and make money) No one is arguing that the guard probably DID save lives by drawing some fire (notice that Klebold was still running around and not distracted). However, for having an armed presence already on the scene and backup almost immediately, there was still a high body count and many injuries. The point is, an armed guard is not going to be able to shoot the killer within seconds like some would believe. But I think I wound up on some bizarre site (googling Columbine and two guards to see if they were actually armed or not as some schools have unarmed security- mine did).

    • MrPete

      Armed security will scare off some crazies. And they’ll stop others cold. Yes, some may die but no law is going to prevent all the craziness.
      Five years ago, ONLY two people died at a church in my town… because law-abiding people with guns took down the shooter, before hundreds died.
      The problem is NOT the guns.
      By far the more dangerous people with control over weapons, are government leaders with no citizens in a position to stop them. By far the biggest massacres come from such leaders.

  • michelle

    I guarantee you within seconds of the news breaking of the first shots being fired at sandy hook, the liberals were already making their political signs, formulating their talking points and making sure the guards were armed at their childs private school…not a tear was shed for those killed….only plans made for political victories.

    Those of us in red states will be putting armed guards at our schools….Michael moore and Obama and his ilk do not exist where I live.

    • hrosenthal

      No way, the had the signs made……..they just fill in the name of the place later.

      • michelle

        Very true.

  • mcarVA

    @kiki, the NRA does not “sell guns”, moron. Your statement is like saying the NEA “sells schools”.

  • hrosenthal

    Did he mention the assault weapons ban at the time and how effective he thought that was in preventing the 15 deaths……… maybe next tweet.

  • hrosenthal

    How could somebody use these heroes, who saved dozens of life under fire, to make a political point like that? The idea is the save as many lives as possible, and apparently they saved plenty.

  • j.wise

    They didn’t stop fifteen murders they stopped 115 murders that day would have way worse had they not been there sorry Moore try again

  • http://www.facebook.com/ron.wilson.77964 Ron Wilson

    While Mr. Moore smugly quips that ‘two armed guards were unable to prevent 15 deaths”. Let me point out that Columbine happened during the middle of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. Funny how Mr. Moore never mentions that “the Assault Weapons ban was unable to prevent 15 deaths.” But then, I never expected MM to be totally honest.

    Point #2 – What was the deadliest school massacre in US history? Hint – no guns were used. It was the “Bath School Disaster” in 1927 where the school board treasurer blew up the school.

    Point #3 – Having lived for 10 years in Ireland where the gun laws are so severe that not even the police get to have guns, I will tell you from first hand experience that when murderers don’t have guns, they simply build pipe bombs. I for one, would rather face a lone gunman (especially if I have my CCW) than face a concealed pipe bomb that kills dozens of people in one blast. I NEVER felt safe in Ireland – even though guns were banned outright.

    My point is that making guns illegal is simply jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Been there, done that and I do not want to see America go down that same road. Thanks for reading and please consider.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chadsellshouses Chad Clement

      FYI, the facts are that there are 28.6 occurrences of rape, per 100,000 people, in the US vs. 8.5 in Ireland. There are 5 murders per 100,000 here vs. 1.2 in Ireland. Robberies: 133 vs. 56, and we have more burglaries, too. Ireland does have more car theft and more assault, attributed highly to bar fights and other such incidents. With 5 times the murder, nearly 4x the rapes and triple the robberies, I’m not sure why you feel more safe here – but you shouldn’t. We have more guns than anyone, and we have – by far – the highest murder, suicide and accidental death by firearm rated in the industrialized world. I don’t get how NRA supporters can defend themselves with a straight face… And I tend to vote Republican and own guns, too! (Not handguns or assault rifles).

      • almarquardt

        What you failed to include is how many crimes were prevented (on average 2 million/year) because someone was armed. In many cases a shot wasn’t fired, because when the perpetrator saw his own life was in jeopardy, he either surrendered or ran off.

        Should we sacrifice those 2 million people for the sole purpose of changing firearm stats?

        Think like a criminal for a sec. If you know your intended victim is likely armed, do you attack, or do you seek out one who’s likely unarmed?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        You can’t understand why a Constitutionally protected right is not protected? Really?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        Does the NRA sell guns for the specific purpose of enabling criminals? Are handguns not deadly? Couldn’t any rifle that enacts death and destruction be considered an “assault” weapon?

      • Richbert88

        There is something wrong with your numbers but I wont bother to find out exactly. What I will point out is that Russia has 1/5 the guns the US does and 5 times the violent crime. The Swiss have an very high ownership rate for guns and a very low violent crime rate.

        It’s not the gun. It’s just one common denominator in these mass shootings. Another one is penis’s. I don’t support banning either of those things. Perhaps we can address mental stability and culture.

  • MKFenris

    I had a thought. Maybe if he thinks so little of armed security, maybe his security should just up and quit. Maybe then he would shut up and show respect where it’s due.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eustace.mcgargle.7 Eustace McGargle

    Well, the ban on assault weapons didn’t work very well either, Fat Boy.

  • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

    Let Michael Moore take a stroll through Detroit without his armed guards!

  • Flock Johnson

    No amount of gun laws will prevent the criminal or the criminally insane to take up arms and shoot/kill people. Closed campuses, high fences and metal detectors at designated entrances/exits by armed personnel is the only way this can be prevented. Taking weapons away from the law abiding public only makes us a more vulnerable target. Just what the criminals/crazies are hoping for.

  • j.wise


  • AlmaAlma

    Apologies for my ignorance, but is he talking about an attack involving ‘two’ armed people? Wouldn’t two armed people be able to kill more people than one? Therefore 15 deaths, even though tragic, could have been a lot worse.

  • TocksNedlog

    As per typical lefty ABSOLUTIST logic, to Michael Moore the fact that even one person died means the armed security didn’t actually save anyone.
    Or, to be less charitable, in order to advance his agenda he is saying something that he KNOWS to be a lie.
    [Hmm, perhaps it is less charitable to say that he’s ignorant, and more charitable to say that he’s lying. Eh, six of one …]

  • BeeKaaay

    And Michael Moore’s donuts were absolutely no help at all.

  • docscience

    The Columbine deputies were operating under the old rules, stay out and wait for backup. One of the changes in rules of engagement that came out of Columbine was don’t wait, IMMEDIATELY and CONTINUOUSLY engage the killers, don’t wait for help as they murder more.