REALLY!? Jennifer Rubin's case against being armed with a handgun vs. 'kid with an AR-15' sends heads to desks

Doug P. | 3:19 PM on February 19, 2018

The school shooting in Florida has once again sparked the debate about armed guards in schools and/or allowing teachers to carry weapons:

https://twitter.com/profmusgrave/status/965316600676147200

The Washington Post’s in-house “conservative,” Jennifer Rubin, who has previously ranted against the NRA and lawful gun owners, doesn’t see the point at all in being armed if it’s against somebody using an AR-15:

If they are going up against a kid with an AR-15 what frigging good will a handgun be or are they bringing their own AR-15 to school? This idiocy needs to be mocked incessantly

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) February 18, 2018

Um, who wants to tell her?

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/965426507039563776

Is she saying that if you don’t have a gun as large in physical size as the one a would-be killer is carrying there’s no point in carrying one at all? Rubin’s tweet about what needs to be “mocked incessantly” was mocked incessantly:

You can shoot at a bad guy with a handgun. You might scare away or even hit him.

Hope that helps.

— While Supplies Last (@corrcomm) February 19, 2018

https://twitter.com/Roger247/status/965426165023322112

Yes it's so much better to be unarmed and helpless.

— I Hate The Media ?? (@ihatethemedia) February 19, 2018

When the alternative is to simply be a bullet sponge

Then absolutely a handgun is a great option

And what would be wrong with a pistol in a holster and an AR-15 in a safe if needed?

Stop howling ignorantly https://t.co/UDWVZp164Q

— Jim Hanson (@JimHansonDC) February 19, 2018