Michael Landsberry and his wife, Sharon
One might think that school shootings are as common as grass, but they remain, as they have ever been: thankfully rare. However, that does not protect students and teachers when and where they occur. And most recently, at about 0700 AM on October 21, 2013, one occurred in Sparks, Nevada at Sparks Middle School. ABC News reports:
A middle school math teacher was shot dead today while shielding students from a boy with a gun in a Nevada middle school.
Two students were shot and wounded before the boy with the gun was killed. It’s not clear how he died, but police said they did not fire any shots.
The slain teacher was identified by his family as Michael Landsberry, a former U.S. Marine.
Chanda Landsberry, the slain teacher’s sister-in-law, told ABC News that he left behind a wife, Sharon, and two step-daughters.
The two wounded boys were taken to Renown Regional Medical Center and were initially listed in critical condition, hospital spokeswoman Angela Rambo told ABCNews.com.
Authorities said one of the students has been through surgery, while the second is said to be ‘doing well.
Landsberry, a former Marine, served two tours in Afghanistan and was a current member of the Nevada Air National Guard. The student with a gun, after killing Landsberry and shooting two other students–apparently at random–shot and killed himself.
Fox News reports the perspective of a student witness:
We were at the basketball court and we heard a pop, like a loud pop, and everybody was screaming and the teacher came to investigate – I thought it was a firecracker at first, but the student was pointing a gun at the teacher after the teacher told him to put it down and the student fired a shot at the teacher and the teacher fell and everybody ran away. And we ran across the field to get somewhere safe and while we were running we heard about four or five more shots and we just got somewhere safe. This lady let us into her house.
ABC News reports on another student witnesses’ experience:
I heard the first shot,’ a student named Jonathan told the Reno Gazette-Journal. ‘I looked over and saw a kid, my best friend, laying on the ground shot in the arm.’
At that point, students said Landsberry rushed in to try and stop the boy from shooting anyone else. The suspect told Landsberry to back up, and when he did, witnesses said he boy shot the math teacher in the chest.
While the shooter ran into a school building, where he hit another boy, Andrew Thompson, a student at the school, said he and his friends tried to save Landsberry.
‘Me and five other friends said, ‘Come on, we have to get him to safety,’ Thompson told ABC News’ Reno affiliate KOLO-TV. ‘We picked him up, carried him a little bit far, and then left him because our vice principal came along and said, ‘Go, go, go! Get to safety.’ So we left the teacher.
As might be expected–and hoped–Landsberry is being lauded as a hero.
Authorities believe Landsberry was trying to protect students when he was killed. He just celebrated his wedding anniversary on Oct. 18, The Las Vegas-Review Journal reported.’
‘My estimation is that he is a hero,’ said Reno Police Department Deputy Chief Tom Robinson.”
‘To hear that he was trying to stop that is not surprising by any means,’ said his sister-in-law Chanda Landsberry. She added his life could be summed up by his love of family, his students and his country.
There is a numbingly familiar refrain:
Police said there is no apparent motive yet for the shooting and they believe the gunman acted alone.
Before I discuss this case and its implications, let’s consider the reality of violence in America: violence of all kinds has been declining, and declining steadily, and school shootings are still best understood by their rarity. Consider this graph from the FBI:
Two statistics tell the tale well. In 1993, the population was 257,782,608. The violent crime rate was 747.1, there were 24,526 murders and non-negligent (accidental) manslaughters, and the rate of those crimes was 9.5. In 2012, the population was 313,914,040 (more than 56 million greater), the violent crime rate was 386.9 (a drop of 360.2), and the murder/non-negligent manslaughter number was 4.7, a drop of 4.8.
Consider too that during this time, the rate of gun ownership by law abiding Americans has risen. In 2011, Gallup reported that one in three Americans report owning a gun, and 47% report they have a gun in their home. Of course, there is reason to believe the numbers are substantially higher. Many people are distinctly uncomfortable revealing the fact of their gun ownership or its numbers to any stranger. In addition, during the Obama years, gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed, particularly among first time gun owners, and women. Democrats are also buying guns at surprising rates. The surge in concealed carry permits in most American states should also not be underestimated.
In short, there are far more guns in the hands of Americans than at any time in history, yet violence, including violence involving guns–a small part of the overall violence picture–has been steadily declining and continues to decline. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for gun control.
There are two questions that may be worth posing when debating the related issues:
“When a school shooter is present, able to kill students and teachers, what should be done? Why is being unarmed preferable to being armed?”
“Should Michael Landsberry and every other teacher be lauded as a hero because he was able to shoot and stop a killer, or because he died in a doomed, unarmed attempt to stop a killer? Which outcome honors the brave and enhances society?”
As I’ve often written, in virtually every school attack, the police have had no role whatsoever in stopping the shooter or saving lives. This was true in Aurora, CO, where the police eventually took the killer into custody, but every indication is he was done with shooting and was leaving the theater. It was true at Virginia Tech (32 dead and 15 wounded) and at Sandy Hook Elementary school (26 dead) where both killers shot themselves before police could intervene.
Infoplease has a timeline of worldwide school and mass shootings that is useful in several ways. Keep in mind that this timeline provides only the most cursory details, however, several facts are indisputable:
Such killings are not limited to the United States, nor have the most deadly–by virtue of the sheer number of dead and wounded–been limited to the United States.
All of the schools involved, and virtually every other place, have been so called “gun-free zones,” better understood to be victim disarmament zones where killers can be certain there will be no one to stop them until they’ve killed as much as they please.
In virtually none of the cases did armed authorities have anything to do with stopping the killers or saving lives, but in some, armed citizens did.
Doors, security cameras, magnetic card locks, and other passive methods of school security can serve only to delay a shooter, and commonly only by seconds. Schools are virtually never designed for the kind of security that might be even minimally effective in deterring, slowing, or stopping killers. It’s just too expensive, and it would violate fire laws, endangering students and teachers in other ways.
When a killer is present and has demonstrated his intentions, by brandishing a gun, or by actually shooting–as was the case in Sparks–two things matter above all else: time and distance. Students, and particularly teachers, have a choice: run or attack. This is an issue I’ve given a great deal of thought.
My school is like virtually all: a shooting gallery for killers and a nightmare for defenders. Long, straight hallways offer little or no cover (actual protection from bullets) or concealment (the ability to stay out of sight and out of mind). Classroom doors are lockable, but easily breached in seconds. Like virtually every American teacher, I am unarmed, by law and school policy, but only when I’m on school property.
School shootings remain rare, but always possible. A shooting in my school is very unlikely–statistically speaking–but always possible. I’ve no doubt Michael Landsberry understood this, but took some comfort in the knowledge that an attack in his school was highly unlikely–until October 21. On that day, time and distance became very important to him.
I am a large and strong man, trained in a number of martial arts and specifically the empty handed disarming of armed people. But the problem is one of time and distance. If I have sufficient time to get close enough to a killer without being shot and disabled or killed, it is likely I can disarm and disable him–if there is only one. If there are two or more, an unarmed attack is probably suicide. But in my school–in virtually every school–time and distance are on the side of the killer, even if they are an average-sized middle school student, and the terrain absolutely favors the killer.
In addition, such confrontations are nothing at all like TV or the movies would have us believe. If I can get close enough, I will not send the killer flying with a spinning helicopter kick that will neatly separate him from his gun and render him immediately unconscious. I have to be close enough to actually put both hands on his gun, and once gaining control of it, have to strike him–as quickly and brutally as possible–in sufficient vital areas to incapacitate him, probably in ways that will kill him. All of this will happen in mere seconds, and not in close-up, panoramic slow motion. In that close combat, I must expect to absorb at least one and probably more bullets, but once committed, I can’t stop until I succeed or am dead. This is not an abstract hypothetical scenario in support of a feckless policy, but cold, hard, bloody reality.
This would be my very real and only choice–other than running away, of course. I would not run away. And yes, I’ve sufficient experience in such situations to know that. So did Michael Landsberry, but time and distance were against him. He chose to approach a killer–a deranged child that had already wounded one student–in the open, with no cover or concealment. That deranged child did not allow him to get close enough to matter. Landsberry understood these dynamics, but did it anyway.
Michael Landsberry, Marine combat veteran, survived war, but not a crazed adolescent with a handgun. Did he die a hero? Certainly in God’s eyes. John 10:11:
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
I know that I, and those who loved Landsberry, would prefer that he be recognized as a hero because, confronted by a killer, he was able to use time and distance to his advantage, and shoot and stop that killer from a safe distance, absolutely saving anyone else from being wounded or killed. But Landsberry and I, and virtually every other teacher in America, is unarmed, unable to save their lives, and the lives of their students, unless by sheer luck, time and distance fall in our favor.
He didn’t have to lay down his life. He could have been allowed–by law and policy–the means to save it, and the lives of others.
Still, Landsberry demonstrated the greatest love. I hope I never have to do so, but if necessary, I’ve no doubt I will, and I’ve no doubt that thousands of other teachers would do the same.
I also have no doubt that we are all diminished by the untimely, unnecessary death of Michael Landsberry. He died for unhinged Progressive notions of “feeling safe.” He died for the mistaken “protection” afforded by small, metal “gun free school zone” signs. He died because anti-gun politicians and their sycophants were more interested in “making a statement” than in saving innocent lives. He died because too many school boards, lawmakers and school administrators trust teachers with the lives of students, but only in the abstract. When their lives are truly in imminent, deadly danger, they don’t trust teachers at all. By their decision to disarm some of the most responsible, exhaustively vetted people in America, they are tacitly admitting their willingness to accept some number of wounded and dead when and if a school shooting occurs.
Perhaps there is some hope. After the deadly attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, even Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble–an American working for a European agency–seems to have been inoculated with common sense and effective tactics:
Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.
Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?’ Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. ‘What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.
That discussion can lead to only one rational conclusion: there is only one sure, low or no cost, safe and effective means of protecting lives when a shooter is present: allow willing and able teachers to carry concealed weapons, just as they do off school property.
On October 21, Landsberry needed a concealed handgun, not a taser, not a gun locked in a safe in a principal’s office, not a police officer who, once called would be minutes away at best. As with a fire extinguisher, he needed that handgun immediately, badly, and nothing else would do. Because he did not have it, because he, a Marine combat veteran, was deprived of the means to do what he was manifestly capable of doing, he died and a second student was wounded.
Yes, he’s a hero, but wouldn’t it be better for us all for him to be able to hear and appreciate that word? Wouldn’t it be better for his students to find him, alive and well, in his classroom the following morning? Wouldn’t be better for the next brave teacher in the next school where it’s unlikely a shooting will happen?
For readers wanting more in-depth information on this topic, may I suggest my five part series on school shootings? Those articles (last updated in December of 2012), which I’ll update after the first of the year, are available here:
Stately McDaniel Manor 
How many men and women, who teach our children daily, could have stopped this tragedy? More than we could ever count! Instead of allowing qualified men and women (limited number in each school) to carry concealed weapons, stupid signs are put up that say “Gun Free School Zone”. The idea that the police are the only capable people to handle weapons is clearly absurd. They are not at the scene until too late and are often not good shots!
I could not agree with you more, Mike. We need to allow people to protect themselves, loved ones and all people that come into harms way from some crazy armed person. It makes absolutely no sense that the anti-gun lobby continues to think that “guns” are killers. Where are their brains???
My heart goes out to Mrs. Landsberry. She sent her husband twice to a war zone, only to have him killed in a “Gun Free Zone”. Beyond tragic.
Thank you for this post. As a father with a daughter who teaches high school, this is a topic that definitely commands my attention. Children with presence of mind might have the option to run. A conscientious teacher does not. As they say, it’s not the probability, it’s the stakes. Also, FWIW, I believe Noble is an American.
Strange as it seems we were discussing the moral breakdown of todays youth and school shootings while assembling Saiga shotguns in the shop the morning before this shooting happened. Conclusions reached as to the causes were violent video games, and the lack of family values in this country. We all remembered our days long ago in the public school system when the county extension agent brought a rifle to school and taught gun safety. Imagine that, an actual firearm that was passed around the class and handled by students. None of us could recall at the time if there were any mass school shootings in an elementary, middle, or high school before Columbine. Before the gun control act of 68 you could buy a gun through the mail and have it delivered to your home. No registration, nothing. We didn’t have school shootings. When I was in high school (class of 78) we routinely brought our rifles to school during hunting season so we could get some hunting in right after school. Nobody ever shot the place up. An interesting video of school children in Russia doing an exercise where the class breaks down and reassembles an AK-74 is here…
How many school shootings have they had? The lefts hysteria over guns and the blame on guns and the gun culture as to the cause of these recent shootings is ridiculous. Signs don’t work, gun free zones don’t work, giving children violent bloody first person killing games does not work. Perhaps it’s time we try something different. Bring back gun safety classes in the schools, teach marksmanship, take the mystique of guns away. Let kids see and feel the power of a real gun. Teach some respect. Then you may see some changes. Until you do that you arm every competent teacher, administrator, janitor, etc that wishes to take on the responsibility of protecting those on campus.
Semper Fi, Mike! May his memory be eternal!
Do we need a constitutional amendment that explicitly gives us the right to “reasonable” Self Defense? I know it’s assumed, and covered in Common Law, but it seems that even that precept is being chipped away at. The myth of “protect and serve” is being so inflated that people keep talking as if a police presence is all we need. I know the vast majority of Police officers take their duty seriously. However the reality is more like “Investigate and Punish”. I’d rather be alive than dead. Each person is his own front line, and most are compassionate enough to watch out for their neighbor, and community, and a few brave people are even willing to risk their own lives.
We should start posting signs a schools, that say ” ‘A’ student only zones” to see if that somehow magically lifts the grade point averages of our children.
So is it time to petition for a “Landsberry Amendment”?
I want to turn this upside down a little bit, and ask some more questions regarding the incident. I do in fact see that this was a situation where a teacher with a gun might have been able to at least disable the shooter by aiming for some other part of his body.
Keeping in mind how an law enforcement officer (or whatever he was) used certain methods to disarm a would be thief with a gun, was there any possibility that using similar techniques might have helped in this situation? I suspect that the answer is Yes or maybe. In other words, if the teacher had been allowed to conceal carry he might have been able to successfully disarm the boy before this tragedy occurred.
From my understanding, this tragedy was a direct result of school bullying. What is not clear to me though is whether or not it was the boy who had been bullied who was retaliating or whether he was the bully. If he was being bullied, then I would suggest that the school should have been doing more to avert such a situation from occurring. If he was the victim of bullying the school should have been offering counselling to him before it got to this stage.
A lot of children who are bullied attempt suicide. It happened to a niece of mine. She survived her suicide attempt I might add, but the fact is that school bullying led her to the edge. As a victim of school bullying myself, I know the psychological damage that occurs and especially in a child who is in his early teens.
This incident is a real tragedy. The wash up should not be about the gun that was used, I think it should be about what led the boy to such an extreme measure in the first place.
Dear Aussie:
Good points, as always. However, regardless of what caused anyone to arrive at a school, armed and intending to kill, the question remains what will we do when that happens? For the sake of political correctness, are we willing to accept a toll of wounded and dead to be determined by the deranged and/or dumb luck, or are we willing to actually provide the sole effective means of saving lives then and there?
I’ll be addressing bullying in the near future. Thanks again!
Mike, it is a double edged sword I am afraid. Political correctness is killing us, literally.
I do in fact believe that teachers should be allowed to have conceal carry.
Even in my country there are incidents between school children, but where there are deaths it is normally a stabbing death. In your country it is the gun situation.
I do not like the idea of children having guns but I agree that political correctness has been making a joke out of the whole issue with their suspension of children who have nothing more than a pop tart.
I do see this as a cause and effect issue, but I also believe that responsible teachers who are well trained should have concealed carry guns.
Aussie: “Keeping in mind how an law enforcement officer (or whatever he was) used certain methods to disarm a would be thief with a gun, was there any possibility that using similar techniques might have helped in this situation? I suspect that the answer is Yes or maybe. In other words, if the teacher had been allowed to conceal carry he might have been able to successfully disarm the boy before this tragedy occurred. ”
The answer might be a big(?) maybe – to the disarming aspect.
Here is a recent story of a 13-year-old being shot dead by cops. He was carrying a toy gun – albeit a realistic-looking one missing a clear “toy” marker.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/andy-lopez_n_4152819.html
In a society where it is not unreasonable to assume that people will have guns – and LE/people choose to err on the side of caution – or or crap shots – this is going to happen. That is, unless 13-year-olds begin to act like trained adults.
.
I’m not convinced that random civillians will be better than random cops in tense situations.
Certainly citizens cannot be expected to handle stress and danger as well as police officers do, it is after all not a part of the normal citizen experience. So we may expect a citizen shooter to be more affected by the panic which a life-or-death situation entails. In either case shots fired to save lives will not be as accurate as those on the range — I doubt police are passing their accuracy tests with the same 20% hit rate they have in the field.
However, civilians have a huge advantage over responding police officers in that they are already present. This is not only a tactical advantage as Mike outlines; civilians are present for the entire event, when intervention can make a difference, whereas even quickly responding police are often too late. Civilians are in a much better position to shoot the right person because they are present for the event, rather than responding to it with incomplete information. A civilian who has witnessed the attack has no doubt who the shooter is, and what his intentions are.
I do not advocate “random civilians” wandering around carrying firearms. I would prefer to have police officers (or, at least, well-trained security guards) stationed in every school. Probably over 90% of teachers would want no part of carrying weapons, and another 5% would probably end up shooting some innocent person whom they mistook for a criminal. But those few teachers and other staff members who are willing to take on the responsibility, and who are properly trained and qualified, should be allowed to be discreetly armed. (My understanding is that Civil Guard volunteers in Israel are trained by either the police or the army.) Then a maniac who wanted to go on a shooting spree would, in effect, be playing Russian Roulette. As it is now, our “gun-free” schools are basically game preserves for mass murderers. Michael Landsberry was a military veteran who could handle weapons. He survived two combat tours in the Middle East and then ended up getting killed in a so-called “gun-free zone.”
To follow up on the cop who shot the 13-year-old…..
It seems that he is no ordinary cop.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77962822/
Extracts:
“A Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy who fatally shot a boy holding a pellet gun is a firearms expert, Iraq War veteran and contributor to online forums dealing with guns and police use of force, officials said Monday.
In his writings, Gelhaus, a 24-year veteran of the Sheriff’s Office, has been a frequent advocate of a prepared, aggressive stance in law enforcement, a profession he has described as a “calling” and likened to a “contact sport,” the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reported.
In a 2008 article he wrote for S.W.A.T. Magazine about strategies for surviving an ambush in the “kill zone,” Gelhaus began by describing the “nanoseconds (that) seem like minutes as you scramble to react while simultaneously thinking about your children and spouse.””
“Gelhaus opened fire when he saw Lopez — whose back was to the deputies — begin to turn toward him, the barrel of the BB gun rising, authorities said. The deputy mistook the BB gun for an assault rifle, investigators said.
.
Gelhaus fired eight rounds, striking the boy seven times, investigators said. Two shots were fatal, an autopsy determined.”
.
On a positive note, he seems to have been an expert shot, with only one of eight shots whizzing off somewhere unintended. I’m not sure what size his target was, but I would guess at relatively small.
Some 13-year-olds look older, but most do not in my experience. Eight shots!!
On a less positive note, the guy’s situational awareness seems to be instructed primarily by viewing the entire universe as a war zone.
“prepared, aggressive stance in law enforcement” FFS!
Is this not the price of having the country as an armed camp, with everyone in fear for their lives?
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Hi there. Actually, the only thing we have to fear is criminals, and poorly trained, overly aggressive, trigger-happy cops.
Just for the record, if an officer is truly justified in shooting, he is justified in shooting as many rounds as necessary to neutralize the threat. That said, eight rounds…?
In followup to “is this not the price of having the country as an armed camp, with everyone in fear for their lives?”
I don’t see the country anywhere close to an armed camp where everyone is in fear for their lives. I see a country full of people who take responsibility for their own security all the while an increasingly vocal minority tries to stop them. Those that dream of a full on nanny state can’t stand the thought of personal responsibility. Life for them would be so much better if all was provided by a central government who would decide for everyone what they need and receive. I for one refuse to live that way and keeping the population well armed is insurance in a way that we will never become that society.
Mike,
“That said, eight rounds…?”
You put your finger on the aspect that struck me most – considering the particular individual.
A “normal” cop might have loosed of 8 rounds because the hope that at least one of them might damage the target. There is no realistic possibility for them to shoot with intent to disable. Just hitting anything at all is a win.
This guy sounds like a “If I shoot someone, they stay shot” sort of of ability. He sounds like someone capable of a non-lethal shot that would stop whatever is going on.
He hit the target 7 times out of 8 shots. I wonder which shot missed?
For this guy, 8 rounds must sinal an intent to kill – and maybe more than that – as in “Great! an opportunity to fill a punk full of lead.”
Problem was, the ‘punk’ was a 13-year-old carrying a pellet gun back to a friend – and who turned when shouted at by the cop – as one might.
.
There are two things wrong with society here in my view.
1) The cop, for all his training, comes out as a psycopath.
“prepared, aggressive stance in law enforcement” – 8 shots with 7 hitting
How on earth can society allow someone like him wear a badge and deal with the public?
2) Is there a ‘chicken-and-egg’ thing here? Are cops so ready to shoot because of the hight probability that people are armed? Are they shooting ‘just in case’?
What is happening is a presumption of guilt – with a capital penalty.
Does this way of thinking run for civilians as well – although a cop will not face the same consequences for error that a civilian might.
.
I have wandered around in countries where it would be unusual for people to have access to guns – and where even normal cops do not carry. People in those countries do not appear to be living in fear.
This is not to say “Oh nooooos. People have guns. This is why we can’t have nice things.”
Access to guns is already well out of the bag in America. It’s probably way too late to try roll the situation back.
My problem is not so much with gun control as it is with an attitude by some/many that more guns is the solution.
It’s a difficult topic.
There are some types of people who simply should not have guns in public places – even if at all.
I’ll start with the cop in question :)
Dear Slingtrebuchet:
I worry about today’s police officers. In my time, in a situation like that, we would not have approached that youngster until we could arrange a situation that gave us every tactical advantage, so that if he had a real weapon and tried to shoot any of us, we would be behind cover and would have the time to assess the situation fully before firing a single round. In other words, if the kid really wanted to shoot, and did shoot, our cover would absorb the rounds, giving us an unmistakable indication of his intent, and no question about our return fire being justified. And if we fired, we might fire two, perhaps three rounds before pausing for a second to assess the effectiveness of our fire. Anyone loosing eight rounds would have a very great deal of explaining to do.
Of course, sometimes officers are forced to act when they don’t have the tactical advantage, but from what I know about this situation, that wasn’t the case.
Not a good situation.
Wow! Michael Landsberry shares the common ancestor as William Arnold “Popeye” Costello! Landsberry is like Popeye saving others!
Also, Michael Landsberry is the direct descendant of the American Revolution!
Pingback: Coleen Ritzer: A Legacy to Leave Behind | Stately McDaniel Manor
Mike you wrote the following
‘Perhaps there is some hope. After the deadly attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, even Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble–a European’
This is incorrect Secretary Genera Ronald Noble is an African-American Stanford Law Grad and tenure professor for New York University Law. He is on leave while he serves in the Interpol. He also served as an Under-Secretary in the first Clinton administration.
He is from Ft. Dix, NJ my wife’s hometown, so she told me.
Dear Boricuafudd:
Thanks for the heads up! I discovered that as well, but was only able to update the article to reflect that just now. Thanks again!
Not a problem love your site and your posts, I do not want a simple error to take away from the rest of the story.
Dear boricuafudd:
But you’ve destroyed my delusions of perfection!
Do not worry, as Joseph Hall would say; “Perfection is a child of time”, I just dd not give you enough time.
Mike,
You said in your day you would have taken refuge behind acceptable cover when confronting an individual like this kid. Seeing this was what the police assumed was an ak-47 what would have been acceptable cover for you? I know from experience that there are very few objects that will stop ak ball ammo. I have seen my own guns blast through concrete block walls, cars, engine blocks, 18″ trees, brick walls etc. The typical surplus ball ammo with the steel core is some dangerous hard to stop ammo at less than 25 yards.
The children are being watched by the watchful eyes of “Uncle” Landsberry.
Wow! Michael T. Landsberry is related to the hero, “Uncle” Alan Burton Hall! “Uncle” Hall has so many heroes are related to each other! Also, Landsberry is related to Herbert Benton “Ben” Connor, a man from Oakland!
Possibly, Mike Landsberry was cremated per request.
Pingback: Noblesville: Time And Distance | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Boulder: Gun Ban Blowback | Stately McDaniel Manor