Sandy Hook Survivors: We Never Thought of Having A Gun To Defend Children

Screen Shot 2014-12-08 at 9.48.59 AM

“It’s been nearly two years since a disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, opened fire at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 young children and six adults,” the CBS Sunday morning report on the Newtown slaughter begins. “Some of the teachers are beginning to tell stories of what they heard and saw that day — and trying to make certain what happened in Newtown can’t happen elsewhere.” What follows what you’d expect: bloody shirt waving and the usual anti-NRA, pro-gun control propaganda. And then, at the end, this . . .

Pauley asked, “I’m going to ask the devil’s advocate question: Is there no one here that that day didn’t wish they had a gun?”

Becky Virgalla replied, “I did not even think of that.”

“Never thought of that,” said Wexler.

“No,” said Jacob. “And you know what? If there had been someone at the entrance to our school with a gun, they would’ve been dead, too. There’s a reason they call them assault weapons. It’s an impossible barrage to survive from. We survived because we were lucky and because he was stopped for whatever reason before he could do more damage.”

For whatever reason? Lanza was stopped by the sight of armed opposition coming to cap his ass. Common sense tells us that a bullet between his ears (or several center mass) at the onset of his attack would have been equally effective.

The truth is the Sandy Hook survivors don’t want to think of the possibility of an armed end to Lanza’s attack because then they’d have to accept the possibility that they could have done something effective to save 20 childrens’ lives.

Equally, those of us who understand the value of armed self-defense lobby for its adoption in schools because we don’t want any adult to have to face that question. You know, after the fact. [h/t CJ]

comments

  1. avatar Frank says:

    Well then let’s get guns in schools…for the kids.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      The visible disconnect between never thinking of wanting a gun to defend the children and doubling-down by claiming that a pre-positioned armed individual would have been useless, yet calling 911 (summoning people with guns after the fact) to terminate the attack on the children being a reasonable and expected response to any violent act, is just…breathtakingly ignorant.

      The NRA called it correctly; we use armed guards to safeguard all kinds of valuable items, and for the most part, they get the job done quite well. There is no reason at all to expect that posting armed guards at schools would have anything other than the same success.

      1. avatar Harles5000 says:

        This is the victimization mentality, you can only be a victim not an agressor, victims die and agressors create opposition contrary to the goals of the elite, they don’t want a society that opposes their agenda’s but cows down to threats and are willing victims of crime.

        1. avatar Alexander says:

          Victim mentality – same as a herbivore prey mentality. Another word for sheeple.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Armed guards stand in front of banks, military installations, public events, government installations, stadium activities, and during every moment near the president.

        Bloomberg and Shannon Watts of “Mom’s demand action” for gun sense in America, support the use of armed guards. How possibly can Bloomberg and Shannon Watts acknowledge the effectiveness of armed guards (and hire them for their use) but then dismiss that effectiveness the moment those armed guards stand in front of a school?

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Armed guards? Hell no! That only serves to further indoctrinate the children into this idea that government will take care of all of their needs. The simple and correct solution is to remove the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The only reason we would have to rely upon armed guards in these situations is because the People are unconstitutionally disarmed. Let the children see their neighbors, Mom, Dad, uncles and aunts, Grandpa and Grandma, etc providing for their defense. That would go a long way towards producing young adults who understand that they are responsible for their own safety and not government.

        This is one of the many reasons I won’t be renewing an NRA membership anytime soon. There were thirteen distinct points in their post Sandy Hook statement that I could not ever support in good conscience. Armed guards… that is NOT the proper solution. That is a statist mistake.

        1. avatar SpecialK says:

          I agree. Additionally, an armed guard creates a single point of failure and all of the false confidence which accompanies it. If the shooter does any recon at all it will be fairly easy to identify the guard, get the drop on him/her, and then continue the rampage unopposed. Any system will be at its most resilient when it employs robust redundancies in parallel. This as true of school defense as anything else.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Agree 100%, John.

          We put armed guards at the gates of prisons. Is it any wonder I (and quite a few others) are equating schools with prisons more and more with each passing year?

          What’s the message to a six year old child just in the ENVIRONMENT we have created that we call “school”?

          J.T. Gatto’s words ring true. Those buildings are not about education…at least not in the sense most of us use that word.

          But, it is educating children alright. The real question is WHAT is it teaching them.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          I agree with this. I would prefer the armed guards at the school be regular people, parents, teachers, etc. I do believe having armed guards would be effective against mass shooters, but there is the tradeoff that now you have… armed guards! stationed at the school! Are they going to click their heels together and swing their arms in the air? Maybe. Are they the “I was just following orders” kind of guys? Are they going to spray a fire extinguisher sized can of mace into student faces when instructions are not exactly performed as ordered? Maybe. Are they going to shoot a student who is “pulling something” out of his pants because he is black and has a hoodie? Possibly. Are they going to claim sovereign immunity if they make some mistakes? Definitely. Are they “all guards must go home safe” kind of guys? Do they have any vested interest in protecting the school and kids? Probably not. Doesn’t sound good to me.

          Above I was looking to point out the hypocrisy of the anti-gun crowd rather than my undying love of armed guards, metal detectors, millimeter wave scanners, xray machines, and random security checks.

          Rather than the promotion of ethics, principles, and ideals, America has put a large band-aid over the demoralization of america. Armed guards, metal detectors, and more government oversight is certainly not the answer. Lets ban and regulate guns and have more government in our lives is the statist approach but certainly not the answer either.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      We think absolutely nothing when we have people with guns protecting our banks, our celebrities, our millionaires and our politicians.

      Apparently all these things are way more important and precious than our children.

  2. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

    “We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1GuZed8LQ

  3. avatar JoshtheViking says:

    Stupid sheep. An AR-15 does not make someone bullet proof. T-zone that bastard (Lanza) with a .357 and it won’t matter what kind of rifle he has.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      And she of course discounts the fact that Lanza may not have attacked the school at all if there were an armed presence.

      An armed person may have prevented the incident from ever occurring given the fact that these spree killings virtually always occur in gun-free zones.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      But he was stopped for “whatever reason!”

      Whatever reason, man… can’t argue with that.

      1. avatar James says:

        Well, when they said they didn’t think of it or about it, they were more right than they could possibly know. Just the statements they made, it’s pretty evident that they don’t think much at all, ever, period. And their supposed to teach young minds…..yeeesh. Private school choice or home school looks better everyday.

        BTW, the whatever reason the psycho stopped was he felt an armed response was eminent from the police. Rarely, does the psycho not take his own life at the point armed resistance presents itself.

  4. avatar Roll says:

    “If there had been someone at the entrance to our school with a gun, they would’ve been dead, too.”

    Pure supposition.

    Maybe a person(guard/police) at the entrance with a weapon would have deterred A-Hole. Maybe the guard would’ve come out on top and helped to avoid this tragedy.

    1. avatar RT says:

      Funny how she could predict that piece of future, but not the attack itself.

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        It, like most arguments from that type of person, is the perfect argument. There’s no way to counter what they believe would have happened. You cant rewind time and show them how things would have been different, and no matter how many facts or statistics you put out, they can always just repeat the same line with no need to validate because you cant “prove” to them their statement is false.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Very true.

          You can, however, point out the irrationality of their position as they, likewise, cannot say what “would have” happened.

          You can also point out that other, similar, situations (such as the school shooting in Aurora, CO last year), the outcome was quite different than THEIR prediction.

          At the end of the day, though, they embrace their delusions with petulant vehemence, and no amount logic, data or rational attempts at persuasion can crack through – if past observation is any indication.

          This is precisely why these are the LAST people on earth that should be giving any advice or comment whatsoever regarding how to safeguard children in schools. They simply have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about.

    2. avatar 2Alpha says:

      Someone with an LCP could have probably taken him out. It’s about skill and training. Just because he had an AR doesn’t make him some BA operator who operates operationally.

      1. avatar pyratemime says:

        Given the murder had to shoot through the front windows and crawl through I would say any armed individual at the front of the building would have the murder in a kill box and be in a great position to come out on top. Perhaps those teachers should stick to the ABCs and leave tactical thinking to others.

    3. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      More likely is that Lanza wouldn’t have attacked the school at all if he’d been aware there was an armed presence. You know, these folks do have a history of doing their spree killings in gun-free zones.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      So because that person would “probably” be dead it’s better not to have them?

      What does “probably” mean? 90%? So there was a 10% chance someone could have stopped him? Is that not worth trying?

      Not one of these women is willing to have the courage to admit this could have been stopped by one person, not much different than them… they have to imagine it in huge, society-effecting terms.

    5. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      When you put a guard at the entrance of a building and he is the only armed person on the premises, he becomes a prime target for a spree killer since he can be surprised and there will be no further armed resistance. However, what if instead of an armed guard at the entrance there were 7 or 8 teachers or administrators who carried concealed weapons? Sure there would have still been casualties but it’s almost certain that there would have been fewer casualties.

      1. avatar Icabod says:

        Most educators do not have the mind or skillset to use a weapon. Plus, close contact with students, moving between classes, lunch duty all can result in a ND, lost weapon, or kids wanting to “touch it.” At my last school, there were four of us that were familar with weapons.
        One solution would be to have gunsafes in office areas and selected/trained staff with access. At Sandy Hook the principal ran out of her office and was killed. What if she had come out with a pistol?

        1. avatar Bob says:

          ND, lost, students want to toich it? Seriously? I’m a teacher and the safest place for a firearm is on me. I could carry every day and no student would know. Sounds like you don’t know much about carrying a firearm.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If you’re “familiar with guns”, then you would know that “close contact” with a holstered firearm cannot cause a negligent discharge.

          And funnily enough, I concealed carry my firearm everywhere, nobody has ever expressed a desire to “touch it.”

        3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “…Most educators do not have the mind or skillset to use a weapon. ”

          That’s fine.

          How about we allow the others who *do* have the mind or skillset to use a weapon to carry one.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “At Sandy Hook the principal ran out of her office and was killed. What if she had come out with a pistol?”

          Someone else could have picked it up and used it to stop the mass murderer?

          Really…is your post serious?

          Most educators don’t have the skill to use a firearm, huh? Ever heard of this thing called “training?” Or, are you saying that are too stupid to learn a NEW skill?

          ND walking to lunch? Good grief. You dug deep for that one. I have carried a firearm everyday for years on end, part of the time which included walking from one point to another (among other activities). Here’s a clue: holstered firearms don’t ND. The gun has no agency…it cannot ‘decide’ to fire while holstered.

          Post had to be a joke…

      2. avatar Harles5000 says:

        Agreed, although whether Sandy Hook took place or was a hoax or exercise, I have yet to see evidence of people dying that day, had people been armed less people would been put at risk. My understanding was that so called attacker Lanza was autistic and slow chances are he could have been intercepted and stopped. We will only be able to make reasonable judgements if an inquiry were held to investigate the event or exercise but the school was torn down shortly after this event real or imagined.

    6. avatar alexander says:

      And yet schools across the country have now employed people with guns at the front to try to prevent exactly that. Those are cops that taxpayers have to pay extra for. Bottom line – the Sandy Hook parents are stupid, they made stupid rules, elected stupid officials, brought up a stupid Lanza family and are too stupid to understand that they are stupid. Hope that works well for them.

      1. avatar Mike R says:

        The whole state has that mindset….guns can’t be used for saving lives only taking them. I agree that when everyone in that area thinks that way and they want to give us advice on “keeping schools safe”, I say cover your ears and say “la la la”. Because that “gun free zone” mindset is what puts these kids at risk, and they will never admit that.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          Being a CT resident and having participated in the process to fight PA 13-3 and the whole other load of shit our governor and legislature has done, I can safely say the whole state does not have that mindset.

          Like with NYC making the policy for NY state, a similar thing happens in CT; New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford make the rules for the rest of the state.

          Look at how the state voted in this past election and you will see that only the 3 counties with those cities voted for Malloy.

  5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    Of course they did not think of it. They have spent their entire lives, and indeed their very careers, willingly being programmed to trust the state to solve all their problems.

    They are, after all, PUBLIC school teachers.

    How much would you like to bet every one of them also oppose “School Choice” measures? Or, wonder what they think of people that produce, sell or choose to purchase “raw milk”?

    This is how they think. Individualism need not apply in ANY way shape or form, up to and including individual responsibility for self defense.

    1. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

      LIBERAL public school teachers is what I hope you meant, since in free states the teachers are hunters and pack heat law be damned since it is our custom to take care of our own. One of these disgusting cowardly human beings that was a liberal male, so not much of a man by his emotions instead of actions said that we read to the children and huddled with them for 5 minutes with 154 shots ringing out over the PA system. What American male would cower under a desk for five minutes while children are knowingly being murdered, oh right the Liberal male. The teacher thought about ripping down the intercom but not going to try and help spare the lives of others. A blunt object violently forced against a cowardly monster ‘s head would have stopped the shooting quicker than singing kumbaya waiting to be slaughtered. A good man with a gun would have ended this and it is amazing that they can’t admit that fact and now want to push for magazine limits again.
      Limiting the object used does nothing to control murder in the heart of madmen.

  6. avatar Rob Aught says:

    “There’s a reason they call them assault weapons. It’s an impossible barrage to survive from.”

    Pure ignorance.

    Impossible barrage? They do know guns don’t work like they do in the movies.

    Right? Right?

    1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

      Apparently they never saw “the A-Team” way back when. Hundreds of rounds flying in both directions and nobody ever died, or even got hit.

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        Not sure where you are going with that. But it sounds like you are trying to equate a belief that movies depict probability of injury inaccurately. They do only in respect to where they show the pattern of bullets landing and what they show obstructing bullets (ie flowers, car doors, thin wooden tables, etc). However, if you handle a weapon like they do in the movies, you are not going to hit anything more than 6 feet from you shooting from the hip or running around wildly pointing your gun in the general direction of someone.
        What is also true is it takes countless hours of rehearsals and real practice to become accurate with even a rifle at short range (ie 100 yds +) and beyond even when aiming. So while you think its wildly inaccurate for people to shoot hundreds of rounds and completely miss anyone, thats not at all inaccurate or even improbable. Even trained soldiers expend hundreds of rounds per kill in combat (see any statistic you want about that). Elite units like Delta, SEALs MARSOC, and others train countless hours every day just to be able to fight in close quarters, if you think some punk teen can do it go ahead. Keep believing that and know you are part of the problem you complain about.

        1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

          Guess you missed the light sarcasm. Or don’t remember the show.

        2. avatar Drew says:

          Countless hours? An afternoon under good instruction can take an average newb from virgin to reliably knocking down silhouettes at that range easily. The reason professionals practice constantly is the same regardless of the job. Professional racers practice constantly , anyone can take a car on respectably quick laps with basic instruction.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          What should be obvious, but I guess isn’t, is the “rounds per kill” number gets inflated by suppressive fire. If you have a large number of rounds fired in the general direction of the enemy for the purpose of keeping them from maneuvering, where hits are a side benefit, then the stats on the numbers of rounds that actually kill are going to look pretty pathetic out of context.

        4. avatar Chris says:

          My 16 yo girl can take a rifle and consistently put 10 .22LR in the bullseye at 100y (bench), and she’s only held it for a grand total of 3 hours. Offhand she can make a 3″ circle at 25y in about 4 seconds.

          I shudder to think what she could do with some real practice.

  7. avatar Kory says:

    Sounds staged, why watch that shit when it is just drama played off as realistic news. Look at their ratings, everyone else is giving up on them, we should all do the same and boycott them.

  8. avatar Alex Waits says:

    It doesn’t fit the narrative for these people to admit that maybe a gun in the hands of a teacher/resource officer etc. would have stopped that monster before he did his deed.

    also, by the language they use and they way they describe the attack they know nothing of firearms.

  9. avatar Gordon says:

    “There’s a reason they call them assault weapons. It’s an impossible barrage to survive from.”

    Then how do any of our soldiers survive combat?!

    1. avatar John M. says:

      And why do so many soldiers hate the way that 5.56 ball won’t put down Taliban or insurgents? I’m not saying I want to get hit with one, but if I’m the guy at the door, I’d rather the shooter have an AR-15 than a Winchester 1894 in 30-30. Or a Ruger American in .308.

      The wishful thinking here is almost painful to think about. Let’s try to melt down every single rifle everywhere that we don’t like rather than take some responsibility for our own safety and the safety of the children we allegedly teach? No, wait, check that, we’re not actually going to get rid of any rifles, we’re just going to inconvenience the people who want to purchase them by banning new sales of ones with scary features like bayonet lugs and making everyone submit to a fatally-flawed bureaucratic background check first? AND we’re still not going to take any responsibility for our safety or for the children we allegedly teach?

      This is just ridiculous.

      1. avatar S.CROCK says:

        Ehhh I see your point, but I would still rather confront a shooter who had a Winchester 1894 in 30-30 rather than a 5.56 AR. Now if he had an AR-10, GET ME OUT OF THERE!

  10. avatar Taco says:

    So because they sent their children to school defenseless and a horrible thing happened…I’m supposed to leave my family defenseless? I think not…you can send your children defenseless to those schools…but as for me and my family, we will remain protected from any who would seek to harm us.

  11. avatar pg2 says:

    Ahhh…..the daily TTAG sandy hook official version reinforcement piece.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Troll^^^

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Sure thing Sammy.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        He’s not a troll, he’s just as delusional as the women there. They imagine that no one person armed with a gun could have stopped this tragedy, other folks imagine that no one person armed with a gun could have caused it.

        Two side of the same coin where someone doesn’t want to accept that the world isn’t an orderly, well-controlled place but has chaos and crazy things happen all the time.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Ahhh…The daily the truth is out there, without providing any actual evidence of this truth, TTAG comment.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Who knows what the truth is; you are just relying on what you were told, and you accept that as truth. That’s fine…for you.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          One need not walk on the moon to believe that humans have done so. Oh wait, you probably don’t believe in that, either…

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          @hanibal, I don’t think you’re as obtuse as you pretend to be, what stake do you have on this forum for defending the status quo or official line?

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Three words… Crime Scene Report… Where is it?

        1. avatar Drew says:

          Ok, googled it. Found it. What now?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          No you didn’t the full report was sealed by court order. That’s the point. What you found was a investigation report with no primary source material.

  12. avatar Nate says:

    As a current highschool student I can’t help but think of my AP Bio teacher. He says that tackling a shooter would be more effective, and safer, than armed resistance.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Nate, next time he says this, have him suggest this to the local police. Maybe they will agree and disarm and resort to tackling armed suspects.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That puts him at the 80th percentile of these clowns, since he isn’t advocating cowering in a corner.

    3. avatar Jonathan says:

      Our AP Bio teachers should meet. Except mine makes it a habit of hers to carry a chiefs special and a boot knife with her. She also has a MOLON LABE sticker on her car. She is also an MMA fighter

      1. avatar Taylor TX says:

        AP Bio Teacher of the year award nominee!

        Seriously, am I the only one thinking AP Bio Teacher cage match?!

    4. avatar Dennis says:

      You are going to tackle someone with a gun? Seriously? The closer you get the more likely you are to be shot in the head and drop to the floor. Michael Brown thought the same thing, he tried to rush an armed cop and tackle him.. How’d that work out for him?

      1. avatar Drew says:

        Yet it’s impossible to survive the barrage if you are armed?

  13. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “The truth is the Sandy Hook survivors don’t want to think of the possibility of an armed end to Lanza’s attack because then they’d have to accept the possibility that they could have done something effective to save 20 childrens’ lives.”

    ^ This.

    1. avatar Magister says:

      Bingo. They’d rather cluck and howl instead of realizing what they are: cowards. They’d rather hide under a desk and hope nobody cries or sneezes instead of actually DEFENDING someone else.

  14. avatar Jake says:

    “There’s a reason they call them assault weapons. It’s an impossible barrage to survive from. Except for, you know, us. And everybody else in the town. And the millions of gun owners who own those things.”

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      Perhaps she should be introduced to the tens of thousands of veterans who have survived incoming fire from actual assault rifles and machine guns and she can then explain how they A. are actually dead since it was impossible to survive or B. were not actually on the receiving end of incoming hostile fire from real assault weapons.

  15. avatar Sammy says:

    “Sandy Hook Survivors: We Never Thought of Having A Gun To Defend Children”

    So how did that work out for the kids? You “people” are part of a group suicide culture.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Quick question Sammy, The Sandy Hook survivors, they all speak in unison, as one?

      1. avatar Sammy says:

        Is that what you come away with in light of the statement in quotation marks or are you just looking for an argument? If they NEVER considered, even in retrospect, being able to defend themselves and their families they are suicidal. OK?

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Sammy, just commenting on your critical thinking skills. You’re the one who is quoting groups of people as if they think and speak as 1 person. That doesn’t even draw the slightest question in your mind?

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          pg2, seek professional mental health services.

          Remember what Churchill said about fanatics.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          &Hanibal…..wow, what an intelligent, compelling, well thought out post. Much like the rest of your material.

      2. avatar Timmy! says:

        Scroll back to the top and see that he’s quoting the headline… and as for this group of survivors, yes they DO speak as one.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          I saw the headline, and realize what he’s quoting. And I’m glad you’re OK with groups of people all speaking as an individual. Just realize that other people find that not very credible.

        2. avatar General Zod says:

          Yes, they speak as one, bought and paid for by Mike Bloomberg. I have to wonder if any of them are still teachers, or are they now professional “grassroots activists”?

    2. avatar Parnell says:

      The thought of having to defend anything has never crossed their minds. There the type that thinks you can reason with the evil.

  16. avatar Tom W. says:

    Shame they are soooooooo disconnected from reality. Passive, indoctrinators given the task of passing this on to the future generations of kids in the “former” Constitution State.

    Facts, history, statistics, don’t matter to them regarding a “good guy with a gun”. After ingesting so much PC Kool-Aid, they’re gone. They even tore the school down afterwards.
    Now it’s grazing land for the unicorns.

  17. avatar MotoJB says:

    Ask uninformed, inexperienced, biased people questions…get stupid answers.

  18. avatar JasonM says:

    I thought the reason they called them “assault weapons” is so people like Jacob, who function via ignorance and fear, would think they’re these super powered doomsday killing machines, and support banning them.

  19. avatar KCK says:

    Note that they “didn’t even THINK of it” is presented like some certificate for Purity of Heart. To neutralize a threat with violence if required, was never part of My Little Pony cartoons they watched as young girls. So yes, you are pure of heart and your colleagues and the children that were in your charge are dead.
    Is it time to re-THINK some things?

    1. avatar The Mountain that Rides says:

      Maybe they should watch the new My Little Pony? The premier episode is about the ponies gathering up the parts to an ancient magical superweapon to blast the big villain with, and they repeatedly use this weapon on other villains, and even use the threat of this weapon as a deterrent to other would-be villains. They obviously can’t just have the ponies wielding AR-15s, but that’s probably because they wouldn’t be able to use them, horses lacking thumbs and fingers.

  20. avatar Angry & Irish says:

    Argh, the misinformation on Assault Weapons and how an AR-15 is apparently is one.

    The fact that these people don’t think anyone with a gun could have stopped Lanza is sad. Lanza went to that school because he knew there was no one there protecting it. It was open season for that coward. An active security guard unit, off duty police, anyone with a presence of power and the capability of lethality could have deterred this tragedy.

  21. avatar Merits says:

    ‘Never even thought of that’.

    That is some grade A, prime, 1st class, premium condition snow white, there.

  22. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    This is staged propaganda BS…I’m sure they rehearsed this “interview” numerous times with one Ms. Shannon Watts, the PR spinmeister herself.

    They say all the right buzzwords and phrases, “Assault Weapons”, “There’s a reason they call them assault weapons. It’s an impossible barrage to survive from.” (implying the rifles are select fire/full-auto). Also, they state that a Good Guy with a gun would not have helped and would just be a dead guy with a gun.

    It just reeks of Bloomberg and Shannon Watts scripted PR crap!

  23. avatar pwrserge says:

    I’ll simple it up… The didn’t think. End of discussion.

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    “Sandy Hook Survivors: We Never Thought of Having A Gun To Defend Children”

    Which is one reason why so many children are dead — because so-called parents wouldn’t defend their own genes and so-called teachers chose not to take responsibility for anything, including the defense of one’s self.

    Because of repulsive slime like them, more children will die, and they’ll blame it on us because they dare not look at themselves in the mirror.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      “We never thought”

      I wonder how many people are dead today thanks to that sentiment. Maybe some people, upon uttering it, would have a moment of self-reflection and consider beginning to think. But these people double-down. They didn’t think, they don’t think, and they will refuse to think in the future. For the children. You know, the ones who they didn’t let die yet.

  25. avatar BradN says:

    This upsets me. The anti-gun culture runs so deeply that when the individuals who believe in the propaganda are thrust into a situation in which they should have been able to defend themselves effectively they STILL insist that having a firearm or two on their side wouldn’t have helped. I’m just astounded. I really don’t know what else to say.

  26. avatar Johnny says:

    ““No,” said Jacob. “And you know what? If there had been someone at the entrance to our school with a gun, they would’ve been dead, too. There’s a reason they call them assault weapons. It’s an impossible barrage to survive from. We survived because we were lucky and because he was stopped for whatever reason before he could do more damage.”It’s an impossible barrage to survive from. We survived because we were lucky and because he was stopped for whatever reason before he could do more damage.”

    “whatever reason”? He seriously doesn’t think that someone with a gun could have stopped the shooter but “something” else stopped the shooter? “whatever” that was? Good grief, what an idiot.

  27. avatar Buster says:

    How to win a gun fight:
    Rule #1: Bring a gun….

  28. avatar Johnny says:

    I’m real curious as to what their reaction is/would be when a good guy with a gun (not a cop) stops a bad guy with a gun. Damn…

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      The official word from on high is that it NEVER happens. DGU’s are a myth.

      ABC (or whatever it was) even did a video (available on youtube) showing that DGU’s CAN’T happen…they we are ALL deluding ourselves into thinking it is even possible.

      They’ve got it covered. It can’t happen. It never does happen. I won’t happen in the future.

      Even though it DOES happen – Every. Single. Day.

      Now, the other side of that same coin is that they think WE are the “Bad Guys.” In their fantasy world, we CC-ers and OC-ers are shooting each other over our spot in the Starbucks line and stuff like that. They think it is our “normal” to just pull a gun and start a-blastin’.

      That’s their narrative. They can’t imagine “good guy with a gun stopping bad guy with a gun” because there really are no good guys with guns. The gun makes us bad.

      Ultimately, that thinking applies to cops and military, too. They sing for the cops and soldiers to be armed NOW…as part of this particular step in the disarmament process. Once they get US disarmed, they’ll go after them as well…cuz they

      (a) are icky ‘guys’
      (b) carry / own icky guns

  29. avatar Mark N. says:

    These women are clearly afraid of guns, and feel completely defenseless against a man with a gun. Resistance is futile. Hence the only solution to their fear is to ban all guns.

  30. avatar Accur81 says:

    It’s just fortunate that the Obama administration investigated the Sandy Hook shooting scene in a transparent manner. Obama and Biden then gave their thoughtful, expert advice on why more gun control is needed. Sure, gun control didn’t work this time, or in Aurora, or Fort Hood, or a bunch of other places, but the theory is as sound as the principles of the Democratic Party.

    Without the expert tactical advice of violence victims, public school teachers, and statist politicians, we might be forced to rely on the advice of people who actually use firearms. That’s just terrible. It would be like asking Aaron Rodgers how to throw a spiral, asking Einstein about relativity, or Mark Twain about wit.

    What this world really needs is the advice of people who are truly ignorant. That way, people who are tragically incompetent will never feel bad. If anything is truly important, we want people to feel safe taking their children to schools where they will be like fish in a barrel once the shooting starts.

    /s

    I’m considering home school, and I just enrolled my son in a private pre school / day care where firearms are allowed on campus. If the shooting ever starts near me, I’m going to shoot back.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      You might also give some thought to Catholic schools. Don’t know about LA, but Catholic grade schools can be like stepping back in time. Teachers still teach there, students show respect or leave. It’s all a bit uncanny when compared to what goes on in public schools.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “I’m considering home school”

      Yes. Please do more than consider this.

      If you have not already, check out John Taylor Gatto’s words and research on the subject of “institutional” schooling…a term that applies to both public and private school models.

      Homeschooling is liberating. It’s incredibly hard at times, but far, far more rewarding. There are many facets to its advantages.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      A81, do your homework if you want to home school your kids. CA will not make it easy for you because all children must be indoctrinated dontcha know.

      Now, if your spouse is a teacher certified for the years or subjects in question, then home schooling is covered by the tutorial exemption. It was established for the benefit of the movie industry (young stars don’t have to go to school), but it’s there for you, too.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Or….move to a state with better homeschool laws AND firearms laws.

        Not the answer to every problem but really…serious question: how long does one wait for freedoms to be restored?

    4. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “I’m considering home school, and I just enrolled my son in a private pre school / day care where firearms are allowed on campus.”

      You will be doing your children a big favor. Your son will get a better education, he will be safer, and you will have closer ties.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/04/Veteran-Homeschoolers-Share-Tips-And-How-To-s-As-More-Students-Exit-Schools-Due-To-Common-Core

  31. avatar Mirgc says:

    Arapahoe HS in Colorado
    Reynolds HS in Oregon

    To recent examples of armed individuals at schools stopping bad guys. Including one bag guy with an evil assault weapon.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      How about this one:
      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman/
      Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away. Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he’d fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 and .22-caliber rifles at buildings.

      If Sgt. Johnson was there, would the psycho at Sandy Hook have had much of a chance?

  32. avatar foxmuldar says:

    Don’t forget most if not all of these folks were part of the followup anti gun movement that Obama and Holder used to try and pass their gun confiscation bill disguised as gun registration. What they also failed to admit is that the school was a gun free zone. Being a gun free zone is like putting a jar of honey in front of a bear. Lanza didn’t need to worry about being stopped when he decided to do what he did. He knew full well it would be easy to get inside without being stopped. We saw the same with gun free theaters. Just one or two armed teachers or even guards would have been a big deterent. And we all remember Fort Hood where Muslim scum Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30. That too was a gun free zone. Only MPs were allowed to carry and there were none in site when Hasan opened fire. Only when the MPs finally made it to the shooting, were they able to end the carnage.

  33. avatar NjGunGuy says:

    I am mostly surprised by the fact we are going on almost two years and the conspiracy theorists still seem to be out in full force.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Once you’re invested in secret knowledge that makes you “special” and enlightened it’s hard to come back to reality. Anything that points to the “official” story is just part of the coverup while anything that doesn’t fit correctly is somehow evidence for a conspiracy (which, for some reason, doesn’t need to stand up to the same standards and can be contradicted everywhere yet still be valid in the minds of theorists).

      Hell, there are still 9/11 truthers who haven’t watched enough southpark…

    2. avatar Chris. says:

      You do realize people still think the Nazis got help from Aliens.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      If you are able to learn from history, gun control is an obvious conspiracy. It doesn’t work out well for those who get controlled. If not, then you are welcome to believe that gun control gets pushed because politicians genuinely care about your personal welfare. Good luck with that.

    4. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I am mostly surprised by the fact we are going on almost two years and the conspiracy theorists still seem to be out in full force.”

      You’re surprised?

      *boggle*

      Google “Kennedy shooter”…

  34. avatar Chris. says:

    The only rational response to somebody saying “We never thought of xxxxx” : perhaps you should have, will you next time?

    1. No they will not chris. They don’t like guns so somehow getting schools shot up is better than self defense. So they can be more moral. For the children.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I have found when debating liberals the mere suggestion that perhaps they should consider the opposing point of view offers them. They get really angry when you point out that you have considered both points of view and that is why your disagree with them.

      So, no. They won’t think of it next time.

  35. avatar Stinkeye says:

    That “I never even thought of it” line is pure bullshit. We’re expected to believe that these teachers went through what was no doubt the most traumatic experience of their lives and have spent the last two years trying to come to grips with it, in the midst of a contentious and vigorous nationwide debate about guns, and the thought of having a gun that day never once occurred to them until a reporter asked them about it? Absolute horseshit. Every single one of them has turned that “what if” over in their minds hundreds of times, but won’t admit it because that would mean questioning a lifetime of liberal brainwashing.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Well said. +100

  36. avatar Jim says:

    Seems to me that if an ‘assault weapon’ in the hands of Lanza was absolute death, an ‘assault weapon’ in the hands of an armed teacher or guard would be equally effective, right?

    Sheep can’t think for themselves.

  37. avatar v v ind says:

    I read Jacob’s response as: ‘I have lost so much sleep wrestling with this very question. I am deeply sorry and feel an overwhelming burden of guilt. I have this memorized response because I’m in denial:’

  38. avatar PeterW says:

    Which one of these “survivors” was shot by Adam Lanza? (can’t watch the video from work- was it one of them?)

    I don’t recall seeing any recovering victims who were actually shot. I’m not saying there weren’t, just that I don’t recall seeing any in the news in the past year, unlike the Boston bombing incident and most other big ‘events’ like this one.

    Also, did they not invite any pro-gun teachers or did they just have them sit “in Studio B” and never get filmed.

  39. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    My sympathy ends where you dance in the blood of innocent lives in an attempt to deny my rights.

    None of your “gun sense” proposals would have stopped what happened. The only way that any of your “gun sense” proposals could ever *possibly* work, would be for them to be accompanied by – or lead eventually to – complete civilian disarmament.

    Background checks? Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns. And if he’d been properly adjudicated by the state (and if the state kept their lists current in NICS), he would have already been flagged by NICS when he was even old enough to purchase a gun.
    Magazine limits? With nobody around to return fire, changing magazines is nothing. (See also: Virginia Tech)
    Loopholes that allow “online” gun sales? They don’t exist. FFL sales, even online, require a NICS check. Private sales, online or offline, don’t. Nor should they.

    Name one single spree shooting that happened outside of a designated Gun Free Zone. (I won’t hold my breath.)

  40. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The truth is the Sandy Hook survivors don’t want to think of the possibility of an armed end to Lanza’s attack because then they’d have to accept the possibility that they could have done something effective to save 20 childrens’ lives.
    Oh, let us not kid ourselves in that these liberal teachers and administrators are partially responsible for the atmosphere of the head in the sand security at Sandy Hook. If they were really concerned and squawked, I am quite sure some things would have been different.

  41. avatar jack says:

    “We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1GuZed8LQ

    The elite cheat to push their agendas! now stop debating fake events and spread this message!

  42. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    So these people want to use their closeness to the tragedy to imply credibility to lend leverage for an agenda, but want to use the compassion of others to shield themselves from criticism for, quite frankly, stupid beliefs. Am I close?

  43. avatar Frank says:

    Lanza knew there wasn’t an armed opposition…. FACT

  44. avatar Publius says:

    If they’re that retarded, they should have their teaching licenses revoked.

    1. avatar alexander says:

      That the whole point of the modern progressive American education system – only retards get teaching licenses, so the apples never fall far from the tree.

  45. avatar Grindstone says:

    “It’s been nearly two years since a disturbed young man, REDACTED, opened fire at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 young children and six adults,”

    Stop posting it’s name. You’re giving it what it wants every time you do and serves to encourage those with similar tendencies.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I don’t think it’s in a position to want anything right now. It’s dead.

  46. avatar Dev says:

    I thought most of the victims were murdered with a handgun??

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but I do remember the initial reports coming in as I watched this on live TV, they were saying “it” was using a pair of handguns and that a shotgun was found in the trunk of the car parked outside.

      I personally am not convinced that he had an AR platform gun in that school until after it was all over and someone decided it would make a more compelling argument if he did…

  47. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “We survived because we were lucky and because he was stopped for whatever reason before he could do more damage.”

    Soooo…..it takes a good guy with….good luck…..to stop a bad guy with a gun?

    And these people mocked Wayne Lapierre for his idea? Oh…..my…….God.

  48. avatar IAB2 says:

    Is this the same CBS who has a President of the News Division, whose brother is the WH Deputy National Secourity Advisor. Whose claim to fame, before he was senior security level, was a simple speechwriter, who was tasked to re-wrote the memo from CIA that said AQI was involved in the Benghazi attack, to say, it was just an angry mob…all so Hillary could disappear and not take the 3AM call, and POTUS could go to bed early, and jet to Vegas to party with rappers, while then WH Ambasador to the UN could go on all the talk shows for a week, and claim it was a youtube what done it? All during the weeks leading up to the 2012 election, only a week after POTUS famously bragged AQI was on the run?

    Is this the same CBS that actively suppressed their own investigative reporters work on the same story, and withheld the admission in an interview where POTUS himself confirmed the CIA assessment was known, before Rice went on her mission of outright lying? Read “Stonewalled” by Sharyl Atkisson.

    This makes the CBS producers and reporter Dan Rather’s partison f abrications of GW Bush’s military record look like small beer.

    And does anyone doubt that the renewed spate of anti-gun commentary, with the same war-on-women, its for the children tropes in the StateRunMedia, and faux aggregators (echo chambers) on the Left, is any accident?

    Why? Anything to get attention off the abject failure of DOJ in race relations, set back a generation, in Ferguson, now spiralijg out of control, public safety-wise, nationally?
    Or the house of cards that is the fedgov takeover of 1/6 of economy in healthcare, which has broken all promuses, wasted trillions, and still cant make a website work,
    Or the complete and total disregard for balance of power and congress role, never mind the mandate of 2014 mind term elections, on border security…

    No, mark my words, the collusion and coordination of the talking point memos, thru the reliable Party Organs, is only become more obvious, and more disreputable, and for more than a distraction. It will be no more effective than any of the rest, except to expose the networks, of money, corruption, and deep abuse, nah prostitution of the press’ function as the Fourth Estate restraint on tyranny.

    Let CBS propagandize, and incite, as they did on Ferguson. Sell them the rope to hang themselves…

    The great silent majority sees and remembers…advertisers, take note, who has the jobs, and the discretionary income…its not the mouthbreathers drinking the coolaid at CBS…

    And the most recent PEW report says 75% of news consumers get their news from the internet, and are not too confused, to make sense of it. So long CBS, I mean “Pravda”. Fight it out with MSNBC, and CNN, you deserve one another.

    Keep up the good work, TtAG, and to the POTG, Keep Calm and Carry On.

  49. avatar Roymond says:

    Liberals constantly bring up the comparison with automobiles. Let’s try that:

    for automobiles, there are classes for learning how to use them; many schools even own cars for that purpose — so have the school buy age-appropriate firearms and keep them securely at a range on campus where they can be used in a class.

  50. avatar Pascal says:

    That is a clear case of denial or flat out lies to meet a narrative.

    This should be studied by a medical school

    Wow! just Wow! With that logic, let us get rid of security guards or the TSA — please!

    1. avatar Alexander says:

      “This should be studied by a medical school” – yes, in the pathology department.

  51. avatar full.tang.halo says:

    “It’s an impossible barrage to survive from. We survived because we were lucky and because he was stopped for whatever reason before he could do more damage.”

    Impossible, You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means…

  52. avatar Kent says:

    These massacres always happen in a free-fire zone. Let us be armed and we will deal with the killer.

    1. avatar Alexander says:

      Don’t be naive – the massacres are an unimportant byproduct of the main goal – to disarm the population so that the State can do with us as it wishes.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        In spite of what history has taught us, the public still goes along with plans to enslave them. Damned sheep.

        1. avatar alexander says:

          This is the reason that history is no longer taught in schools, except for the revisionist versions (plural, as the versions are fluid)… Soviet Union, ver. 2.

  53. avatar fishydude says:

    “Sir, the sign on the front of the bank clearly says you may not bring a weapon into the bank. Please go back outside and leave your gun in your getaway car” said no teller evah to a criminal with a gun.

    I basically said as much in an email to my bank asking if they considered a Leatherman tool to be a weapon since it had a knife on it. I told them I wanted to be sure I did not violate their weapon policy. I have not yet received a reply. So I will continue to use the drive thu. Much safer since they only allow criminals to bring weapons into the lobby. 🙂

  54. avatar Yngvar says:

    The only reasonable conclusion any reasonable man can draw from their statements is that the teachers are partially responsible for the death of all those children.

  55. avatar JoeVK says:

    Ok, you’re the angry guy wanting to shoot up a school. There’s two schools in your town. One has posted signs outside stating that guns are not permitted on the premises and it’s principal has announced that they don’t allow guns in the interest of the safety of their students. The other has no such signs and it’s principal has announced that several anonymous members of it’s staff are carrying handguns. Which school do you choose?

    1. avatar alexander says:

      Why, that is exactly what happened in Aurora, CO – they guy specifically drove past a movie theater that was not “gun-free” and did his shooting at the “gun-free” theater. A good point raised earlier is that the libtards will deny this obvious logic because to admit it is also to accept culpability for the killings.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The third school certainly would be last on a list of preferred targets. Not only that, it would have the highest potential for the shooter being stopped earliest. That school has no signs and it is well known that practically anyone could be carrying there as the individual right to bear arms isn’t infringed. 😉

  56. avatar eastman says:

    There is a psychological reason many mentally unstable people attack schools. I suspect it has something to do with the complete helpless nature of the victims. It’s a fish in a barrel scenario which seems to attract these types because they can live their fantasy of hurting helpless people and for once be the aggressor instead of the victim. Imagine if for every 100 students you had one armed and trained teacher or administrator. If 1 or 2 school shootings failed it was set a precedent and future psychos would take notice, schools are not a free for all anymore. Of course, that solution is a little bit more complicated than the idea “gun kill people, gun bad, ban gun” that most people reach for in these situations.

    1. avatar Alexander says:

      Picture yourself as a city or a school administrator. Now, keep in mind the basic rules of bureaucratic survival: never make a mistake traceable to you, never highlight the mistakes of your boss, never take any action that can lead to controversy, regardless of potential benefits. So, which rules would you like to break in order to benefit your successor as you look for a new job?

  57. avatar JonA says:

    “It’s an impossible barrage to survive from” apparently nobody’s heard of RTR. Practice your IA drills, bitch.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email