Gunman Kills 27 at Newton, CT School

“At least 26 people, including 18 children, were killed on Friday when at least one shooter opened fire at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, CBS News reported, citing unnamed officials,” Reuters reports. CNN reports that the principal and school psychologist were among the dead. The Wall Street Journal says that there was a single shooter. An unidentified law enforcement source says the shooter had an unspecified relationship with the school. CNN reports his name as Ryan Lanza, and that his mother was a Kindergarten teacher at the school. Weapons involved are reported to be a Glock handgun and a 5.56 caliber rifle, probably an AR-15. At a press conference moments ago . . .

the outline of the events were discussed by the state police spokesperson. Apparently, just after 9:30 AM a 911 call came in reporting shots fired at the elementary school. Police immediately asked surrounding departments for aid.


  1. avatar SCS says:

    Christ, here we go again. Gun-grabbers to the rescue!!

    1. What a revolting, self-obsessed reaction.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        Agreed. Is there no sympathy for these grieving parents? Only thoughts of self.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Oh, there’s sympathy. But you’d be fooling yourself if you didn’t believe that people are prepping, even now, for how to take advantage of this to further their agenda, and we’re acknowledging that. They’ll push neither the press release nor the gun ban today; they’re too smart for that. They know that if they climb on their stump right now, the rational population will see how blatantly they’re using it, and there will be backlash. So, they’ll wait a few days, until “cooler heads prevail” and their proposals will sound much more rational and legitimate.

          I feel for the families, but I also acknowledge the reality.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          When my rights are about to be assaulted because of their kid, no, I don’t feel any sympathy. They sure as hell won’t feel any sympathy towards the 80 million or so gun owners when they demand that the Constitution be violated some more to punish non-criminals.

          Besides, there’s roughly 490,000 babies born every day around the world. Contrary to popular myth, people are easily replaced – rights aren’t.

      2. avatar SCS says:

        I find your over reaction to a statement revolting, JM. So now we are even.

  2. avatar JhonnieB. says:

    My heart is breaking-prayers…

  3. avatar MotoJB says:

    WTH!!!! DAMNIT!!!!

  4. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

    Now saying 2 shooters and one had a “.223 rifle”

  5. avatar ensitu says:

    Stand By for Presidential Gun Ban to be floated Today!

    1. That’s all you have to say? Pathetic.

  6. avatar Pascal says:

    Lets wait for the offical word. There is too much speculation. I live in CT and my office is about 15min away. It is a tragedy. Apparently everything happened in a hallway.

    What ever the final story it will be ugly

    A lot of emotions and people trying to explain something that cannot be explained.

    Conference is starting right now…..

  7. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

    Obviously I don’t expect a rational answer from the rabid right wing here, but perhaps you could at least think about this when you reply with your usual bile and hysteria:

    honestly – how many children need to die before you consider more rational gun controls?

    There must be a number, surely? Perhaps whatever the body count is today will not be enough, perhaps 1,000,000 would be too many – what is the number in your mind that would be too many innocent children to pay as a cost for you to feel like more of a man with a deadly weapon strapped to yourself? Do you even have the courage to put a number on it? Or are you too cowardly to even do that?

    1. avatar Jim says:

      How exactly would gun control have stopped this? Murder is already illegal, moron. Gun violence is up 35% this year in the UK where guns are already illegal. People like you make me want to puke.

      1. avatar Spoons Make You Fat says:

        Rational gun control? Right. Spoon control, too. Cause spoons make you fat.

      2. When you reply by calling someone who disagrees with you a moron you are not convincing. It might be regarded as a weakness in your argument that you must resort immediately to an ad hominem attack.

      3. Also, I would be grateful for a source for your claim that gun violence is up 35% in the UK this year. (The now-deleted story in TTAG a few days ago does not count – as its own source was a report in The Daily Mail from, er, 2003.)

    2. avatar Ted says:

      Search Bath School disaster. No guns involved heh? I own a gun to protect mine from asshats like these shooters. Way to use a tradegy for your own agenda though. Bravo

      1. avatar David W. says:

        We want common sense gun laws in place. We want teachers to defend themselves and our children. We want parents to defend their children. We want little old ladies to defend themselves from robbers. We want young women to defend themselves from rapist. We want store clerks to defend themselves from armed robbers. We want the ability to defend ourselves and others, and expect that if you are UNWILLING to allow us to defend ourselves, then YOU defend us properly, if you are UNWILLING to defend us properly, then at least let us do it ourselves.

        This could have been over if a teacher was armed. This could have never of happened if he was never let into the building. This could have never of happened if it wasn’t for idiots who believe a gun causes people to commit crimes. A teacher could have stopped this. A secretary could have stopped this. A parent could have stopped this. YOU people PREVENTED them from STOPPING this. Not us.

        If I thought that a AWB or Handgun ban could stop this, I would honestly probably focus on getting those laws passed. But they will not. 22 kids died in China today by a knife wielding madman. Knife crime has gotten so bad in the UK that they are thinking of banning any knife that can be used for stabbing, and forcing people to buy knives without tips. This stuff cannot be stopped. It can only be halted. And it can only be halted in a few ways, suicide by the murderer, the murderer stopping, justified homicide by a cop, or justified homicide by a citizen. I say make it easier for justified homicide to happen. You say ban anything that can be used to kill people. If we follow mine to the extreme, every criminal worth shooting gets shot. If we follow yours to the extreme, hands and feet will be cut off at birth. Truthfully I think the majority of people would prefer mine to yours.

        1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Man you folk just soak up and spit out any pro gun lies you can without question, don’t you.

          22 children were not killed in China today by a knife wielding madman, ZERO children were killed in China today by a knife wielding madman.

          I repeat – 22 children were ATTACKED by a knife wielding madman, ZERO were KILLED. ZERO.

          Which is quite a lot different to 20 children being KILLED by a gun wielding madman today in America. Gee, I wonder which situation I would have rather been in – the one where I had a 100% chance of survival, or the one where my chances were a hell of a lot worse than that because the crazy man had GUNS.

      2. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        So you sit in your child’s classroom every day with your gun to protect them from asshats like this then? I hope you don’t have two kids – who watches the other one?

        As for using this tragedy for my own agenda – that is the typical response from people like you because you absolutely cannot accept this for what it is: the very real, very obvious consequences of your pro gun stance. At least man up and own your own decisions instead of trying to weasel out of them. If this asshat did not have the ability to purchase these weapons, he could not have committed the crime – is that so hard to grasp?

        I asked a VERY simple question, which has VERY finite variables, that EVERY one of you pro gun people should have an answer to – is your answer really that it doesn’t matter how many children die, as long as you can keep your assault rifle and hi-cap mags? Sadly I think that is your answer, isn’t it? What a wonderful human being you are.

        1. avatar Joel says:

          our answer is that your question is invalid and beyond the point.

          now, out of curiosity, what do you think would have stopped this? what bans, what legislations, and why?

        2. avatar Junior says:

          It is currently ILLEGAL to have a gun in the school. There are already laws on the books that PREVENT a crazed madman from killing our children. Explain to me again how any law would have prevented this guy from obtaining a weapon and killing people. Making it illegal to possess guns will NOT stop CRIMINALS from getting them. That’s reality.

        3. avatar mountocean says:

          The answer to you question is no. In China knifes are used to similar effect. In the middle east home made bombs, in Africa machettes. We see the same problem, people doing horrible things to others. But the solution isn’t banning one tool or the other, we suggest allowing responsible people to use their own tools to stop the atrocities.

        4. avatar Jim says:

          We all get that you asked a simple question. The problem is that it’s also a stupid question.

        5. avatar John Bergmann says:

          To the first part of your reply-no, I expect the teachers or faculty or armed security to do that for me.
          But they should be armed at least somewhere.

          For the rest, we don’t know a thing about this guy; was he unstable or if he had issues. Sometimes people just lose their minds. What is the solution for the uncontrollable nature of humanity? I think there is pretty fair evidence that removing guns from the populace is not the answer. UK is pretty ridiculous where you get arrested for defending your home and yourself.

          So what then, sir would you do?

        6. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “If this asshat did not have the ability to purchase these weapons, he could not have committed the crime – is that so hard to grasp?”

          What I want to know is how I’m supposed to answer that question, or how you can ask it? You don’t know who the shooter is, you don’t know how he got whatever weapons he used. So tell me, how would you have removed his ability to purchase them, knowing what you know now? You can no more answer my question than I can answer yours.

        7. avatar Chip says:

          I ask you…How many kids must die before you accept that fact that our kids should be protected by armed teachers and staff? This tragedy is not a result of us “pro-gun” people. It is a result of a decaying society brought on by laws, regulations, and policies that have done nothing to acknowledge the fact that evil is very real and requires and equal force to suppress. We are not the bad guys…

        8. avatar Jim says:

          My counter question is how many people have to be killed before people like you stop creating gun free zones and allow people to defend themselves?

        9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Funny you should bring that up Hmmmmmmm. The thought just occurred to me that we should start a rotation of parent volunteers who will be armed at schools — concealed of course. It would be the equivalent to the air marshals. And no I am not kidding. I would happily spend one day every month or two being a volunteer at my children’s school … quietly armed and ready to stop some sociopath from murdering my and other children.

        10. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Would you care to throw out a number for how many massacres with assault rifles there have been in England lately?

          Even if you grant that criminals can still get guns, which is not true, at the least it is much harder, this guy isn’t a criminal, he is crazy – if you put him in England the chance of him being able to acquire the weapons used in this shooting are zero. Period.

          That is reality, not the BS you make up to get yourself to sleep every night.

        11. avatar CarlosT says:

          Considering he had no meaningful opposition, how would a wood stock and ten round magazines have made any difference? It’s just theater to make you feel like you’re doing something.

        12. avatar David W. says:

          How many shootings will it take you to believe that the best way to stop shootings is to allow people to defend themselves?

          How many shootings will it take you to believe that evil people will always be evil?

          After you ban guns, and people are still getting shot, how long until you force a search of every house and confiscate them?

          After you confiscate them and there are still shootings what will you do next? Cart people off to prison no matter who they are or what they did on the simple fact that back when America was free they owned a gun?

          After all the ex gun owners are executed or in jail, and the shootings and stabbings and beatings are still happen, and you ban pipes and baseball bats and knives, yet criminals are still beating the crap out of citizens, what would you do next?

          When the first person is murdered, after you have every arm and leg cut off, what will you do next? 100% executions of all people on earth? That is the ONLY way to prevent bad people from doing, or attempting to do, bad things, when your only tool is banning and confiscations.

          You ask me how many shootings are necessary before I want gun control laws? As long as I am alive, I will probably not want them. There is no reason to punish the many for the actions of the few. There is no reason to prevent people from defending themselves because of the actions of the few. There is no reason for YOU, to make ME, a sitting duck because SOMEONE ELSE, did something bad.

          I believe that some people just become bad. You cannot stop them from doing something bad, unless they are either dead, or in jail or rehabilitated from being bad. Even in jail they do things that are bad, but the majority of those things are forced upon other bad people which means a lot of them will never be rehabilitated, and a lot will get worse.

          We have a choice. Allow everyone to defend themselves and stop crime that way. Or make everything illegal and then commit genocide on the human race and stop crime that way. On one hand, good people are alive, bad people are dead. On the other hand, everyone is dead.

          Gun control laws failed today. The 1000 yard gun free zone around all schools did not prevent this. Why do you think more gun control laws will prevent this from happening again?

        13. avatar mountocean says:

          The problem is bigger than you admit. Massacares are the issue. We would prefer to have a citizen stop them quickly rather than wait for the perpetrator to stop or wait for government responders.

        14. avatar David W. says:

          ” if you put him in England the chance of him being able to acquire the weapons used in this shooting are zero. Period.”

          Bleh I thought he actually cared about human life. He just hates guns and this proves it. He discounts knives, despite the fact a big stabbing massacre just happened, by another crazy guy, in a country with more gun control laws than the UK, and racked up a similar body count.

          Hes just anti-gun, not pro-people-not-dying. I guess I won’t be replying to him anymore.

        15. avatar Wiregrass says:

          A weapon typically described as an assault weapon is not necessary to go on a killing spree in the UK. Especially with an unarmed population.

          A bolt action .22 will suffice.

        16. avatar Rybred says:

          did you forget that the Norway massacre was committed with a non “assault weapon”?
          Yes, he used a mini-14 and it didn’t have a pistol grip.
          Are you telling me that this guy could not have caused the same damage with a Mini-14?!?
          You obviously seem to think that cosmetics play a role in the lethality of a tool.
          Could you imagine if they decided to put speed limiters on ALL cars preventing them from going over 75? That was the equivalent of the Hughes ammendment in 1986 which banned the sale of new assault rifles (select fire automatics).
          Now imagine if in the wake of more road carnage, (DESPITE 75mph speed limiters) they decided that “something must be done” so they ban certain features that make cars “look” too fast to be street legal, like spoilers, front air dams, diffusers, air inlets/ducts, dual exhausts, bright colors. THAT is the equivalent of what the Clinton AWB was. Frankly something like an M1A (non-auto civilian M-14) that is completely legal in California where I live (which has an even stricter than the Clinton AWB) would be FAR more lethal, .308>.223. I would LOVE to own an M1A but the ammo is too costly to practice with.
          All these bans on features and things do is to make it require more hoops for the average person to go through to own for defense and use for recreation.
          If someone was planning on killing themselves, what difference does it make to them if a gun costs $500 or $2500? How many rounds would you need to use in a mass shooting, 100? Heck I’ll round that up to 200. So if .308 costs $0.50 a round all you would “need” to commit mass murder is 5-10 small boxes of rifle ammo for @ $50-100. So a crazy person could simply put $3k on credit and go commit his rampage, not having to worry about paying it off. That whole outrage over Holmes buying 6k rounds is nonsense. Was he able to USE 6k rounds in colorado? Heck I’d like to see him CARRY 6k rounds of .223 at one time! Yet, many of use may buy thousands of rounds at a time for the same reason that places like Costco are so popular, we buy in bulk to save money, not because we have evil plans.
          Meanwhile any type of ban or restriction at the very LEAST raises prices for us normal folks and puts a hurt on our wallets. But grabbers don’t see that point because it doesn’t affect them. But what if some legislation was going to raise the price of gas $2/gal overnight? What if there was an internet tax that added 30% to internet use? What if there was a license required to put information up on the internet? I bet you’d get really vocal about that!
          While there are no guarantee’s in any situation, people lose their lives every day because they don’t have a means to protect themselves every day from evil people in society, that is a proven fact. Putting restrictions on firearms ownership, will make it less likely that people will be able to exercise their ability to protect themselves, especially from the ones that should be helping them. Democide, death by government is the single largest cause murder, greater than all the wars combined! Look up Rummels Law, it is estimated that 262 MILLION people died at the hands of their own government in the last century.

          No amount of schoolyard shootings could even come close to the numbers of Democide.

        17. avatar Rybred says:

          I tried to add this in my comment to hmmmmm but the edit timer timed out while I was typing:

          That’s what shows how selfish you are, because you don’t care about hurting other people as long as it doesn’t affect YOU.

    3. avatar Montesa_VR says:

      Most people on this site carry a gun for the same reason we wear seat belts — to increase our chances of surviving in the unlikely event of an incident. How many people have to die on the road before you consider more rational driving laws?

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        The key to a good strawman is to pick something that I would be against when you try to put words in my mouth to attack me – I am absolutely in favour of far more difficult driving tests, mandatory yearly car safety inspections, and all that good stuff. Thanks for playing though.

        1. avatar Brother Bear says:

          Passing a driving test doesn’t do anything. People still drive drunk, suspended, no license, asleep, eating, drinking, doing their make up, late for an appointment, over confident, or are just plain assholes that don’t care the consequences of their actions.

          You people think that if you can just pass the right rules, or the right number of rules, that you can prevent bad things from happening.

          You can’t legislate safety. Bad things are going to happen. This person was a bad person and was going to do bad things. It’s not like this person was a good person, who happened to come across a gun, and magically turned into Golem and started shooting people.

        2. avatar John Bergmann says:

          But the argument is the same. I have needed my seatbelt once in my life.

          So you don’t really need a gun in this “civilized” world until you do. Then if you don’t maybe you’re dead.

          How many times on the news does some libertarian minded individual die in a car accident from not using a seatbelt. They didn’t need it…until they did.

          I don’t see a difference when we are talking about tools for our safety.

    4. avatar EO Guy says:

      How many people have to die before we outlaw vehicles and make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them. After all this would fix the problem we have with drunk driving… Wouldn’t it ?

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:


    5. avatar shawmutt says:

      I think you’ll find many folks here are far from “rabid right wing”. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish with your “rabid gun grabber” rant of bile and hysteria.

      Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws on the books, and this, like so many other shootings, happened in a “gun-free” zone. To you, all that control is “rational”, yet this tragedy still happened.

      Perhaps you visited the wrong place to launch your attack. In this blog, both the authors and (most of) the commentors are law abiding citizens who are just as distraught at this tragedy as you are.

    6. avatar Aharon says:

      You are quick to label and accuse yet you failed in stating what “rational gun controls” will reduce violent crime. So what are they? Come-on Mr. Big Mouth, give us your common-sense rational advice in specifics.

    7. avatar إبليس says:

      Notice the hypocrisy of anti-gunners dear readers. First, he/she calls us irrational and then proceeds to abandon logic and rationality. Next he/she demands we list an arbitrary “blood debt” measured in slain children to justify out liberty. Finally, he/she calls us “cowards” for wanting tools to defend ourselves from killers.

      This is anti-gun psy-ops ladies and gents. By breaking down their hysterical non-arguments we can defeat them.

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        You can’t answer the question, can you? You are too scared to open that part of your psyche and give an honest answer.

        This is VERY simple logic:

        1. Your continued support of firearms keeps them widespread and easily obtainable by anybody.

        2. Because firearms are widespread and easily obtainable scumbags and crazies WILL obtain them, and use them to do terrible things.

        3. At some point the cost (2) must outweigh your desire (1) – so where is that point? 1 school? 5 schools? All of them?


        The fact that you lack the balls to even address what is both obvious and demonstrably correct just sums you rabid pro gun people to the letter. You don’t want to admit that your “right” costs people their lives, but here’s the news – IT DOES.

        1. avatar Junior says:

          1. Agreed

          2. Agreed

          3. The cost of freedom is a high price to pay. I’m sorry to say that many innocent people have and will continue to die due to American freedoms. It is fortunate that these same freedoms will prevent 1000 times as many deaths due to genocides, unchecked crime, etc. Mexican drug wars. Nazi Germany. Communist genocides. Rapes. Murders. On and on.

        2. avatar Aharon says:

          Rationally give us your statement of facts how crime will be reduced under your plan. We’re waiting.

        3. avatar JAS says:

          “honestly – how many children need to die before you consider more rational gun controls?”

          You asked a question that is too filled with emotional bait, extremely vague and completely offensive at a time like this. You obviously are implying that the people here on this forum are in some way responsible for such a tragic event as this one.

          Here it is. Tell us exactly and in detail what is it that you want done and why. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.

          My prayers go to all of the people affected by this.

        4. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          The gun debate needs more people like you Junior. You at least can identify the realities and points of contention.

          You also make good points about the prevented deaths. My opinion is that assault rifles, hi cap mags, and concealed carry handguns do nothing whatsoever to further those issues. Discussing the relative benefits of those is a debate, stamping your feet and shouting “my gun rights have nothing to do with these children dying” (not that you are) is just pathetic – and that sums up the majority of posters here.

        5. avatar Rob says:

          1st. You can’t stop crazy people from doing crazy thing.


          Let’s rephrase your statements:

          1. Your continued support of [gun-free zones] keeps [the most innocent people disarmed, unprotected and vulnerable to lunatics on the fringes of our society].

          2. Because [gun-free zones] are widespread and [entered easily] scumbags and crazies WILL [enter] them, and use them to do terrible things [in them].

          3. At some point the cost (2) must outweigh your desire (1) – so where is that point? 1 school? 5 schools? All of them?

          You don’t want to admit that your [gun-free zones] costs people their lives, but here’s the news – IT DOES.

          How many of our children must die before this madness about “gun-free zones” is placed in the ash-bin of history?

          I’ve already decided that my future kids will be home-schooled.

          These tragedies all take place in “gun-free school zones”. These tragedies are on the shoulders of gun-grabbers.

          OWN IT.

        6. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Oh JAS, following the pro gun playbook to the letter. Any discussion about dead children and gun control is just “emotional bait”, right, despite the fact that a) children are dead, and b) it was with a gun.

          So obviously it is “emotional bait” to talk about this.

          Either that or it isn’t emotional bait at all, it is REALITY, a reality that you don’t want to accept because it would start to break down the walls of your cognitive dissonance.

        7. avatar dnuggett says:

          I’ll answer the question. There is no number. The law does not replace personal reaponsibility and an individuals right to life. Another law will not stop this. I want it stopped. I want people to have the means to stop it. I want people to realize that they alone are responsible for their safety instead of relying on laws that fail, time and time again.

          Now answer my question-

          How many times will we need to have a shooting in a gun free zone for you to admit that gun laws don’t work?

          Or alternatively-

          How many people saved their lives by using a firearm defensively?

        8. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Rob, your writing has exceeded the limited ability of your brain – what you wrote makes no logical sense.

          If a gun free zone extends for 1 mile, then obviously the people in it are at the mercy of those around them in short order. If the gun free zone is the entire country, and the borders adequately protected, then really what is the chance of some crazy man in a small Connecticut town getting his hands on battlefield weapons?

          Zero, I hear you say? Yeah – ZERO.

        9. avatar Matt in SD says:

          This is VERY simple logic:

          1. Your continued support of gun control keeps them widespread and easily obtainable by anybody who is lawfully able to do so. Fixed it for you.

          2. Because firearms are widespread and easily obtainable scumbags and crazies WILL obtain them, and use them to do terrible things. There is no legislation that will ever prevent a criminal or someone intent on becoming a criminal from accessing a weapon.

          3. At some point the cost (2) must outweigh your desire (1) – so where is that point? 1 school? 5 schools? All of them? You tell us. How many gun free zones will have to become crime scenes before you acknowledge that they invite situations like this rather than prevent them?

        10. avatar JAS says:

          “hmmmmmmmm says:
          December 14, 2012 at 14:29

          Oh JAS, following the pro gun playbook to the letter. Any discussion about dead children and gun control is just “emotional bait”, right, despite the fact that a) children are dead, and b) it was with a gun.”

          I don’t follow anyone’s playbook. Assuming that I do is another one of your mistakes. I follow my own logical thought, on everything, exclusively. If you knew me, which you don’t, you would know that. You just jumped to another conclusion.

          And you just went back to emotion. Whereas what I want to know and calmly, is what do you want done and why…. A simple request so a logical discussion can be started.

        11. avatar CarlosT says:

          Now we’re really getting into the realm of wishful thinking. “If the borders can be adequately controlled”. Yeah, that’s working really well with drugs and illegal immigration. There certainly would be no black market created for smuggled or stolen guns. That’s impossible.

        12. avatar Char says:

          Just to start this conversation off on the right foot, I personally hate guns, I don’t like having them around me, and given my own way I never would be, ever, so you do not get to dismiss me as “irrational right wing” or whatever else you are using to excuse the fact that you’re logic is insanely flawed.

          First. School’s are a Gun Free Zone by FEDERAL LAW. That means it is illegal and punishable as a federal offence to have a gun on *any* school property, even the ones in Connecticut. You can read about that here

          Second. The state where this happened, Connecticut, already has rather expansive gun laws, which includes complete bans for the “assault weapon” that was reported used. You can read about that here

          Third. Murder is already a crime in every single state in the US, and murder is clearly what this was. You can read a little about Connecticut murder laws here

          Fourth. Just plain common sense and decency, not to mention the many religions, teach our society that killing children is something that is not accepted, for any reason, ever. If I have to provide a link to proof of that for you… well…

          So, this person broke at least one federal law, several state and local laws, and a rather huge “unwritten law of society”. These laws did nothing to stop this atrocious act from happening. And like it or not, no law ever will.

          No law has EVER prevented a crime or horrible act, ever, in the entire history of humanity. That is be cause laws are made so that society may create punishments as deterrents to behavior society as a whole does not agree with. No criminal has ever considered committing a crime, then suddenly changed his mind because he found out there was a law.

          Finally. “… your “right”…” I think you are a little confused about the country you live in, and you really should give a shot to reading the original constituttion, perhaps even traveling to see it in it’s original form.

          There are no quotes around the right to gun ownership. It is one of the rights this country was founded on, not some magical thing that some republican politician pulled out of the air a few years ago just to upset the other side.

        13. avatar Junior says:

          “My opinion is that assault rifles, hi cap mags, and concealed carry handguns do nothing whatsoever to further those issues.”

          Assault rifles and hi cap mags have everything to do with keeping our government in check and preventing mass murders committed by our government. I will admit that this would be impossible to prove one way or the other except to say that it has happened elsewhere and not here (since the revolution anyway). Concealed carry laws HAVE PREVENTED a huge number of rapes, murders of innocents, etc. I don’t think you can be reasonably dispute this. We need both sides of the gun debate to admit there are tradeoffs (good and bad) to both stances. I personally favor personal responsibility over surrendering my responsibilities to someone else. But like anything that stance has its down side as well and I have to accept that.

        14. avatar DoctorHog says:

          hmmmmmmmm writes:
          “If a gun free zone extends for 1 mile, then obviously the people in it are at the mercy of those around them in short order. If the gun free zone is the entire country, and the borders adequately protected, then really what is the chance of some crazy man in a small Connecticut town getting his hands on battlefield weapons?

          Zero, I hear you say? Yeah – ZERO.”

          The problem with your position hmmmmm is that this perfectly contained country you envision does not exist, has not existed and will never exist. It is impossible, a dream, a fantasy. The people here that disagree with you recognize this truth and, therefore, reject any argument you make that relies on the potential existence of this fantasy world. We know that you cannot prevent bad people from obtaining weapons and doing bad things. This cannot be done and certainly cannot be done merely by passing some law that says a certain gun, or type of gun, or all guns is/are illegal.

          Even if, through some miracle, you did successfully eliminate every single gun in the country and did completely isolate us from any and all importation of new guns and did successfully prevent any and all manufacture of guns and prevent anyone from making one of their own we still would have such tragedies. Even then, in that impossible future, some crazy sociopath will burn down a school after chaining the doors closed or blow up a theater with some fertilizer and diesel fuel or poison the HVAC system in an office complex or in some other way cause destruction and harm. Even if we rewind to the stone age and there are no modern weapons of any kind then the guy with the big rock or the crazy dude with the pointed stick is still going to hurt someone. Take those weapons away and the biggest, strongest and/or meanest guy is in charge. (In fact, stopping the biggest and meanest from imposing their will on everyone else is one of the principle reasons weapons were created by man in the first place.)

          There is no way to make the world safe. Decide for yourself how you are going to deal with that and let other people do the same.

        15. avatar Chris says:

          You incorrectly assume that law-abiding gun owners have a god-like control over the actions of law-breaking criminals. Our hobbies, beliefs, desires, and posessions cannot change the fact that there are mean, violent, horrible people in the world. Banning one means of commiting criminal acts will not end criminal behavior.

        16. avatar bontai Joe says:

          Your question as stated is basically unanswerable. As has been stated above, take away all the guns in the universe, and people can, have and will still kill whole groups of people, 10, 20 or more with knives, machetes, pipes, baseball bats, pick handles, hammers, etc. Your legislating the implement, does ZERO to stop the PERSON committing the attack, because he/she will grab or obtain or make their own suitable weapon to kill with. It is easily possible to kill 10, 15, 20 or more people with a six shot revolver, with a pump action shotgun, heck, even with a board that has a nail driven thru the end of it. Using your logic, we would then have to outlaw boards and nails, rubber bands that might be used to build a slingshot, hammers, knives because ALL of these things can be used to kill. Think about how many people can be killed with a fire? So do we outlaw matches? lighters? Make everyone light their backyard grill by rubbing 2 sticks together? Your compulsion that crime can somehow be prevented with legislation is irrational and wrong. You can ban everything possible, and deputize half the world to watch the other half, and you STILL WON”T stop crime and killing. And that very thought drives you carzy, because you erroniously believe that there is some magic law, that will some how stop all killings. And I am sadly telling you that your believing this will not make it so, no matter how hard you try. Might I gently suggest that you put your effort into searching for unicorns and leprechauns, it would be a more productive use of your time and effort.

        17. avatar New York Stagehand says:

          Ad hominem.

          You are NOT being logical.

    8. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

      Its not about a number – that’s a disgusting thought. Its about creating the barrel of fish and then leaving the lid off. If you are going to create a gun free zone full of potential helpless victims, you have the responsibility to provide for there safety/security . It is immoral to render people defenseless, to reduce their survival to dumb luck through your apathy and personal agenda/fear.

    9. avatar Liberty2Alpha says:

      Obviously I don’t expect a rational answer from the rabid left wing here, but perhaps you could at least think about this when you reply with your usual bile and hysteria:

      honestly – how many children need to be molested before you consider more rational religious controls?

      There must be a number, surely? Perhaps whatever the count is today will not be enough, perhaps 1,000,000 would be too many – what is the number in your mind that would be too many innocent children to pay as a cost for you to feel like more of a man of the cloth? Do you even have the courage to put a number on it? Or are you too cowardly to even do that?

      –How’s that argument working for you now?

    10. avatar CCW Guy says:

      I pray for the families but once you ban firearms then do we ban all sharp objects?

    11. avatar CarlosT says:

      And yet, time and time again, it turns out the “rational controls” would have done nothing to prevent the incident. While we don’t really know anything about this incident right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if it followed form.

    12. avatar Don says:

      I am a father of three, one of who is a kindergartener, just like, apparently, the children who perished. It hurts deep to think about this. But my rational mind tells me that if handguns were banned, we would not eradicate or lessen the risk to innocent life. The risk that this would happen to my children is small and banning handguns makes it no appreciably smaller. Also small, but nonetheless greater, is the risk that my family will be a victim of a violent home invasion like happened to the Petit family in Cheshire, CT. Ownership of a handgun, in my opinion, makes that risk more bearable.

      At the end of the day, I will accept the risk of what happened in Newtown happening to my child for the chance to avoid the risk of what happened in Cheshire happening to my family.

      When it comes to dealing with random evil/violence, I can’t control or prevent what goes on outside my home, but I want maximum options and freedom to stay in control of what goes on inside my house. I will not give that up for an unrealistic notion of zero innocent deaths, no matter how close to home it hits.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        What do you mean? Banning has worked so well for drugs – why, they’ve practically disappeared!

    13. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      I cannot assign such a number. My wife and I both carry so that we have a fighting chance if a younger, stronger attacker ever strikes. I hope my wife and I never have to use our firearms. I also hope that no one ever tries to make my daughters grow up without their parents.

    14. avatar Merits says:

      You ask a loaded question with false pretenses, which I will answer in an appropriate way. If giving up my guns would save these, or any childrens’ lives, I would have already done it. It hasn’t. It doesn’t. It won’t. In fact, history tells us it makes loss of life greater.
      Now go away and stop using a gross example of human violence to politicize an object you don’t like.

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        Yeah you’re right – because the number of assault rifle massacres in England this year has been…

        1. avatar Jim says:

          The same as in the US: zero. You need to learn what an assault weapon is, but then again the truth means nothing to someone like you.

        2. avatar Char says:

          Here’s a map of murders using a gun in England in 2011 and 2012.

          So. People are still dying by gunfire in England. So your shining example of how perfect the world would be if we just banned gun is useless, since people are still dying despite gun bans.

          I didn’t bother reading them all, but at least one of them is where someone walked into a pub and opened fire. It’s not a school, but it was a well filled area.

          Laws do not stop criminals.
          Laws have never stopped criminals.
          Laws ONLY give you a way to punish criminals, if you happen to catch them.

          Bans have NEVER worked on anything.
          Not on premarital sex.
          Not on alcohol.
          Not on drugs.
          Not on guns, as proven by your shining country of perfection, England.

        3. avatar Carrymagnum says:

          So you don’t like concealed carry. So if two thugs on the street want to grab my wife and rape her in an alley way you’re saying I should grab a bag of popcorn and watch. Real nice.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        Historically, an assault rifle has to have a fully automatic setting, or at least a multi-shot setting.

        According to actual criteria for an assault rifle, there have been no assault rifle massacres in the US in recent memory.

        These shooters have generally used semi-auto rifles, which happen to be black and scary looking. Functionally, they are the same as grandpa’s hunting rifle.

        1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Except Grandpa’s hunting rifle doesn’t have 30+ round mags, a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a forehand upright grip, a laser dot, can’t cycle as quickly and weighs 3-4 times as much.

          Other than that though they are directly comparable, much like Fred Flintstone’s car is directly comparable to mine.

        2. avatar Montesa_VR says:

          Yes, because we all know how much more deadly a rifle is with a pistol grip and collapsible stock. My Grandpa’s model 8 Remington is much more deadly within 100 yards than a 5.56 black rifle, and cycles just as fast. Whether the magazine holds 30 rounds or five is insignificant to a school shooting, because the amount of time it takes to replace a magazine doesn’t become a factor until the shooter is receiving return fire, and since we have decided to make our schools gun free zones, there will be no return fire until the shooter has gotten tired of killing people.

        3. avatar Rybred says:

          this comment is directed at hmmmmm..
          Apparantly the 69 people killed in the deadliest mass shooting (by a lone gunman) would disagree with you.
          In Norway, the gunman used a California legal, NON assault weapon with no pistol grip and no folding/adjustable stock.
          Also, are you proposing a weight minimum on rifles?!? lol

    15. avatar Chris says:

      How many children do you believe die to guns compared to sharp weapons? Blunt weapons or punches/kicks? Poisoning? Car accidents?

      Guns are far down the list of causes of death. What we do have, however, is reporting bias. A shooting in a suburban neighborhood gets heavy coverage. A gang war in the ghetto is barely noticed. An entire family killed by a drunk driver is barely mentioned on the evening news. They are all tragic, but the reporting focuses on the topics that draw the most viewers and advertising dollars. Its sad, its cynical, but its true.

    16. avatar Bobby says:

      Gun control would surely have stopped the mass stabbing of 22 children and the Oklahoma City bombing, right?

    17. avatar kalel666 says:

      I’ll agree to ban guns (As if it were possible in any way, shape, or form) if all gun banners agree to publicly hang themselves when someone inevitably does something like this with a gun AFTER they are banned.

    18. avatar Greg Camp says:

      Rational gun control? Do tell. How could we know in advance that this person was going to do this? The implication here is that you want to take guns away from everyone, just in case. Given the number of gun owners in this country–eighty to over a hundred million, and the number is rising–psychological testing of all of us is impossible. We already run criminal background checks and look for adjudications of insanity. If you want that system improved, that makes sense. Felons and nutcases do need to be reported to NICS. But banning kinds of weapons or ownership in general only punishes good citizens, especially considering the rarity of events like this.

    19. avatar Sabrina says:

      Rational gun control is none at all. I can GUARANTEE you that if one of those adults had a gun, more children and adults, if not all, would be still be alive (save maybe for the gunman, as he would be at least seriously injured or maybe even dead). Plus, there’s a chance (I haven’t found a definitive answer) that he illegally obtained his gun(s). Even without guns, there would still be murders; if we really think banning all weapons will stop murders, we need to cut off everyone’s hands as they are a strangling apparatus.

      Also, I know this is a correlational example, but after Australia banned guns, MORE people died during gun-related crimes because they went up at a statistically significant rate.

      1. avatar Sabrina says:

        PS Millions of gun owners have never committed a crime, so punishing them is SO NOT FAIR that I could scream.

    20. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:


    21. avatar gen4n9 says:

      Hmm, there is nothing in this world that could ever happen that would make me contemplate giving up any of my freedom. I would even go as far as saying that now more than ever, we need not only less gun laws but less laws altogether.

      And “rabid right wing” ? Nothing of the sort exist in this country. But what we do have is mentally ill leftist filth like yourself, that is becoming a huge problem that needs to be addressed immediately in this country, if we are to keep what is remaining of our freedoms.

      And I would love to tell you what I really think of you and your kind in great detail, but I’m sure it would just end up as a “FLAME DELETED”

    22. avatar WLCE says:

      “honestly – how many children need to die before you consider more rational gun controls?”

      as a classical liberal, ill answer your question. none.

      which “rational gun controls” are you referring to? the weapons were stolen.

      “There must be a number, surely? Perhaps whatever the body count is today will not be enough, perhaps 1,000,000 would be too many”

      perhaps so. As long as the number of lives saved by firearms (DGUs) exceeds the unneeded deaths, the advantage always will remain on the side of legal gun ownership. dont like that answer? it is a logical one. Logical answers arent exactly “social”.

      “what is the number in your mind that would be too many innocent children to pay as a cost for you to feel like more of a man with a deadly weapon strapped to yourself?”

      sorry bucko, but no children died because i carry concealed. that is a purely illogical emotional argument that holds no water.

      “Do you even have the courage to put a number on it? Or are you too cowardly to even do that?”

      like i said before; if the number of murders exceeds defensive gun uses, then the favor goes against civilian gun ownership. this is not the case. end of story.


  8. avatar Jim says:

    Wtf os wrong with people ?!

  9. avatar stateisevil says:

    But, but…..CT has an “assault weapons” ban!!!

    I know, lets ban “assault weapons” in every state.

  10. avatar Flubnut says:

    I have 2 kids in pre-school right now. All I want to do is pick them up, bring them home, and make sure they are safe. If I thought, for ONE SECOND, that banning handguns/ARs/whatever would keep them safer, I would join the Brady Campaign today. Unfortunately, we all know that the truly psychotic people of the world will eventually find a way to cause dramatic carnage, somehow, someway.

    My prayers go out to the families. And may the shooter burn in the deepest pit of hell for eternity.

    1. avatar David W. says:

      If you do its okay. I wasn’t much older then those kids when 9/11 happened and a lot of them were pulled out of school for a few days. Now is the time for family.

  11. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Well, the news conference just ended, and I learned nothing I didn’t already know. Multiple fatalities, the shooter is dead. They offered no further details on numbers (of fatalities or shooters); they simply said that the scene was secure, the public is not in danger, and “we’ll get back to you.”

  12. avatar إبليس says:

    Those poor students and parents. My heart goes out to them. Now we await legislative attempts to punish gun-owners who didn’t do it.

    1. avatar SD3 says:

      No, he means like what everyone knew was inevitably coming on 07 November.

      It’s a “progressive” agenda looking for an excuse, which it has obviously just found.

  13. avatar Greg says:

    This: “And may the shooter burn in the deepest pit of hell for eternity.”

    Thoughts and prayers out to the parents and kids.

  14. avatar OODAloop says:

    Maybe it’s time to have the talk about the real topic at hand. The US needs to end it’s utopian dream of “Gun Free Zones”. It obviously doesn’t work. Why can’t we let responsible individuals be the guardians of our children that we expect them to be?

    1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

      Indeed – a handgun for every 6 year old is the only way we can stop attacks like this. Or do you mean machine gun nests and body searches at the entrance of every building?

      1. avatar Bobby says:

        School resource police officers work. But you’re a troll so what’s the use…. Please go back to HuffPo and Rawstory

        1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          How did the school police officers do at Virgina Tech? Prevent many deaths, did they?

          Also, you wound me, I cannot stand HuffPo.

      2. avatar Bruce says:

        I believe in free speech, but can’t we let this idiot (hummmmmmm) speak somewhere else?

        1. avatar Carrymagnum says:

          Agreed. And also hmmm if cops didn’t help matters than who can we depend on to protect us. Should I rely on my wimpy girly arms? Or are you going to come to my rescue? Why do you want people harmed by criminals?

      3. avatar Greg Camp says:

        Where did OODAloop call for arming children? He said the guardians of those children. That means the teachers who pass background checks to get their jobs and are entrusted with the lives and minds of sometimes more than forty children every week day. Create a training class for any teacher who wants to be armed in the classroom–that’s a system that would work.

        1. avatar OODAloop says:

          Exactly Greg. Israel took the opposite route after the Ma’alot school shootings than England did after Dunblane. They decided to arm and train their teachers and provide for security at events. They have not had a reoccurrence of that type of tragedy since.

          Why can’t we recognize that having these anti-rights zealots get their way will not make us any safer? Japan has no private firearms ownership yet they still had the Akihabara massacre where the killer ran a rented van into a crowded market killing 3 people and then got out and killed 4 more with a knife? Removing firearms ownership from the picture will not change the crazy acts that the deranged or non-law abiding will commit. They’ll just move on to less precise methods like IEDs, gas and easy-to-get tools and vehicles. You cannot legislate crazy…

      4. avatar WLCE says:

        ??? who wants to arm 6 year olds?

        that is a red herring if there ever was one.

        maybe teachers can be armed? *gasp! or members of the staff? nobody has ever done that bef….ooops. nevermind. israel does it.

        or invent a ingenious machine that places a force field around gun free zones that renders firearms inoperable.

  15. avatar ST says:

    Today we cry our tears and offer our sincerest condolences, for tomorrow we face a dire fight for our liberty.

    The UK had Dunblane, and Australia had Port Arthur. May history not repeat itself in America to come.

  16. avatar John Bergmann says:

    This is terrible….but is it just me, or do the crazies seem to come out of the woodwork together or something?

  17. avatar hasdrubal says:

    Some of the news pages I read on this had links to another story, with 22 victims of a knife attack at a school in China.

    People bent on evil and senseless destruction will not be stopped except by actually stopping them.

  18. avatar Lt Dave says:

    My heartfelt prayers go out to the students, parents, teachers and administrators at the scene of this horrible incident.

    But make no mistake, the direction this nation is going caused this.

    As we are slammed with major talking heads competing with each other to get the “herd to panic” at the report of mass slayings, we must ask ourselves how we were maneuvered into this position. Did you notice how amazing all the flashing lights were when government responded with all types of command vehicles, law enforcement vans, SWAT teams, fancy patrol cars and SUVs, uniformed patrol officers armed to the teeth, tents, generators, psychologists, cameras, chalk, flares, light stands, podiums complete with spokespersons in their fine, dress uniforms, complete with every medal they can award themselves. They will speak in glorious terms as to how quickly they drove there, how many cars were sent, how many brave officers searched the complete school and how secure the facility is – now.

    All after the fact.

    Not one of these resources was there when it was needed.

    It all appeared afterward.

    Control freaks, anti-self reliance idiots and government entitlement specialists have been pressuring, legislating and pushing the average citizen to relinquish their safety, liberty and personal responsibility to the “government”. We see the “government’ move from injecting themselves into our retirement (social security) our education (No Child Left Behind – no administrator underpaid), and our health care (Obama care).

    As these actions become more successful, citizens relinquish and accept gun control laws, magazine capacity limits, firearm type prohibitions and other government regulation over their lives. The citizen becomes less self responsible for their finances, their housing configuration, their safety, their security and they gladly sell these rights back to the government – the same government that cannot point to one single management success story in money matters, safety, health care or even mail delivery.

    It is easier to punish the herd than to hold the lunatics accountable and punish them criminally based upon their records.

    These issues will be the basis for a call for “more control” and “more safety” by the sheep who refuse to be self reliant. They will say “please – take more of my rights away from me and my family”.

    Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

    Stop the insanity. Until citizens realize they are the ONLY ones who can be responsible for their own and their family’s safety at all times nothing will change. Allow, encourage and promote responsible, non-criminal citizens to be allowed to carry concealed firearms for their own protection. Push responsibility back where it belongs. Stop blathering about “the safety of the children” in empty, ineffective rhetoric and start making common sense self defense rules across this nation.

    Israel is the example. Teachers in schools are armed. Moms and Dads picking up and dropping off their kids are armed. The presence of armed, responsible adults with the proper attitude is the medicine against insane gunmen who wish to harm the children.

    Until we change, it will only get worse.

  19. avatar Martin Albright says:

    Horrible. What the hell is wrong with people that they do this?

    Original report said two shooters? Has that now been changed? Two shooters makes it sound less like a deranged madman and more like a deliberate terror attack.

  20. avatar speedracer5050 says:

    Damnit!! This is enough, the fricking stupid assed politicians need to take this gun free zone shit and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
    Gun control laws are useless!! Allow carry, concealed or open in the damn schools!! Our children are worth a hell of a lot more than some liberal feel good law that has been proven time and again to be an absolute failure!!
    Ou thoughts and prayers are with all the families and the kids. It is such a tragedy that these children had to witness this.
    I still have restless nights from the two DGU’s I was involved in back in the 80’s. I can’t imagine the horror these poor kid’s are experiencing right now!!
    I hope the Good Lord and the families can help these children understand and cope with what has happened and tat sooner or later they can understand why and how this happened!!
    I think I will spend this weekend working on a petition to the White House and my State Politicians to repeal these gun free zone laws and let us protect them like we should be able to do as law abiding citizens!!
    God Bless the families and friends of the victims and find peace in God!!!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      We have to take this a step further and recognize an additional fact: police officers did not stop this horrific tragedy either. Neither gun control, gun free zones, nor police officers stopped this event. The only way to minimize this is to have volunteers, secretly armed parents, teachers, and staff at our schools.

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        Why stop there uncommon sense – you should get the kids involved too, and I would suggest some special way for other children identifying them so they know who is in control – perhaps a brown shirt would work? Obviously the other kids would need some kind of identification, or papers, to display to these uber-children to prove their bona fides. And children who didn’t like the idea of other children carrying guns in school would need to be identified somehow too, perhaps some kind of symbol they could wear on their clothes – a star might work, kids love stars, right? That would only be a short term solution though, the idea that a child would not be carrying a gun in school is distasteful, and only puts the others at risk, so they would have to be segregated at some point – perhaps camps could be made just for them? After all why should good, patriotic, gun carrying children have to be exposed to unterkinder?

        You know what uncommon sense, I think you might be on to something!

        1. avatar Greg Camp says:

          Parents trust teachers with the lives of their children every week day for months on end. Try to make sense, Manymmmms. Arming children is silly. Creating a training class to prepare teachers to be armed is sensible.

        2. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

          You just provided a textbook example of how Godwin’s law works; your argument just lost all credibility whatsoever. The only teachers and parents who knew they would be carrying on school grounds would be themselves alone on an individual basis because it’d be concealed and unspoken of openly.

        3. avatar Carrymagnum says:

          So you’re the asshole saying to arm kids. You are generalizing something fierce and I don’t understand why. Personally my political views lean more left. Yet I shoot for sport and carry because I wish to be able to protect my family should the need arise. Stop trying to take away one of the rights this country was founded on. You seem fond of England and I’d happily send you. Our country would be stronger and safer without you.
          I wish all the best to the poor families who lost someone today and I hope they can find peace somehow. I’m sorry the shooters death didn’t come at the hands of all these poor parents, they sure deserve it.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    For the love of all that is good and decent, I implore TTAG … talk about this event all you want and learn from it, etc. but PLEASE DO NOT POST THE NAME AND PHOTO OF THE SCUMBAG that did this. As I said before and others agree: giving sociopaths notoriety just encourages more of them to act.

    Just as armed citizens have an obligation to all society to follow firearms safety protocols, I contend that media has an obligation to all society not to give sociopaths their twisted sense of “glory” that they seek through criminal means.

    1. avatar mountocean says:

      I wholehartedly agree. If we must discuss the individual in the future, use the psudonmy of DH12/14/12 to identify the defective human and the date he identified himself to the nation.

    2. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      Plus one. Don’t hold your breath though. While RF is a pro-2A journalist, he is still a journalist.

    3. avatar TR says:

      +1 on the anonymity thing. Crazies see the notoriety of other crazies and you get copycats.

    4. avatar Rybred says:

      I actually disagree with you completely!
      For one thing, whether or not we mention his name, it’ll be EVERYWHERE else anyways. But if his name is searched and this site comes up in search engines (because of the popularity of this site) there is a greater change that normal, rational everyday people simply looking for news on this tragedy may get a different viewpoint from what they are being fed constantly by the media.
      I say the wave is inevitable, we might as well use the tool to our advantage.

  22. avatar Common Sense says:

    Guys, let’s stop feeding the troll. Obviously he lives in his own little fantasy world and wears blinders when he goes out in public.

    1. avatar Carrymagnum says:

      But he makes me so angry!!!

  23. avatar LTC F says:

    Please don’t feed the trolls. Every gun blog on the internet will be full of Brady disciples trying to provoke a reaction and make us look heartless. Lets let them be the ghouls they are and spend a day not engaging them.

    Today is tragic, and its not often (in fact I can’t think of another time it’s happened) that I agree with Jay Carney, but he’s right, today is not a day to debate policy. Today is a day to mourn and pray for families that lost children, children who lost parents, and perhaps worst of all, children who saw their friends killed at school.

    On Monday I have no doubt that the assault on freedom will come, and I’m prepared to fight it then. Today I want to finish work and go home and hug my kids. I feel the same way today that I did on 9/11.

    1. avatar Flubnut says:

      This. Exactly this.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Also good points.

  24. avatar APBTFan says:

    Sincere condolences to all the families….

  25. avatar stateisevil says:

    I like how the cops strut around with AR’s after the fact. Always after the fact. The “authorities” are on the scene, the media says. The same filth that would arrest any teacher who brought a gun to school to protect their kids in case of a horror like this.

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      “I like how the cops strut around with AR’s after the fact. Always after the fact.”

      I’m with you. We need more psychic police.

    2. avatar hasdrubal says:

      So… do you want the police to not show up?

  26. avatar Mikey Ravioli says:

    Obviously even one child killed in an incident like this is one too many. No one will argue that. The diference of opinion is over how this could have been prevented or minimized. Hmmmmm’s is hanging his hat on the point of making it harder to obtain guns makes it harder for crazies like this to commit gun violence. A seemingly locigal idea. The problem with that logic is the shooter already violated about a law books worth of laws just by planning his attack and walking into the school with a gun before he even fired a single shot. Would one more “law” have prevented this? I don’t think so.

    Would the presence of armed teachers or a professionally trained armed security guard? Probably. Potential shooters would think twice about walking into any public place like a mall or a movie theater or a school if they knew they would quickly be outnumbered and out gunned. This was an act of terror. An act that was amplified and maximized because it occured in a “gun free zone”. An act that the shooter premeditated and chose specifically becuase he knew that one lone person with a gun in that enviroment would inflict maximum terror. Notice these shooters never walk into a cop bar.

  27. avatar stateisevil says:

    Hey Jonathan Miller,

    You sappy simpleton. Doesn’t it go without saying what a horrific thing this is? They want your guns, buddy.

    1. You have no idea what my position is on gun control. My position on those who resort to ad hominem attacks is that they are lacking better arguments.

      1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

        This I agree with 100%. On a side note, my friend’s dad had a professor in college who gave him a small notebook and said “whenever you use a swear word to describe something, write down five other complex vocabulary words you’ve heard recently and write their definitions every evening before bed, even if you know them all ready.” He still has the old notepad and practices the habit to this day. His command of the English language is a wonder to behold.

  28. avatar Mikey Ravioli says:

    If a gun free zone extends for 1 mile, then obviously the people in it are at the mercy of those around them in short order. If the gun free zone is the entire country, and the borders adequately protected, then really what is the chance of some crazy man in a small Connecticut town getting his hands on battlefield weapons?

    Zero, I hear you say? Yeah – ZERO.

    Zero? The entire country is a drug free zone (at least hard drugs) but there are overdoses and drug related crimes numbering in the thousands each and every day.

    The entire country is a drunk driving free zone. How close to zero are drunk driving arrests and fatalities?

    A gun is a tool nothing more nothing less. Some people pick up a hammer and build a house. Some people pick up a hammer and bash in someones skull. Do we blame the hammer?

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      “A gun is a tool nothing more nothing less. Some people pick up a hammer and build a house. Some people pick up a hammer and bash in someone’s skull. Do we blame the hammer?”

      I was with you up until this point. A gun is a weapon. Let’s not be silly here. It’s use is purely for killing. It is a weapon. A hammer can be used to many things. Hammering nails, pulling nails, smashing toy cars at the age of seven, removing rusty wheel covers, removing any stuck thing, tearing down walls… I could go on.

      Please do not call a gun a tool. It is a weak argument that belittles us all who are for gun rights. It is a weapon, a weapon we choose and have the right to defend ourselves with.

      1. avatar Mikey Ravioli says:

        I have been a resposible gun owner for many years. I have put thousands of rounds down range. I never killed anyone. My guns are tools for my recreation . Tools I can use to feed myself if I had to. Tools that if heaven help me I never need to, could defend myself and my family with.

        You can disagree. I am entitled to my opinion.

        1. avatar Buuurr says:

          Yes, I can and I do. You are entitled to your opinion of course.

      2. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        Sir, I’m sure you were upset with some of the posts here. But you didn’t let anger get the better of you and you came out with a rational, wise, concise statement. Well done and sorry guy but a gun can do most of the things too. Had to be said

      3. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        Sorry guy, but a gun can do most of these things too.

      4. avatar Rybred says:

        I disagree with you also, it fires projectiles. YOUR purpose for owning one may be for defense but there are many other people that own firearms for different purposes.
        Those purpose built Olympic 22’s? NOT designed for killing.
        High-dollar over-under shotguns? For killing clays.
        Bench-rest rifles? For making cloverleafs on paper at ridiculous distances.
        We do not ALL own firearms for the same reasons that you may have them, yet we all need to stick together..

  29. avatar KCK says:

    How many of you sitting and reading this, while feeling the lump on your hip like me, feel we are in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like those kids were.

    My son is a teacher, his Walther can not even be in the parking lot. Deputise, train and allow teachers to carry. Some special clearance to carry in any GFZ’s.
    As we can see, GFZ’s are only free of guns that protect.

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      Not me. I home school my kid. There are just too many lunatics and molesters out there to not home school if the skills and time are there to do so. I home carry. My kid is as safe and sound as can be during the school day. I thank God for the ability to do so.

  30. avatar Average_Casey says:

    Seriously, this is tragic. While I wish gun free zones would be eliminated because they hurt more than they help, they probably aren’t going away. So I propose that the law be amended to allow some school staff members to carry like they do with airline pilots. Isn’t that a reachable compromise? I would be much happier if I knew that my daughter had a teacher armed.

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      Its that or we start putting police in schools. I mean why not? There are police at the grocery stores we visit.

  31. avatar colby says:

    The fundamental question that all of this discussion breaks down to is:

    Who is is most likely to be able to protect me and my wife or future children all the time every time?

    More laws?
    The government?
    The police?
    I am?

  32. avatar Montesa_VR says:

    Looks like the shooter, Ryan Lanza, appears to have been an honor roll student in nearby Danbury. Now that his mother has been identified among the dead, this story is about to become even more tragic.

  33. avatar Little Brother says:

    None of you would want to live in England. You use the example of that country only to serve your own argument. If assault style weapons were banned and I wanted to kill a bunch of people, well, about ONE MILLION TONS of hydrogen cyanide is produced each year in the U.S. used as a precurser to other products. Cyanide will kill every single person in a theater, in a school, in a building, etc. and it is everywhere and easy to acquire or to make – a very simple molecule. Nitro glycerin is EASY to make. Nitrogen bombs are EASY to make and very powerful. Gun control will only force a shift in killing technique that evil people use and in time will make us less safe – just as in England. Liberal reactionism is always based on emotion, that’s why most women are liberals. That’s why the feminization of the American male has resulted in more liberalism. The problem is that when logic is used with liberals they shut down, point fingers, and cry like babies. Truth is that guns in the hands of good people reduce violent crime. Period. The physical region in this latest killing spree has the heaviest load of gun control in the nation. That whole creepy north-eastern communist-block-states region is at fault for its crime rates. Crime is NOT the result of our freedom to own weapons. The liberal belief system of ‘government control of everything’ only leads to the breaking of that control in large order through rebellion or anger. It also leads to the inability of people to govern their own lives. But anyway, who needs inefficient guns to kill masses of children? Don’t need guns. Again for example, – a million tons each year of cyanide, easily made in your own bathroom but even more easily acquired. Also, at least a million tons made per year of nitrogen based fertilizer, as one third of the world’s population is utterly dependant on that type of fertilizer to subsist. Liberals, don’t be stupid, or rather, stop. Gun control kills. It kills because it removes responsibility for one’s own personal safety and gives it to the government, which can only ever come in later and clean up the blood n guts – as in today’s shootings. England is a poop-hole with violent crime sooooo much more than in the U.S. Plus, if some english citizen wanted to, a whole school of kids in England can quite easily be killed, however, it seems that school killings is an American tradition. Keep your gun rights. They are acknowledged for good reason by those who were far more threatened by muskets than we are by modern assault weapons. I only wish at this time that teachers, staff, principles and others are given the opportunity to train and keep weapons of their own in their workplaces, since apparently they have become targets of the insane. Maybe it’s evolution saying that our schools are bad for humanity?? hmmmmmmmm.

  34. avatar Silver says:

    Here’s what’s going to happen:

    Gun rights advocates will continue to make logical, rational arguments that appeal to people of sound mind and moral fiber.

    Gun-grabbers will continue to craft lies, emotional manipulation, and appeals for fantasy logic that appeal to the selfish, weak-willed, simple-minded, and cowardly.

    As everything from the Zimmerman case to the 2012 election has shown, the former are far outnumbered in this country by the latter. New gun control laws WILL pass because of the shift in attitude in this country. We are a nation of selfish, stupid, corrupt, entitled, soulless scumbags unfit for the inheritance of this nation’s potential.

    So, God bless America. F— Americans.

    1. avatar Little Brother says:

      Finally! Someone is beginning to understand the effects of this hippie generation – the ironic remnant of the typical five-year-plans of the former Soviet Union to take the United States without even firing a shot. Hippies could not and even still cannot listen to logic or common sense, as their liberal philosophy cannot account for it. Does not compute, as it were. However the rising generation can and does understand both logic and liberty. What needs to be done to correct liberal thinking is to teach proper principles within the context of current events and in so doing, line upon line and bit by bit, we will regain the ability to govern ourselves. This process leaves government with the responsibility to impose order such that conveys liberty to all citizens, as opposed to imposing governmental control on individual behavior and decision making. More specifically a reversal of liberal indoctrination, the failed socialist/communist ideas commonly taught in public schools and reinforced in popular media, must be undertaken and replaced with successfully proven ideas of prosperity. The teachings of Christ and of the Founding Fathers are a good starting point. Find common ground where ever possible and teach from there. Never stop. – Constant vigilance is the payment for liberty, blood – the cost.

    2. avatar Little Brother says:

      This is actually a reply to a friend but it seems that Mr. Silver also sees the forces at play, not necessarily pertaining to our right to bear arms: Finally! Someone is beginning to understand the effects of this hippie generation – the ironic remnant of the typical five-year-plans of the former Soviet Union to take the United States without even firing a shot. Hippies could not and ev…en still cannot listen to logic or common sense, as their liberal philosophy cannot account for it. Does not compute, as it were. However the rising generation can and does understand both logic and liberty. What needs to be done to correct liberal thinking is to teach proper principles within the context of current events and in so doing, line upon line and bit by bit, we will regain the ability to govern ourselves. This process leaves government with the responsibility to impose order such that conveys liberty to all citizens, as opposed to imposing governmental control on individual behavior and decision making. More specifically a reversal of liberal indoctrination, the failed socialist/communist ideas commonly taught in public schools and reinforced in popular media, must be undertaken and replaced with successfully proven ideas of prosperity. The teachings of Christ and of the Founding Fathers are a good starting point. Find common ground where ever possible and teach from there. Never stop. – Constant vigilance is the payment for liberty, blood – the cost.

  35. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    Well I’ve been in the hospital for five days without access to a computer. Small intestine got blocked from food poisoning. I’ve gotten stuck with every needle and tube in existence, shed plenty of blood, and slept very little here. Reading this article causes me more pain than everything physical I’ve felt in the past week.

    David W is right. There are no 100% guarantees in life with anything. That’s a reality we all accept, and the presence of an armed teacher(s) at this school would have or wouldn’t have made a difference. At least the chance of less dead children would’ve been worth it, but there was no chance because the state doesn’t allow its existence in a “gun free zone”. Nothing could have prevented this tragedy. This nut bag would’ve gotten a gun regardless of their possession legality and if he couldn’t get a gun fast enough he’d have done what that guy in China did today with a knife or worse.

    It pisses me off even more that CT politicians won’t allow teachers to train, improve, and become certified in being armed protectors of their students. Concealed carry of anything, not just guns, should be an optional part of every teacher’s job from the elementary to university level in this country. If I had kids at this school, I’d want their teachers trained, certified with, and armed with anything concealed to bring out in times of danger like this and possibly save more lives even with slim chances of success. But no, the politicians won’t allow children to be properly kept safe by their teachers because “guns are evil and need to go away forever and ever”.

    Anti-gun people, this isn’t a case where banning high capacity magazines, “assault rifles”, handguns, or any other object would’ve saved anyone. This is DIRECTLY YOUR FAULT and the fault of the politicians you worship for denying teachers THE OPPORTUNITY to carry the most efficient means of protection to keep their young students safe because you think a cheap metal sign with a gun and a red slashed circle on it will be enough to stop determined psychopaths at the door. To support denying that opportunity for qualified teachers in the classroom is equal to rooting for the murderers of innocent children in situations like this.

  36. avatar Fapoint7 says:

    Greetings to all! My thoughts and prayers are with those who lost cherished loved ones today . I pray that God’s blessings will help and sustain them throughout their lives until they meet their loved ones again in Heaven. That is I believe to be true. But I also believe it to be true that more gun control WON’T HELP. In our increasingly secular and politically left leaning world we appear to be loosing our will to take evil head on. It’s time we as a nation of free men and women from all corners of this nation reaffirm the right of all to self defense as it is so obviously stated in the 2nd amendment of our constitution . If properly trained citizens were allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves and others, this tragedy might not have been as bad as it was or might NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT ALL. Criminals too have some sense of selve preservation and would think twice before harming others if they knew they’ed be met by deadly force. Then again a psychopathic whack job or looser with a grudge might not care, but in that case once he takes the first shot he might not get a second chance if we are allowed to return fire and put him down.
    Of course as is ALWAYS the cases after tragedies like this, there will be the usual calls fo more gun control and to get rid of them all together because people can’t be allowed to be in control of weapons. This nonsense is always bought to you by the crowd that in the end wants to control the lives of all of us, in every facet of our lives, not just guns. ENOUGH! I’m 55 only recently became a firearms enthusiast and YES I very much like this hobby! Since I took my gun safety course and purchased my first hand gun a Sig Sauer P226 mk25 ( a great gun in my humble opinion) I make it a point to shoot every weekend. Guess what the folks I meet at the range are from ALL backgrounds and income groups. Everyone is well behaved,friendly,safe(the NRA certified range officers help insure that) and having a great time. We are not a bunch of blood thirsty morons and I very much resent that we are portrayed that way. I believe that no one should be forced to own guns but ALL have the right to defend themselves ALWAYS RESPONSIBLY with the firearm of their choice. Is is our right…the 2nd Amendment your original homeland security!

  37. avatar Elise Renee Gingerich says:

    we should all be put on literal rewind, as a species, and that would quickly eliminate all human messes, if we all had a literal rewind button! how the hell does a shooter like that, even get a freaking gun into their hands anyways?! where the hell does a shooter like that, even get a freaking gun, to get into their hands, anyways?! all human messes….. should just be eliminated…..

  38. avatar Ben in UT says:


    Holy shit.

  39. avatar David-p says:

    Is anyone else getting really suspicious on this. The police will come out and say that they didn’t fire their weapons but they won’t say how he died? Why didnt the shooter move around? Is there a chance that a staff member went to their car and grabbed a gun ran back in and returned fire? This is there best chance to pass any gun laws they want and the last thing they want is some armed citizen shooting an killing the gunman to support our side that gun free zones are NOT safe. But it would be easy to convince a person that returned fire that if he/she comes out and says they fired back they would press charges for them having the gun and then say that they may be able to link a child’s death to their actions and threaten to charge with that. Just a thoery but if they didnt kill him and they know nobody else would say or seen someone else kill him then wouldn’t it be easy enough to say it appeared he died of a self inflicted gun shot wound. That’s one of the first things that is always revealed any other time.

  40. avatar KnowWhatIamTalkingAbout says:

    More gun laws, whether enacted via common sense or not, would not have prevented this tragedy.

    This tragedy is the fault of the gunman.

    Neither I nor anyone else should have to pay any price for this person’s rampage.

    And I do not care whether anyone here agrees with me or not.

  41. avatar Howard Timkin says:

    Just another tool for Hillary !! Send all our jobs to China, rob 16 trillion from us, take away our mode of defending ourselves ( our guns ), beat us down at every turn…. We have a DICTATOR not a PRESIDENT !! And this may sound paranoid but lets not forget that the patriot act was made law by a Republican !!!

    Frankly, I don’t trust the democrats or the republicans,they both grab our rights and freedoms making US appear to be the criminals! They are the criminals !

  42. avatar Carrymagnum says:

    How many folks here would be okay with a one-time mental health check for those looking to obtain firearms. I for one would not mind the one time inconvenience if it stopped occurrences like this.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Who pays? Who makes the determination? Heller was decided 5-4 by 9 of the smartest minds in our country. What if the guy in my area happens to lean more towards the “4” side? How do you figure it’d be “one-time?” Psych evaluations generally take a series of interviews over a period of time, because even the craziest people can act normal for an hour or two.

      Most sociopaths operate just fine in society right up until their crimes become known. Of course, there will always be someone who says, “There always was something about that guy,” but are we going to now start letting something preclude a Constitutionally protected right?

      So no, I disagree. I would very much mind a “one-time” psych eval, because such a thing would either be an impossibility or a joke.

      1. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        Matt, I’m a young guy. And I’m a new parent. So honestly I’m grasping at straws trying to figure out a way to ensure this doesn’t happen to my son. I cannot comprehend what would drive someone to do something like this. Any day of the week though I’d rather give something a try in the hopes that it might work than sit back idly and write it off as just one if the downsides to that particular freedom.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “So honestly I’m grasping at straws trying to figure out a way to ensure this doesn’t happen to my son.”

          I can understand where you’re coming from. However, at a certain point, you’re spinning your wheels trying to prevent a shockingly rare black swan event.

          According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2009-10 there were 67,140 elementary schools in the US. Using that number, 67,139 of them did not have an incident on Friday. 67,140 of them did not have an incident on Thursday. Or Wednesday. Or last month. Or the year before. The last non-suicide school shooting was in February, it was at a high-school, and it utilized a .22 pistol that was stolen from a family member. No pre-purchase psych eval, no universal background check, no assault weapons ban would do jack about that one. Just like this one.

  43. avatar Carrymagnum says:

    Fair enough. It does seem most guns used in events like this are stem from family members. This was just one suggestion I’ve heard and the other being armed teachers. The ladder being much more appealing.

  44. avatar Christanna says:

    Im so sorry for your lost if i was u i would have ran away and jump that idiot never go to Sandy Hook Amen god bless you

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