“Gun-Free Zone” Kills Sandy Hook Principal, 20 Children, and Half a Dozen Others

Disclaimer: The title is intentionally sensationalist, and obviously the shooter bears the responsibility for what happened, but bear with me.

Very recently, we’ve had two tragic shootings perpetrated by two sick individuals: The Oregon Mall Shooting and the Sandy Hook School Shooting. Combining the information from Nota’s thread and the info from another piece of news I heard this afternoon, something struck me.

A subtle line about the principal’s actions at Sandy Hook really flips on the light bulb:

“A lot of children are alive today because of actions the teachers took,” School Superintendent Janet Robinson told NBC’s TODAY show on Saturday, a day after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at the K-4th grade school in Newtown, Conn.

Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach, both among those killed, were said to have run toward the gunfire as it broke out, with Hochsprung lunging at the gunman, according to town officials.

Hochsprung was coming out of a meeting when she confronted the shooter, Board of Education chairwoman Debbie Liedlien said Saturday.

Jeff Capeci, chairman of Newtown’s Legislative Council, said Hochsprung’s actions were nothing short of heroic. “From what we know, it’s hard to classify her as anything else,” he added.

Do you get that? The principal clearly had the guts to charge into gunfire to protect her charges. More shocking was the fact that she was forced to charge into gunfire to try to stop him; if she had a handgun in her possession, it’s reasonable to assume that she would still be alive today, and the killer neutralized long before the body count had gotten so high.

If you want some anecdotal evidence to show how this works, look no further than Nota’s thread, and the link therein:

That’s right… even though Nick never fired a shot, Roberts knew that he was no longer the only armed man in the mall. Roberts retreated into the stairwell, cleared his weapons malfunction and committed suicide rather than continue attacking and killing any more innocent civilians.

So… a choice is presented:

1) Enable concealed carry and be able to end evil?
2) Disallow defensive carry and render law abiding citizens defenseless when evil rears its head?

Choice seems clear to me.

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to “Gun-Free Zone” Kills Sandy Hook Principal, 20 Children, and Half a Dozen Others

  1. Locke n Load says:

    There were 7 theaters in the aurora co area the Joker had to pick from. 6 of the 7 allow CCW or at least have not posted ‘Gun Free Zone’ placards.
    Take a wild guess which one he chose for the mayhem

  2. notamobster says:

    The choice seemed clear to the Michigan legislature, too.

  3. fubar says:

    most school administrators/teachers/guidance counselors are progressives.

    • Uke says:

      This reminds me of the saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”

      That principal might have been a hardcore leftist, and yet, I’d wager at that very moment she would have wanted a gun in her hands instead of being forced to do a banzai charge.

  4. fubar says:

    liberal response :

    Shooting at CT elementary school. Obviously, we need to lower the age limit for concealed carry so toddlers can defend themselves.

  5. R.D. Walker says:

    The left goes apoplectic when you make claims like this, Uke. They claim that nobody needs to have weapons for the cause of self defense and that they would just make these shootings worse. You make a fine case that they are dead wrong. These women were so determined to protect the children in their care, they were willing to charge an armed man to stop him. They had every element needed to stop the attack except the tools.

    The left seems to believe that if we just passed enough of the correct laws, 20 year old young men willing to cap their mothers in the head using stolen weapons would be dissuaded.

    This is absurd on its face. If you are willing to violate the law against murder – the most exhaustive law in any society – as well as the the most intense social taboos regarding matricide, no new state or federal code is going to magically prevent you from doing whatever the hell you want to do. The very idea is idiocy.

    The only explanation is that these people are advocating for the total banning of firearms. Even ignoring the Constitutional issues, this is just not possible.

    There are literally hundreds of millions of unregistered weapons in this country and, unless we are willing to engage in the most massive illegal search in history, they will never be eliminated. It just can’t be done. As has been explained endlessly, legally banning guns only removes them from the hands and homes of the most sheepishly law abiding citizens leaving the rest to be used for criminal activities.

    I think leftists get this but they believe that, somehow, guns could be made to just disappear. Here is the test for any leftist who believes that gun bans work and that we should be willing to surrender our weapons in the name of safety.

    The left believes that a national ban would eliminate the threat of gun violence and, consequently, eliminate my need for a gun. Obviously when guns are eliminated, I don’t have to worry about defending myself or my family with guns. There is some truth to that. No guns, no need to protect against guns.

    Sill, if that logic is valid, it should apply to the police as well. If guns are banned and the threat of gun violence is eliminated, the police should have no need for guns or body armor and can return to patrols armed with nightsticks. Obviously, if guns are eliminated and I don’t need to worry about gun crime, neither do the police.

    When leftists agree that gun bans will be so effective that police don’t need to worry about gun violence and can, therefore, be disarmed, they can be taken seriously. Until then, they are acknowledging that there are bad people in possession of firearms and, therefore, I cannot safely surrender mine.

    • Uke says:

      One of my favorite pastimes is making leftists go apoplectic, so I suppose I’m on the right track. 😉

  6. notamobster says:

    I sure am glad I sold off all of my firearms.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Me too. Well, I still have that single shot .22 short with the broken stock. I guess I will have to turn it over when the ban comes, darn it anyway…

      x-mas 010

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Oh, all that ammo I bought online? It was for gifts.

      • Uke says:

        “No worries, Sir. That’s considered an ‘antique,’ so you can keep that. Just so long as you apply for the federal firearms permit, pay the tax stamp, and join your local, federally licensed gun club.”

    • Uke says:

      Sasquatch stole mine. Darndest thing.

  7. notamobster says:

    Is that an old Sears & Roebuck? That’d be a nice project to rework. Well, so long as you removed the firing pin upon reassembly.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I don’t know what it is, it has no markings. I have six or eight like that I have picked up over the years. I do rework them. Oh, about one every seven or eight years. Between keeping this site going, spending time with the family unit and my day gig, there isn’t much time left for that sort of thing.

  8. notamobster says:

    Had. “Had” 6 or 8 that you reworked – and then sold. Ahem. 😉

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Damn. I let that slip didn’t I? Now they are going to come take all of my old, rusty, broken guns. Damn. Then I won’t have any left at all.

  9. Greg B says:

    No sir.
    That was just a chunk o’ aluminum that arrived in the mail. 😉

    • Greg B says:

      Holy fuck!
      I was literally right there around noon today.
      Christmas shopping for the old lady’s gift.
      I shit you not.

      • notamobster says:

        Yeah, I don’t go to the mall. I rarely go anyplace with more than 7-8 people in it. Not for security reasons. Mainly because I don’t like people or crowds. They tend to act like arseholes when you get a bunch of them together.