6th-grader brings gun to school to stop another Sandy Hook

Just when you think the gun fetish in America can’t get any more bizarre, less than one week after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, an eleven-year-old in Utah has been charged by local police with possession of a dangerous weapon.

He was reportedly brandishing it on the playground, threatening other children, etc. (though child testimony is often less than perfect). A teacher at the school has been credited with taking control of the situation by seizing the weapon.  A little girl tells what happened:

“He pulled out a gun and put it to my head. He said he was gonna kill us.  I told him I was gonna go tell. He said, if you tell I’m gonna kill you.”

If the teachers had been armed, they could have simply shot the eleven year old child to death. [/snark]

All snark aside, that’s probably what would have happened had they been armed.  You see a child pointing a gun at another kid, you shoot him dead lest it be another Sandy Hook.  That’s what happens when you arm teachers, and when you permit guns in schools (or anywhere else).

But check this out, from NBC News:

The boy, whose name has not been released because he is a juvenile, indicated that he wanted to defend himself if there was an incident similar to what happened in Newtown, Conn.

That’s an interesting alibi, and troubling if true.  The child was simply doing what he’s heard Republican-allied gun groups talking about all week on TV – arm himself.  The atrocity at Sandy Hook wouldn’t have happened had people in the school been armed, they keep saying on TV.  So he armed himself.

Why does an elementary school kid have to be exposed to such extreme violence just by going to school? And of course, he got the gun at home.

The NRA has had an easy ride in recent years but it has to stop.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

An American in Paris, France. BA in History & Political Science from Ohio State. Provided consulting services to US software startups, launching new business overseas that have both IPO’d and sold to well-known global software companies. Currently launching a new cloud-based startup. Full bio here.

Share This Post

  • Major Umtittyscrunch

    As an adult, if you cannot defend yourself, you deserve to be shot. The use of deadly force is only authorized in self defense or the safety of others. I’d shoot a kid to save umpteen others in a heart beat. I’d feel bad, sure, but I’d feel a hell of a lot worse letting the kid shoot his fellow classmates while I tuck my tail in fear… That kid is f-ing terrorist in the making. Just because it is a kid doesn’t justify assaulting a fellow classmate with a deadly weapon and verbally threatening them.

  • colleen2

    I understood the point. I disagree with the characterization.

  • RepubAnon

    No, the point’s a valid one: mass shootings are shocking, but lots of kids get killed every day from stray bullets, gun accidents. etc and the media ignores it. Remember the grade school kid accidentally shot by his father due to the father’s careless handling of a pistol? How about all the inner-city kids that get shot from stray rounds fired during a drive-by? Where’s the outrage for those killings?

    To use the frog in boiling water cliche – the Sandy Hook shootings were a noticeable bump in the steady rise of the water’s temperature. We need to start a “Sandy Hook per day” measure for the cost of a society awash in handguns to make people realize how very bad the problem is.

  • RepubAnon

    How about the gun owners? How about modifying the law to make anyone who sells a gun to someone else liable for any crimes committed with that gun – unless they perform background checks?

  • keirmeister

    Amen! I’m passing out listening to these Right Wing idiots insult the “greedy” “ineffective” teachers and then insist they should be armed and ready to shoot. Cognitive dissonance with a side of bacon.

  • keirmeister

    Reading your comment on this, I’m faced with another outlook on our response to this tragedy – and it’s probably a bit controversial as well: related to what you say about the number of children killed, I’m getting the feeling that another reason we are all so upset by this particular massacre is because it happened to predominantly white children.

    If this happened in an inner city I’m afraid it would simply be relegated to gang violence or something.

    Bringing race into this is indeed troubling, but I’ve seen this scenario in America before…and we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about it.

  • BigGuy

    W’s administration passed a federal law, applicable at federal and state level, exempting gun makers and distributors for any liability for crimes committed with the guns they make and sell.

  • Naja pallida

    In the 2 hours it took you to write the post, get a response, and write a counter-response, according to CDC statistics, another ~20 people in this country were shot, with about 3 of them dying. How is that for hysterical response? The problem isn’t that it takes a giant media whirlwind to spur the public to some kind of response, it is that so may people don’t care when it isn’t drummed up. Americans are dropping dead from gun fire at a rate of over one an hour, and we simply accept it as normal. The threat is to everyone, whether people like to admit it or not.

  • Naja pallida

    Continuing the reasoning why the constant equating of guns and cars, because they both kill people, is patently absurd.

  • colleen2

    obvious troll

  • rerutled

    ” IT IS THE DEATH of the children!” No, it is not, because 2200 children have the exact same thing happen to them — being killed with guns — every year in the US, and this reaction has not come about until this 20.

    Ad hominem ignored. For the most part.

  • Amen to that. I was a teacher too, and would resign before being obligated to carry a killing weapon into my classroom. These arm-the-teacher morons are the very people who should be denied gun licenses.

  • “the reaction — which you clearly also have — is not to the deaths of children” IT IS THE DEATH of the children! How’s that for a reaction you creepy libertarian rationalist troll?

  • UncleBucky

    Let’s have the NRA or some gun group defend this kid… Meh.

  • rerutled

    Here is what I think is required to fix the situation.

    1) Repeal the 2nd Amendment, and let gun owners rely upon the 14th Amendment to protect their right to own firearms. This removes the inviolable right to gun ownership, and requires it be balanced against others’ rights, like the right to not getting shot.

    2) Provide single-payer healthcare. This would create the requisite mental health safety net needed to insure that people who require diagnosis and treatment to avoid their violent tendencies receive it.

    Notice how I don’t say anything about how politically feasible it is to do this in the United States. Nonetheless, it is what I think is required.

  • rerutled

    Here is one source: http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

    It says there were 2186 child homicides by firearm in 2007. That works out to 1 every 4 hours.

  • rerutled

    It is like someone is pouring a quart of milk on the floor and you say
    nothing, but then they drop a teaspoon, and you go apeshit.

    A reasoned response would be as intense as this one, but ever present — it would be constantly going on — since the amount of carnage visited on Sandy Hook happens – quite literally — twice a week, when you sum together all the murdered children in all the towns in all of America. It is a constant pour of milk.

    Based on my conversations with numerous people, the reaction — which you clearly also have — is not to the deaths of children; but is instead to the fact that the violence was seemingly random. They have this world view that they are “safe” because they believe people who are killed by guns are killed by people they know, and for reasons which make sense. This limits their exposure to such a threat — since it’s only proportionate to the number of people they know. However, when victims are chosen at random, then such people realize they could be killed by absolutely anybody — the threat to them is literally, everybody in the entire world. This creates a strong negative emotional reaction, and they they go apeshit.

    It’s an hysterical response.

  • As a retired teacher, I would quit first. I would never want to be put in a position where I have to take a child’s life in a snap decision. I am not a cop, nor do I have any inclinations to be one. As an English/remedial reading teacher I was already overworked and underpaid. To add police officer to that for the same salary, I say you MUST be joking!

  • OK. Then what is your plan for fixing it?

  • Same old, same old NRA propaganda! Nice try through.

  • “irresponsible gun owners[his parents]” Late to the Tea Party? When they went to interview the parent(s) she had been killed.

  • Outspoken1

    What is your source? (Not criticizing – just want to know). Thanks!!

  • colleen2

    “The present reaction — while politically helpful — cannot but be characterized as an hysterical response”

    Bullshit. The fact of the matter is that Republicans have done their best to suppress knowledge of how pervasive gun violence is in this country. There’s nothing ‘hysterical’ about wanting to protect children from homicidal adults, that’s a normal, dcent human reaction. The folks who are hysterical are the morons proposinggrade school teachers should multi-task as swat teams.

  • colleen2

    “There are already laws in place to penalize irresponsible behavior”

    Just so you know. The first person who died in this incident had a son with a severe neurological/personality deficit and she taught him to shoot at a range. Gun owners knew she was training him and nobody objected or stopped it. Please stop pretending that the gun lobby and their followers give a shit about irresponsible behavior from other gun owners or are even capable of recognising irresponsible behavior. The conservative reaction to George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin demonstrates that holding gun owners responsible, even when they murder unarmed children, is something that you folks just don’t do.

  • nicho

    In the US, one child is killed with a gun every three hours.

  • colleen2

    “You’re are right though, if the teacher had been armed that student
    would probably have been taken down, and it would have been 100%
    justified for that teacher to have done it.”

    Just so you know, this is the statement of someone who should never be allowed to own a firearm.

  • DM Tea

    Gun ownership and handling is 100% personal responsibility, you cannot legislate that. There are already laws in place to penalize irresponsible behavior, It’s is illogical to think that creating more laws that overlap or simply fatten up current laws will change anything. Capital Punishment laws haven’t stopped crimes that it covers so what makes you believe that tougher gun laws will do anything but limit access to the truly responsible?

  • caphillprof

    Where is the requirement for liability insurance for guns? Insurance companies would do a much better job than the government in deciding who is insurable, who is not insurable, the conditions under which folk are insurable, etc. The second amendment is cheap as it creates insufficient liability for the gun itself.

    If I took your car and had an accident, your car insurance would be there. If I stole your gun and shot somebody . . ,. , . . . . . . nothing.

  • rerutled

    As someone conversant with statistics and who believes the country would be better off without the 2nd Amendment (relying on the 14th Amendment to secure individuals’ gun ownership in balance with other rights), I’ve nonetheless had the trying task of conveying the fact that, all told, while these mass shootings are terrifying, *they hardly matter at all in the context of gun homicides of children.* If the Sandy Hook shootings – the second largest in the history of the US — were to happen not just once in forever, but twice a year, they would still only make up only 2% of the approximately 2200 deaths every year of kids who are murdered with guns. The remaining 98% do not receive anywhere near this national attention. The present reaction — while politically helpful — cannot but be characterized as an hysterical response, since the quantitative threat are the many, many murders which did not all happen in a single, media-packagable city, but in so many different places as to make accurate and in-depth reporting on all of them practically impossible. We have known about this threat for years. But I guess it’s not a photogenic threat.

  • mirror

    Because any one with half a brain knows without some additional rules or incentives, gun owners will continue the shitty control they have had over their weapons. Arming teachers won’t negate the fact that gun owners are not in control of their guns, but this is the best the gun nuts can bring to the table. Over the past 3 months we have had many highly trained owners, including police, and a police officer who let his own kid get killed, let their guns become casual instruments of death. There are just too many of the damn things.

  • DM Tea

    Why isn’t there any mention or condemnation of the irresponsible gun owners[his parents] who allowed a child to have access to a gun so easily? Yet, you made sure you made a “snarky” remark about teachers being armed. You’re are right though, if the teacher had been armed that student would probably have been taken down, and it would have been 100% justified for that teacher to have done it.

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS