27 Dead in Connecticut School Shooting

Local and state police in Newtown, Conn. were called to an elementary school at about 9:30 a.m. Friday after a gunman allegedly opened fire at the school.


NEWTOWN, CT -- Connecticut police said Friday afternoon that 26 people, including 20 children, were killed at an elementary school after a gunman opened fire. Another adult was killed at a second location.
The Scene

Police in Newtown were called to the Sandy Hook School at about 9:30 a.m. after receiving a 911 call Friday morning. Authorities said the gunman was found dead inside the school. He was reportedly armed with four guns and a high-powered assault rifle. Authorities said during a press conference that they have retrieved three weapons from the scene.

A parent interviewed on CBS News told the network on Friday that his 8-year-old daughter said she heard an argument and cursing over the school’s loudspeaker, apparently coming from the principal’s office. Her teacher then immediately locked the classroom door as a safety precaution. A fourth-grade student at Sandy Hook School told Connecticut’s Channel 7 that he and his classmates were “locked in a closet in the gym” to escape the gunman.

One mother of an 8-year-old girl at the school, Brenda Lebinski, told Patch that her daughter is safe thanks to one teacher's decision to move all kids into a closet when the gunman entered the building.

The Shooter and His Family

The shooter, identified as Adam Lanza, attacked the Sandy Hook School where his mother, Nancy Lanza, worked as a kindergarten teacher. Media reports initially identified the shooter as Adam's 24-year-old Ryan Lanza. 

Nancy was found dead in her Newtown home. According to reports, the shooting took place in her classroom. Eighteen children were killed at the scene, while two were taken to the hospital where they later died. The school’s principal, Dawn Hochsprung, also was among the six adults killed. 

National Response

The shooting, one of the deadliest in U.S. history, has once again touched a nerve about the country’s gun violence.

During a press conference Friday afternoon, President Obama visibly wept, saying "We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

The president also said “our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors, as well. For as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early."

Tim Dutton December 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM
There is legislation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could bring to the floor: Schumer’s bill to withhold federal law enforcement funds from states that do not fully report their background check information on would-be gun buyers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Stephen D. Clark December 16, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Me too. It's a start. Maybe the authority could be shared between state and national levels, but cross-border gun movement is a national issue and concerns Congress.
Patriot December 16, 2012 at 11:43 PM
You are too funny!
San Quentin December 17, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Obamas death panels will be kicking in soon. Will anybody say anything about that
steve forte December 17, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Thats not going to happen.
Steve From NH December 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM
If you want, and especially in places NH, you can get a weapon with no background check, and no waiting, and no matter your mental state or abilities. According to the arguments posted here and taken right out of NRA propaganda, since people die and are murdered in other ways we should ignore the proliferation of assault weapons and ammunition meant only to kill large numbers of people, and solve the problem by making sure that more of this stuff becomes available. Are we completely brainwashed by the NRA, quoting from ideas expressed 200 years ago when it was also ok to own slaves, women were considered beneath men and the marriage age was 12? Are we really saying that we shouldn't do anything because it will tak etoo long, or be too hard? Are we really saying that the teachers should have had guns, even though cops with guns are shot all the time (yesterday, for instance)? The teachers should have guns, because we are too brainwashed or stupid or cowardly to stand up to the NRA and the FSP and insist that you should have to wait for your handgun, and you should NEVER be able to get an assault weapon? Have we really surrendered the United States of America to the macho-BS wingnut brigade who believes that everyone, everywhere, should have a gun, and if you get shot because you don't somehow it's your own fault?
Steve From NH December 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM
There are many - like the Rep. from Texas, and many above - who are so very close to blaming the principal and the teachers - they who won't say "He should not have had an assault weapon", but instead insist that "she should have had a gun". Listen - 20 kids, 6 and 7 years old, and 6 adults whose job is to teach them were killed by a young man nurtured and shaped by a culture in which it is not only ok, it is encouraged to have a gun and to use it to solve your problems. A young man with obvious mental problems who had easy access to a tool whose only purpose is to kill many people. I am not talking about laws but reality. And our answer is that we should strengthen and encourage that culture, and make sure there are more of these weapons available? It is the job, mission, and passion of those educators in elementary schools to teach our kids in a safe environment. It is not their job to also become armed guards, and I hate to think of the message we are sending to 6 year old kids who go to school and see guns there, too. It is our job to fashion a society in which those kids and their teachers can feel safe in those schools, and we have failed them - they have not failed us, as many seem to believe, we have failed them. And many, like Charlie W. and the FSP folks who are trying to remove the few restrictions we do have are arguing that since we can't succeed 100% of the time, we shouldn't try at all? More guns, easier access, is the answer?
Patriot December 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed Steve? You sound a little grumpy! Maybe it is good you don't have a gun.
Patriot December 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM
We are to the point that the government is outlawing the size of a drink. We gave bean bag guns to our border patrol and how did that work out? Steve, you want to make it easier for murderers to kill!
Steve From NH December 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM
There were bills passed through committee and/or full vote in the NH house last year that would make it illegal to prohibit firearms on public property, allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, carry guns into courtrooms, further weaken licensing and make it dramatically easier for ANYONE that wants one to get a gun. It is already very easy to get a gun in NH with no background check through private sale or gun show. And we can't talk about gun control? We have no gun control. Machete? You can run from a machete. Lets turn your argument around - since we can't stop people from killing other people, let's drop all pretense. Why stop at assault weapons? I should be able to own a 50 cal (oh, wait, I already can), I want full machine weapons (wait, I can get those too), grenade launchers and grenades (hmmm, a little tougher, but I can, Sam I am, I can!), I want a tank, artillery, plastic explosives and mines (I want to mine my front yard). Why stop at assault weapons? Why can't I have whatever I want? Why ban ANYTHING? I mean people die choking on meat, so since we can't outlaw meat, we should not outlaw bazookas and RPG's, right? The government has tanks, so we should be able to have anti-tank weapons, right? They have planes, so we should be able to own surface to air missiles?
Steve From NH December 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM
I woke up on the right side of the bed. There are 20 kids and 6 adults in Ct. who, by virtue of being on the wrong side of an assault rifle, did not.
Steve From NH December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Explain to me how making assault weapons harder or impossible to get is making it "easier for murderers to kill"? There is no way to make it "easier for murderers to kill". It is already as easy as it gets, and adding more guns is not going to make it any more difficult.
Patriot December 17, 2012 at 01:13 PM
So you have not answered your own riddle. This man as many others was sick! People in prison are without weapons but yet there are still murders. We have very restrictive laws with regard to drugs bt yet the war rages on. If life was only as simple as many think. I have to stop debating gun control in the face of this tragedy. 2 issues with no simple answer.
Steve From NH December 17, 2012 at 01:58 PM
We do not have very restrictive laws in regards to guns. They do in Massachusetts and Connecticut. So, you say since they don't work in Massachusetts and Connecticut, they won't work anywhere. But - to get around the restrictive laws in Massachusetts or Connecticut, all you have to do is drive to NH, where anyone who wants to can get a gun with small effort. No, there are no simple answers. Since when do we stop because the solutions might be difficult? This man was sick. AND, he had easy access to an AR15 with unlimited ammunition.
steve forte December 17, 2012 at 02:01 PM
He had easy access because he stole it. Since the time of the shooting over 80 People have been killed in DWI related auto accidents . Where is the outrage?
Proud Conservative December 17, 2012 at 02:18 PM
@Steve From NH - What you're describing is the liberal philosophy that has led to many of the problems we are now seeing in this country. Kids have been raised for several decades now by parents who advocate letting them "express themselves" by allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want with no consequences for their actions. In addition, they were given anything and everything their little hearts desired. Add to that the breakdown of the family unit in this country, the general permissiveness of our society and the virtual collapse of our moral standards and you have a couple of generations of kids who, when they finally go out to face the harsh reality of the real world, cannot cope with any obstacle they encounter. And the simplest way to eliminate the obstacle is to do exactly what they have learned from TV, movies and video games - blow the obstacle away with a few ounces of lead. The liberals can scoff all they want at the right wing conservative moral standards and call them antiquated, outdated, old fashioned, etc. But if those standards were prevalent in our society today, we would not be seeing these mass murders at schools, malls and theaters.
Deb Carter December 17, 2012 at 03:30 PM
They are called "Assault Rifles" not "Defense Rifles".These high powered weapons were designed for the advancement of a military style assault. Hense the name. No private citizens should need one. They currently have the right to own one...but NEED? I can see having a handgun of two for the defense of your own property upon invasion of a stranger or keeping hunting rifles for that specific purpose but NOONE but the military should have "Assault" weapons. Do you drive a Panzer around town? or keep grenades in your office? No, there are certain tools that should only be used by the military. Period.
steve forte December 17, 2012 at 03:34 PM
Deb , please describe to us what the differance is between an assult rifle and a semiautomatic hunting rifle chambered in a popular varmint ( fox , coyote) caliber.
Deb Carter December 17, 2012 at 04:06 PM
The intent of ownsership.
steve forte December 17, 2012 at 04:10 PM
When you take one away the freak just goes to the other one. Kinda like when the state banned 1.5 sized rolling papers. One could still buy 1.0 because acording to the state at the time they were too small to roll a joint with. Who would have guessed that people would just glue 2 together. One needs to consider human nature when toying with the idea of useless legislation.
Ray Guarino December 17, 2012 at 04:27 PM
Steve Forte, not relevant. Deb is correct in what she says. Stop distracting from the issue at hand.
ForThePeople December 17, 2012 at 04:31 PM
Steve, are you taking assault rifles into the woods to hunt rabbits? Seriously?
Deb Carter December 17, 2012 at 04:38 PM
You can't stop people from doing dangerous or harmful things, if they want to do it, they will find a way. Legislation does not work. All it does is create a black market. Owning a gun is a personal choice. If owning one helps you sleep at night great... if you don't like them, don't have one. Referring specifically to the case in CT :The young man should never had access to that/those weapons. Knowing what we know about the mom's knowledge of his mental state, it makes no sense. I have an adult child with asperger's. His sense of reality is a bit off. Although he does NOT exhibit tendancies towards voilence, I DO think it would be appropriate to mark his license as such so that he would never be able to purchase a gun on his own.
ForThePeople December 17, 2012 at 04:42 PM
For anyone who doesn't know the rifle in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9dnEaADOs8 Here it is. Single shots followed by machine gun fire later in the video.
Patriot December 17, 2012 at 05:10 PM
The army gave me an M-16, never had to shoot a person. Never had the need to shoot any person. Why am I going to be a criminal for owning what the army told me I need to defend myself and others? Other than bantering back and forth, this is nothing more than a rights issue. Just like religion those that don't believe are not satisfied with their right to not believe.
Deb Carter December 17, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Patriot,.... the man that did this was indeed NOT in the military & neither was his mom. That's my point.
Patriot December 17, 2012 at 05:38 PM
It becomes "feel good legislation"
ForThePeople December 17, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Why can't military folks keep their assault weapons in a barracks? I'm not sure we need a population heavily affected by PTSD having an arsenal in their homes.
One Man Wolf Pack December 17, 2012 at 06:49 PM
So I would assume that right along with gun legislation we will also support and pass legislation for a stronger boarder. After all if we can't stop TONS of drugs and people crossing the border then how do we expect to stop guns...........How does everyone feel about that?
steve forte December 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM
You cannot legislate human behavior. You may be able to pursuade it a small amount but never control it. Get to the root of the problem , why do young Americans want to kill each other? If we dont figure out the answer to that and how to change it nothing will change. Useless gun legislation is easy. Fixing the actual problem is not. Make our pols earn their check and make em work on the real problem. Lets keep in mind the same day this happened another was arrested in OK if Im not mistaken for planning a school attack with a bomb. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15932019-oklahoma-student-arrested-in-alleged-plot-to-attack-school?lite


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »