Connecticut school shooting: blogger says more men could have stopped killings There were no 12-year-olds to perform the tackles Ms Allen imagined could disarm a heavily equipped killer, as classes at Sandy Hook stop at fourth grade, when the eldest children are ten. Amid national grief at the massacre of so many young children, and growing momentum for tighter gun and ammunition laws, the response was severe. The Jezebel blog, calling Ms Allen a "noted asshole," said: "Do you know what would've happened if a bunch of "husky" 12-year-old boys tried to attack an adult male with a semi-automatic rifle? There would've been a bunch of dead husky 12-year-old boys. The Huffington Post labelled her article as "inane drivel." Have we now reached peak Sandy Hook stupidity? Let's hope so," wrote Jason Linkins. David Weigel, in a post on Slate.com headlined "The Stupidest Thing Anyone Has Written About Sandy Hook," pointed out that in other shootings men had died or been gravely injured trying to protect others. Jared Loughner, who killed six in the attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords, did his damage in six seconds. "Grown men in good health were cut down, because bullets move faster than people do," wrote Weigel. Ms Allen was not the first to suggest that unarmed people "rushing" gunmen could work. In the Daily Beast, Megan McArdle argued: "I'd like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it?