Rush Limbaugh Criticizes School Shooting Survivors

Fox News host Chris Wallace interviewed survivors of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Sunday. Then he asked Rush Limbaugh to weigh in.

Fox News Sunday interviewed survivors of last week's high school shooting on Sunday, in an emotional interview in which survivor Cameron Kasky said "the 'March For Our Lives' is going to be in every major city and we are organizing it so students everywhere can beg for our lives." He went on to say "because at the end of the day, this isn't about the red and blue, the GOP and the Democrats, this is about adults and kids."

But after the interview, Rush Limbaugh was invited to give his analysis. What followed was a remarkable, but unsurprising, display of callous indifference from the conservative firebrand.

Limbaugh said "marches aren't going to solve it," and that the students are trying to "advance a political agenda."

"Chris, the next shooter is out there. The next shooter probably has the gun that he's going to use. … How is anything that we're talking about going to stop that?" Limbaugh asked. "The solution to me ― and I know this is going to cause all kinds of angst ― but the solution is we need concealed carry (of weapons) in the schools."

"These students think they're taking politics out of this," Limbaugh added. "The minute they bash the NRA, it's politics. … This is an event that advances a political agenda for the American left and the Democrat Party. Bash the NRA."

Giphy

What was Fox News thinking?

"Chris Wallace has the heroic Parkland students on and then brings on Rush Limbaugh to analyze? Thats like chasing a glass of fine scotch with hippo urine," Jeremy Newberger tweeted in response to the interview.

Where is the funding for arming teachers going to come from? Is acting as bullet shields supposed to be part of their job description?

There have been countless studies showing that more guns equals more gun violence, and that concealed carry laws do not make anyone safer. Conservatives, however, refuse to recognize scientific data in lieu of feelings. We need laws based on science and data that protect the public's health and safety.

Honestly though.