HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What's the best source to...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:49 AM

What's the best source to debunk the crazy rumors that no semi-auto rifle was used at Sandy Hook?

In the past week, I've heard constant chatter from gun enthusiasts on Facebook claiming that no semi-automatic rifle was used in the Sandy Hook shootings and that Lanza only used a handgun to commit his acts. Now, these are all citing to gun enthusiast websites and not actual news media, but from what I've heard (and I haven't bothered to look at the gun websites themselves) they are all focusing in on something the coroner said on the Today show or something like that.

Needless to say and considering the source, my BS meter is going sky high. It strikes me as a lame attempt to try to counter any efforts to resurrect restrictions on assault weapons and/or high capacity clips. I checked snopes but they haven't weighed in on the subject yet. Are there any good, reputable mainstream sources that can be used to counter this story?

Edit to change "assault rifle" to "semi auto rifle", since I know some smartass gun enthusiast will try to split hairs as to the definition of assault rifle.

99 replies, 6489 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 99 replies Author Time Post
Reply What's the best source to debunk the crazy rumors that no semi-auto rifle was used at Sandy Hook? (Original post)
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 OP
lamp_shade Jan 2013 #1
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #2
newblewtoo Jan 2013 #5
kentuck Jan 2013 #34
doccraig67 Jan 2013 #94
lamp_shade Jan 2013 #98
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #3
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #4
Heimer Jan 2013 #6
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #9
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #11
Heimer Jan 2013 #12
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #15
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #17
green for victory Jan 2013 #99
JanMichael Jan 2013 #27
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #53
Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #37
Heimer Jan 2013 #87
Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #88
Heimer Jan 2013 #90
Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #91
ceejdre82 Jan 2013 #93
Aristus Jan 2013 #96
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #7
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #14
jmg257 Jan 2013 #8
Paladin Jan 2013 #10
lolwat Jan 2013 #16
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #18
jmg257 Jan 2013 #19
LineLineLineLineReply ?
lolwat Jan 2013 #22
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #24
jmg257 Jan 2013 #25
Recursion Jan 2013 #31
jmg257 Jan 2013 #35
Recursion Jan 2013 #42
jmg257 Jan 2013 #52
Recursion Jan 2013 #54
jmg257 Jan 2013 #57
Recursion Jan 2013 #58
jmg257 Jan 2013 #59
Recursion Jan 2013 #61
jmg257 Jan 2013 #63
Recursion Jan 2013 #64
jmg257 Jan 2013 #65
Recursion Jan 2013 #68
jmg257 Jan 2013 #70
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #26
Sugarcoated Jan 2013 #20
Recursion Jan 2013 #29
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #32
Recursion Jan 2013 #36
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #39
Recursion Jan 2013 #40
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #45
Recursion Jan 2013 #47
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #73
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #76
Recursion Jan 2013 #78
jmg257 Jan 2013 #33
Recursion Jan 2013 #38
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #43
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #46
Recursion Jan 2013 #48
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #55
Recursion Jan 2013 #56
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #67
Recursion Jan 2013 #69
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #71
Recursion Jan 2013 #72
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #75
Recursion Jan 2013 #77
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #49
Recursion Jan 2013 #50
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #60
Recursion Jan 2013 #79
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #95
Recursion Jan 2013 #97
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #21
Mnemosyne Jan 2013 #28
Paladin Jan 2013 #81
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #23
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #30
sir pball Jan 2013 #44
jmg257 Jan 2013 #13
lonestarnot Jan 2013 #51
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #84
leftyohiolib Jan 2013 #62
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #66
frylock Jan 2013 #80
jambo101 Jan 2013 #82
Recursion Jan 2013 #83
Sugarcoated Jan 2013 #86
Dpm12 Jan 2013 #85
egduj Jan 2013 #89
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #92


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

2. Perfect.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:11 AM

5. Thanks

some of the wife's relatives need to see this too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:12 AM

34. Thanks for that.

I will post it on FB for some that need to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:01 AM

94. You might get what I got.

Gave that to a friend on face book. He came back with yeah all those agents made a mistake. Why did it change. My response was, If you are saying it's a conspiracy theory, then I don't know how to argue with you. But it seems to me that at least 100 local, state and federal investigators were on that scene. It's hard for me to believe you could co-ordinate that many. By now there must be coroners reports, autopsy reports and ballistics reports along with photos that can be confirmed. On top of that there are 235 Republican congressman and 45 Republican senators who have access to all the facts. All of them have a political axe to grind. It's hard for me to believe that they could cover it up. By the way the guy is a cop. I put here what I could best remember was my reply, because his post has been removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:08 AM

4. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:13 AM

6. The school had a camera system

The footage of the gunman entering the building with a military styled rifle or pistols under his jacket should be released. We need to demand this footage be released or the crazies will cry conspiracy..

My personal opinion: No rifle was used. Visitors at the school must be "buzzed in" after verification through the camera system and then escorted directly to the main office. An Ar15 type weapon surely would not be easily concealed enough to be allowed entry. Pistols concealed under a jacket or in a backpack, however, would very likely go unnoticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:18 AM

9. The murderer was not buzzed in,

he shot his way through the glass door and entered through the hole. Something that could have been done with a pistol, rifle or shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:21 AM

11. he shot through the glass door

so...

try again.

you are saying the cops are lying? or did you not read the thread before you 'contributed'?

or are you confused?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2013
** UPDATE **

STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;
INVESTIGATION CONTINUES
In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.
Seized inside the school:
#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine
#2. Glock 10 mm handgun
#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun
Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:
#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)
This case remains under investigation.
Lt. J. Paul Vance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:25 AM

12. I believe we've all heard and read enough information..

Much of it contradictory.

I'd appreciate some actual "facts" and "proof".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:28 AM

15. It's well known that facts have a liberal bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:33 AM

17. how is the police statement not a fact? so you do believe they are lying?

have you heard of this thing called google?

and if you have, how did you miss this item from Dec. 15 (the day after)?

“This probably is the worst I have seen or the worst that I know any of my colleagues having seen,” said Dr. H. Wayne Carver II of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, where he’s been working for 31 years including 26 as chief.

Carver said he saw no difference in the pattern of shooting deaths between children and adults inside the school.

The weapon used primarily in the shootings was a long rifle, Carver said, and victims young and old were shot “all over” with some at close range and some not.
http://newtown.patch.com/articles/police-no-motive-emerging-in-newtown-school-shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:50 AM

99. everyone should see H. Wayne Carver speak to the press

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:58 AM

27. the official police statement from the .gov

website isn't good enough for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:52 AM

53. It's only a fact if it comes from the lips of a Faux Snooz

news bimbo (male OR female) or out of the mouth of a known teabagger loyalist.

All other statements are always completely false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:19 AM

37. Enjoy your stay.............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dyedinthewoolliberal (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:48 PM

87. I don't understand all the snootiness

All I've said is that I desire more information that isn't contradicted by some other news source.

I've never been one to believe what I'm told, or form opinions based on what "knowledgeable" people claim as gospel.

One actual "fact" to this whole story(which I find suspect) is that no footage is being released. Does that not raise any questions to anyone here?

I can't help but think that had this footage shown an assault weapon walking through a door - or climbing through a window - we would have seen it within a week of the event. However, here we are more than a month later, and with no new information then was available within that same first week?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:51 PM

88. So does this mean you think

we are being told less than the truth, a half truth, something close to the truth about this event?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dyedinthewoolliberal (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:05 PM

90. None of the above really.

But I would lean towards "close to the truth". I could understand the lack of information if the shooter were living and facing trial, but, there's no one to prosecute here is there?

I don't follow any type of media closely, it just seems in the case of prior similar events there was not any sort of shroud surrounding the case such as this one has.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:22 PM

91. Help me out here;

if you don't follow any type of media closely, how can you determine what is being reported as true (or not)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:43 PM

93. i just read Columbine by Dave Cullen.....

Information and evidence was kept under locks for a long time.... the investigation took a long time and the official report was not released for at least a year after the shooting... and there was no one to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:10 AM

96. Yeah, he's on his way to slaughter elementary school children, but he obediently waits

to be "buzzed in". Yeah, makes perfect sense...

You seem like the kind of guy who, if someone actually did threaten to take away your gun, would say "Over 26 dead bodies!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:14 AM

7. While it is untrue that no semi-automatic rifle was used at Sandy Hook,

understand that the rumors started due to press reports from the Today Show, among others, that no rifle was used and that 4 handguns were used.

See my comments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2224707

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:27 AM

14. how does it get from 'NBC made a mistake' to a giant conspiracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:16 AM

8. Try here...CT State Police & CT Emergency Services

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Department of Emergency Services &
Public Protection
Connecticut State Police
Public Information Office
1111 Country Club Road
Middletown, Connecticut 06457

Reuben Bradford
Commissioner Colonel Danny R. Stebbins
Deputy Commissioner
Division of State Police

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2013


** UPDATE **

STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;
INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun


Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.
Lt. J. Paul Vance



The Commission will hear updates on the investigation today (at 10:30am)

Sandy Hook Commission to Get Update on Police Investigation
The commission, created by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy in response to the Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown, will get an update on the police investigation and hear from two experts when it meets for the first time on Thursday.
...
Meeting Will Be Broadcast Live

Thursday’s meeting begins at 10:30 a.m. in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. The meeting will be broadcast live on television and online by the Connecticut Network (CT-N).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:20 AM

10. The Gun Militants Have Been Using A Very Narrow "Assault Rifle" Definition....


...because it serves their political interests. There is no reason why discussions in a Democratic site should be hampered by a definition which passes muster by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. The AR-15 used at Sandy Hook is in fact an assault rifle, according to the everyday, accepted definition of the term. Gun Enthusiasts' arguments to the contrary amount to declaring that a Prius is not a car, but that a Corvette is, due to the Corvette's large engine size.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:29 AM

16. wat

 

an "assault rife" is a select fire weapon than can fire semi-auto/3 round burst or fully auto


the weapon used was a rife that can only fire semiautomatic.

and are you not using assault rife to serve your political interests? giving a rifle a scary name to make them seem more dangerous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:34 AM

18. LOLWAT?!?!?!?

Yeah, welcome to DU, blah blah blah, whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:40 AM

19. Yep - and new bills will/have address/ed such weapons.

The XM-15E2S will be confirmed as an assault weapon, and the hi-cap mags used will also be addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:43 AM

22. ?

 

what do you mean confirmed as an assault weapon? it is a semiautomatic rifle......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:49 AM

24. Bring out the Mirt.

Mirt's sleeping.

Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:52 AM

25. It is an assault weapon and will be/has been codfied as such.

Similiar arms from other manufacturers will be/have been included also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:01 AM

31. Until the manufacturer changes the shape of the grip

I'm tired of tilting at this windmill...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:12 AM

35. Then the law will need to be adjusted. Capacity will also be addressed.

Unless we just ban all repeating arms with detachable mags or high fixed capapcity.

Not likely, so get as many as you can....its already happenning in NY. Also bans will likely have an authority who can adjust the list of banned weapons 'on the fly', which seems a very viable solution since manufacturers will insist on trying to skirt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:26 AM

42. What's the point of doing a ban of just a subset of repeating arms with detachable mags?

Seriously, I don't see the point here. Why say "you can be trusted to shoot 60 bullets in 60 seconds if the weapon looks like this, but not if it looks like that"? What are we accomplishing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:50 AM

52. Because any comprehensive bill that would substantially reduce the number of 'all' guns

will be met with too much resistance. People 'need'* their guns!

SO we are left to target the ones deemed 'most dangerous' - high rate of fire, higher capacity and fast reloads. The need* is there to distinguish those from 'traditional' hunting rifles and pistols that also use detachable mags.
Those that can't be seperated via features will have to be listed specifically, or at least have their capabilities restricted through capacity.

Still have to deal with number of reloads, but even that can be legislated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:52 AM

54. They don't have higher rate of fire, higher capacity, or faster reloads. They just don't.

All semi-automatics fire at the same speed.

All semi-automatics with detachable magazines have essentially unlimited ammunition capacity. (Magazine size restrictions can help here.)

The distinction you are trying to make doesn't actually exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:01 PM

57. Sure it does. But as I said just include all repeating arms.

As I also said, those that can't be separated via features will have to be specifically named,or handled via capacity...both in the number of rounds for ammunition feeding devices and the number of those devices you can legally possess.

Pass a law banning all semis that can take a detachable magazine greater then 5 rounds would have a tremendous affect. But gunners will complain that includes their Remington 7400 or HK P2000, so you add a feature test to help keep their guns legal. You also call out "SKS is an AW", "M1 Carbine is an AW" to cause those to be registered and/or untransferable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:17 PM

58. Why leave equally-capable guns legal?

Do you honestly think the next Lanza (God forbid) really wouldn't use the HK P2000, which can fire and be reloaded as quickly as an AR, if that were what was available? Do you really think that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:22 PM

59. Are you not reading what I wrote? BECAUSE GUNNERS WON'T LET YOU MAKE THEM ILLEGAL!

Get it now? Can NOT get them all, so get what you can.

Assault Weapons are a good place to start...as many as you can define or identify or list, get them gone.

The rest - limit their capabilities by any means possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:24 PM

61. How is it a good place to start? Sales of newly-compliant models will skyrocket

Do you not understand that Colt will change the shape of the AR's grip to make it compliant and people will buy millions of them, just like in '94?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:25 PM

63. Hmm...maybe you missed the part about having an authority constantly update the banned list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:27 PM

64. You're still not decreasing the actual amount of weapons in circulation

So we play this regulatory cat and mouse game, and every time one gets banned there's a new grandfathered class, a new compliant design, and a new rush of people buying it.

We'd be making things worse, not better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:29 PM

65. Who says? Registration? Non-transferable? Confiscation of contraband? Criminal Penalties? Sure

seems like those will adjust the current numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:31 PM

68. A semi-auto manufacture/import ban is a bridge too far, but you're talking confiscation?

*shrug*

Personally I think a ban on manufacture and import of semi's with detachable magazines could be done, and might do some good.

Though this doesn't make me stop banging my head against the brick wall that ignoring handguns reduces any gun control measure to theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:35 PM

70. You want to address current numbers...that's how you do it.

You want to address future purchases, outright bans is how you do it....imports, US builders, whomever.

Handguns aren't ignored, their capacities are limited. Further steps are needed.

edit:

I'll guarantee you dealers in NY were scrambling to dump the arms and mags thay could no longer legally sell. Just as owners were scrambling or atleast thinking about how to deal with arms and accoutrements they could not longer legally possess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:55 AM

26. why would the military definition apply to society?

'assualt rifles' are military guns

'assault weapons' is a legal definition, which is used in actual laws.

get it?

what's YOUR favorite gun? will it get BANNED???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:42 AM

20. I don't care what you call it or define it

If it shoots lots of bullets in a very short span of time regular people who aren't law enforcement or military don't need it and shouldn't have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sugarcoated (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 AM

29. Then start banning based on that, and stop banning based on grip shape

I wish we weren't running sideways with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:03 AM

32. you are the only one going sideways

check the latest proposals.

they've dropped the grip thing-

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:15 AM

36. The "2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test" means banning that grip shape

This isn't very complicated. The only feature that people still have on compliant AR's is the grip, so that's what they will have to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:24 AM

39. the reason for having a pistol grip seems negligable

One of the reasons the pistol grip style is so common in machinery is because it is possible to ergonomically position the operating controls. For example, on the AR-15 and M16 rifle, a right handed user's index finger can control the trigger and magazine release, while the thumb can control the safety or fire mode selector switch, all without needing to remove the palm from the grip.

wiki pistol grip ^^^

thoe guns are powerful enough, they certainly don't need to be made easier to use.

there is also the 30 or 100 round mag issue on ARs, totally useless.

and the fact that AR sales are funding russian military factories. that seems pretty stupid to me.

don't forget that ARs have been used in three mass shootings since July, so maybe stop selling them altogether?

because there are millions already? nobody needs another one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:25 AM

40. OK, so Colt makes an AR with a different grip shape. What's been accomplished?

Have mass shootings (or non mass shootings) been made less likely? No, we've just pissed off a bunch of gun owners for no reason I can discern except to stick it to a group of gun owners we don't like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:40 AM

45. first of all, banning 30 and 100 round mags. then, slowing (or HALTING) sales of ARs

Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address
attempts to “work around” prior bans


do you really think politicians are dumb enough to pass a new set of laws with the same problems as the old ones?

there are probably over 10 million ARs owned currently (just a guess, probably higher)

oh, those poor babies!

seems to me like we've reached the point where everybody who wants one has one, and the people crying about their rights are just hoarding guns.

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nij-guns-in-america-national-survey.pdf

some good info there^^. its 15 years old, so just bump up the numbers 15% for population increase.

for instance, 16% of handgun owners keep then unlocked and loaded. duh.

self-defense usage also very low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:44 AM

47. BWAH!

do you really think politicians are dumb enough to pass a new set of laws with the same problems as the old ones?



Did you actually just ask that?

Storage requirements and magazine capacity limits are all good ideas. Worrying about what shape a semi-automatic rifle can be makes them less likely to pass. We need to let this go.

Anyways, if we pass the ban, AR sales will skyrocket once they come up with a different shape of grip and a new brand name for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:40 PM

73. why do you say 'we'? you are not on 'our' side?

once they come up with a different shape of grip



when evolution brings us a new hand shape?

why would the military design all that crap if it is merely cosmetic?

i think they can amend laws faster than retooling gun factories and all the import paperwork and such...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:44 PM

74. I am a Democrat, so you can take that "not on our side" thing to the cleaners

when evolution brings us a new hand shape?

Oh, how clever. They will give it a more traditional looking grip. What a huge accomplishment! We've changed the shape of the AR!

why would the military design all that crap if it is merely cosmetic?

Like I said the grip is vaguely safer than a traditional grip, and you want to get rid of it. *shrug*. It makes drops less likely, and control easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:58 PM

76. i have to go to a solar power meeting

just give up about the grip.

it sucks, and will be banned. too bad. oh well, it was lame to begin with. bad idea, done away with.

end of story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:08 PM

78. Yes, now you get it! PLEASE just give up about the grip! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:07 AM

33. Problem is gunners want their hunting rifles and pistols. Otherwise

we could just ban all repeating arms that take detachable mags or fixed capacity greater then X; instead the specifics have to be danced around to gather in as many as possible, without pissing off everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:24 AM

38. I think there's this fantasy that mass shooters won't use hunting-styled semi-automatic weapons...

... if those are all that's available.

I have no idea why people think that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:26 AM

41. no, there's a reality that if any yahoo couldn't walk into a walmart and buy ARs with 1000 rounds

there would be less mass killings.

not fantasy at all.

neither are smart guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:27 AM

43. Right, and you want them to buy an AR with a differently shaped grip

The bit I don't understand is why you think that grip shape is so important, or why not having it will make a mass shooter behave differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:43 AM

46. the grip is one of many example of how military things are used by civilians, which is silly

grips, nightscopes, 100 round mags, laser sights.

nobody needs, those, people just want them because they look cool.

really, which is more important, it looks cool, or it makes the gun more dangerous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:46 AM

48. How does it make the gun more dangerous? (It actually makes it safer)

It's only marginally safer, but still.

How does a modern grip make a gun more dangerous? This is what I still don't get. Why do you trust someone to be able to fire 60 rounds in a minute with one grip shape, but not with another? (And if the answer is you don't trust someone to do that under any circumstances, why are you futzing about with the appearance of weapons rather than trying to just ban semi-autos like most countries do?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:54 AM

55. riiiight... people are buying rifles with pistol grips because they are concerned about safety!

and not because they've watched rambo 20 times.

gotcha.

sounds to me like the pistol grip is something a sniper with a hair trigger would use to get set up or zeroed in without an accidental shot.

to flip off the safety LAST before shooting.

why does a civilian need something that makes it easier to flip the safety off?

did the DC sniper use this 'cosmetic' feature? or a tripod? or a 1000-yard scope?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:56 AM

56. Sniper rifles almost never have pistol grips because snipers fire prone or supported, generally

Pistol grips like the AR-15 has are for firing from the shoulder while standing or kneeling, which is how most target shooters and many hunters fire.

why does a civilian need something that makes it easier to flip the safety off?

A pistol grip doesn't make it easier to flip the safety off. Or to change the magazine.

You obviously can choose to disagree with me on this, but I do actually know what I'm talking about here.

It's a stupid feature to try to ban.

The DC sniper fired one or occasionally two shots at each attack, except for the first ambush in Maryland. How on earth do you intend to address that legislatively?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:31 PM

67. do a google image search for sniper rifle and tell me what you see

i counted the 1st 12 as a yes, and stopped.

i already posted the wiki thing where it says they are designed for one-handed safety flipping.

in the DC sniper thing, i'd say background checks might have worked. that's why laws are good.

On January 16, 2003, the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, on behalf of the families of many of the victims of the Beltway sniper attacks who were killed (including Hong Im Ballenger, "Sonny" Buchanan, Jr., Linda Franklin, Conrad Johnson, Sarah Ramos and James L. Premkumar Walekar) as well as two victims who survived the shooting (Rupinder "Benny" Oberoi and 13-year old Iran Brown) filed a civil lawsuit against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply and Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. of Windham, Maine, the gun distributor and manufacturer that made the rifle used in the crime spree, as well as Borgelt, Muhammad and Malvo. Muhammad, who had a criminal record of domestic battery, and Malvo, a minor, were each legally prohibited from purchasing firearms.

wiki

edit:
The suit claimed that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply ran its gun store in Tacoma, Washington, "in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of its guns routinely "disappeared" from its store and it kept such shoddy records that it could not account for the Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings when asked by federal agents for records of sale for the weapon." It was alleged that the dealer could not account for hundreds of guns received from manufacturers in the years immediately prior to the Beltway sniper attacks. It was also claimed that Bull's Eye continued to sell guns in the same irresponsible manner even after Muhammad and Malvo were caught and found to have acquired the weapon there. Bushmaster was included in the suit because it allegedly continued to sell guns to Bull's Eye as a dealer despite an awareness of its record-keeping violations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:32 PM

69. Background check laws are great

Making Malvo and Muhammed fire from a differently shaped rifle is theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:35 PM

71. what about holmes, lanza, griego? since july?

pretending that ARs aren't the problem is disingenous.

BOTH the fact that anyone can buy one AND all of the silly attachments that make tham feel macho need to be addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:38 PM

72. AR's aren't the problem

Most mass shooters use handguns.

Despite our fantasies, the shape of a rifle doesn't magically make bad people do bad things. They are the most popular rifles out there, so you're going to see them used in some of the rare cases where rifles are used in crime.

If the AR is too powerful for civilian hands, ban all weapons that powerful. Don't waste time forcing Colt to redesign the AR's grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:57 PM

75. not true at all.

Most mass shooters use handguns.

some do. most don't. look it up in mother jones

just give up about the grip. it is on the way out because it is basically lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:08 PM

77. Most do. Look it up in mother jones.

just give up about the grip.

What do you think I keep telling you? Stop trying to ban the damn grip and focus on what's important about the weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:47 AM

49. no, i think ARs are frivolous and there are already way too many

and if selfish people insist on having them, there is NO REASON for them to be any different than a normal hunting rifle.

and if people's selfishness interferes with making sensible laws, that also sucks. i won't go into details about WHAT it sucks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:49 AM

50. I literally do not understand your thought process

AR looking like an AR = bad.

AR looking like a hunting rifle = OK (not good, but at least acceptable in some way).

Why?

What about a hunting rifle that was modified to look like an AR? Does that bother you more than an AR modified to look like a hunting rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:23 PM

60. likewise, i'm sure! you are preferable to most gun lubbers, i'll give you that!

the 'look' of guns-
the NRA does the same thing- calling an AR a 'modern hunting rifle' is a giant steaming crock of shot.

AR with 100 round mag, tripod, blah blah pistol grip (anything military) = bad. kind of obtuse to say it is your 'right' to own.

AR without miltiary crap, say 8 round mag, no suppressor, no laser sights. 8 rounds, normal trigger. = less dangerous than many hunting rifles = much better.

a hunter has enough advantage over a defenseless animal (small chunck of lead at supersonic speed from great distance)

a normal gun is fine.

read that time magazine thing i posted- for instance the majority of gun owners are southern males.

what does that tell you? a bunch of words that begin with R come to mind, use your imagination.

of course a hunting rifle with a 100 round mag sucks. obviously. so yes, it is much worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:17 PM

79. What does the magazine have to do with the gun?

You buy them separately. They're not even made by the same manufacturer.

Once something accepts detachable magazines, there's no limit to how big the magazine can be (unless we pass one, which would be a good idea, which has nothing to do with the rifle).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:04 AM

95. i'm fairly certain it feeds the deadly chunks of lead up to the barrel at a very high rate

Once something accepts detachable magazines, there's no limit to how big the magazine can be

there's your problem right there!

so all guns that accept detachable mags should be as heavily regulated as machine guns. perfect!

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/2011/05/best-hunting-rifles-decade

if you click thru ^^^ seems those silly ar-15s kind of suck for hunting.

and maybe two have mags that extend like 1/4 inch out of the gun.

so lets pass laws that make people own good guns instead of silly and dangerous military rip-offs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #95)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:28 AM

97. That at least makes sense

Regulating semi- autos with detachable magazines like machine guns at least makes sense, which I fear no AWB ever will to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:42 AM

21. nice first post, that's really helpful. you know a lot about gunz, huh?

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

wiki

how does "frivolous military-style weapon that appeals to the wrong kind of person" sound?

that's more accurate...

by 'wrong' i mean law-breaking or 'law not understanding' or paranoid or racist/hater types.

or the leaving a loaded handgun lying around the house type (16% of handgun owners)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 AM

28. Your nit-picking is bullshit. 27 people DEAD, including 20 fucking kids, who gives a fuck what

kind of gun was used, they are all still DEAD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolwat (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:22 PM

81. The Gun Militancy Movement No Longer Gets To Control The Vocabulary. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:44 AM

23. Actually the opposite is true. The general public has been using an expanded, inaccurate definition

of 'assault rifle'.

For more information, this wikipedia page is an excellent place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 AM

30. not at all. the LAWS have been using a definition.

you posted the military def. of assault rifle.

as any open-minded person knows-

Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions that limit or prohibit assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as state and local laws. Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.

also wiki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:38 AM

44. "Assault rifle" v "assault weapon" is a pretty simple distingtion

The wiki page you linked puts it well -
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.


I'm fine with the term "assault weapon" defining a specific type of firearm; I don't play the NRA's "That's not a REAL kind of gun!" game, but assault WEAPONS are not assault RIFLES any more than an GM H1 Hummer is a Marauder.

I also get that most people don't know or care about the distinction and that it's generally not relevant to the discussion, much like the whole clips-v-mags thing. It annoys the hell out of me but I just ignore it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:26 AM

13. Repost from response... Live Hearing on SH Investigation at 10:30 am

The Commission will hear updates on the investigation today (at 10:30am)

Sandy Hook Commission to Get Update on Police Investigation
The commission, created by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy in response to the Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown, will get an update on the police investigation and hear from two experts when it meets for the first time on Thursday.
...
Meeting Will Be Broadcast Live

Thursday’s meeting begins at 10:30 a.m. in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. The meeting will be broadcast live on television and online by the Connecticut Network (CT-N).


http://www.ct-n.com/daily_schedule.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:50 AM

51. Are you kidding me? Why bother with batshit crazy crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:47 PM

84. Normally, I wouldn't.

But I have a short tolerance for perpetuating bullshit as fact, because the more it gets repeated, the more people think it's true. I'd rather nip it at the bud if at all possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:25 PM

62. i dont understand why people here insist on arguing with empty-headed jackasses but if you must

use their logic tell them the are america-hating troop-hating liars that are too stupid to understand facts otherwise you would now it was an assualt rifle- now fuck off

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:30 PM

66. It may be true that by Conn. legal definition the semi-auto rifle was not an "assault weapon"


No one has said it was an assault rifle which would indicate select fire to include fully automatic.

But from all reports it was a semi-auto AR15 variant with pistol grip and used detachable 30 round mags (AKA a black rifle).

Hope this helps.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:22 PM

80. i just point and double over in laughter..

one of my FB friends just "liked" this bullshit, so I felt compelled to add my 2 cents to that thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:28 PM

82. Ultimately the official police report will be released

and it will clearly state the weapon/s used in the event..
For some in an alternate reality even this wont be enough to convince them of what really happened and with what weapons..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:30 PM

83. To do it "definitively" will take a while; the police haven't issued their final report yet

OTOH this is a good opening to castigate some media outlets for obsessively trying to be first rather than waiting to get stuff right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:27 PM

86. The conspiracy nuts don't need early false reports

to peddle or believe their bullshit. If every story had been reported perfectly they'd twist things or make em up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:33 PM

85. Shit man

Semiautomatic rifles were used, a kid had his hand and face blown off at the school. Lame attempt to get Obama NOT to do anything about guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:53 PM

89. I haven't heard that rumor.

Or at least your post-edit rumor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:28 PM

92. I don't care which fucking excuse the gun humpers

are using to try to explain away Sandy Hook. This is the way I see it:

1. If there were no semi-autos used, that's a great argument for banning everything except muskets.

2. If there were semi-autos used, they need to be banned.

Twenty children were slaughtered in minutes, and the gun weenies are whining about semantics. What a bunch of fucking stupid tools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread