JO'Co do you have a reference for that? Everything I have read says that he had handguns with him but that he used a Bushmaster .223 AR for all of the shootings.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15913678-gunmans-mother-owned-weapons-used-in-connecticut-school-massacre?lite
I have done better than that George. I have spun around in an attack situation and made the split second decision to hold fire because the threat had been removed by the perp dropping his weapon due to my action. I could have emptied my mag into the scum bucket but with my training burned into my mind that you fire only when there is a threat to your life, I simply commanded him to the ground. In a situation such as this, you fire minimally, just enough to take out the threat when you must fire. Why... because he may have friends that may be ready to come to his defense that are now threats to you. After firing, while scanning the scene, even if there are two or three rounds left in the mag, you drop the mag and insert a new one to be prepared for more danger. Next question scooter!
I wasn't going to bring this up but since Stu did, the gun hating part of our society try to use buzz words to scare the public. Assault Rifles, by definition are select fire firearms. Select fire means: fully automatic or burst capable. Burst capable means that it will operate in short bursts, usually three rounds at a time. A semi-automatic firearm such as a AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. A M-16 however, is an assault rifle. Fully automatic or burst capable firearms have been highly regulated to the point that they are unobtainable by the general public since 1934 with the passing of the NFA (National Firearms Act). I can purchase one that is legally transferable at a starting price of around $20K after paying a tax to the ATF and subjecting myself to search of my home at any time the ATF thought necessary. That is part of owning a class III firearm. You might say that the ATF could do that anyway. You would be right. However, when you apply to purchase a class III, you are then placed on a list that makes this possibility much more of a probability. So, how would banning AR-15's (Extremely hard to conceal) have stopped this latest tragedy? Tell me that BT and George... Line out how that would keep these sickos from using a deer rifle... a handgun, a pipe bomb, propane and a match, etc... We need to find a solution... not just a feel good knee jerk reaction that will having us discussing the next ban in 6 months when a similar situation occurs!
Stu, You have undone years of pride, arrogance, and confidence in my gun knowledge skill. I am now walking aimlessly on Christmas eve around our neighborhood (Its warm enough here :wink: ) lost in thought and wondering what else I don't know... My only hope is that when the Federal government attempts to classify what to ban from peaceful folks who actually have no plans to attempt a massacre I can honestly say I don't know what they are talking about... No really, thanks for the heads up, its appreciated...
The medical examiner during his press conference indicated that the cause of death were shots from the Bushmaster.... That said, I agree with Stu and Tom, that in this instance, the weapon of choice likely would not have mattered.....a semi-automatic of any ilk would have likely done the deed. Further, agreed again on all the hoopla about "assault-style" rifles.....in this case basically just a semi-automatic styled to look like military-issue automatic weapons. All that said, it is clear, at least in my estimation, that the greater availability of firearms in our nation is at least a contributing factor in our society destroying the lives of its citizens at a rate 3X greater than the rest of the developed world. That is unacceptable under virtually any rational scenario I can conceive and we have to make changes.....and as I have said consistently those changes must be along a variety of dimensions, but if the pro-gun crowd thinks that rhetoric will carry the day for them and that those changes should not include new firearms restrictions, they have made a grave miscalculation. Tom, I'm not the enemy buddy.....I think we're on the same side, but if the pro-gun element doesn't step up here and put something on the table, one is going to get shoved down their throats. They are missing the bigger picture and that is a nation that just saw two dozen of its babies get slaughtered and a rational society will not and cannot accept the status quo ante
T, I agree that we are all on the same side and appreciate your insight in this discussion. The problem is yes, the gun lobby and gun enthusiast have taken advantage of laws that allow the sale of high round semi automatic weapons. This has allowed the sales of weapons that normally would not be in the average household, at least compared to 30 years ago. The question is now that this terrible crime has happened where will it stop. Do we go "Chicago" and Bloomberg on the nation with the help of the media and push gun ownership into the equivalent of having the plaque? Or can we discuss this as a nation with rational thought and due process. We have not had rational thought and discussion for years in our country why will it start now. With the terrible murder of the beautiful babies in Connecticut we now have a witch hunt in process that is corrective in nature but heavy in agendas that have been in process for a long time.
The pro gun AUTHORITY, the NRA, has put a plan on the table that the government is dismissing. The NRA is stepping up to the plate to IMMEDIATELY put in place armed guards in the places most likely to be hit by these tragedies... the schools. These guards can be in place before the kids return from Christmas break. This plan is to be fully sponsored and paid for by the NRA and it's members. I will personally double my Endowment level contribution to make that happen! Again, I ask: "What plan has ANYONE in the government or here on the Skybox proposed that will be likely to reduce the chances that this will happen again? Don't tell me many things... tell me what you would propose.
I don't have the answer Tom, but it seems clear to me that given the experience of other developed countries that placing greater limits on the availability of firearms, the requirements for their ownership and possession and the capacity for them to destroy lives at rate grossly in excess of any other civilized norm is logical place to start and will, I'm guessing, be in any equation.....I just don't see any way of getting around it politically.....
So, without anything else on the table, you would be in favor of a ban on semi-automatic rifles that would do absolutely nothing to stop these tragedies in the name of doing something for a start? I equate that to Ford saying: "We know that the Pinto explodes with rear end collisions so we are giving you a coupon for a free fire extinguisher to make you feel safer." So let's think this out further... We have banned the purchase of semi-automatic rifles because assault rifles were banned in 1934, and we have another tragedy where the perp loaded up his car with five 20 gallon gas cans and exploded them as the car ran through the front door of the school. What are you going to ban then? Why not back a plan where the children will be protected against shootings AND end the revolving door of psyche patients. The root cause is not the gun. The root cause is the mental case with his finger on the trigger!
Another issue here. If government officials believe in taking away guns from the American people, why don't they disarm their secret service and armed guards??? Not my words here but something I agree with:
http://www.inquisitr.com/441325/san...s-emerge-nancy-lanza-shot-in-head-repeatedly/ I will drop my argument. It appears the Bushmaster was used to kill most if not all of the children. There is a strong sentiment here that we need to arm up for a variety of reasons. I will take solace in the thought that you guys are making the world a safer place. Scooter out!
To put a lighter face on the discussion: Self defense... be ready for any situation! <object width="568" height="320"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="movie" value="https://www.facebook.com/v/149001448581533"></param><embed src="https://www.facebook.com/v/149001448581533" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="1" width="568" height="320"></embed></object>
George, If you're still following.. What instrument was used to kill them is not the issue here. I know it's the 'sexy' issue that draws a lot of heat, but it's not what killed those children. I've read reports that the principal of the school was recently commended for stepping up the school's security to protect the children. This was obviously before the shooting. The point being, she passed all new security measures that made it a giant pain in the ass to even get into the school. I can post the articles if you'd like. They have parent quotes in there and everything talking about how it's tough, but if it keeps the kids safe then it's worth it. Tell me, how safe did it keep them? The killer broke in through a window, per the article you just posted, and he found a way to inflict the damage that he was hell bent on causing. People bent on doing bad find a way, period. When I go to my son's school, I just cringe. The security details, drug sniffing dogs, police on campus patrolling at all times. You know what message that sends to our children? It isn't that we're protecting them. The school is like a god damned prison. The children are treated like numbers or commodity. It's a cattle farm. It's oppressive. It's ridiculous. This is in Decatur GD Alabama, not Compton or Detroit.. And you know what? Never once have I had any trouble getting into the school WITHOUT clearance or approval. For different reasons: to drop something off for my son when no one was answering at the desk, to take a dump while he was at practice, or even to get a drink of water. I sat back, waited for a 'weakness' and slid right in... Never detected, never a problem. If you want it, you can do it. The question is, why do they want it. We should be listening. We should be paying more attention. Instead, we're blaming it all on the tools of the killer. BTW, anyone want to debate knife regulation in China? That was in my mystery post I made right after this happened but for some reason it keeps coming up invisible.
This is the kind of outrageous crap you get when you register gun owners. Yeah, right...you trust the government and the media to do the right thing... Now anybody looking to steal weapons in a break-in knows just where they might be...and anybody looking to burglarize a home or commit any other kind of crime knows just where they can go about their business without worrying about encountering a weapon. What are these morons possibly thinking? This kind of thing is for sex offenders, not law-abiding gun owners who have gone through the background checks, the fingerprinting, and permitted themselves properly. Go ahead, click on any dot...you get name and address. http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1
I have not seen this for the Austin area. If there is such for our location, then I hope that the criminals will be smart enough to leave the houses alone that are well defended. I'm to the point in this battle that I would enjoy hearing about home invasions against people that speak out against owning firearms. Interview them about how long it took the police to get there... if they were able to get a call out to them in the first place... if they're still alive! I would also be in favor of jailing any public official that owns a gun but speaks out against the American citizens owning the same. Hypocrisy is rampant in politics.
So the early stages of the witch hunt begins, as I mentioned in an earlier post this will not end well. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-addresses-215214269--abc-news-topstories.html
:idea: It appears that I was incorrect. I accept the postings here. To answer Stu's question, I first heard that the AR-15 was not used on two radio shows: Hannity and The Larry Elder Show. The results of the autopsy and the word of the local police there are good enough for me.
Never said that Tom....hopefully we can all agree that the current rate at which we are destroying our own citizens - a rate that is grossly in excess of other civilized and developed societies - is unacceptable. We know that the availability of firearms in the US is significantly greater than any other developed country. It only stands to reason that taking steps towards their models, absent significant non-gun related cultural factors, our rate would trend towards those of the other developed countries. If you don't' believe that the greater availability is a contributing factor, then what factors - legal, cultural or other, unique to our society - would have as great or greater impact??? Again, given the data and our position as the lone extreme outlier, it must be factors that are unique to the US and the US alone....
Was gonna post this yesterday but thought I ought to give it a rest for Christmas. According to FBI statistics, more than TWICE as many people were murdered by hands, fists, and feet (728) in 2011 than were murdered by ANY type of rifle (323), let alone semi-autos. 1,694 people were killed by knives…more than 5 times as many as by rifles. Rifles only accounted for 3.7% of firearms murders. Banning any type of rifle is not even going to make a dent in the problem. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 Also, despite the fact that our violence problem is too high, the concept of it becoming an epidemic is emotional and not factual, based on the simple fact that violent crime is actually decreasing. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime And that includes murder; http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-7 And England is not without its own problems; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html