Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Well, better somthing than nothing.

    If the automatic weapons bans stops the mass murders, even when they are few, it already saved lives, so its worthy.

    If a law saves one life, its already worth it IMO.

    Now, i think all weapons should be banned from civilian use, even those that use compressed air. Civilians should not use weapons in my point of view, and the security should be in charge of professionals.

    I do realize that my point of view breaks the second ammendent of the USA and i dont expect USA to apply my view any time soon, but its my opinion.

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    Ok, so this guy actually "gets it", and that's the fact that sure most "mass shootings" are done by assault weapons,
    I stopped here. The Auroa CO shooting was with sidearms and hunting rifle though an assault rifle was there. Last I read (and the media has been all over the place on conflicting information) the recent school shooting also made no use of assault weapons though one was in the car.

    The assault weapons ban ended in 2004. Why was gun crime higher in 1999 than 2009, after the assault weapon ban lifted?

    Could it be that the weapons themselves aren't the root of the problem?

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 05:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashdummy View Post
    If a law saves one life, its already worth it IMO.

    Now, i think all weapons should be banned from civilian use, even those that use compressed air. Civilians should not use weapons in my point of view, and the security should be in charge of professionals.

    I do realize that my point of view breaks the second ammendent of the USA and i dont expect USA to apply my view any time soon, but its my opinion.
    "If a law saves one life, its already worth it IMO" is the most dangerous statement someone can make. You have no idea how wide that throws the door to ban, alter, and restrict everything you do.

    As far as civilians should never have any weapons of any kind....historically speaking, not such a good idea. Though technically that line of thinking is exactly what gave the world martial arts, so that's cool.
    "There is good and evil in this world; we must find the black and white in the gray."

  3. #183
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroth View Post
    Could it be that the weapons themselves aren't the root of the problem?
    I think it's many factors. Guns are just objects that we use. In the U.S.'s case, I think a large part of it is the culture that is created when you have an environment where many people have guns--many of whom have guns just to protect themselves from other people who have guns.

    I'm in Canada, for example, and I even live in a relatively rural area. If someone tells me that he owns a gun, I would wager that there's a ~95%+ chance that he owns it for hunting purposes. Most casual people simply don't even think of owning one outside of that context. I only know one person who owns a gun, and he's a deer hunter.

    It's the conceptualization of what guns are for and why they are pursued--that's what seems to be different in the U.S. But that's just based on my experience.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroth View Post
    "If a law saves one life, its already worth it IMO" is the most dangerous statement someone can make. You have no idea how wide that throws the door to ban, alter, and restrict everything you do.

    As far as civilians should never have any weapons of any kind....historically speaking, not such a good idea. Though technically that line of thinking is exactly what gave the world martial arts, so that's cool.
    Its not that dangerous. And yes, i agree that its ana rgument that can be used to ban stupid things (like cars), but that's why people elect thei representatives to analyze such things.

    Everyone can see the benefits of having cars. The benefits of owning weapons, are a lot harder.

    Historically speaking, civilians with guns have always been a bad idea. You only need to remember USA Far West to see it.

    And to those saying criminals are not attempting to get it legal, most of the illegal guns started being legal.

    Anyway, as i said its my point of view and i dont see USA as a whole agreeing with it in a long time.

  5. #185
    A couple more things on semi automatic rifles:
    1. weapons like the AR-15 are ideal for dealing with problems like the feral hogs in texas (where I happen to live)
    Just a couple weeks ago I saw a group of 4 of them walking through a field, these animals are not native to texas, they are causing property damage and are successfully competing with the native wildlife so we are trying to get rid of all of them, no bag limit. If it was my property I would want a semi automatic weapon with a decently sized magazine and low recoil (like the AR-15) to get rid of all of that group right there and then.

    2. Recoil, some hunters are older or don't have strong shoulders, semi automatic weapons reduce the felt recoil by up to 50% compared to their bolt action or break action equivalent which saves a lot of folks from sore shoulders after shooting.
    Proud member of the zero infraction club (lets see how long this can last =)

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by goobernoob View Post
    A couple more things on semi automatic rifles:
    1. weapons like the AR-15 are ideal for dealing with problems like the feral hogs in texas (where I happen to live)
    Just a couple weeks ago I saw a group of 4 of them walking through a field, these animals are not native to texas, they are causing property damage and are successfully competing with the native wildlife so we are trying to get rid of all of them, no bag limit. If it was my property I would want a semi automatic weapon with a decently sized magazine and low recoil (like the AR-15) to get rid of all of that group right there and then.

    2. Recoil, some hunters are older or don't have strong shoulders, semi automatic weapons reduce the felt recoil by up to 50% compared to their bolt action or break action equivalent which saves a lot of folks from sore shoulders after shooting.

    I wouldnt be trying to take out wild boar with a .223, minimum of .30 rounds.

    As for magazine size, larger magazines are just better for varmint control where you may be dropping 20-30 groundhog at a time

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    who destroyed Piers Morgan? has he done another interview I've missed? because the one I saw had an ignorant and reactionary pillock making himself look foolish by thinking that being loud, rude, and comming over as slightly unhinged is how you conduct a debate....
    You should really watch a link someone puts up before assuming it's a video you seen before. How many times do I have to say it people, it's not the guy who started screaming at Piers, calling him all sorts of names, etc. If anything Piers was the one being condescending to this guy.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 01:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    Absolutely not. This is completely incorrect on a fundamental level.

    From now on, every time somebody says that any semi-automatic has a higher rate of fire than any other semi-automatic, I am going to punch an orphan.
    Sadly it's these people who don't do their own research in life and take another persons word as gospel when they hear about things.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 01:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Elapo View Post
    Call me stupid all you want but what would I, a normal citizen, need an assault rifle for anyway?

    In fact, what would I need ANY gun for? I'm not a hunter, policeman or soldier, so I actually see absolutely NO point in me owning any kind of gun but an old replica to hang up on the wall.

    Let's say guns were banned: What would be the impact on murderers? They'd find other weapons, sure, but no weapon is as effective as a gun (let's leave explosives out). Murder will still happen, but less, just because it's harder to kill someone with a melee weapon, as it requires a certain amount of force in your arms. It's also not as easy to kill groups of people with an ordinary knife compared to a gun that holds 30 bullets or more and fires 40 in a minute.

    That and think of this: Would you rather shoot someone or stab someone.
    It actually fires as many times you can pull the trigger in a minute, just like EVERY other semi-automatic gun, including pistols, no more and no less.

    On-top of that, there is a LOT of actually... you know... law abiding citizens who use guns for sport shooting, as a hobbie, etc. A large, very large, extremely large portion of gun owners would never wake up one day and say "Well shit, I'm going to go gun down a few dozen people".

    Note: This is all coming from someone who has never owned, carried, shot, or seen a gun except for in display cases, so a ban of this type wouldn't directly affect me.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 02:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    The resistance to a heavier regulation on guns is hillarious. The only reason for people wanting to have them are utterly selfish and pointless. People are whining and crying like spoiled babies that want another sweetie.
    I'm sorry if someone finds that offensive, but I really can't express it any other way.

    You don't need guns, you need care and compassion. That's the stuff that stopped another shooting from happening, not more guns.
    So, you are a die-hard anti-gun person, making examples like people acting like babies that want another sweetie.

    There is probably an even split (you know, the kinda split that Obama said doesn't exist in our country after the election, but a 51-48 split is just that) between people with your view, and the view that taking away guns won't solve anything.

    So, you want to take away peoples guns because you see no reason to need guns. I can understand that, and if we lived in a world with ZERO crime (break-ins, muggings, etc) that would be great and I don't think anyone could really disagree outside of those (what most owners of these big, bad, scary looking, semi-automatic rifles have them for) who own these guns for sport shooting. They find sport shooting fun just like you find playing WoW fun. They don't have a thought of going somewhere and shooting some people though.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 02:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodmayj View Post
    I strongly suggest you guys do some research before saying all mass shootings were done with assault weapons. The shooting at Virginia Tech, for example, was carried out with 2 semi-auto handguns. At Sandy Hook, a rifle was found in the shooter's car, but was never used.

    For anyone that would really like to learn more, I suggest taking a look at http://www.assaultweapon.info/

    This is a site that breaks down both what an assault weapon really is and why banning them would make a near-negligible difference in gun crime.
    Someone in the thread earlier said the rifle in the trunk was changed and he really did use the rifle, a shotgun was in the trunk. I didn't care to follow the shooting on the media though, just going by what someone said in the thread.

    That's my point though, the VT shooting was with 2..... SEMI-AUTOMATIC (you know, the same style of firing, semi-automatic rifle that people want to ban) pistols.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 02:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    a bullet is a bullet, semi-auto handguns can be fired just as fast as semi-auto rifles, handguns generally use larger caliber rounds than rifles (.223 or .308 compared to 9mm which is .355, .40 or .45), and a handgun can be reloaded just as fast if not faster than a rifle....so all your points are pretty much null.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 10:59 AM ----------



    why do anti-gun people always use projection as an excuse? "well i don't need a gun, what does anyone else need it for". Or the classic "i don't trust myself with a gun, why should i trust you"?

    when fact of the matter is you probably walk past several people every day that have a gun on them and you have no idea...yet they have never shot you.



    So tell me...how do all guns in the world magically vanish when a gun ban is initiated?
    Yea, that's another big thing to me, is the country going to somehow magically come up with the money to buy back all these weapons because I know if I owned a gun, I sure as hell would never turn it in for free.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 02:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Yilar View Post
    Anyone believing that handguns is going to prevent tyrancy is an idiot, thus the guy on the interview is an idiot. If Obama (or any other american president in power) wanted to become a tyrant all he has to do is step up and use bigger weapons (drones anyone?). They already do this in middle east to kill terrorists, their firearms are not exactly saving them from death eh?...

    Oh and the constitution is not a "holy grail" either. It was written in times where the British were still considered the oppressors. The police were virtually non-existant in large areas across the United States, and the miltary/government and the public had access to the very similar arsenals, thus making "firearms" an effective way to prevent tyrancy. Needless to say 200 years after, the British are now considered "allies", the police covers most populated areas very effectively and arsenals are very different. The right to bear arms is VERY OUTDATED!
    I totally agree with you the tyranny comment was silly but the fact is, more people are killed with handguns than any other weapon. Maybe, hell I know they would love it, CNN and the like should start reporting daily the killings done overall with guns, then break it down by weapon type and people will see assault weapons are the absolute lowest weapon used in any type of killing.
    Last edited by alturic; 2013-01-14 at 07:00 PM.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post

    I totally agree with you the tyranny comment was silly but the fact is, more people are killed with handguns than any other weapon. Maybe, hell I know they would love it, CNN and the like should start reporting daily the killings done overall with guns, then break it down by weapon type and people will see assault weapons are the absolute lowest weapon used in any type of killing.
    they still wouldnt show the cases where they were used to save a life. They would never have enough air time to do so.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    they still wouldnt show the cases where they were used to save a life. They would never have enough air time to do so.
    You know, an interesting argument to be made is just how long it took police to respond to sandy hook. Yea, I know that's after the fact of someone actually being able to acquire a big, scary looking assault weapon, but it further proves why trusting your life to the police is somewhat naive too.

    Of course anti-gun enthusiasts will still say that's what police are paid for, but if I really did fear for my life where I lived I definitely wouldn't trust the cops to be here by the time it took someone to break into my house and shoot me.

    Folks, the say is honestly 100% truth, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Yes, even if I'm more comfortable with a (depending on who you ask) a more accurate gun (semi-automatic rifle) instead of a little old pea shooter, that should be everyone's right.

    I just really, really, really want an anti-gun fanatic to agree that it's not the gun that pulls the trigger, it's a person. The gun is just serving it's purpose when someone pulls the trigger and it fires a projectile and it's the people aspect we need to come up with something on, not the machine someone uses.
    Last edited by alturic; 2013-01-14 at 07:42 PM.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    You know, an interesting argument to be made is just how long it took police to respond to sandy hook. Yea, I know that's after the fact of someone actually being able to acquire a big, scary looking assault weapon, but it further proves why trusting your life to the police is somewhat naive too.

    Of course anti-gun enthusiasts will still say that's what police are paid for, but if I really did fear for my life where I lived I definitely wouldn't trust the cops to be here by the time it took someone to break into my house and shoot me.

    Folks, the say is honestly 100% truth, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Yes, even if I'm more comfortable with a (depending on who you ask) a more accurate gun (semi-automatic rifle) instead of a little old pea shooter, that should be everyone's right.

    I just really, really, really want an anti-gun fanatic to agree that it's not the gun that pulls the trigger, it's a person. The gun is just serving it's purpose when someone pulls the trigger and it fires a projectile and it's the people aspect we need to come up with something on, not the machine someone uses.
    Plus the fact that police have no legal obligation to help you.

  11. #191
    Titan Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,746
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    I just really, really, really want an anti-gun fanatic to agree that it's not the gun that pulls the trigger, it's a person. The gun is just serving it's purpose when someone pulls the trigger and it fires a projectile and it's the people aspect we need to come up with something on, not the machine someone uses.
    That is 100% true.
    The only issue is that a person with a gun is more likely to kill someone than a person without a gun.
    Worldwide statistics back that up.

    Of course anti-gun enthusiasts will still say that's what police are paid for, but if I really did fear for my life where I lived I definitely wouldn't trust the cops to be here by the time it took someone to break into my house and shoot me.
    I think that's the problem with a gun-obsessed nation.
    I have never been in a situation where I had to fear for my life.
    In my country I can't even imagine such a situation unless I encounter a wrong-way driver or something.
    Yes, that's true.. The only situation where I could ever fear for my life, is traffic-related.

    When someone breaks in your house, you don't have the fear of being shot.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    Plus the fact that police have no legal obligation to help you.
    Please explain?

    Doctors are but not police?

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroth View Post
    I stopped here. The Auroa CO shooting was with sidearms and hunting rifle though an assault rifle was there. Last I read (and the media has been all over the place on conflicting information) the recent school shooting also made no use of assault weapons though one was in the car.

    The assault weapons ban ended in 2004. Why was gun crime higher in 1999 than 2009, after the assault weapon ban lifted?

    Could it be that the weapons themselves aren't the root of the problem?

    "If a law saves one life, its already worth it IMO" is the most dangerous statement someone can make. You have no idea how wide that throws the door to ban, alter, and restrict everything you do.

    As far as civilians should never have any weapons of any kind....historically speaking, not such a good idea. Though technically that line of thinking is exactly what gave the world martial arts, so that's cool.
    An Ar-15 rifle was used in both those shootings. Over 80 people were shot in Aurora, you cant do that with just pistols, he had a 100 rnd drum on an AR-15. The gun left in the car in CT was a shotgun, the AR was used. Im not sure if most mass shootings are with assault weapons but they have in a lot of recent ones. Also gun crime was probably higher in 1999 using non-assault weapons. Most gun crime is with handguns, banning assault weapons will have an effect on mass shootings but not very much effect on overall gun crime.

    I agree that you should never blindly accept laws because they save a life. Part of the price of your freedom is that you have to accept the risk. People are fighting and dieing every day in the military to protect freedom, I dont see a big difference between the two.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by tombstoner139 View Post
    Please explain?

    Doctors are but not police?
    It was a supreme court case

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

    basically, your safety is in your own hands. How much you value your life will decide how you go about that...

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 03:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Prokne View Post
    An Ar-15 rifle was used in both those shootings. Over 80 people were shot in Aurora, you cant do that with just pistols, he had a 100 rnd drum on an AR-15. The gun left in the car in CT was a shotgun, the AR was used. Im not sure if most mass shootings are with assault weapons but they have in a lot of recent ones. Also gun crime was probably higher in 1999 using non-assault weapons. Most gun crime is with handguns, banning assault weapons will have an effect on mass shootings but not very much effect on overall gun crime.

    I agree that you should never blindly accept laws because they save a life. Part of the price of your freedom is that you have to accept the risk. People are fighting and dieing every day in the military to protect freedom, I dont see a big difference between the two.
    The drum jammed after a few rounds as many low quality drums do (as well as people who do not know how to properly load them). He then switched to other magazines.

  15. #195
    When was the last time you saw a mass killing happen using something other than an assault class weapon? Last one I can think of was the guy back in the early 80s, late 70s that was shooting people from a water tower at a Texas univeristy using a hunting rifle. Every major civilian killing in the US in the past 30 years has occured by use of an assault rifle. Now, what needs to happen is we do need to get stricter controls on background checks, specifically psych evaluations before handing over guns to people, doing so would have helped in the case of Aurora Co and at Virginia Tech.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahapenes View Post
    When was the last time you saw a mass killing happen using something other than an assault class weapon? Last one I can think of was the guy back in the early 80s, late 70s that was shooting people from a water tower at a Texas univeristy using a hunting rifle. Every major civilian killing in the US in the past 30 years has occured by use of an assault rifle. Now, what needs to happen is we do need to get stricter controls on background checks, specifically psych evaluations before handing over guns to people, doing so would have helped in the case of Aurora Co and at Virginia Tech.
    you answered your own question

  17. #197
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    That is 100% true.
    The only issue is that a person with a gun is more likely to kill someone than a person without a gun.
    Worldwide statistics back that up.
    That's kind of a pointless statement, isn't it? Someone without a weapon isn't likely to kill anyone at all. Someone with a gun (mostly referring to a criminal here) is certainly more likely to kill someone than someone who is unarmed.

    (RE: Cops not being around)
    I think that's the problem with a gun-obsessed nation.
    I have never been in a situation where I had to fear for my life.
    In my country I can't even imagine such a situation unless I encounter a wrong-way driver or something.
    Yes, that's true.. The only situation where I could ever fear for my life, is traffic-related.
    Good for you. Here's a snapshot of the city I leave and work near.

    Crime in Detroit for the Previous Week

    I've filtered for only Assault, Burglary, Robbery, Sexual Crimes, Murder, and Weapons. 545 in the past week. Any one of those crimes could have been someone I knew. Could have been me. Hope it never is, but I will surely defend myself with my firearm if it does happen. I feel bad for those people who don't have the means to defend myself, to get raped or assaulted or have their home broken into, and all they can do it dial 911 and huddle in a corner hoping they aren't murdered.



    When someone breaks in your house, you don't have the fear of being shot.[/QUOTE]

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 08:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tahapenes View Post
    When was the last time you saw a mass killing happen using something other than an assault class weapon? Last one I can think of was the guy back in the early 80s, late 70s that was shooting people from a water tower at a Texas univeristy using a hunting rifle. Every major civilian killing in the US in the past 30 years has occured by use of an assault rifle. Now, what needs to happen is we do need to get stricter controls on background checks, specifically psych evaluations before handing over guns to people, doing so would have helped in the case of Aurora Co and at Virginia Tech.
    Virginia tech was two handgun, 10 and 15 round magazines, and 19 magazines in his backpack.

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Prokne View Post
    An Ar-15 rifle was used in both those shootings. Over 80 people were shot in Aurora, you cant do that with just pistols, he had a 100 rnd drum on an AR-15. The gun left in the car in CT was a shotgun, the AR was used. Im not sure if most mass shootings are with assault weapons but they have in a lot of recent ones. Also gun crime was probably higher in 1999 using non-assault weapons. Most gun crime is with handguns, banning assault weapons will have an effect on mass shootings but not very much effect on overall gun crime.

    I agree that you should never blindly accept laws because they save a life. Part of the price of your freedom is that you have to accept the risk. People are fighting and dieing every day in the military to protect freedom, I dont see a big difference between the two.
    Actually there is a lot of controversy regarding Sandy Hook. The story changed a lot, originally the AR-15 was said to have been left in the trunk of his car. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqpjJ6P-NSQ
    Nobody actually knows the truth because the media failed to properly investigate, and or some of the info was withheld.
    Pistols can be just as deadly as an AR-15, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

    A question nobody seemed to ask, is how a scrawny nerd like Adam Lanza is able to carry 4 pistols, an AR-15 and enough ammo that he was able to shoot his victims repeatedly. That's just one of many inconsistencies...

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahapenes View Post
    When was the last time you saw a mass killing happen using something other than an assault class weapon? Last one I can think of was the guy back in the early 80s, late 70s that was shooting people from a water tower at a Texas univeristy using a hunting rifle. Every major civilian killing in the US in the past 30 years has occured by use of an assault rifle. Now, what needs to happen is we do need to get stricter controls on background checks, specifically psych evaluations before handing over guns to people, doing so would have helped in the case of Aurora Co and at Virginia Tech.
    The main ones I can recall offhand are Jonesboro (hunting rifles at school), Columbine (the "assault weapon" present was a pistol, no "assault rifle"), Virginia Tech (handguns) and then we get Aurora (used an AR that jammed, not sure which gun fired most of the rounds) and Sandyhook (information has changed repeatedly, but supposedly they've settled on the rifle).

    But Wait! Connecticut has an Assault Weapons Ban, so the Sandyhook rifle wasn't one!

    I'm sure I've missed some, but that puts it at 1 out of 5 used an "assault rifle".

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 03:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lockon Stratos View Post
    Actually there is a lot of controversy regarding Sandy Hook. The story changed a lot, originally the AR-15 was said to have been left in the trunk of his car. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqpjJ6P-NSQ
    Nobody actually knows the truth because the media failed to properly investigate, and or some of the info was withheld.
    Pistols can be just as deadly as an AR-15, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

    A question nobody seemed to ask, is how a scrawny nerd like Adam Lanza is able to carry 4 pistols, an AR-15 and enough ammo that he was able to shoot his victims repeatedly. That's just one of many inconsistencies...
    The pistols he had also changed a few times. The interview with the "medical examiner" is just non-sensical, but he says the people killed were all killed "with the rifle", but can't say the caliber (not sure if it's because he's not allowed for some legal reason, he's either drunk or sleep deprived or an idiot). Also unclear if he was referring to the 7 that he reviewed or if meant the total. In either case, during that interview, they hadn't actually performed all the autopsy's yet.

    In addition, I'd assume that the shooter shot himself with a pistol rather than trying to put a rifle to his head. I also believe the mother was supposedly shot with a handgun, but the information has changed too often to say anymore. Either way, the odds that "they were all killed with the rifle" is not 100%.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The main ones I can recall offhand are Jonesboro (hunting rifles at school), Columbine (the "assault weapon" present was a pistol, no "assault rifle"), Virginia Tech (handguns) and then we get Aurora (used an AR that jammed, not sure which gun fired most of the rounds) and Sandyhook (information has changed repeatedly, but supposedly they've settled on the rifle).

    But Wait! Connecticut has an Assault Weapons Ban, so the Sandyhook rifle wasn't one!

    I'm sure I've missed some, but that puts it at 1 out of 5 used an "assault rifle".

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 03:53 PM ----------



    The pistols he had also changed a few times. The interview with the "medical examiner" is just non-sensical, but he says the people killed were all killed "with the rifle", but can't say the caliber (not sure if it's because he's not allowed for some legal reason, he's either drunk or sleep deprived or an idiot). Also unclear if he was referring to the 7 that he reviewed or if meant the total. In either case, during that interview, they hadn't actually performed all the autopsy's yet.

    In addition, I'd assume that the shooter shot himself with a pistol rather than trying to put a rifle to his head. I also believe the mother was supposedly shot with a handgun, but the information has changed too often to say anymore. Either way, the odds that "they were all killed with the rifle" is not 100%.
    not to mention the gun in the trunk was not even an ar15...the way they were cycling the action showed it was a shotgun...im thinking the shotgun shell that came out when it was cycled also states it was a shotgun lol.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •