OK, im asking this again, what gun was used...

[sits in trees]

For real? You haven't read the news for the last 2 weeks?

Two pistols and the ar-15, the shot gun was in the trunk. All of that was confirmed by both the police and medical examiner.

There is no conspiracy about this, move on.

I hate to keep rehashing this topic and have even been chastised by Doewacker and others for asking this question, but again what the hell gun was used in the murder of the twenty little children in Newtown CT. When we left off this topic most say it was the 2 pistols which i think we all pretty much agreed on. NOW im doing Google searches and all the news reports are still saying it was a Bushmaster assault rifle! Im really starting to think we are facing a cover up of blasphemous proportions here which gives this whole thing a much more sinister feeling.

I mean if the press is lying about which gun was used to further the banning of such weapon/weapons by our lawmakers then that goes above and beyond the usual media sensationalism we have all grown accustomed to!

It is important and we really have to get to the bottom of this and not just move on.

[Felonious_Monk]

Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver reports the majoity of victims were shot several times each with a rifle.

[sits in trees]

Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver reports the majoity of victims were shot several times each with a rifle.

So we the 2nd ammendment supporters and guardians are reponsible for the blasphemy? If thats the case we gotta cut the crap and stick to facts. Getting caught up in lies makes us look awwwfuullyy silly doesnt it.

[Doewhacker]

BOO!

[PWGUNNY]

The reason for the confusion is the news reports were inaccurate from the beginning. That day as I watched it unfold, the victims went from 1, to 2, and then to 26.

The final reports I heard were that all of the school victims were shot with the .223 and Lanza shot himself with a pistol. His mother was shot with a .22 rifle at here home. The rifle in the back seat of the car was actually a shotgun.

[WingNut]

Agree... the media hasn't got it right from the start.

[josephmrtn]

dont know, dont care... this is a tragedy that should not have happend but it did and now the media and anti gun nuts bloomberg and friends are trying to make US responsible for the actions of some crazy wacko...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The reason for the confusion is the news reports were inaccurate from the beginning. That day as I watched it unfold, the victims went from 1, to 2, and then to 26.

The final reports I heard were that all of the school victims were shot with the .223 and Lanza shot himself with a pistol. His mother was shot with a .22 rifle at here home. The rifle in the back seat of the car was actually a shotgun.

Just to be clear...Trunk not back seat

[dbHunterNY]

i am with you that the reports have been very confusing and conflicting from the start. however, that doesn't change any results of what happened. that said i think it is immoral to compare me, a gun owner of an AR-15 or any gun, to these horrific individuals acting on horrible intentions. say a SOBER driver in a sports car going too fast plows over a bunch of kids playing in the street. that still doesn't give me the right to say an anti-gun person or anyone else's sports car should be taken away or made ridiculously hard to keep. My reasoning would not be so concrete if it was simply due to another individuals negligence and the fact that it's performance exceeds other cars. All vehicles should be stripped of their HP to go max of 30 mph and all options, radio/audio systems included, should be banned. That way drivers have limited characteristics to distract them or allow them to plow someone over and kill them. Seem reasonable? one individual's freedoms start where another individual's ends.

...that about sums it up.

[josephmrtn]

i am with you that the reports have been very confusing and conflicting from the start. however, that doesn't change any results of what happened. that said i think it is immoral to compare me, a gun owner of an AR-15 or any gun, to these horrific individuals acting on horrible intentions. say a SOBER driver in a sports car going too fast plows over a bunch of kids playing in the street. that still doesn't give me the right to say an anti-gun person or anyone else's sports car should be taken away or made ridiculously hard to keep. My reasoning would not be so concrete if it was simply due to another individuals negligence and the fact that it's performance exceeds other cars. All vehicles should be stripped of their HP to go max of 30 mph and all options, radio/audio systems included, should be banned. That way drivers have limited characteristics to distract them or allow them to plow someone over and kill them. Seem reasonable? one individual's freedoms start where another individual's ends.

...that about sums it up.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TOTALY MY THOUGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[virgil]

that said i think it is immoral to compare me, a gun owner of an AR-15 or any gun, to these horrific individuals acting on horrible intentions.

Who is making that comparison?

[josephmrtn]

Mike Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, The Media ect ect ect Need I Go On???

they say that we dont need an ar 15 to hunt and use tragedies like this as reasons they should be banned...

[tony m]

I don't believe any ballistic results have been released on the handguns.

It's something that police officers would come across at the crime scene, where it has been stated that it had over a hundred of spent cartridge casings, and not be able to tell if they are handgun casings or .223 casings until two days later. Is that true?

[steve863]

say a SOBER driver in a sports car going too fast plows over a bunch of kids playing in the street. that still doesn't give me the right to say an anti-gun person or anyone else's sports car should be taken away or made ridiculously hard to keep.

Honestly I wish I had a dollar for each time I heard a pro-gun person use this lame analogy over the last few weeks! If you fellas can't quite figure it out, a car was invented for transportation to replace the horse and carriage. It's main purpose is to take someone from point A to point B. Now tell us what guns were originally invented for?? Surely not something as innocent as transportation?? There lies the difference, and there lies the reason that society will never accept this lame analogy!

[virgil]

^{Mike Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, The Media ect ect ect Need I Go On???}

^{they say that we dont need an ar 15 to hunt and use tragedies like this as reasons they should be banned...}

^{I have not read anything from Bloomberg or Feinstein that compares the average gun owner to mass murderers. You are misunderstanding. You are making the leap that because they are in favor of gun control that they believe all gun owners are criminals. That approach may be effective at riling up other gun owners, but it's not based in the truth.}

Edited January 9, 2013 by virgil

[WNYBuckHunter]

Honestly I wish I had a dollar for each time I heard a pro-gun person use this lame analogy over the last few weeks! If you fellas can't quite figure it out, a car was invented for transportation to replace the horse and carriage. It's main purpose is to take someone from point A to point B. Now tell us what guns were originally invented for?? Surely not something as innocent as transportation?? There lies the difference, and there lies the reason that society will never accept this lame analogy!

They use the analogy because its 100% accurate. Used properly, a car is a safe mode of transportation. Used improperly, it becomes something capable of destruction. Used properly, a gun is a tool used for hunting and other forms of recreational activity. Used improperly, it becomes something capable of destruction.

You can sit and say apples and oranges all day because you want to nit pick the intentions of the analogy to fit your agenda, or you can look at what the analogy is showing. That it doesnt matter what the object is, its how its used, or misused that counts in the end.

[Doewhacker]

The analogy doesn't work, you pay insurance and need to be licensed to drive said sports car. In fact you would pay more in insurance to drive that car. There is no need for analogies, the topic stands alone.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The analogy doesn't work, you pay insurance and need to be licensed to drive said sports car. In fact you would pay more in insurance to drive that car. There is no need for analogies, the topic stands alone.

check your police blotter. You don't need anything to use a car. and you dont need insurance. One good friend jkust had his van totaled by a kid with no insurance.,

[WingNut]

^{Mike Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, The Media ect ect ect Need I Go On???}

^{they say that we dont need an ar 15 to hunt and use tragedies like this as reasons they should be banned...}

^{I have not read anything from Bloomberg or Feinstein that compares the average gun owner to mass murderers. You are misunderstanding. You are making the leap that because they are in favor of gun control that they believe all gun owners are criminals. That approach may be effective at riling up other gun owners, but it's not based in the truth.}

That is exactly the point, it isn't based on truth. The media has confused the hell out of me, a gun owner. What do you think they have done to non owners? I think the media in intentionally fueling ignorance. These new bills are exploiting aesthetic features of weapons over and above function and intended usefulness. If these bills are passed, my .22 rifle with modified a stock, my shotgun with pistol grip etc will be considered an assault weapon? I mean really... and I can even imagine what mandatory registration would do,

[Felonious_Monk]

So we the 2nd ammendment supporters and guardians are reponsible for the blasphemy? If thats the case we gotta cut the crap and stick to facts. Getting caught up in lies makes us look awwwfuullyy silly doesnt it.

Not to be a d**k, but you're preaching to the choir.

[Mr VJP]

"[T]he government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished." --columnist Harry Binswanger

That sums up the falacy of the gun control argument perfectly.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Mr VJP

[Doc]

"[T]he government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished." --columnist Harry Binswanger

That sums up the falacy of the gun control argument perfectly.

By golly, that takes the gun control debate off in a brand new direction. Very convincing stuff!

[dbHunterNY]

that said i think it is immoral to compare me, a gun owner of an AR-15 or any gun, to these horrific individuals acting on horrible intentions.

Who is making that comparison?

there's lots of people that have made the comparison. one mayoral candidate even compared gun owners to convicted sex offenders. i'm sure you'll be able to find examples if you search.

[dbHunterNY]

Honestly I wish I had a dollar for each time I heard a pro-gun person use this lame analogy over the last few weeks! If you fellas can't quite figure it out, a car was invented for transportation to replace the horse and carriage. It's main purpose is to take someone from point A to point B. Now tell us what guns were originally invented for?? Surely not something as innocent as transportation?? There lies the difference, and there lies the reason that society will never accept this lame analogy!

sorry you thought the analogy was lame. it's a rather gray area when the first "gun" was created. gun powder was derived from a powder used to treat skin infections. it was used to heal. Back in pioneer days guns had a primary purpose for many, which was to go out and hunt for food to sustain life. they were also used for war, but i think it's highly unlikely someone would choose war over using it to get food, pending they had to give one more importance over the other.

i think i've had it figured out for a while now.

[dbHunterNY]

I hate to keep rehashing this topic and have even been chastised by Doewacker and others for asking this question, but again what the hell gun was used in the murder of the twenty little children in Newtown CT. When we left off this topic most say it was the 2 pistols which i think we all pretty much agreed on. NOW im doing Google searches and all the news reports are still saying it was a Bushmaster assault rifle! Im really starting to think we are facing a cover up of blasphemous proportions here which gives this whole thing a much more sinister feeling.

I mean if the press is lying about which gun was used to further the banning of such weapon/weapons by our lawmakers then that goes above and beyond the usual media sensationalism we have all grown accustomed to!

It is important and we really have to get to the bottom of this and not just move on.

i think the thread got a little highjacked and on a tangent. probably my fault. last i heard it wasn't reported that any rifle was in the school. handguns were used inside and a shotgun was in the trunk. watched the full video were the chief coroner said that victims had been shot with a rifle but then wouldn't answer answer any other details around that, despite he said that he could due to it didn't really matter with there not being a trial. at that point i gave up trying to continue figuring it out. no matter what i read i whether the source was for guns or against i figured i'd be hard pressed to find out the truth. i'm sure i'll start looking again at some point.