CT shooter did not use an Assault Rifle

cheeple

Member
The Media will not tell you the shooter at Sandy Elementary did not use an "Assault" Rifle , he was found dead with a Glock and a Sig Sauer both of which are handguns, his mothers .223 AR was discovered later in the vehicle.

Why does this matter, because the truth matters.

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems they have implied both . . . the medical examiner, however, is the one who insisted the long gun was the murder weapon . . .
 

BrassTacks

New Member
The day after the shooting I read that he was found with handguns & that a .223 was found in his car. Why are you saying the media won't tell us that?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Most source I've seen have been saying what CNN does:

 
J

Joe

Guest
The day after the shooting I read that he was found with handguns & that a .223 was found in his car. Why are you saying the media won't tell us that?
I heard the same thing along with his brother was the shooter then the story changed to what we know today . Surprised they didnt blame the tea Party too . Media jumping the Gun (no pun intended) to be first with bad info .
 

BrassTacks

New Member
You're right. Every news agency & blogger wants to be the first one reporting anything, even if it's speculation. Everyone is more concerned with being first than with being accurate. Unfortunately, that's how a lot of conspiracy theories get started - "See! Someone on the ground at the Pentagon 2 seconds after the crash said they didn't see a plane so THERE WAS NO PLANE AT THE PENTAGON!"

I'd still like to know why cheeple says, "The media will not tell you...." Does he feel that the media thinks it's better for all of us to think that it WAS an assualt rifle that killed all those people? Why? So that the "liberals" can then go after the NRA petition Congress to cut the 2nd amendment out of the Constitution with an exact-o knife?
 

cheeple

Member
"

I'd still like to know why cheeple says, "The media will not tell you...." Does he feel that the media thinks it's better for all of us to think that it WAS an assualt rifle that killed all those people? Why? So that the "liberals" can then go after the NRA petition Congress to cut the 2nd amendment out of the Constitution with an exact-o knife?

BINGO! someone gets it
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you thing he used hand guns? At what point did "the media" decide to make up this story?
 

cheeple

Member
If you havent seen the video of the cop sticking her finger in the vagingas and rectums of two different women with the same glove on the side of the freeway here it is, this is why we need our Guns:

skip through the first 30 seconds

 

solrey

Senior Member.
If you havent seen the video of the cop sticking her finger in the vagingas and rectums of two different women with the same glove on the side of the freeway here it is, this is why we need our Guns:

Need our guns to do what in that situation? Shoot a cop for being an asshole and using poor judgement? That's why we have laws and a legal system. So, you want everybody should be judge, jury and executioner? No thanks.

Back in the times the constitution was written, the citizenry had access to basically the same level of weaponry available to the government. Not so much in modern times. Your guns won't do squat against a cruise missile. Instead of investing so much time and energy into acquiring and shooting more guns, how about making the world a better place to live instead 'cause frankly you gun freaks are the problem and I'm fuckin' over it.
 

cheeple

Member
Need our guns to do what in that situation? Shoot a cop for being an asshole and using poor judgement? That's why we have laws and a legal system. So, you want everybody should be judge, jury and executioner? No thanks.

Back in the times the constitution was written, the citizenry had access to basically the same level of weaponry available to the government. Not so much in modern times. Your guns won't do squat against a cruise missile. Instead of investing so much time and energy into acquiring and shooting more guns, how about making the world a better place to live instead 'cause frankly you gun freaks are the problem and I'm fuckin' over it.

So in your world the intelligent decision would be to let the police fondle our genitals and rectums peacefully, then file a complaint to the same agency that molests.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Need our guns to do what in that situation? Shoot a cop for being an asshole and using poor judgement? That's why we have laws and a legal system. So, you want everybody should be judge, jury and executioner? No thanks.

I have some sympathy for that argument. It is difficult. The thing is, these people who will not even refuse to be cavity searched are not likely to carry or produce or use a weapon anyway. So that is a moot point in this instance.

It would be interesting to find out what happened afterwards... I suspect nothing. If a complaint was even made it would be fielded as 'no procedural violation, the officer was simply doing her job'. That is the real problem. It is not that these are aberrant behaviours by off the wall cops, it is that they are sanctioned, protected by authority and encouraged to do this.

Back in the times the constitution was written, the citizenry had access to basically the same level of weaponry available to the government. Not so much in modern times. Your guns won't do squat against a cruise missile. Instead of investing so much time and energy into acquiring and shooting more guns, how about making the world a better place to live instead 'cause frankly you gun freaks are the problem and I'm fuckin' over it.

You are so vitriolic in your condemnation of people who wish to protect themselves from systemic abuse but your silence on the abuses and torture carried out by government officials is deafening and extremely telling.
 

cheeple

Member
It would be interesting to find out what happened afterwards... I suspect nothing. If a complaint was even made it would be fielded as 'no procedural violation, the officer was simply doing her job'. That is the real problem. It is not that these are aberrant behaviours by off the wall cops, it is that they are sanctioned, protected by authority and encouraged to do this.
Most current thing I can find is from the huffington post the Texas State trooper kelley helleson is currently suspended with pay:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ITY-search-caught-tape.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
 

Met Watch

Moderator
You are so vitriolic in your condemnation of people who wish to protect themselves from systemic abuse but your silence on the abuses and torture carried out by government officials is deafening and extremely telling.

This incorrectly assumes that all people buy guns to protect themselves from government abuse. Secondly, what government officials are you referring to? Just saying that is extremely vague, so some specific people could be appreciated. The police, I'm guessing, is who you're referring to? I can sure as guarantee you the Postal Office and NOAA do not carry out abuse and torture. :)

Just a friendly reminder that this thread is on Adam Lanza and his debated use of an assault rifle, and not on gun control. This may be more worthy in a separate thread.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Most current thing I can find is from the huffington post the Texas State trooper kelley helleson is currently suspended with pay:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ITY-search-caught-tape.html?ito=feeds-newsxml



Makes you wonder how systemic this is and who exactly is behind it and why?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
This incorrectly assumes that all people buy guns to protect themselves from government abuse. Secondly, what government officials are you referring to? Just saying that is extremely vague, so some specific people could be appreciated. The police, I'm guessing, is who you're referring to? I can sure as guarantee you the Postal Office and NOAA do not carry out abuse and torture. :)

Just a friendly reminder that this thread is on Adam Lanza and his debated use of an assault rifle, and not on gun control. This may be more worthy in a separate thread.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought the thread was about a CT that the 'possible use of an assault rifle' was going to be used as a method of attempted gun control... ergo the subjects are linked?

When I referred to your IMO, vitriolic attack, namely
frankly you gun freaks are the problem and I'm fuckin' over it
. I could not help noticing how you, (and it seems to be a common feature from certain posters), completely glossed over any abuse or torture issues by the authorities, (and no I am not referring to the post office or NOAA). I simply wondered if you thought all that sort of thing was fine?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Oxy- you are confusing Solrey and plane852....

Torture and abuse has been apart of the human experience forever..."authorities" are merely a part of that experience and thus one would expect them to have the same failings common throughout humanity.

That does not mean it is "systemic" - or that it never goes unpunished.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy- you are confusing Solrey and plane852....

Sorry about that:confused:

Torture and abuse has been apart of the human experience forever..."authorities" are merely a part of that experience and thus one would expect them to have the same failings common throughout humanity.

That does not mean it is "systemic" - or that it never goes unpunished.

I am not saying that it 'never goes unpunished', as clearly there are instances where it does, It is when we keep hearing official responses that 'the officers did nothing wrong' etc and in the quite numerous instances where it is 'policy from on high'... that's what makes it systemic.

Also, I do get alarm bells when people appear to tacitly agree with these things whilst strongly criticising the complainers.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
we keep hearing official responses that 'the officers did nothing wrong' etc and in the quite numerous instances where it is 'policy from on high'... that's what makes it systemic.

Also, I do get alarm bells when people appear to tacitly agree with these things whilst strongly criticising the complainers.

"policy on high" is merely a broad generalization to which pointing out random anecdotal instances of abuse doesn't bring evidence to bear. That US government tortured suspected "terrorists" doesn't mean a cop doing hygienically inappropriate body cavity searches by the roadside- or even a kid with a broken back getting tasered 17 times is evidence of a systemic pattern of abuse.

Moreover, pointing out that one does not agree with the idea that abuse is systemic is not a tacit agreement or endorsement of abuse when it does occur.
 

BrassTacks

New Member
BINGO! someone gets it

I only "get it" because I've heard this lame argument for so long that it gives me a migraine. As if killing innocent people in a school (or a movie theater or a mall) isn't bad enough, the NRA & gun-rights advocates have to make sure everyone knows it wasn't an assault rifle. WTF difference does it make what kind of gun it was?

Look, 19 hijackers flew commercial planes into buildings & now I can't take my cuticle scissors on an airplane with me; some nut adds poison to a few bottles of Tylenol & now all OTC medications have tamper-proof packaging; meth heads cook their drug using Claridin so now I have to see the pharmacist every time I have an allergy attack; meanwhile, senseless shootings happen every day & NOTHING CHANGES.

Why do gun-rights advocates think that ANY change to our gun laws are equivalent to ripping out the 2nd amendment? What's wrong with doing everything possible to make sure guns don't end up in the hands of people who are going to go on some rampage?
 

cheeple

Member
I only "get it" because I've heard this lame argument for so long that it gives me a migraine. As if killing innocent people in a school (or a movie theater or a mall) isn't bad enough, the NRA & gun-rights advocates have to make sure everyone knows it wasn't an assault rifle. WTF difference does it make what kind of gun it was?

Look, 19 hijackers flew commercial planes into buildings & now I can't take my cuticle scissors on an airplane with me; some nut adds poison to a few bottles of Tylenol & now all OTC medications have tamper-proof packaging; meth heads cook their drug using Claridin so now I have to see the pharmacist every time I have an allergy attack; meanwhile, senseless shootings happen every day & NOTHING CHANGES.

Why do gun-rights advocates think that ANY change to our gun laws are equivalent to ripping out the 2nd amendment? What's wrong with doing everything possible to make sure guns don't end up in the hands of people who are going to go on some rampage?

Everything that could be done WAS done to make sure guns didnt end up in the hands of people who would go on a rampage, and yet this 20 year old mentally deranged man still got his hands on his mothers legal arms. You have no position, banning "assault" rifles will not keep us safer.
 

BrassTacks

New Member
I never said anything about banning assault rifles. But since you brought it up, does OWNING an assault rifle keep you safer?

My question is simply "Why does the NRA & supporters think that any change to our gun laws is the same as destroying the 2nd amendment?" They freak out when there are talks about limiting the amount of ammo you can buy at once, what you can & cannot buy online, how long background checks take, etc. I really don't get it.
 

cheeple

Member
First of all I'm not a member of the NRA but the NRA fights for our civil liberties, secondly assault rifles do make my home safer, thirdly if you dont get it theres nothing I can do about that and lastly the same day as the shooting in CT a man in China went to a Kindergarten and stabbed 28 or 29 children depending on the source, just for you I have it here on the huffington post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/28-children-stabbed-at-ki_n_556520.html
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
"policy on high" is merely a broad generalization to which pointing out random anecdotal instances of abuse doesn't bring evidence to bear. That US government tortured suspected "terrorists" doesn't mean a cop doing hygienically inappropriate body cavity searches by the roadside- or even a kid with a broken back getting tasered 17 times is evidence of a systemic pattern of abuse.

Moreover, pointing out that one does not agree with the idea that abuse is systemic is not a tacit agreement or endorsement of abuse when it does occur.

Defend, defend, defend.

And how many incidences of abuse/torture, denial, justification etc does it take before it is 'no longer anecdotal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Enough to qualify as Gish Galloping I suspect. Convenient.
 

cheeple

Member
of course your gonna use an example that suits your idiology, If you were on the opposite side of the spectum you coulda mentioned the Pearl High School shooting in which Vice Principal Joel Myrick, retrieved his Colt .45 and detained the shooter preventing more casualties than the 2 and 7 injured the shooter was able to get. Since it seems to be example time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

I tried to find a more liberal source but this article is short and to the point.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Defend, defend, defend.

And how many incidences of abuse/torture, denial, justification etc does it take before it is 'no longer anecdotal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

.


Really? what exactly am I defending? certainly not torture or abuse.

Pointing out that you have not brought the slightest bit of evidence to bear that these random anecdotal incidents are actually "policy on high" is not defending the abuse.

Thank you for including the definition of anecdotal- it underscores my point quite well.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
"policy on high" is merely a broad generalization to which pointing out random anecdotal instances of abuse doesn't bring evidence to bear. That US government tortured suspected "terrorists"

BTW, there it is again, the highlighting of the word 'terrorist', implies to most reasonable people some sort of tacit agreement.

Why not highlight the word 'suspected'?

And where is the moral high ground on this... 'we condemn your human rights violations... whilst at the same time carrying out our own', we are supposed to be leading the way.

And what about the very many who were innocent?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...ls-of-terror-suspects-hit-new-roadblocks.html

Seems like justification for imprisoning and torturing most of Germany after the war.
 

cheeple

Member
which is why it was ironic that you used an example of a guy with a knife where no one died.

Classic.

The knife example was to show that even in a country with no gun rights you can't prevent these things from happening, the motivation was to kill, thankfully none did.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
BTW, there it is again, the highlighting of the word 'terrorist', implies to most reasonable people some sort of tacit agreement.

Why not highlight the word 'suspected'?

on the contrary - the quote on terrorists were used to indicate that it is a relative term- one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighter.

You completely misinterpreted that.

Whether or not I agree with the tactics countries use in war has nothing to do with the fact you have shown no evidence that abuse in general society by police is actually a codified policy where they are " are sanctioned, protected by authority and encouraged to do this".

You keep saying its "tacit" agreement when its nothing of the sort.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
The knife example was to show that even in a country with no gun rights you can't prevent these things from happening, the motivation was to kill, thankfully none did.



Wow...really? right back atchya...

your logic fails you.

you are correct- you can't prevent rampages...but the fact that the country has no gun rights is the VERY REASON why those children are alive. If he had a gun do you think they would have been so lucky?

Seriously...I cannot believe you can't see the failure of your logic.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
on the contrary - the quote on terrorists were used to indicate that it is a relative term- one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighter.

You completely misinterpreted that.

Whether or not I agree with the tactics countries use in war has nothing to do with the fact you have shown no evidence that abuse in general society by police is actually a codified policy where they are " are sanctioned, protected by authority and encouraged to do this".

You keep saying its "tacit" agreement when its nothing of the sort.

Well that's certainly a step in the right direction. Thanks for the clarification.

So what about the rest of the post... moral high ground... all the uncharged people (even after being tortured), ... abysmal conviction rates... extraordinary rendition etc.

This was instigated at the highest level... Bush and is to some extent being maintained by Obama... is that not systemic?

As for the 'abuse in general society', what do you think is an unacceptable level... what is your gauge for systemic abuse of the populace?
 

cheeple

Member
Wow...really? right back atchya...

your logic fails you.

you are correct- you can't prevent rampages...but the fact that the country has no gun rights is the VERY REASON why those children are alive. If he had a gun do you think they would have been so lucky?

Seriously...I cannot believe you can't see the failure of your logic.


There you go [...], China has a HUGE problem with Mass Stabbings at Elementary schools this isn't the first infact it's not even unusual, China recognizes the knife, or Hammer (in one case) is not the problem. There are plenty of of examples of guns in the hands of the citizenry thwarting crime, infact I demonstrated one example earlier, but you dont want to hear those examples, gun violence is down to a 40 year low I heard ( I have not confirmed this). People like you scare me who only want the Police to have guns, I demonstrated they can't be trusted in an example earlier, and I have more examples if you want them, People like you want the President to take away guns from Americans but you dont have a problem with that same administration gives them to the Mexican drug cartels, when that happens you turn the other way, you dont want to talk about it, Not my president, that musta been Bush.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
There you go being dense again, China has a HUGE problem with Mass Stabbings at Elementary schools this isn't the first infact it's not even unusual, China recognizes the knife, or Hammer (in one case) is not the problem. There are plenty of of examples of guns in the hands of the citizenry thwarting crime, infact I demonstrated one example earlier, but you dont want to hear those examples, gun violence is down to a 40 year low I heard ( I have not confirmed this). People like you scare me who only want the Police to have guns, I demonstrated they can't be trusted in an example earlier, and I have more examples if you want them, People like you want the President to take away guns from Americans but you dont have a problem with that same administration gives them to the Mexican drug cartels, when that happens you turn the other way, you dont want to talk about it, Not my president, that musta been Bush.

First of all- you know nothing of me or my view on guns, presidents or anything else...So, your knee-jerk reaction to pigeon hole me with your "people like you" attack falls into an abyss of ignorant slander- good on ya.

Yes- I am fully aware of occurrences of people with guns stopping other people with guns.

You conveniently ignore the fact that those stabbed children in China would more than likely be dead if he had a gun.

Humans are violent. Guns exacerbate that violence.

You can wrap yourself in the Constitution and fancy yourself a holier-than-thou patriot defending the world from "people like me"- but it doesn't change the fact that guns kill more people than they save.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Well that's certainly a step in the right direction. Thanks for the clarification.

So what about the rest of the post... moral high ground... all the uncharged people (even after being tortured), ... abysmal conviction rates... extraordinary rendition etc.

This was instigated at the highest level... Bush and is to some extent being maintained by Obama... is that not systemic?

As for the 'abuse in general society', what do you think is an unacceptable level... what is your gauge for systemic abuse of the populace?

I am not here debate my views on torture.

I merely showed that random, anecdotal instances of abuse by police is not evidence that that abuse is "sanctioned, protected by authority and encouraged".

That characterization is simply your Belief not a fact borne out by the evidence.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I am not here debate my views on torture.

I merely showed that random, anecdotal instances of abuse by police is not evidence that that abuse is "sanctioned, protected by authority and encouraged".

That characterization is simply your Belief not a fact borne out by the evidence.

Ok, As for the 'abuse in general society', what do you think is an unacceptable level... what is your gauge for systemic abuse of the populace?

How will we know if it has been reached if we don't know how to quantify it?
 

cheeple

Member
First of all- you know nothing of me or my view on guns, presidents or anything else...So, your knee-jerk reaction to pigeon hole me with your "people like you" attack falls into an abyss of ignorant slander- good on ya.

Yes- I am fully aware of occurrences of people with guns stopping other people with guns.

You conveniently ignore the fact that those stabbed children in China would more than likely be dead if he had a gun.

Humans are violent. Guns exacerbate that violence.

You can wrap yourself in the Constitution and fancy yourself a holier-than-thou patriot defending the world from "people like me"- but it doesn't change the fact that guns kill more people than they save.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Your problem is you dont have a position other than more needs to be done but at the same time stating it wouldnt be an attack against the 2nd amendment if certain types of arms or ammunition were banned, my position is I would like to have an armed PSO at every Public School in the Country not only as a protectant but also a deterrent, when I publicly state my position I put myself on the line for scrutiny but you want to be vague.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Your problem is you dont have a position other than more needs to be done but at the same time stating it wouldnt be an attack against the 2nd amendment if certain types of arms or ammunition were banned, my position is I would like to have an armed PSO at every Public School in the Country not only as a protectant but also a deterrent, when I publicly state my position I put myself on the line for scrutiny but you want to be vague.

Can you please point out where I "stat(ed) it wouldnt be an attack against the 2nd amendment if certain types of arms or ammunition were banned"

you really have to stop trying to tell me who I am and what I believe. You fail every time.

I publicly state that gun violence is a major problem in this country.

...and no I don't know what the solution is.

But I do know the culture of guns and violence that pervades this country and the holier-than-thou adherence to the 2nd amendment - no matter what- and the rhetoric of fear and derision towards those who might want to look at some points of stricter controls is a large part of the problem.
 
Top