Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[homersapien 11,371]

here is a question someone can research. of the last 3 or 4 mass shootings that used the guns that were banned prior to 2004, were the guns manufactured and or purchased after the ban was lifted?

Sandy Hook - Bushmaster XM-15 E2S .223 - 28 dead including shooter

My cursory search on Lanza's rifle hasn't been too successful as yet. At best, all I can say in answer to that is maybe, but probably not.

Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting - Springfield XD(M) semi-automatic handgun - 7 dead including shooter

No

Oikos University shooting - .45 semi-automatic handgun - 7 dead

No

Aurora - S&W MP-15 and Remington 870 Express - 12 dead

Yes on the rifle, no on the shotgun

As we can see here....a ban won't do squat. Killers kill and they will find a weapon to kill with, no matter what type of ban there is. Lanza isn't the first mental case to steal a family members weapon and use it on others. Address the root cause of gun violence and there won't be a need for a ban.

Then it's settled.

Let's just go ahead and eliminate the regulations on everything. Let's start with RPG's and grenade launchers. They sound like fun. (Plus, they are ideal defensive weapons in my particular situation, at least if we're talking about the gubmint or zombies).

[cptau 169]

Was the Bushmaster even used at Sandy Hook? The early reporting was that it was not used/stayed in the car. Only later it started being talked about. Does anyone know for sure?

According to Lt. Paul Vance, the long rifle was used.

http://www.ct.gov/de...Q=517284&A=4226

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Department of Emergency Services &

Public Protection

Connecticut State Police

Public Information Office

1111 Country Club Road

Middletown, Connecticut 06457

Contact:

860-685-8230

DESPP.Feedback

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

That's a list of the weapons found and where they were found.

Vance in a news conference stated the .223 caliber rife was used by the shooter.

http://www.ctpost.co...ith-4220548.php'

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

[alexava 6,973]

Wish sensible and politics went hand in hand.....

In all fairness, neither of us are politicians. This is really just what I think.

Alexava, I'm still kind of perusing teh interwebz for a proper answer to your question. I have found an interesting spreadsheet on MotherJones.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AswaDV9q95oZdG5fVGJTS25GQXhSTDFpZXE0RHhUdkE&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250

nice link. They left out the uah amy bishop shooting and the tuscaloosa night club shooting last summer.

[AUDub 11,147]

A few excerpts from the sheet. Its easier to work with if you download it as an excel or ODF spreadsheet.

Newtown, Connecticut

12/14/2012

28 killed, 2 wounded

XM-15 (AR-15) manufactured in response to the ban. Legally obtainable during the ban, though this particular one was stolen from a relative.The magazines were not according to the defunct ban.

Aurora, Colorado

07/20/2012

12 killed, 58 wounded

M&P15 (AR-15). The rifle was neither manufactured or legal during the ban, legally obtained thereafter. The magazines were not according to the defunct ban.

Carson City, Nevada (IHOP shooting)

09/06/2011

5 killed, 7 wounded

MAK-90 (AK-47) banned during the assault weapons ban, legally obtained thereafter. The magazines were not according to the defunct ban.

Omaha, Nebraska (Westroads Mall shooting)

12/05/2007

9 killed, 4 wounded

WASR-10 (AKM) manufactured in response to the ban. Legally obtainable during the ban, though this particular one was stolen from a relative. The magazines were not according to the defunct ban.

[autigeremt 6,609]

Curious. Is there anything on the daily killings in Chicago? Other major metro areas?

[AUDub 11,147]

Curious. Is there anything on the daily killings in Chicago? Other major metro areas?

Homicides in Chicago by year

1928: 399

1965: 395

1974: 970

1990: 851

1991: 927

1992: 943

1993: 855

1994: 931

1995: 828

1996: 796

1997: 761

1998: 704

1999: 643

2000: 633

2001: 667

2002: 656

2003: 601

2004: 453

2005: 451

2006: 471

2007: 448

2008: 513

2009: 459

2010: 436

2011: 435

2012: 506

Not really what you asked for, but helpful info nonetheless. I've found an interesting app, though it only applies to Chicago, that you may like. I can't really run it here at the office. Here's the link.

[cptau 169]

Wish sensible and politics went hand in hand.....

In all fairness, neither of us are politicians. This is really just what I think.

Alexava, I'm still kind of perusing teh interwebz for a proper answer to your question. I have found an interesting spreadsheet on MotherJones.

https://docs.google....rowsperpage=250

nice link. They left out the uah amy bishop shooting and the tuscaloosa night club shooting last summer.

Not sure why there are leaving off the 3 UAH murders.

They probably left off the nightclub shooting as no one was killed. 17 were wounded but it is unclear how many were hit by bullets or flying shattered window glass.

The spreadsheet indicates that the weapons of choice are 9 mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns.

It also indicates 33 "Assault Weapons" were used. 13 of those are common hunting type rifles or shotguns, not assault weapons.

Of the 20 assault weapons that might have been banned, only 3 are AR-15s and 8 are versions of the AK-47(semi-auto)

The remaining 9 are various weapons that might have been banned.

Many of the AR15 and AK47 verions would have been legal under the old ban. They are all functionally equal to rifles that are legal now and would even be under proposed federal bans.

[autigeremt 6,609]

Curious. Is there anything on the daily killings in Chicago? Other major metro areas?

Homicides in Chicago by year

1928: 399

1965: 395

1974: 970

1990: 851

1991: 927

1992: 943

1993: 855

1994: 931

1995: 828

1996: 796

1997: 761

1998: 704

1999: 643

2000: 633

2001: 667

2002: 656

2003: 601

2004: 453

2005: 451

2006: 471

2007: 448

2008: 513

2009: 459

2010: 436

2011: 435

2012: 506

Not really what you asked for, but helpful info nonetheless. I've found an interesting app, though it only applies to Chicago, that you may like. I can't really run it here at the office. Here's the link.

1991: 927

1992: 943

1993: 855

1994: 931

1995: 828

2.5 people killed per day during that 5 year run. I know it's homicides and it isn't broken down by type of weapon, etc....but that is amazing.

[AUGradinTX 0]

here is a question someone can research. of the last 3 or 4 mass shootings that used the guns that were banned prior to 2004, were the guns manufactured and or purchased after the ban was lifted?

Sandy Hook - Bushmaster XM-15 E2S .223 - 28 dead including shooter

My cursory search on Lanza's rifle hasn't been too successful as yet. At best, all I can say in answer to that is maybe, but probably not.

Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting - Springfield XD(M) semi-automatic handgun - 7 dead including shooter

No

Oikos University shooting - .45 semi-automatic handgun - 7 dead

No

Aurora - S&W MP-15 and Remington 870 Express - 12 dead

Yes on the rifle, no on the shotgun

As we can see here....a ban won't do squat. Killers kill and they will find a weapon to kill with, no matter what type of ban there is. Lanza isn't the first mental case to steal a family members weapon and use it on others. Address the root cause of gun violence and there won't be a need for a ban.

Then it's settled.

Let's just go ahead and eliminate the regulations on everything. Let's start with RPG's and grenade launchers. They sound like fun. (Plus, they are ideal defensive weapons in my particular situation, at least if we're talking about the gubmint or zombies).

Not grenade launchers again...

[AUMedic 0]

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

[AUDub 11,147]

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

I don't know much, but I know that this will never happen.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

I don't know much, but I know that this will never happen.

Don't say that. You undermine the politics of fear mongering. We've got to rally around the corrupt guys who will save us because the other corrupt guys are out to get us.

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

I don't know much, but I know that this will never happen.

Don't say that. You undermine the politics of fear mongering. We've got to rally around the corrupt guys who will save us because the other corrupt guys are out to get us.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

I don't know much, but I know that this will never happen.

Maybe not Obama, but how can you be certain this will never happen?

I'm not a gun owner, but I am of the opinion that the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" has been over blown. It's actually a bit suspicious IMO. If you are truly honest with yourself, ARs are not being used to commit mass amounts of crimes. Stats show this and there is no denying it. More people are killed every year by handguns in Chicago than killed by rifles (not just ARs, rifles of any type) in the entire country. What's more, nearly every single person committing these mass murders have/had some mental illness. Why do we disregard what seems to clearly be the root cause? Why should we infringe on the rights of the overwhelmingly majority (which is millions of Americans) to protect themselves because a few mentally unstable persons crack and commit a crime? Now, I'm with you, what happened in Newtown (and other places) was tragic. I just need to know why it is justifiable to tell millions of Americans they can no longer choose to protect themselves in the manner they feel necessary solely because a few mentally unstable individuals commit crimes with the tool that makes them feel secure or has saved their lives. I know some of you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that when a person sets out to kill others they will do so by whatever means necessary. I understand your argument against that. If he can't pull the trigger 20 times in a row he can't kill as efficiently. That makes sense in theory, but it isn't reality. They Va Tech shooter was able to kill more people with two handguns than the Newtown shooter with an AR. Yes, he barricaded doors preventing people from escaping, but doesn't that enforce my position that if someone wants to kill, they will find a way to kill as many as possible with whatever tool at his disposal regardless of the tool? Gun laws in the UK are extremely strict. Murders are all too common, though. If England was a US state, they would place 15th in murders. Scotland would place 9th. They aren't committed with guns, but they are still committed. That should tell you. Take away guns from crazy people will not stop them from killing. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average person to protect themselves from those crazy people. That is not the way to address this issue.

[AUDub 11,147]

Maybe not Obama, but how can you be certain this will never happen?

One can never truly be 100% certain if we're being perfectly honest. But there are two factors that weigh heavily on this issue to me:

A. The Second Amendment

B. There are too many guns and no reasonable logistical possibility of ever confiscating all of them.

I'm not a gun owner, but I am of the opinion that the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" has been over blown. It's actually a bit suspicious IMO. If you are truly honest with yourself, ARs are not being used to commit mass amounts of crimes. Stats show this and there is no denying it.

I haven't made such a statement. I think it's widely known and understood that handguns are used in the majority of these cases.

More people are killed every year by handguns in Chicago than killed by rifles (not just ARs, rifles of any type) in the entire country. What's more, nearly every single person committing these mass murders have/had some mental illness. Why do we disregard what seems to clearly be the root cause?

I haven't. Mental health evaluations are a key part of the reasonable legislation I'd personally like to see in my lifetime.

Why should we infringe on the rights of the overwhelmingly majority (which is millions of Americans) to protect themselves because a few mentally unstable persons crack and commit a crime?

The same reason background checks are currently implemented. We currently check to make sure you're not a felon and haven't forfeited your right to own a firearm. Why is a cursory check on your sanity so far-fetched?

Now, I'm with you, what happened in Newtown (and other places) was tragic. I just need to know why it is justifiable to tell millions of Americans they can no longer choose to protect themselves in the manner they feel necessary solely because a few mentally unstable individuals commit crimes with the tool that makes them feel secure or has saved their lives. I know some of you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that when a person sets out to kill others they will do so by whatever means necessary. I understand your argument against that. If he can't pull the trigger 20 times in a row he can't kill as efficiently. That makes sense in theory, but it isn't reality.

I disagree. The fact that a person with an AR with a 30 round magazine can kill more efficiently than a person with, say, a Remington 870 in an open area is reality. That's not to say it doesn't depend on the situation. It does. I prefer a shotgun for home defense because:

A. That sound of the slide being pumped is unmistakable.

B. Better at those ranges

They Va Tech shooter was able to kill more people with two handguns than the Newtown shooter with an AR. Yes, he barricaded doors preventing people from escaping, but doesn't that enforce my position that if someone wants to kill, they will find a way to kill as many as possible with whatever tool at his disposal regardless of the tool?

Imagine if Cho Seung Hui had used a rifle with extended magazines in that situation. A long hallway with no exits. I believe there would have been more casualties.

Gun laws in the UK are extremely strict. Murders are all too common, though. If England was a US state, they would place 15th in murders. Scotland would place 9th. They aren't committed with guns, but they are still committed. That should tell you. Take away guns from crazy people will not stop them from killing. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average person to protect themselves from those crazy people. That is not the way to address this issue.

What if I just want to prevent another Newtown? I'm not jaded enough to think this is a catch-all.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Maybe not Obama, but how can you be certain this will never happen?

One can never truly be 100% certain if we're being perfectly honest. But there are two factors that weigh heavily on this issue to me:

A. The Second Amendment

B. There are too many guns and no reasonable logistical possibility of ever confiscating all of them.

I'm not a gun owner, but I am of the opinion that the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" has been over blown. It's actually a bit suspicious IMO. If you are truly honest with yourself, ARs are not being used to commit mass amounts of crimes. Stats show this and there is no denying it.

I haven't made such a statement. I think it's widely known and understood that handguns are used in the majority of these cases.

More people are killed every year by handguns in Chicago than killed by rifles (not just ARs, rifles of any type) in the entire country. What's more, nearly every single person committing these mass murders have/had some mental illness. Why do we disregard what seems to clearly be the root cause?

I haven't. Mental health evaluations are a key part of the reasonable legislation I'd personally like to see in my lifetime.

Why should we infringe on the rights of the overwhelmingly majority (which is millions of Americans) to protect themselves because a few mentally unstable persons crack and commit a crime?

The same reason background checks are currently implemented. We currently check to make sure you're not a felon and haven't forfeited your right to own a firearm. Why is a cursory check on your sanity so far-fetched?

Now, I'm with you, what happened in Newtown (and other places) was tragic. I just need to know why it is justifiable to tell millions of Americans they can no longer choose to protect themselves in the manner they feel necessary solely because a few mentally unstable individuals commit crimes with the tool that makes them feel secure or has saved their lives. I know some of you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that when a person sets out to kill others they will do so by whatever means necessary. I understand your argument against that. If he can't pull the trigger 20 times in a row he can't kill as efficiently. That makes sense in theory, but it isn't reality.

I disagree. The fact that a person with an AR with a 30 round magazine can kill more efficiently than a person with, say, a Remington 870 in an open area is reality. That's not to say it doesn't depend on the situation. It does. I prefer a shotgun for home defense because:

A. That sound of the slide being pumped is unmistakable.

B. Better at those ranges

They Va Tech shooter was able to kill more people with two handguns than the Newtown shooter with an AR. Yes, he barricaded doors preventing people from escaping, but doesn't that enforce my position that if someone wants to kill, they will find a way to kill as many as possible with whatever tool at his disposal regardless of the tool?

Imagine if Cho Seung Hui had used a rifle with extended magazines in that situation. A long hallway with no exits. I believe there would have been more casualties.

Gun laws in the UK are extremely strict. Murders are all too common, though. If England was a US state, they would place 15th in murders. Scotland would place 9th. They aren't committed with guns, but they are still committed. That should tell you. Take away guns from crazy people will not stop them from killing. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average person to protect themselves from those crazy people. That is not the way to address this issue.

What if I just want to prevent another Newtown? I'm not jaded enough to think this is a catch-all.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. A lot of what I said draws from other proponents of stricter gun control, not necessarily you.

I really understand your POV, I'm just not willing to adopt them because of a lot of "what ifs." What ifs don't reflect what is.

I would be more interested in this what if.. quicker/more effective diagnosis/treatment of the mentally ill. That would be a more effective way to prevent another Newtown.

[selias 2,398]

I disagree. The fact that a person with an AR with a 30 round magazine can kill more efficiently than a person with, say, a Remington 870 in an open area is reality. That's not to say it doesn't depend on the situation. It does. I prefer a shotgun for home defense because:

A. That sound of the slide being pumped is unmistakable.

B. Better at those ranges

Imagine if Cho Seung Hui had used a rifle with extended magazines in that situation. A long hallway with no exits. I believe there would have been more casualties.

Home defense: Why would you rack the slide and remove your element of surprise. Racking the slide removes one of the advantages you have against an intruder. In a home defense situation, you have 2 distinct advantages: surprise and knowledge of the battlefield. Racking a shotgun eliminates your element of surprise.

Cho Seung Hui used handguns. Have you handled a pistol with an extended magazine? They tend to be very awkward to handle.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Boys,

You better stockpile your ammo and guns while you can.. Obama is doing everything he can to make us a defenseless society..

I don't know much, but I know that this will never happen.

Maybe not Obama, but how can you be certain this will never happen?

I'm not a gun owner, but I am of the opinion that the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" has been over blown. It's actually a bit suspicious IMO. If you are truly honest with yourself, ARs are not being used to commit mass amounts of crimes. Stats show this and there is no denying it. More people are killed every year by handguns in Chicago than killed by rifles (not just ARs, rifles of any type) in the entire country. What's more, nearly every single person committing these mass murders have/had some mental illness. Why do we disregard what seems to clearly be the root cause? Why should we infringe on the rights of the overwhelmingly majority (which is millions of Americans) to protect themselves because a few mentally unstable persons crack and commit a crime? Now, I'm with you, what happened in Newtown (and other places) was tragic. I just need to know why it is justifiable to tell millions of Americans they can no longer choose to protect themselves in the manner they feel necessary solely because a few mentally unstable individuals commit crimes with the tool that makes them feel secure or has saved their lives. I know some of you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that when a person sets out to kill others they will do so by whatever means necessary. I understand your argument against that. If he can't pull the trigger 20 times in a row he can't kill as efficiently. That makes sense in theory, but it isn't reality. They Va Tech shooter was able to kill more people with two handguns than the Newtown shooter with an AR. Yes, he barricaded doors preventing people from escaping, but doesn't that enforce my position that if someone wants to kill, they will find a way to kill as many as possible with whatever tool at his disposal regardless of the tool? Gun laws in the UK are extremely strict. Murders are all too common, though. If England was a US state, they would place 15th in murders. Scotland would place 9th. They aren't committed with guns, but they are still committed. That should tell you. Take away guns from crazy people will not stop them from killing. It will, however, make it more difficult for the average person to protect themselves from those crazy people. That is not the way to address this issue.

It could happen.. Problem is, if people keep crying wolf just to play politics, when it really is does happen, there maybe no one left willing to listen.

[AUDub 11,147]

Home defense: Why would you rack the slide and remove your element of surprise. Racking the slide removes one of the advantages you have against an intruder. In a home defense situation, you have 2 distinct advantages: surprise and knowledge of the battlefield. Racking a shotgun eliminates your element of surprise.

Because I'm not looking to get in to a shoot-out or kill some moron breaking in to my home in the wee hours of the morning. Racking the slide serves a very important purpose. It tells them "I KNOW YOU'RE HERE, AND I'M READY."

Most thieves tend to be cowardly. They'll book it.

Hell, all my lights are automated to boot. Try breaking in to my home when all of the lights start blinking.

[selias 2,398]

Home defense: Why would you rack the slide and remove your element of surprise. Racking the slide removes one of the advantages you have against an intruder. In a home defense situation, you have 2 distinct advantages: surprise and knowledge of the battlefield. Racking a shotgun eliminates your element of surprise.

Because I'm not looking to get in to a shoot-out or kill some moron breaking in to my home in the wee hours of the morning. Racking the slide serves a very important purpose. It tells them "I KNOW YOU'RE HERE, AND I'M READY."

Most thieves tend to be cowardly. They'll book it.

Hell, all my lights are automated to boot. Try breaking in to my home when all of the lights start blinking.

Break into my house and I hope you're prepared to meet your maker.

[AUDub 11,147]

Break into my house and I hope you're prepared to meet your maker.

I used to think like that. I have no right to tell you what to do on your property, but I'm going to make every effort to avoid killing the poor fool.

[autigeremt 6,609]

Break into my house and I hope you're prepared to meet your maker.

I used to think like that. I have no right to tell you what to do on your property, but I'm going to make every effort to avoid killing the poor fool.

The fool made the choice to put his/her life in their own hands when they crossed the threshold. How I determine what happens next could easily save the lives of my kids and wife. If they can't see their life as worthy of living as I do of my own, they deserve what happens next. Your choice, though.

[AUDub 11,147]

The fool made the choice to put his/her life in their own hands when they crossed the threshold. How I determine what happens next could easily save the lives of my kids and wife. If they can't see their life as worthy of living as I do of my own, they deserve what happens next. Your choice, though.

Don't doubt for a second that if it comes down to him or me, it's gonna be him. I have an acquaintance injured in a case of mistaken identity. I take every precaution.

[alexava 6,973]

I am loaded and ready for an intruder,but cant say exactly what i would do if the situation presents itself. I knew a person who has shot an intruder and he said it would have been much better on him and his family if he just scared the guy off. I like to think i would only kill if i feared for my or mines life. I dont really think about it much even though it happens pretty often in our community.

[alexava 6,973]

With all that said, even if i had an assault weapon and yes i would actually like to have one, it would not be my choice for home defense. They are OFFENSIVE guns. This is why i am for banning them. I cant see a logical use, other than hog hunting. I do hunt. I like guns have several, and don't feel the least bit threatened by any of the proposed control measures. Im also aware that we will not fix all gun crimes and the parts we can fix will take time. I just dont get the people that say we have to accept it as a constitutional right that we can be mown down when we least expect it, by a stranger with a military setup.

[homersapien 11,371]

Home defense: Why would you rack the slide and remove your element of surprise. Racking the slide removes one of the advantages you have against an intruder. In a home defense situation, you have 2 distinct advantages: surprise and knowledge of the battlefield. Racking a shotgun eliminates your element of surprise.

Because I'm not looking to get in to a shoot-out or kill some moron breaking in to my home in the wee hours of the morning. Racking the slide serves a very important purpose. It tells them "I KNOW YOU'RE HERE, AND I'M READY."

Most thieves tend to be cowardly. They'll book it.

Hell, all my lights are automated to boot. Try breaking in to my home when all of the lights start blinking.

Break into my house and I hope you're prepared to meet your maker.

I suggest you search "mistaken home intruder shooting" before you are actually presented with such a scenario. It might at least make you a little more cautious.