Adam Lanza's Attack Took Less Than 5 Minutes

[buckeye45_73]

I haven't done any research on this but don't most mass-shooters end up dying anyway?
They must know that when they start - especially as many of them shoot themselves.
So why would they be afraid of other people with guns?

A couple of reasons, the main being they want to kill as many people as possible, easier to do that when noone is shooting back. Why do they want to kill, why does anyone want to kill? But it's almost like natural born killers nowadays with the fame and all. An the guy in CT is going to jail....great idea...now for the next 50+ years the families get to hear about it and I'm sure his legal teams will be in the news...Just kill him and get closure.


You're right, any laws must be carefully considered.

o

A couple of reasons, the main being they want to kill as many people as possible

Yep, and that's much easier with a weapon capable of rapid fire.

But not as easy if people are armed as much as you...back to the gun show, noone robs those or tries shit...because they know better...they pick on schools, universities, theatres, basically anywhere guns are banned.

 

[idb]

o

A couple of reasons, the main being they want to kill as many people as possible

Yep, and that's much easier with a weapon capable of rapid fire.

But not as easy if people are armed as much as you...back to the gun show, noone robs those or tries shit...because they know better...they pick on schools, universities, theatres, basically anywhere guns are banned.

You're right of course, but the carnage isn't as potentially great if the bad guy has to re-load every 6 shots.

One question that I have though, is it really so dangerous in the US that everyone feels the need to be armed everywhere they go?
Sure, the big atrocities attract a lot attention but what are the odds really that if you go to the shops you will find yourself in the middle of a shooting?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But that's the point, you don't have to be so effective when you have more rounds and more rapid action.
How many shots did Lanza miss with?
Could he have caused the carnage he did with a six or eight shot revolver?

Wrong again. Do you know how to clear a jammed semi automatic pistol?
Their are several reason why one would jam some are mechanical and some are because of an inexperienced shooter such as limp wristing

So what?
Do they always jam?
Do they jam after every 200 rounds, 100, 50....?

Do you have to be an expert mechanic or driver to drive a Porsche 911 faster than a Corolla?
After all, a Porsche is a lot more temperamental to drive and maintain than a Corolla and needs an expert to get the best out of it.
But I bet that even an average or inexperienced driver can get from A to B faster in the Porsche than the Corolla.
Fair enough, sometimes the Porsche will break down but mostly it will work fine.

So what?
Do they always jam?
Do they jam after every 200 rounds, 100, 50....?

So what? It depends and it depends
However with an inexperienced shooter chances of a jam go up

Do you have to be an expert mechanic or driver to drive a Porsche 911 faster than a Corolla?
After all, a Porsche is a lot more temperamental to drive and maintain than a Corolla and needs an expert to get the best out of it.
But I bet that even an average or inexperienced driver can get from A to B faster in the Porsche than the Corolla.
Fair enough, sometimes the Porsche will break down but mostly it will work fine.

No but if you're broke down on the side of the road it would be nice to be able to fix the brakeage so you can be on your way.

Now that you strayed away from your first point I'll say it one more time to remind you. Shooting with a semi automatic is not that simple with an inexperienced shooter therefore weapon of choice would be a revolver.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Investigators: Adam Lanza surrounded by weapons at home; attack took less than 5 minutes

Adam Lanza left a home stuffed with weaponry and carried out the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in a 154-bullet barrage that took less than five minutes, investigators said Thursday in the first detailed account of his surroundings and troubled state of mind.

Authorities also recovered a certificate in Lanza’s name from the National Rifle Association, seven of his journals, drawings that he made and books from the house, including books on living with mental illness.

At the school, Lanza fired the 154 rounds from a Bushmaster .223-model rifle and the final bullet from a Glock 10mm handgun to take his own life, said Stephen Sedensky, the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting. Police recovered 10 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster that Lanza took to the school. Three of the magazines had a full 30 rounds still in them.

Among school shootings in the United States, the death toll from Newtown is second only to the 32 people killed at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Do any of you gun supporters see anything upsetting about this??? People like this Adam Lanza have to be stopped.

Investigators: Adam Lanza surrounded by weapons at home; attack took less than 5 minutes - Open Channel

Yes. I'm very upset that liberals have successfully stifled the rights of citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. They have effectively stifled armed guards and administrators. And the Adam Lanzas of the world feel like it's open season.

Oh was I supposed to feel bad, you say? Do you feel bad? I somehow doubt it. You just want the nice ole government and criminals to carry guns like it has been.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're right...he certainly showed me.
And just to rub my nose in it further he'll be able link to all the mass shootings that were prevented where assault weapons were allowed.

You're wanting me to produce a link for an argument that I haven't made? Really?

Oh, so now your argument is that access to firearms doesn't prevent killings?
Isn't that one of the central planks of the pro-gun lobby?
After all "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

It is one of the contentions but its validity is meaningless. The gun control advocates want to limit a right and therefore need to show that such a move would have positive outcomes. Considering the vast array and type of gun control laws that have been passed, that information should be out there. It usually is not presented because it DOES NOT support gun control. Gun control measures fail to cause any positive results.

EXACTLY!!!!
Now you're getting it.

No I'm not getting it. No assault weapons ban stopped any mass shootings.
You would have an argument if their were no mass shooting during Clinton's assault weapons ban. But since we have a numerous mass shooting during that time you failed.

So you would agree to drink-driving laws being repealed, or anti-drug laws, or laws against burglary, murder, mail theft, jay walking, animal abuse.....?

You are misinterpreting the tangent here. Essentially, making the gun illegal is irrelevant to those that have decided to ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by murder. IT would be akin to making possession of keys illegal while drunk as well as drunk driving. Would that prevent drunk drivers? No, of course not because a drunk driver has ALREADY decided to break the law, an additional law is not going to change that.

But not by your average bozo remember?
In fact you admitted that even you, with your undoubted skill can't match that.
Further, could he maintain that speed for thirty rounds or more?

It all depends on the person the weapon is irrelevant
The cry right now from the anti gunners is to ban the semi automatic rifle. Could anyone maintain that speed. how many loaded revolvers can one person carry with speed loaders to match?

You're right to a degree.
But the problem is the ease of access to a weapon with a rapid sustained rate of fire to someone less skilled than yourself.
Take away easy access to semi-automatics and the average unskilled wannabe killer will have much less firepower.
I believe that's a large part of the discussion.

I disagree with that supposition. Everyone wants to focus on the fact that 150 rounds were fired in rapid succession. There were 26 deaths. That means only 26 bullets were actually needed. He could have done the same amount of horror with FAR less bullets. A rapid fire weapons is just a weapon that misses a LOT. A few revolvers with rapid loaders would have been just as effective – particularly if they were large caliber weapons.

Really, the handguns that he had brought with him were BETTER suited for the killing that he did than the AR. The AR is for range, not what he was doing.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You're wanting me to produce a link for an argument that I haven't made? Really?

Oh, so now your argument is that access to firearms doesn't prevent killings?
Isn't that one of the central planks of the pro-gun lobby?
After all "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

It is one of the contentions but its validity is meaningless. The gun control advocates want to limit a right and therefore need to show that such a move would have positive outcomes. Considering the vast array and type of gun control laws that have been passed, that information should be out there. It usually is not presented because it DOES NOT support gun control. Gun control measures fail to cause any positive results.

You are misinterpreting the tangent here. Essentially, making the gun illegal is irrelevant to those that have decided to ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by murder. IT would be akin to making possession of keys illegal while drunk as well as drunk driving. Would that prevent drunk drivers? No, of course not because a drunk driver has ALREADY decided to break the law, an additional law is not going to change that.

It all depends on the person the weapon is irrelevant
The cry right now from the anti gunners is to ban the semi automatic rifle. Could anyone maintain that speed. how many loaded revolvers can one person carry with speed loaders to match?

You're right to a degree.
But the problem is the ease of access to a weapon with a rapid sustained rate of fire to someone less skilled than yourself.
Take away easy access to semi-automatics and the average unskilled wannabe killer will have much less firepower.
I believe that's a large part of the discussion.

I disagree with that supposition. Everyone wants to focus on the fact that 150 rounds were fired in rapid succession. There were 26 deaths. That means only 26 bullets were actually needed. He could have done the same amount of horror with FAR less bullets. A rapid fire weapons is just a weapon that misses a LOT. A few revolvers with rapid loaders would have been just as effective – particularly if they were large caliber weapons.

Really, the handguns that he had brought with him were BETTER suited for the killing that he did than the AR. The AR is for range, not what he was doing.

true however you are not going t convince those

who do not know about firearms

that in certain situations a larger caliber pistol

if often more deadly

 

[idb]

You're wanting me to produce a link for an argument that I haven't made? Really?

Oh, so now your argument is that access to firearms doesn't prevent killings?
Isn't that one of the central planks of the pro-gun lobby?
After all "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

It is one of the contentions but its validity is meaningless. The gun control advocates want to limit a right and therefore need to show that such a move would have positive outcomes. Considering the vast array and type of gun control laws that have been passed, that information should be out there. It usually is not presented because it DOES NOT support gun control. Gun control measures fail to cause any positive results.

You are misinterpreting the tangent here. Essentially, making the gun illegal is irrelevant to those that have decided to ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by murder. IT would be akin to making possession of keys illegal while drunk as well as drunk driving. Would that prevent drunk drivers? No, of course not because a drunk driver has ALREADY decided to break the law, an additional law is not going to change that.

It all depends on the person the weapon is irrelevant
The cry right now from the anti gunners is to ban the semi automatic rifle. Could anyone maintain that speed. how many loaded revolvers can one person carry with speed loaders to match?

You're right to a degree.
But the problem is the ease of access to a weapon with a rapid sustained rate of fire to someone less skilled than yourself.
Take away easy access to semi-automatics and the average unskilled wannabe killer will have much less firepower.
I believe that's a large part of the discussion.

I disagree with that supposition. Everyone wants to focus on the fact that 150 rounds were fired in rapid succession. There were 26 deaths. That means only 26 bullets were actually needed. He could have done the same amount of horror with FAR less bullets. A rapid fire weapons is just a weapon that misses a LOT. A few revolvers with rapid loaders would have been just as effective – particularly if they were large caliber weapons.

Really, the handguns that he had brought with him were BETTER suited for the killing that he did than the AR. The AR is for range, not what he was doing.

I'll accept that a revolver might be more efficient in the hands of an expert marksman but I'm sure that most of these nutters aren't expert marksmen.

Straight off the shelf a semi-auto with a rapid rate of fire and a large magazine can make up for the shortcomings of the shooter by giving him the luxury of using several rounds to do what an expert might achieve in one.
You're suggesting that a revolver is more efficient, but a high capacity AR means that efficiency isn't important when you can loose off multiple rounds without having to aim or reload.

A non-expert with a six shot limit, between having to aim and reload, would have greater difficulty causing so much carnage in such a short time - quite apart from the brief respite in the shooting while the non-expert reloads which might allow some people to escape or attack him.

 

[idb]

Oh, so now your argument is that access to firearms doesn't prevent killings?
Isn't that one of the central planks of the pro-gun lobby?
After all "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

It is one of the contentions but its validity is meaningless. The gun control advocates want to limit a right and therefore need to show that such a move would have positive outcomes. Considering the vast array and type of gun control laws that have been passed, that information should be out there. It usually is not presented because it DOES NOT support gun control. Gun control measures fail to cause any positive results.

You are misinterpreting the tangent here. Essentially, making the gun illegal is irrelevant to those that have decided to ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by murder. IT would be akin to making possession of keys illegal while drunk as well as drunk driving. Would that prevent drunk drivers? No, of course not because a drunk driver has ALREADY decided to break the law, an additional law is not going to change that.

You're right to a degree.
But the problem is the ease of access to a weapon with a rapid sustained rate of fire to someone less skilled than yourself.
Take away easy access to semi-automatics and the average unskilled wannabe killer will have much less firepower.
I believe that's a large part of the discussion.

I disagree with that supposition. Everyone wants to focus on the fact that 150 rounds were fired in rapid succession. There were 26 deaths. That means only 26 bullets were actually needed. He could have done the same amount of horror with FAR less bullets. A rapid fire weapons is just a weapon that misses a LOT. A few revolvers with rapid loaders would have been just as effective – particularly if they were large caliber weapons.

Really, the handguns that he had brought with him were BETTER suited for the killing that he did than the AR. The AR is for range, not what he was doing.

true however you are not going t convince those

who do not know about firearms

that in certain situations a larger caliber pistol

if often more deadly

I'm sure that you're right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, so now your argument is that access to firearms doesn't prevent killings?
Isn't that one of the central planks of the pro-gun lobby?
After all "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

It is one of the contentions but its validity is meaningless. The gun control advocates want to limit a right and therefore need to show that such a move would have positive outcomes. Considering the vast array and type of gun control laws that have been passed, that information should be out there. It usually is not presented because it DOES NOT support gun control. Gun control measures fail to cause any positive results.

You are misinterpreting the tangent here. Essentially, making the gun illegal is irrelevant to those that have decided to ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by murder. IT would be akin to making possession of keys illegal while drunk as well as drunk driving. Would that prevent drunk drivers? No, of course not because a drunk driver has ALREADY decided to break the law, an additional law is not going to change that.

You're right to a degree.
But the problem is the ease of access to a weapon with a rapid sustained rate of fire to someone less skilled than yourself.
Take away easy access to semi-automatics and the average unskilled wannabe killer will have much less firepower.
I believe that's a large part of the discussion.

I disagree with that supposition. Everyone wants to focus on the fact that 150 rounds were fired in rapid succession. There were 26 deaths. That means only 26 bullets were actually needed. He could have done the same amount of horror with FAR less bullets. A rapid fire weapons is just a weapon that misses a LOT. A few revolvers with rapid loaders would have been just as effective – particularly if they were large caliber weapons.

Really, the handguns that he had brought with him were BETTER suited for the killing that he did than the AR. The AR is for range, not what he was doing.

I'll accept that a revolver might be more efficient in the hands of an expert marksman but I'm sure that most of these nutters aren't expert marksmen.

Straight off the shelf a semi-auto with a rapid rate of fire and a large magazine can make up for the shortcomings of the shooter by giving him the luxury of using several rounds to do what an expert might achieve in one.
You're suggesting that a revolver is more efficient, but a high capacity AR means that efficiency isn't important when you can loose off multiple rounds without having to aim or reload.

A non-expert with a six shot limit, between having to aim and reload, would have greater difficulty causing so much carnage in such a short time - quite apart from the brief respite in the shooting while the non-expert reloads which might allow some people to escape or attack him.

Dude are you back with that? I have explained it too you way to many times. Shooting a semi automatic pistol is a lot harder to shoot for an inexperienced person than shooting a revolver
Jamming and knowing how to clear a jam and shooter's fault lip wristing