Adam Lanza's Attack Took Less Than 5 Minutes

[DiamondDave]

Little racist lemming obamabot does that a lot when faced with logic and fact

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I find it extremely unlikely that this kid managed to discharge 154 rounds in less than five minutes with the supposed accuracy of hitting his targets. Anyone who has firearm experience should question this too.. That's 5+ magazines in less than five minutes. Anyone else see the problem there?

 

[eflatminor]

attack took less than 5 minutes

Once again, proof positive that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.



Children killed by lunatic in a gun free zone? Yes, it is clearly upsetting.

People like this Adam Lanza have to be stopped.

More gun free zones? Pass.

Whatever you do, don't offer any solutions. Just make sarcastic remarks. You're just another typical right winger. I used to think you could be kind of reasonable. Silly me.

Solutions? No problem. If you want to decrease the right of violent crime, lengthen the sentences for criminals and put more cops on the street. If you want to stop lunatics before they blow up a building, make it easier to commit unstable people. That's about the best you can do.

What is NOT a solution is imposing rules and bans that will only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that couldn't care less about rules.

I retain hope that you can be reasonable. We'll see.

 

[earlycuyler]

I find it extremely unlikely that this kid managed to discharge 154 rounds in less than five minutes with the supposed accuracy of hitting his targets. Anyone who has firearm experience should question this too.. That's 5+ magazines in less than five minutes. Anyone else see the problem there?

Not really. His victims were easy targets. Thats why he chose them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I find it extremely unlikely that this kid managed to discharge 154 rounds in less than five minutes with the supposed accuracy of hitting his targets. Anyone who has firearm experience should question this too.. That's 5+ magazines in less than five minutes. Anyone else see the problem there?

Not really. His victims were easy targets. Thats why he chose them.

Wouldn't a full grown adult be a bigger target?

 

[koshergrl]

That and the fact that he knew they were completely unguarded, and he could kill a lot before anyone showed up to take him out.

 

[DiamondDave]

Once again, proof positive that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.



Children killed by lunatic in a gun free zone? Yes, it is clearly upsetting.



More gun free zones? Pass.

Whatever you do, don't offer any solutions. Just make sarcastic remarks. You're just another typical right winger. I used to think you could be kind of reasonable. Silly me.

Solutions? No problem. If you want to decrease the right of violent crime, lengthen the sentences for criminals and put more cops on the street. If you want to stop lunatics before they blow up a building, make it easier to commit unstable people. That's about the best you can do.

What is NOT a solution is imposing rules and bans that will only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that couldn't care less about rules.

I retain hope that you can be reasonable. We'll see.

These scared lemmings just do not get it, elf... I never stop shaking my head when I see that crap from there brainwashed progressives

 

[Darkwind]

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

the article comes from nbc

with the history of doctoring the news

i will wait to see how this plays out

the nra says they dont have any such records

NBC doesn't have a history of "doctoring" the News. Far from it.

And the NRA has a history of having crazies at it's helm.

NBC certainly does, and the NRA are a citizen rights advocacy group. Like the NAACP.

Only with better arguments. The problem is, they are not effective on crazy people, hence your response.

I would like to know WHAT law would have prevented this from happening that does not violate the rights of the innocent.

I'll not wait up.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That gun has a kick to it. It's not a recoiless firearm. I know from experience. In order to shoot accurately, one would need to fire in two or three round burst, or once every two seconds. What the investigators report is essentially saying, is that Lanza was not only an experienced firearms handler, but a professional. That means he was able to discharge 30 rounds accurately and change the magazine all within less than one minute. Emptying more than 5 magazines, then pulled out a gloch and turned it on himself....all within less than 5 minutes?

Yeah, I'm not buying that. If he pulled the trigger over and over again the kick would have had him flopping that gun around like a fish out of water. It takes controlled burst to keep accuracy under that condition. Did he have 5 magazines ganged together? Did he have them in his pockets?


It's not adding up, sorry.

 

[FA_Q2]

[This is pretzel logic though.

The fact that he had a NRA card is completely meaningless. The NRA itself is equally meaningless in this debate. They have nothing to do with the validity of gun legislation. It is easier to make a boogeyman out of the NRA – the vile ‘big man’ getting children killed to make more money but it is utter bullshit. It has nothing to do with actual gun legislation itself.

The gun control crowd uses it anyway though because the argument for gun control is a failed one. There is almost no collaborating evidence to show that gun control works. I have posted the facts here dozens of times – increased gun control laws DO NOT save lives. It is a fact. It has been shown in various capacities throughout the world from country bans to state bans to city bans. Such laws have failed to present any real supporting data that gun legislation works

As there is no real argument, you have to resort to boogeymen that have nothing to do with the real issue: will gun legislation save lives. Sorry but the answer is no!

People get killed by drunk drivers every day. Children get molested every day. Homes get burglarized every day.

Is that a case for not having laws against drunk driving? No laws against child molesting? No laws against stealing?

When did the argument that unless a law can eliminate all crime it targets then it should not be on the books become a rational argument?

That argument came out of your head because NO ONE here has advocated that. Now, go back and read what I wrote.


Such laws have failed to present any real supporting data that gun legislation works

Essentially, gun laws do not reduce the number of people that are killed. They do not cause ANY reductions and have zero positive outcomes. IF drunk driving laws resulted in the same number of people being run over/killed in accidents as without those laws then you are damn right they should not be on the books – it would be ineffective. However, if that law causes a 20% reduction in the number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents then there is a good damn reason for the law to exist. Gun legislation has been shown to be completely ineffective.

When did the argument that a law that not preventing any crime or deaths is a good law become a rational argument? That is what you are advocating – even though this law does nothing, restricts law abiding citizens of their rights and saves no lives; we should pass it anyway so you feel better about doing SOMETHING no matter how bad. It is sad.

 

[FA_Q2]

That gun has a kick to it. It's not a recoiless firearm. I know from experience. In order to shoot accurately, one would need to fire in two or three round burst, or once every two seconds. What the investigators report is essentially saying, is that Lanza was not only an experienced firearms handler, but a professional. That means he was able to discharge 30 rounds accurately and change the magazine all within less than one minute. Emptying more than 5 magazines, then pulled out a gloch and turned it on himself....all within less than 5 minutes?

Yeah, I'm not buying that. If he pulled the trigger over and over again the kick would have had him flopping that gun around like a fish out of water. It takes controlled burst to keep accuracy under that condition. Did he have 5 magazines ganged together? Did he have them in his pockets?


It's not adding up, sorry.

You are incorrect because you have left out one vital variable: distance.

With a target at or less than 20 feet, I can reliably land 100% of my shots firing 3 round bursts with less than a second between the trigger pulls and I am not that great of a shot or well versed in firing my weapon.

He was inside a school – essentially within knifing range of most of his targets. Not only that, he killed 26 people with over 150 rounds. It only takes one round to kill so that is a LOT of rounds that did not have to hit (he could have missed 80% and still done the damage that he did) Further, firing on an area target is far easier than a point target and we are talking about a bunch of kids that likely were somewhat together. He didn’t even need to hit the target he was aiming at to kill someone.

He picked his venue specifically because of this – easy targets that do not know how to react all contained in a small room.

There is a dark corner of hell reserved for people just like this.

 

[Truthmatters]

and they will include the people who are lying about this crime not being real

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So I ask again, did he gang his magazines? Because even if we go by your assessment, he still had to stop and reload the weapon. And the only way this timing adds up, being that the investigators report is claiming less than 5 minutes to enter the school, carry out the spree, and then pull out a separate friearm adn turn it on himself means the kid was an expert. A true professional. Calmed breathing, smooth reload actions, firing at a rate of about 2 bulets per second. No noise irritation. No barrel smoke to wade through, etc...

It's not adding up, sorry.

I've fired plenty of .223 arms very much like the bushmaster, and in tight quarters, the only thing that would make this add up is if the guy wa special forces trained. Nothing slowed him down, nothing caused him even one second of hesitation. At that rate and with the above variables in mind, he was one expert gunman for a deranged, lanky 20 yr old with mental problems.

 

[FA_Q2]

and they will include the people who are lying about this crime not being real

I’ll have to give you that. I head one just the other day – a person that I work with – that claims it is a fiction. I cannot fathom how anyone could be that insanely stupid not to mention the great crime they are committing against those young children’s memories. It is despicable that anyone can wrap their mind in such a logical black hole as to actually believe that it is staged.

 

[kwc57]

Amazing that the same people who would remove our constitutional right to firearms in an effort to stop insane people who would murder children are the same people who support PP's desire to murder children thru live birth abortion.

You can't make this kind of shit up.

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

"Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor........."

 

[M14 Shooter]

When did the argument that a law that not preventing any crime or deaths is a good law become a rational argument? That is what you are advocating – even though this law does nothing, restricts law abiding citizens of their rights and saves no lives; we should pass it anyway so you feel better about doing SOMETHING no matter how bad. It is sad.

Laws against murder, theft, assault, rape, etc, were not put in place to prevent these crimes, but to punish those that commit said crimes. Laws against felons, etc, owning guns were were not put in place to prevent felons from owning guns, but to punish those that do.

It is utterly inane to try to create a law intended to prevent people from breaking the law.

 

[FA_Q2]

When did the argument that a law that not preventing any crime or deaths is a good law become a rational argument? That is what you are advocating – even though this law does nothing, restricts law abiding citizens of their rights and saves no lives; we should pass it anyway so you feel better about doing SOMETHING no matter how bad. It is sad.

Laws against murder, theft, assault, rape, etc, were not put in place to prevent these crimes, but to punish those that commit said crimes. Laws against felons, etc, owning guns were were not put in place to prevent felons from owning guns, but to punish those that do.

It is utterly inane to try to create a law intended to prevent people from breaking the law.

Sure they were. What a silly thing to claim.

Laws against murder do, in fact, prevent murders. It does this in 3 ways:

First, it is a deterrent. There would certainly be more murders if such a thing were perfectly legal and the one doing the killing were completely insulated from any repercussions. That is just common sense. Of course there are still people that will murder but then the second way the law prevents murders kicks in:

Murderers are not on the streets. There are certainly fewer murders because after you are caught, they lock your ass up where you cannot murder anymore. Well, maybe you can but then you are just going to kill other murderers and we are simply not going to make that comparison. It is safe to say that because people that are killers are locked up, there are fewer innocent people being killed.

Lastly, and the least effect, murders are prevented when the would be murderer is caught before the act. It does not happen often but every now and then someone is caught in the planning stage and put in jail before the attempted crime.


How can you say that these laws do not stop crimes – they CLEARLY stop crimes? That is their ENTIRE purpose for if no crimes were prevented, what the hell would the point be? Retribution? That is asinine.
Gun control is a different story though because owning or having the gun is not harming anyone, it is putting it to use that is the problem. In that case, there are a thousand weapons that can be used, many of them far more effective than a gun. Further, that weapon is a good thing in the hands of the person that needs to defend themselves.

It is a fallacy to demand that laws do not stop crimes in order to justify the statement that gun laws would not stop crimes. That leap is not required. Simply put, a person that is willing to break the law and murder (essentially, he has already passed the first ability for law to stop the crime: deterrent) is not going to be deterred by the ‘extra’ law against his gun. That law is irrelevant; he has already chosen to commit one of the worst crimes in the law. Those of us that advocate against gun control realize that the only deterrent at this point is the deterrent for the victim to be capable of defending themselves because they are not going to break the law.

 

[koshergrl]

Those laws don't stop these kinds of crimes. They don't even put a dent in them.

You advertise the vulnerability of children in "gun free zones" aka "schools" is like ringing the dinner bell for all the nutjobs in the world. They will flock to mow down our children...and in fact, they already are.

And the progressives will never do a thing to protect children. That's just not who they are. Children are a commodity to them, and right now, they labor under the misapprehension that there are too many, anyway. So you will never find them supporting any legislation regarding chldren safety/rights unless it is legislation that VIOLATES the rights of children to be protected, and unless it will REDUCE the number of children.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When did the argument that a law that not preventing any crime or deaths is a good law become a rational argument? That is what you are advocating – even though this law does nothing, restricts law abiding citizens of their rights and saves no lives; we should pass it anyway so you feel better about doing SOMETHING no matter how bad. It is sad.

Laws against murder, theft, assault, rape, etc, were not put in place to prevent these crimes, but to punish those that commit said crimes. Laws against felons, etc, owning guns were were not put in place to prevent felons from owning guns, but to punish those that do.

It is utterly inane to try to create a law intended to prevent people from breaking the law.

Laws against murder do, in fact, prevent murders.

No... they do not, indeed, they can not, prevent me from shooting the guy in the next office.
They -unquestionably- exist to punish me, should I do so.

First, it is a deterrent.

Some people may decide not not commit murder because they go to jail; clearly, the threat of going to jail does not -prevent- murder as people still commit it.

Murderers are not on the streets... It is safe to say that because people that are killers are locked up, there are fewer innocent people being killed.

This is true, but this is a function of being locked up after the comission of a crime, not a function of the law against murder -- the incarceration prevents murder, not the law against it. In any event, this supports the idea that the law is intended as a means thru which to punish people for an act, not preventing the act itself.

Lastly, and the least effect, murders are prevented when the would be murderer is caught before the act. It does not happen often but every now and then someone is caught in the planning stage and put in jail before the attempted crime.

You're taling about conspiracy, attempted murder, etc -- none of the laws -prevent- cinsoiracy, they allow for punishment after the fact. It might stop a murder before it happens, but only as a function of incarceration after breaking the laws againct conspiracy.

Gun control is a different story though because owning or having the gun is not harming anyone, it is putting it to use that is the problem. In that case, there are a thousand weapons that can be used, many of them far more effective than a gun. Further, that weapon is a good thing in the hands of the person that needs to defend themselves.

Certainly.

It is a fallacy to demand that laws do not stop crimes in order to justify the statement that gun laws would not stop crimes. That leap is not required.

The fallacy is that laws exist to prevent crime. They do not. They exist to punish them.

Simply put, a person that is willing to break the law and murder (essentially, he has already passed the first ability for law to stop the crime: deterrent) is not going to be deterred by the ‘extra’ law against his gun. That law is irrelevant; he has already chosen to commit one of the worst crimes in the law

So youagree - passing a law to prevent someone from breaking the law, as you argue, below, is indeed asinine.

Those of us that advocate against gun control realize that the only deterrent at this point is the deterrent for the victim to be capable of defending themselves because they are not going to break the law.

Certainly.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some people may decide not not commit murder because they go to jail; clearly, the threat of going to jail does not -prevent- murder as people still commit it.

Bullshit. It prevents murders. It does not prevent ALL murders. There is a HUGE difference. I can guarantee that if assault were legal, there would be some morons with a few less teeth that I have come across because they simply did not know where to draw the line.

Deciding not to commit a murder because the law = one murder prevented. Hence some are prevented.

Stop with the semantic bullshit – you are smarter than that.

I never claims ALL murders are stopped so – just that SOME are. Punishment is meaningless unless it has an effect. To think that laws exist as a function to punish is utterly asinine. I do not sit my child in time out because I need to punish him for his actions. I do it to CHANGE his actions. That is EXACTLY what laws – and their respective punishments – are there to accomplish. To say otherwise is being dense on the purpose of law in general.

As I said, if it prevented nothing then the punishment is not only ineffective but entirely pointless. We need not spend billions incarcerating people if there were no crimes prevented by doing so. The VAST majority of crimes simply are not committed through deterrent. The people that commit them anyway serve as a deterrent for the others and – hopefully – a time in prison will see them released with a different idea about crime or they never get released if the crime warrants that.

Really, if you thing that no crime is ever prevented by a law (deterrent or otherwise) what is the purpose of punishment? That is the ENTIRE reason that punishment exists – the change behavior.