Adam Lanza's Attack Took Less Than 5 Minutes

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, like when the gun nuts on this board were supporting NBC reporting that "there were no assault weapons found inside the school"? You jerks ate that up like Gospel.
Now NBC "doctors" the news......Ha.

An assault weapon is distinguished by its ability to switch from semi-automatic fire to rapid fire (burst or full auto). Lanza's firearms were semi auto only and therefore "there were no assault weapons found inside the school".

Sucks to be you I guess...

An odd (and desperate) revision for the crowd who kept insisting "there's no such thing as an assault weapon". Now all of a sudden there is. I can't keep up.

All of this is due to ignorance-based confusion within the media and among the anti-gun loons between 'assault weapons' and assult rifles.

 

[Mustang]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah, like when the gun nuts on this board were supporting NBC reporting that "there were no assault weapons found inside the school"? You jerks ate that up like Gospel.
Now NBC "doctors" the news......Ha.

An assault weapon is distinguished by its ability to switch from semi-automatic fire to rapid fire (burst or full auto). Lanza's firearms were semi auto only and therefore "there were no assault weapons found inside the school".

Sucks to be you I guess...

An odd (and desperate) revision for the crowd who kept insisting "there's no such thing as an assault weapon". Now all of a sudden there is. I can't keep up.

If you're talking to a group of people that says there's not such thing as an assault weapon, you're talking to a group of idiots. I've certainly NEVER suggested there is no such thing. One need only look at our own troops. The all have assault weapons.

So, no, not 'all of a sudden'. There have been such firearms for a very long time.

This does not change the fact that Lanza did NOT use an assault weapon. I don't know what to say if you can't keep up with that.

 

[eflatminor]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

Or he could have used a sword to SILENTLY kill every one of them. Or, one could use a blunderbuss which, at close range as in a classroom, can kill multiple people at once. They've been around since the 1600s.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

Ah... this nonsense again.

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...

 

[koshergrl]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

If the children had nobody to protect them, he could have killed just as many, it just would have taken a little longer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

If the children had nobody to protect them, he could have killed just as many, it just would have taken a little longer.

Probably not - he'd have shot one and clubbed the rest.

 

[Pogo]

An assault weapon is distinguished by its ability to switch from semi-automatic fire to rapid fire (burst or full auto). Lanza's firearms were semi auto only and therefore "there were no assault weapons found inside the school".

Sucks to be you I guess...

An odd (and desperate) revision for the crowd who kept insisting "there's no such thing as an assault weapon". Now all of a sudden there is. I can't keep up.

If you're talking to a group of people that says there's not such thing as an assault weapon, you're talking to a group of idiots. I've certainly NEVER suggested there is no such thing. One need only look at our own troops. The all have assault weapons.

So, no, not 'all of a sudden'. There have been such firearms for a very long time.

This does not change the fact that Lanza did NOT use an assault weapon. I don't know what to say if you can't keep up with that.

I really don't care about the semantics. Words are just words, and they evolve and devolve. I just find it interesting that one semantical position is taken to make a case for one "side", and then when convenient, that position is completely abandoned and redefined.

We were always at war with Oceania.

 

[bendog]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

Ah... this nonsense again.

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...

not exactly. Under Heller, we have an individual right to defend oursleves in our homes, and the govt may not disallow firearms commonly used to that end.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

Ah... this nonsense again.

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding...

not exactly. Under Heller, we have an individual right to defend oursleves in our homes, and the govt may not disallow firearms commonly used to that end.

I know.
My quote is from Heller, and disrectly debunks the nonsense offered by the poster I responded to.

 

[eflatminor]

An odd (and desperate) revision for the crowd who kept insisting "there's no such thing as an assault weapon". Now all of a sudden there is. I can't keep up.

If you're talking to a group of people that says there's not such thing as an assault weapon, you're talking to a group of idiots. I've certainly NEVER suggested there is no such thing. One need only look at our own troops. The all have assault weapons.

So, no, not 'all of a sudden'. There have been such firearms for a very long time.

This does not change the fact that Lanza did NOT use an assault weapon. I don't know what to say if you can't keep up with that.

I really don't care about the semantics. Words are just words, and they evolve and devolve.

That's fine. Just as long as the definition of words aren't changed willy nilly to suit an agenda. The definition for an assault weapon is very clear, as is the fact none were used in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, etc.

The North Hollywood shootout? Now those were assault weapons; fully automatic rifles.

I just find it interesting that one semantical position is taken to make a case for one "side", and then when convenient, that position is completely abandoned and redefined.

I suppose that is interesting but I've only seen such convenient semantical flip flopping among gun grabbers. I've never seen a 2nd amendment support redefining the long standing definition of an assault weapon to fit an agenda. Perhaps you have, but I have not, nor can I image what purpose that would serve a gun rights supporter like myself.

We were always at war with Oceania

? You got me there. I'm not familiar with this phrase. We're not really at war with Fiji and Micronesia are we?!

 

[CMike]

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

I do find it upsetting.

It's extremely unfortunate that there was nobody here with a gun to stop him.

 

[CMike]

thank god he didn't have a Military Assault rifle

the mad minute/final protective military rate of fire ( or in civilian terms- bezerk rate of fire) can be as high as 30 rds in 4 seconds, add another 4-5 seconds for a magazine swap, he could have tripled his rate of fire easily, barring mechanical failure....lets say 3 mags a minutes at 90 rds.....putting out over 450 rds or so ....

we have bullet buttons here in cali. making fast mag swaps impossible btw.

combining requiring a bullet button with a ban on large capacity magazines and i believe you have all the new regulation required - at least as far as hardware is concerned

You do know that magazines can be changed in a very short time?

 

[Pogo]

If you're talking to a group of people that says there's not such thing as an assault weapon, you're talking to a group of idiots. I've certainly NEVER suggested there is no such thing. One need only look at our own troops. The all have assault weapons.

So, no, not 'all of a sudden'. There have been such firearms for a very long time.

This does not change the fact that Lanza did NOT use an assault weapon. I don't know what to say if you can't keep up with that.

I really don't care about the semantics. Words are just words, and they evolve and devolve.

That's fine. Just as long as the definition of words aren't changed willy nilly to suit an agenda. The definition for an assault weapon is very clear, as is the fact none were used in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, etc.

The North Hollywood shootout? Now those were assault weapons; fully automatic rifles.

That (the bold) was my point. I don't really see why "this is an assault weapon, that isn't" matters. It has no bearing on how dead the victims are.

I just find it interesting that one semantical position is taken to make a case for one "side", and then when convenient, that position is completely abandoned and redefined.

I suppose that is interesting but I've only seen such convenient semantical flip flopping among gun grabbers. I've never seen a 2nd amendment support redefining the long standing definition of an assault weapon to fit an agenda. Perhaps you have, but I have not, nor can I image what purpose that would serve a gun rights supporter like myself.

It was running rampant here around January-February. Not really worth searching it, I assume most of us remember it. About the same time as all the denial that Lanza used the Bushmaster at all -- which was also interesting.

We were always at war with Oceania

? You got me there. I'm not familiar with this phrase. We're not really at war with Fiji and Micronesia are we?!

Sorry, it's from George Orwell's "1984". A reference to history revision. In the book the war adversary would change all the time and the history would change along with it in a denialist revision. Last week we were at war with Oceania; this week, it never happened.

I don't mean to pin this on you personally and I apologise for the broad brush, but I just find that "your side", for lack of a better term, shoots from opposite sides of the logical battlefield and expects the bullet-points to all land in the same place. It's amusing as a spectator sport. Imagine a football game where the goal you were defending was constantly switching

 

[CMike]

[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?

And we have laws against shooting people.

However, we don't try and ban cars because some drive drunk.

 

[Pogo]

I do find it upsetting.

It's extremely unfortunate that there was nobody here with a gun to stop him.

-- because the answer to one guy with a gun is ... another guy with a gun, right?


Goes right along with this:

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

If the children had nobody to protect them, he could have killed just as many, it just would have taken a little longer.

Both of these beg the question -- why should schoolchildren need someone to protect them?

I went through every day of every grade of school with no security guards, no armed teachers, no nuttin'. Nor did any situation ever come up that even hinted at such a need.

What changed?

There is our question.
Fuck the symptom. Let's address the disease.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I do find it upsetting.

It's extremely unfortunate that there was nobody here with a gun to stop him.

-- because the answer to one guy with a gun is ... another guy with a gun, right?


Goes right along with this:

I wonder how many children a lunatic with a musket could have killed in a one room school house back in the late 1700s in a five minute period. One, maybe? Of course, he could have brought more than one gun. So, two?

If the children had nobody to protect them, he could have killed just as many, it just would have taken a little longer.

Both of these beg the question -- why should schoolchildren need someone to protect them?

I went through every day of every grade of school with no security guards, no armed teachers, no nuttin'. Nor did any situation ever come up that even hinted at such a need.

What changed?

There is our question.
Fuck the symptom. Let's address the disease.

your common sense hardwire is not connecting with your brain. how do you stop someone from shooting a large group of people?
By disarming that large group of people?

 

[Pogo]

I do find it upsetting.

It's extremely unfortunate that there was nobody here with a gun to stop him.

-- because the answer to one guy with a gun is ... another guy with a gun, right?


Goes right along with this:

If the children had nobody to protect them, he could have killed just as many, it just would have taken a little longer.

Both of these beg the question -- why should schoolchildren need someone to protect them?

I went through every day of every grade of school with no security guards, no armed teachers, no nuttin'. Nor did any situation ever come up that even hinted at such a need.

What changed?

There is our question.
Fuck the symptom. Let's address the disease.

your common sense hardwire is not connecting with your brain. how do you stop someone from shooting a large group of people?
By disarming that large group of people?

Uh - no, I don't think that works. We have what -- 300 million guns in this country? More? And a large portion of that undocumented. Truth is, we could pass legislation tomorrow making all guns illegal across the board, and those who want one (or two or three) would still be able to get them. That's not the answer.

The key word is "want".

You don't stop a shooter who's intent on shooting. But take away his desire to shoot in the first place, and you have no issue to deal with. As I noted back in 139, we are a culture that celebrates death and guns, every opportunity we get. Television, movies, books, games, internet message boards, the NRA, foreign policy, even religion. And that's why he (Lanza) chose not only the action but the method. If we were a culture that celebrated death and poisoning, then we'd be talking about a poisoning episode at Sandy Hook.

Stop glorifying gunplay, stop holding Almighty Gun up as some deity, jettison the culture of destroying things, and abandon the idea that the answer to violence is even more violence.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our guns but in ourselves. Our values, to which we are underlings. What the fuck are we thinking with this culture of destruction shit?
I have no doubt Shakespeare would have put it just like that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

-- because the answer to one guy with a gun is ... another guy with a gun, right?


Goes right along with this:


Both of these beg the question -- why should schoolchildren need someone to protect them?

I went through every day of every grade of school with no security guards, no armed teachers, no nuttin'. Nor did any situation ever come up that even hinted at such a need.

What changed?

There is our question.
Fuck the symptom. Let's address the disease.

your common sense hardwire is not connecting with your brain. how do you stop someone from shooting a large group of people?
By disarming that large group of people?

Uh - no, I don't think that works. We have what -- 300 million guns in this country? More? And a large portion of that undocumented. Truth is, we could pass legislation tomorrow making all guns illegal across the board, and those who want one (or two or three) would still be able to get them. That's not the answer.

The key word is "want".

You don't stop a shooter who's intent on shooting. But take away his desire to shoot in the first place, and you have no issue to deal with. As I noted back in 139, we are a culture that celebrates death and guns, every opportunity we get. Television, movies, books, games, internet message boards, the NRA, foreign policy, even religion. And that's why he (Lanza) chose not only the action but the method. If we were a culture that celebrated death and poisoning, then we'd be talking about a poisoning episode at Sandy Hook.

Stop glorifying gunplay, stop holding Almighty Gun up as some deity, jettison the culture of destroying things, and abandon the idea that the answer to violence is even more violence.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our guns but in ourselves. Our values, to which we are underlings. What the fuck are we thinking with this culture of destruction shit?
I have no doubt Shakespeare would have put it just like that.

Stop glorifying gunplay, stop holding Almighty Gun up as some deity, jettison the culture of destroying things, and abandon the idea that the answer to violence is even more violence.

This is where your wires are getting crossed. Only the anti gunners think guns are some super beings I hold my rights higher than anything and the gun is a tool in place that will be what I use to defend those rights.

 

[Pogo]

your common sense hardwire is not connecting with your brain. how do you stop someone from shooting a large group of people?
By disarming that large group of people?

Uh - no, I don't think that works. We have what -- 300 million guns in this country? More? And a large portion of that undocumented. Truth is, we could pass legislation tomorrow making all guns illegal across the board, and those who want one (or two or three) would still be able to get them. That's not the answer.

The key word is "want".

You don't stop a shooter who's intent on shooting. But take away his desire to shoot in the first place, and you have no issue to deal with. As I noted back in 139, we are a culture that celebrates death and guns, every opportunity we get. Television, movies, books, games, internet message boards, the NRA, foreign policy, even religion. And that's why he (Lanza) chose not only the action but the method. If we were a culture that celebrated death and poisoning, then we'd be talking about a poisoning episode at Sandy Hook.

Stop glorifying gunplay, stop holding Almighty Gun up as some deity, jettison the culture of destroying things, and abandon the idea that the answer to violence is even more violence.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our guns but in ourselves. Our values, to which we are underlings. What the fuck are we thinking with this culture of destruction shit?
I have no doubt Shakespeare would have put it just like that.

Stop glorifying gunplay, stop holding Almighty Gun up as some deity, jettison the culture of destroying things, and abandon the idea that the answer to violence is even more violence.

This is where your wires are getting crossed. Only the anti gunners think guns are some super beings I hold my rights higher than anything and the gun is a tool in place that will be what I use to defend those rights.

That's ^^ a serious use of a tool, considering it's one designed to take a life.

Here's where your logic fails: A garden hoe is a tool too. Do we have a hoe culture? Do we have a National Hoe Association? Do we have an obligatory scene of a gardener hoeing in every TV drama and movie? Do we have hoe video games? A hoe religion? Hoe shows? A foreign policy of going to other countries and hoeing their fields?

We don't. A hoe is not an implement of destruction, which means we're not interested.

But if a hoe could be made to mow down 20 kids in five minutes because it looked really cool in a video game -- we would. Because that's what we like -- blowing things up, blowing things away and destroying shit. George W. Bush recounted how he would stuff frogs with firecrackers and blow them up. That's not his personal perversion; it's the culture he grew up in. He was a child of his culture, as are we. As was Adam Lanza.

That's why I keep coming back to the culture; it's always there behind every shooting, whether it's an "assault" weapon or not, whether it's a mass random shooting or a targeted murder. whether the culprit is mentally deranged or a cold calculating hit man; the gun fetish is the commonality throughout.

Guns don't kill people; the idea that it's a cool thing to do so with them does.