Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just heard it on Rush. So why has the main focal point on the massacre been the AR-15 Bushmaster .223 caliber? It was never used. When the news reports first came out, they (Cops in interviews, Police dispatch reports) reported that the killer used pistols and that a Bushmaster was in the backseat of his car. But never the less, the narrative the media used was that the Bushmaster was the weapon used. Why the focus on the Bushmaster instead of the pistols?
Thought it was interesting to re-post the original thread starter.
"You don't want to hear the facts about the horror that was inflicted by guns upon these victims."
No, sorry, but the guns did NOT inflict anything on anybody. All the damage was done by one mentally ill person. Yes, he used guns. If he had used a machete, would you be demanding that all knives over an inch long be banned, restricted, or registered? How about if he had used a chainsaw? How about if he had run his vehicle through the playground during recess?
WHY do you insist on blaming the tool instead of the person?
Please try this experiment. Take any tool you choose from your house, and lay it on the sidewalk. Point at a neighbor you can't stand, and say "KILL!" What happened?
Now, pick up the tool and attack your neighbor. What happened?
See, the PERSON made the difference!
A tool has NO responsibility!
It is always so easy to make that argument, isn't it? So easy to leave aside the fact that this killer made an active choice about the tools he used. This killer didn't choose to use a machete or a kitchen knife. He didn't choose to use acid or explosives. Nope. He chose guns. So, given that's what he chose to work with, I think it is perfectly appropriate to talk about those guns and the damage they caused because that is what this killer chose to work with. Anyone who believes that he didn't chose them for the damage they had the potential to generate is simply deluding themselves.
It is always so easy to make that argument, isn't it? So easy to leave aside the fact that this killer made an active choice about the tools he used. This killer didn't choose to use a machete or a kitchen knife. He didn't choose to use acid or explosives. Nope. He chose guns. So, given that's what he chose to work with, I think it is perfectly appropriate to talk about those guns and the damage they caused because that is what this killer chose to work with. Anyone who believes that he didn't chose them for the damage they had the potential to generate is simply deluding themselves.
Irrelevant.
The choices of a maniac aren't germane to the discussion or the facts.
The facts are that prohibition doesn't work. Banning guns doesn't work. Period.
The ENTIRE county knows this.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either foreign, lying or outright stupid having missed the entirety of their history lessons.
Sorry OP, but Rush was very wrong. Look it up, the bushmaster was the primary weapon used in the massacre. Quit listening to that idiot and you might actually learn the truth.
Can't find anything on the web to support Rush's assertion. Why am I not surprised?
So . . . what's YOUR theory of what happened? An accomplice? All the kids are still alive? Abducted by aliens? I just can't see where this is all going.
Explain to me how a frail autistic kid like Lanza packed in "many hundreds of rounds" of ammunition plus tbree weapons( many hundreds of rounds of ammo mind you) and inflicted the damage he did in two minutes. The answer is he didnt have that much ammunition. There was probably one magazine in each weapon.
My point is, this nonsense of claiming "many hundreds of rounds"of is just that, nonsense.
How much ammunition can one frail kid pack? Not much. Do you realize how much ammunition weighs? Obviously not. Sheesh...I really wish you hoplophobes would quit attributing almost supernatural powers to firearms and wackos who use them for evil. You honestly don't realize how idiotic you sound.
The choices of a maniac aren't germane to the discussion or the facts.
The facts are that prohibition doesn't work. Banning guns doesn't work. Period.
The ENTIRE county knows this.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either foreign, lying or outright stupid having missed the entirety of their history lessons.
Who is talking about bans or prohibition?
I find it extremely interesting that the second someone tries to talk about the truth and reality regarding the damage caused during this one act by this one killer, people steer the conversation away from that reality. Why can't we talk about the fact that some of these babies were likely cut to pieces by gun fire? Their beautiful little heads exploded, their faces left completely unrecognizable to their parents?
This thread is about the deaths of those children. It is not about bans or prohibitions. It is about HOW they were killed and WHAT killed them.
Check the thread title if you think I am wrong.
Can't find anything on the web to support Rush's assertion. Why am I not surprised?
You need to brush up on your Googling skills then. There are plenty of pages on the web asking what the primary weapon used at Sandy Hook was, and a lot of them are unconvinced that it was the Bushmaster which was belatedly claimed to be the main firearm.
You need to brush up on your Googling skills then. There are plenty of pages on the web asking what the primary weapon used at Sandy Hook was, and a lot of them are unconvinced that it was the Bushmaster which was belatedly claimed to be the main firearm.
I find it extremely interesting that the second someone tries to talk about the truth and reality regarding the damage caused during this one act by this one killer, people steer the conversation away from that reality. Why can't we talk about the fact that some of these babies were likely cut to pieces by gun fire? Their beautiful little heads exploded, their faces left completely unrecognizable to their parents?
This thread is about the deaths of those children. It is not about bans or prohibitions. It is about HOW they were killed and WHAT killed them.
Check the thread title if you think I am wrong.
I checked the thread title. Not sure we're in the same thread, considering that the thread title is talking about which firearm was used in the shootings, not about the shootings themselves.
As for who is talking about bans or prohibition, off the top of my head I'll say Obama's administration, Dianne Feinstein, and a whole bunch of other people who are supposed to be looking out for the American people but aren't.
There's actually quite a bit of data out there that support Rush's alleged assertions (I call them alleged because I didn't hear Rush saying anything about the subject. Not a fan of the loud-mouthed hypocrite.). I posted a link to a fairly suspicious video earlier in the thread, and there are quite a few questions about the Medical Examiner's statements, the police radio chatter during the incident, the initial reports, and many other topics.
Is it conclusive proof that Lanza didn't use the Bushmaster? Not at all. But it is enough to make intelligent people question what the reports are telling us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.