And if only 2 were shot with the rifle, to quote Hillary, “what difference does that make?”
It’s amazing this pops up now, pre-gun ban, when there were so many reports to the contrary after the event.
So has anyone asked Pete Williams at NBC wtf is going on?
I am just curious, but if all 26 victims had been shot by a handgun, would they now be trying to ban handguns? I don’t think so. They waited for a crisis of opportunity to move on rifles. After they ban those, they will wait for a handgun crisis. And then a shotgun crisis. Etc.
Compared to what? Lanza with two handguns and plenty of ten-round magazines? At the range Lanza was shooting at, accuracy was irrelvant. And all he would have to do is shoot the teacher in each room first and then face no resistance in a classroom from the small children, so changing magazines would not present an opportunity to jump him.
Nothing like tactical idiots with an agenda.
and the story changes again...
1st they said the long gun was in the car. Now to vilify so called assault rifles they are saying it wasn’t the 2 hangins but the AR. Which is it?
Sounds like the lying sacks of s**t are at it again.
Really? All 26 were shot with a weapon capable of full auto 3 shot bursts?
“There’s no question that the AR-15 was used, the Bushmaster shot those children with multiple rounds and was instrumental in the massacre...”
Which gun was used has become a matter of extreme importance, so I’m disinclined to blindly accept this fat @#$%’s word for it.
All guns except machine guns and muzzle loaders are SEMI-AUTOMATIC. They require multiple trigger pulls to fully discharge the weapon.
I'm not doing any conspiracy stuff. I accept everything the officials say. But I do want to comment on the way some people formulate their sentences -- it can reveal something of the thoughts inside their head.
Look at the phrase above. I know what the man meant. He was providing useful information. He was attempting to indicate that a handgun was not used, and neither was a shotgun used. A rifle was used: nothing else. I got that.
But what he actually says -- the wording he came up with -- says that rifles have no use other than to kill people -- "the rifle was used solely to kill".
Not a statement I like to see. That's the mentality of a gun-grabber.
It doesn’t matter. The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms.
Any attempt to ban guns is unconstitutional. Next please.
Not sure of the exact day but I heard Vance state on TV before of after the ME that all were shot with the AR type weapon.The ME confirmed,dont know where the confusion come s from?
And what was the toxicology report on him and his mom?
Is that published?
This all has to be taken into context.
Ok, wait. I have read several articles, sourced from the coroner that say no rifles were used.
Oh, NOW it gets confirmed.
The only reason they want assault weapons gone is that you can pick off a 15 rioters from 100 yards away in less than a minute with good training.
And if they hadn't been shot with the rifle, then what would they have been shot with?
Adam Lanza certainly had no lack of options to choose from.
This guy is a “long time” spokesman for the CT police.
What he says may well be true. But we’ll never know for sure. The initial reports certainly were contradictory.
And if this guy knows which side his bread is buttered on, he’ll say whatever the flaming liberal guv of CT tells him to say.
There was no obvious reason not to release the data, since the perp was dead, his mother who owned the guns was dead, and no one else was suspected. So there will be no trial.
So the refusal to release information was mainly CYA. Don’t let anything out until it’s been cleared with the top politicians. And that goes right up to Holder and Obama.
Im still waiting for a witness to come forward and say I saw Lanza shooting everyone, etc
Hard to beleive no witness lived to tell the tale...
In a sane world, this is what would be said. We do not live in a sane world.