The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:21 PM
Whambulance Whambulance is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
No assault weapon used at Sandy Hook?

I've missed a lot of televised news the last couple of weeks but I'm on a lot of friends email lists ranging from very liberal to very conservative - and I'm getting LOADS of conflicting information about this Sandy Hook event.

Now I'm hearing that it was found that an assault weapon wasn't even used in the attack - that the shooter used 4 handguns?

MSN reports that there were no assault weapons used:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

But even Wikipedia (at the date this was posted) is still claiming the shooter used an assault weapon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_H...chool_shooting

Is there a real 'go-to' site for unbiased, up-to-date info on this?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:27 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,846
Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2013



** UPDATE **
STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;
INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:
#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspectís car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.
Lt. J. Paul Vance


http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:32 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,316
There were a lot of conflicting reports the day of the attack and the day after. But as things cleared up it was confirmed that the Bushmaster rifle was used at the school. The coroners said that was the gun used on most of the victims. So if that's an assault weapon, then most of the murders were committed with an assault weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:49 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Yes, the issue is how "assault weapon" is defined. The label is certainly thrown around enough, but as a useful category... I dunno.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:52 PM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is online now
IMHOtep the Justifed
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 9,874
This just keeps popping up, based on reports made the day of the incident. There's a contingent that just will not stop propagating this myth, in the face of absolutely contradictory evidence that came just a few days later.

It's like the 9/11 crowd that claims no airplanes were involved because no one had photos or video of aircraft at the earliest hours.

ETA: I rarely even consider such things, but I believe this thread should be closed.

Last edited by Amateur Barbarian; 01-22-2013 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:57 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroPress View Post
This just keeps popping up, based on reports made the day of the incident. There's a contingent that just will not stop propagating this myth, in the face of absolutely contradictory evidence that came just a few days later.

It's like the 9/11 crowd that claims no airplanes were involved because no one had photos or video of aircraft at the earliest hours.

ETA: I rarely even consider such things, but I believe this thread should be closed.
Or, it could be that folks read the initial reports and then didn't want to read further since it was emotionally upsetting. Case in point, I thought (until fairly recently) that the 'assault weapon' had been left in the car, and that the killer used handguns for his heinous crimes. I hadn't really kept following the story and had in fact avoided reading new details on it due to the upsetting nature of the events and had missed the correction.

Or, I suppose it could just be about 9/11 conspiracy theory type stuff I suppose, and I'm just part of the CT to keep this information from the public.

In any case, I don't see any reason to close the thread...the OP's question has been answered, so if anything it could be moved to GQ. Or, we could discuss how ridiculous the whole 'assault weapon' classification actually is, though it's not like this would be a fresh subject either.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:08 PM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is online now
IMHOtep the Justifed
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 9,874
No, I think there's a contingent making a special effort to propagate the 'no assault weapon' story. I've seen it on five different forums in almost exactly this form. It's no longer ignorance or lack of keeping up with the story pushing the rumor, but a major disinfo campaign.

Not that I can quite figure out why. It's easily disprovable and I can't really see how making people believe it was "only" handguns changes the debate any. Maybe I need a more stylish tinfoil hat to understand.

I suggest closing the thread only because it's such pointless BS and needs no further hashing, but I Am Not A Moderator Thank God.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:14 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroPress View Post
This just keeps popping up, based on reports made the day of the incident. There's a contingent that just will not stop propagating this myth, in the face of absolutely contradictory evidence that came just a few days later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroPress View Post
No, I think there's a contingent making a special effort to propagate the 'no assault weapon' story. I've seen it on five different forums in almost exactly this form. It's no longer ignorance or lack of keeping up with the story pushing the rumor, but a major disinfo campaign.
You are correct. Here's an example. 'Major campaign' is probably giving these idiots too much credit, but there's a real effort to confuse people.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:15 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroPress View Post
No, I think there's a contingent making a special effort to propagate the 'no assault weapon' story. I've seen it on five different forums in almost exactly this form. It's no longer ignorance or lack of keeping up with the story pushing the rumor, but a major disinfo campaign.

Not that I can quite figure out why. It's easily disprovable and I can't really see how making people believe it was "only" handguns changes the debate any. Maybe I need a more stylish tinfoil hat to understand.

I suggest closing the thread only because it's such pointless BS and needs no further hashing, but I Am Not A Moderator Thank God.
Yeah, I can't see why someone would do that either. Basically, I made an off hand statement in a thread last week about it and was shown a cite, which made me have to get up to date on where things stand today wrt the use of the rifle (a.k.a. 'assault weapon') verse my earlier belief based on early reports that it had been left in the car and hand guns were used instead.

I also don't see the point or distinction, though I suppose it revolves around Obama et al proposing a revival of basically the old OWB with a few new twists, so if people can say that the guns wouldn't have been part of the ban (it wouldn't have been afaik, since if this new legislature is like the older OWB then there is a grandfather clause for existing weapons) then it underscores how useless the new legislature is...or something.

Last edited by XT; 01-22-2013 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:26 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I think you mean AWB.

OWB would be, like... Osama Win-Baden.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:27 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 26,896
lol, yeah...not sure why my iPad keeps changing that as no idea what OWB would stand for.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:27 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,316
Old Wordy Bastard?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:52 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 48,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I think you mean AWB.

OWB would be, like... Osama Win-Baden.
Obama Win-Biden?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:55 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,846
This thread originated in GQ. I offered the best source possible, direct from the Connecticut State Police. My only surprise was they had to update their press release to just last week to end any and all speculation. I guess despite best efforts, people prefer to believe rumors rather than go to the only official source.

YMMV.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-23-2013, 02:01 PM
Bone Bone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Doesn't it depend on the definition of assault weapon and the associated features of said weapon? In CA I can turn a CA defined assault weapon into a regular rifle with a less than 1" piece of metal covering the mag release button.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-23-2013, 02:05 PM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
It doesn't really depend on anything but whether or not the AR-15 was used to kill those kids. In this context, the AR-15 retrieved is what is being referred to as an assault weapon. We're talking short-hand here, not technical specs.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-23-2013, 02:10 PM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is online now
IMHOtep the Justifed
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
It doesn't really depend on anything but whether or not the AR-15 was used to kill those kids.
I've never seen the claim phrased as a tricky word-game based on whether the AR-15 was an "assault rifle" or not. It's all based on one erroneous news report that said the rifle was retrieved from the car and only handguns were found inside.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-23-2013, 02:16 PM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
I understand, but as you can see from Bone's response, "assault weapon" is a buzz-word. Just mention the term in any gun thread and you'll automatically get some sort of complaint about how it's being used, or defined or whatever -- even in this thread when the term is absolutely meant to refer to the rifle as opposed to the hand-guns or the shotgun.

Personally, I think this line of inquiry is just JAQing off so that people can specifically go, "Aha! You said 'assault weapon!'" and fly off on flight of fancy about mag buttons and bayonet bolts or some shit.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-23-2013, 02:18 PM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is online now
IMHOtep the Justifed
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
...and fly off on flight of fancy...
At least most people's hot buttons aren't a knurled trigger.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-23-2013, 06:22 PM
ChickenLegs ChickenLegs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
lol, yeah...not sure why my iPad keeps changing that as no idea what OWB would stand for.
"Outside the WaistBand" It's a type of holster.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-23-2013, 06:32 PM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 17,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroPress View Post
This just keeps popping up, based on reports made the day of the incident. There's a contingent that just will not stop propagating this myth, in the face of absolutely contradictory evidence that came just a few days later.

It's like the 9/11 crowd that claims no airplanes were involved because no one had photos or video of aircraft at the earliest hours.
First reports of any incident tend to have errors. Later reports should be more accurate, and may contradict the first ones. That's a natural way that news is assembled, corrected and distributed.

So early reports should be taken tentatively until confirmed or refuted.

Unfortunately, some people feel that the first reports are somehow most accurate, and later changes must be because the government, the Illuminati, or Sinister Dark Forces in Black Helicopters got to the reporters and forced them to revise the story away from the truth.

So whenever two reports differ, the one that is least likely to be true will often be the one believed, evidence and common sense be damned.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.