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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.