Bearing in mind that the video shown, supposedly of the long rifle being retrieved from the car boot, could have been damn near anything, I would tend to believe the medical examiner.
However, if it was the other way round, it would support the argument I have made all along. Hand guns are the major problem, and hand guns should be restricted as much as possible.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.
A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.
So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.
Still deny that guns are a problem?
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
According to the LA Times, there was a shotgun left in his vehicle. He used the Bushmaster to actually kill most of the 20 children and 6 adults (I'm guessing he emptied the magazine, dropped it and went for one of his pistols), he used the Glock 10mm to shoot himself in the head, I'm not sure what calibre the Sig Sauer was.
A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered from the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Adam Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle,[87] a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun [5][88] and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun.[4][89] A shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven to the school.
Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.
A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.
So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.
Still deny that guns are a problem?
Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns. You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.
A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.
So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.
Still deny that guns are a problem?
Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns weapons You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.
In that case, and following your logic, why do the guards carry only guns?
All rights have to be voted on. That's how they become rights.
Făkünamę wrote:How did they kill monarchs in days of olde?
Rarely. Monarchs in days of old kept themselves well away from the common people, meaning common people could not assassinate them. Occasionally one of the other people with power, and hence access to the monarch, would do the dirty deed, but it was uncommon.
Modern democracy and guns have changed things. American presidents have to display themselves in public, and despite those guards with guns, a hell of a lot of those presidents (and other politicians) end up wearing a bullet hole.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.
A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.
So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.
Still deny that guns are a problem?
Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns. You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.
Yes, let's reflect on that. These are highly trained professionals, always on alert when on duty, and are tasked with protecting one single person whose carefully planned out movements they know in advance. And even they get it wrong. How do we expect Joe or Jane Q. Public to perform? And when the Secret Service have saved someone's life, it's rarely, rarely by using their own gun. Several times it has been by putting themselves bodily between the assassin's bullet and the President (or whoever they're protecting). Honorable and incredibly brave, but one doesn't need a gun to do that.
Last edited by orpheus on Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
I think that language has a lot to do with interfering in our relationship to direct experience. A simple thing like metaphor will allows you to go to a place and say 'this is like that'. Well, this isn't like that. This is like this.
Four American presidents have been assassinated. All with guns.
A number of attempted assassinations have also happened, some of which resulted in presidents being wounded with bullets.
Excluding threats that did not actually happen, there have been 14 occasions where someone fired at a president. There have also been two attempts at assassination by flying a plane so as to crash into where a president was, and 6 attempts with bombs - all thwarted by those who guard the president.
So 18 times people have fired bullets at a president, and only 8 attempts at assassination with all other methods combined, all of which failed.
Still deny that guns are a problem?
Yup. Assassins are the problem, not guns weapons You might want to reflect on the fact that everybody who guards the President carries a gun.
In that case, and following your logic, why do the guards carry only guns?
Also a good point.
I think that language has a lot to do with interfering in our relationship to direct experience. A simple thing like metaphor will allows you to go to a place and say 'this is like that'. Well, this isn't like that. This is like this.