Scores of dead in CT

| December 14, 2012

The Hartford Courant reports that there are 27 dead including 18 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT where a single shooter opened fire with a couple of handguns. Fox News reports that at least one of the guns was a Glock, you know – those handguns which have minds of their own and inspire fear among gun control advocates. The other was a Sig Sauer.

Fox also says that the gunman had a “.223-caliber rifle” so he couldn’t have been using the terrifying AK-47. MSNBC says that no one has mentioned the rifle to them. But, the MSNBC reporter just said that there was no word if the shooter used “high capacity ammunition clips”, so I’m not sure if they know the difference between a pistol and a rifle.

MSNBC broadcast news is reporting that another person has been apprehended in regards to this shooting. Other news sources aren’t confirming the “second shooter” theory.

Of course, some folks can’t wait to get in their shots against gun rights;

Frum Dork Fuck

Alex Pappas at The Daily Caller has some more reactions from the Liberals on Twitter. Twitchy records more knee-jerk reactions from the usual suspects.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on the shooting;

“There is, I am sure, will be, rather, a day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates, but I do not think today is that day.”

Well, when they have that discussion, remember this; I went to the range yesterday with several of my weapons. Among those weapons was a Glock (with a large capacity magazine) and two .223 caliber rifles, also with large capacity magazines. I had about 1,000 rounds of ammunition. I drove by at least two schools on my way to the range in Maryland. None of my weapons jumped out of the truck and began shooting up those schools, neither did I.

Whoever this shooter was, (MSNBC says his name is Ryan Adam Lanza, 24 years old – his mother was a teacher at Sandy Hook and she was found dead at the school) he broke several laws to accomplish his grisly task today. How is it possible to write more laws to prevent something that was already steeped in illegality?

ADDED: Our buddy, Blanka, sends a link from USAToday in which they mention that Lanza was “dressed in military style assault gear”. That’s not what caused the incident, either. I was wearing Multicam – the style of uniforms Army troops wear in Afghanistan – at the range yesterday, and I wasn’t even tempted to shoot another person. The MSNBC reporter said that Lanza was wearing “dark” clothes “with pockets” – so we should be banning pockets now, I suppose.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns

Comments (188)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @44. “What we need, and what I would love some smart folks from the NRA to come up with, are some sane laws designed to keep weapons in your hands while preventing them from getting in the hands of these nuts.”

    I don’t see how that is the NRA’s responsibility. Is it the American Automibile Association’s role to prevent vehicular homicide? Or perhaps it is the job of auto manufacturer’s lobby to do that?

    How about a public service program urging those who are homicidal to commit suicide instead? Who knows how many mass murders might be prevented.

  2. Scouts Out says:

    Hondo, are you sure about that? A buddy of mine lives in CT and he says he’s seen more AR style rifles up there at the range in the past few years than he ever saw before. From what it sounded like the ban only applied to Colt AR15s and a few other named models, but not all AR style rifles.

  3. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Well, someone all ready said it and hit the nail on its head: The ONLY answer some want is to ban private gun ownership and possession. The flip side of that is to mandate private ownership of guns. And why not, after obamacare’s insurance mandate?

  4. jerry920 says:

    AP is describing the person led out in handcuffs from the woods as Lanza’s younger brother.

  5. Hondo says:

    Scouts Out: I provided the link to CT law above. Read it for yourself and decide.

    Bottom line: if it’s a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and has a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor, folding/telescoping stock, or bayonet mount, it qualifies. It probably also qualifies if a flash suppressor can be readily added by the user; it definitely qualifies if the barrel is threaded to allow attachment of same.

  6. DaveO says:

    Folks, Joe is a terrorist. He enjoys the slaughter of the Innocents on a personal level because the deaths justify him.

    Let’s go through some fuzzy logic:

    People die in hospitals, but hospitals are not illegal.
    People die from alcohol, but alcohol is not illegal.
    People die from knives, baseball bats, and motor vehicles, but these methods of killing are not illegal.
    People die from bows and arrows, but bows and arrows are not illegal.
    People die of old age, but aging is not illegal.
    People die from cancer, but cancer is not illegal.
    People die from hypothermia, but withholding power due to non-payment of bills is not illegal.

    Joe is a terrorist. He is enjoying the euphoria of moral superiority experienced by every jihadist who’s just blown up his friend in a crowded market square. What we know is the man intended to commit murder, and he could have done the same job driving a school bus into a train. But, neither driving nor a school bus are illegal. That matters not to Joe.

    By this time tomorrow a much fuller picture of today’s events will be known, and Joe will not apologize. He’s had his moralgasm, and awaits the next tragedy. Joe is a terrorist.

  7. JA says:

    @51 What? I really hate to say it, but that is an asinine statement. Injured is very different than dead. It is generally, under most circumstances, harder to kill scores of people with a knife than with a fire-arm.

    Now, don’t jump to conclusions and assume I am pro-gun control. I am just saying that if you want to make a claim that you can do the same thing with a knife, you need a better piece of evidence.

  8. CI says:

    @JA – Your premise was based on the fact that in China the kids were only injured….yet you seem to ignore that it wasn’t terribly difficult to injure 22 kids. The line between injury and death is quite often blade running on the edge of luck.

    To compare the two situations, coupled with placing responsibility on the NRA, smacks of asininity.

  9. jerry920 says:

    CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports that authorities found two guns on Lanza’s body, a Glock 9 mm pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol. A Bushmaster assault rifle was found in his vehicle, Orr reports. The weapons appeared to be legally purchased, belonging to Lanza, one source told Orr.

  10. Scouts Out says:

    I did read it Hondo and I can see the rationale behind both interpretations. I asked you because from what I’ve read in the past you seem quite adept at making sense of all things legal. Speaking of which, are/were you JAG or something similar?

  11. Common Sense says:

    “Might it have stopped something like this? Well, it’s POSSIBLE it would have reduced the number injured or killed, but still fairly unlikely if we’re to believe the reports that most were from one classroom. How quickly would an armed defender be able to respond to shots fired? He’d have to know where, and would probably proceed with some caution. Chances are, most if not all would still have been killed, unless that particular teacher -who seems to be connected to the shooter- had a weapon and was trained on it.”

    Yes, it’s possible that the entire thing would have played out that same way. But there are lots of stories of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time but were armed and saved themselves and/or others.

    I think the point is that there would have a least been a chance that the shooter could have been taken out before an entire classroom of kindergartners was killed. Or maybe someone shooting back would have distracted him enough that the classroom full of kids could have evacuated.

    That scenario happened in the CO Springs shooting. Yes, he got a couple of people in the parking lot, but an armed church member got him into a firefight that saved everyone else.

    Reports are that he first went to the office, had an argument, then shot people there, before going to the classroom. In order to know that, someone must have seen it. Imagine if that someone had been armed.

    The real problem is that schools are known sitting duck zones full of defenseless kids. They may as well have a giant neon signing that says “We’re unarmed, come and get us”. I haven’t heard of a gun range or police station involved in a massacre.

  12. Joe says:

    Whew! At least they were purchased legally. That’s a relief.

  13. BK says:

    You know, my first thoughts on this didn’t even touch on the 2nd Amendment. Regardless of the disposition of the legality of firearms, I despair more for the growing inability of people to look at another human being and see the divine spark behind them.

    What power do guns have when people value the lives of other people? I’m less inclined to believe the problem is guns and more the cultural zeitgeist that rewards the ascendance of selfishness and narcissism in lieu of the moral teachings of our Judeo-Christian religious traditions. These people with murderous intent will find ways to kill without legal access to firearms; the problem isn’t that they have guns, it’s that they have murderous intent and somewhere, human life becomes meaningless enough to commit these heinous acts.

    These incidents were far more rare in times past. The difference isn’t the lack of regulation on firearms – it’s the cultural shift towards atheist whining with a nebulous definition of right and wrong.

    I say we hug our Torahs and our Bibles and start spreading the messages of fellowship on which this nation was founded, rather than allowing the morons to take the narrative in the gun control direction.

  14. JA says:

    CI, When did I place responsibility on the NRA? Go read the post again.

    The fact stands that killing with a knife is under most circumstances harder than killing with a fire-arm. Were those involved in the China incident lucky? Yes they were, but change the knife with fire-arms and it would take more than luck.

    OK, CI, pick between the two. Which scenario would you rather have all other things being equal:
    1) Crazy guy in school with knife.
    2) Crazy guy in school with 2 handguns and a Bushmaster.

    Take your pick, CI.
    Now, just to clarify. A well ordered militia being…right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It is in the Constitution. I am in the process of getting a license in Massachusetts… do you know how freaking hard that is? I am not a gun hating nut, heck I am in the Army. But I think we need to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane (assuming that is the deal here). Every gun owner would agree that we need to keep guns away from those who should not have them.

  15. tracker says:

    @Hondo, while you are correct CT allows for2 upgrades. upgrades mean pistol grip on a rifle, magazine that protrudes from the stock, flash suppressor and silencer if you wait for a class III and pay the tax. any collapsing stock or folding is not allowed

  16. Lib in CT says:

    @ Common Sense: I mostly agree with you, actually – I wasn’t trying to say a gun in the hands of a trained defender couldn’t help in situations *like this*, I was simply saying, based on the speculative information that we have at the moment (rapid action, most shots fired in a single classroom, time between office and classroom being small), the response time of an armed defender would likely have rendered a similar outcome. There’s the potential for less loss of life, certainly, but it’s small, and possibly outweighed by the increased risk of accidents if we’re simply talking about the loss of life here.

    Other situations, where there’s a larger area of attack or wandering gunmen? Certainly. I just don’t think it’s a ‘slam dunk’ to espouse armed teachers / administrative staff as a counter to this sort of thankfully rare event. Just as it’s clearly not a ‘slam dunk’ to say guns should be banned as we all know this wouldn’t stop stuff like this.

    In a nutshell, I think Joe’s “No guns!” attitude is as useless here as “Arm everyone!” is from some others without a careful examination of what that would mean.

  17. CI says:

    @JA – I didn’t misread, I mis-posted. I meant to say that you seem to place responsibility for finding solutions on the NRA.

    Your idea of ‘sane laws’ imply an open door for liberals to prohibit law abiding citizens from acquiring the means of defense. Hondo is right that such desires constitute Utopia, because as precedence will tell us, an increase on the myriad of gun laws that already exist, will only affect law abiding citizens.

    Game theory of two disparate events is just as irrelevant as trying to compare the two. You say that you’re in uniform….what you seem to be proposing would inevitably lead to those of us with PTSD [diagnosed or undiagnosed] being prevented from carrying or owning.

    Consider the long term ramifications and perversions of what you think would be a sensible short term solution.

  18. Redacted1775 says:

    All you have to do is think of the MILLIONS of gun owners in this country that DIDN’T KILL ANYONE today. If guns were the real problem this would happen several times a day, all over the country. What’s your mantra for us gun owners joe, you fucking moron? “We are all Ryan Lanza”? Go fuck yourself you ignorant dick smudge.

  19. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @66. “I’m less inclined to believe the problem is guns and more the cultural zeitgeist that rewards the ascendance of selfishness and narcissism in lieu of the moral teachings of our Judeo-Christian religious traditions.”

    I’ll join you in that, BK.

    @69. He was 20? Well, gee, you have to be 21 in Connecticut to own a firearm.

  20. Anonymous says:

    @64: The school had locked doors and the shooter had to be buzzed in (part of the new security procedures in the school). The reason he was buzzed in was the fact that he was known, since his mother was a teacher there. Then, he went right at the principal and other office workers, before heading to the classroom. How do we know this? Because the principal was on the intercom at the time giving the morning bulletins and the first shots were heard all over the school through the intercom. Yes, the perp’s mother is one of the dead. Whether an armed adult in another part of the school could have stopped the attack, before such a massive loss of life, is open to speculation and debate. Could he just have easily had on an explosive vest? Sure he could have and then it would take away the narrative about guns. So, when they start blowing themselves, and everyone else, up, we can rest assured that no guns were used, but then the question would be; “what do we need to ban next”?

  21. Old Trooper says:

    #64 is me.

  22. Hondo says:

    Scouts Out: appreciate the compliment, but negative – no JAG. Just a layman with some minor experience with and a keen interest in the law.

    Jerry920: if it truly was a Bushmaster, there’s a good chance it’s illegal to possess in CT. Only maybe 5 of their current rifles lack a full-up flash suppressor. That plus a pistol grip (all have one) make a semi-auto rifle illegal to possess in CT unless you owned it prior to 1994 and have gone through the process to secure an permit to retain same, and kept said permit current.

    The remaining 5 current .223 cal Bushmasters may or may not be set up to readily accept a flash suppressor; I’m not personally familiar with any of them, so I can’t say. But if they are, that would likely render them illegal under CT law as well. And if they’re actually threaded to accept a flash suppressor, then by law they are prohibited in CT.

  23. Old Trooper says:

    excuse me….#74

  24. Old Trooper says:

    @76: Hondo, he purchased it outside of CT.

  25. PintoNag says:

    If we can’t control ourselves, then the government will control our guns. It’s just that simple.

  26. Ex-PH2 says:

    What Joe does not get, nor does he want to get, is that the issue is not guns. Any weapons will do for mass murder. It doesn’t even have to be a weapon. You can make the gas line for a water heater leak and blow up the house. Happened two weeks ago in a Chicago suburb. It was supposed to look like an accident. The explosion damaged so many neighboring houses so badly that most of them are beyond repair, and some of the people living in them were injured, along with the people who were killed by the explosion.

    No, the issue is not with guns. They are just tools, a means of getting something done. I have a short sword sitting in a sheath in one of my bookcases. I also have a meat cleaver in my kitchen drawer. Either of those is sufficiently nasty to be used to kill people.

    The issue is people who cannot or will not control their behavior.

    The gunman killed his own mother. The guns had little or nothing to do with his desire to kill his mother. They were simply a means of getting it done.

    And Joe, when you come here spouting that crap you posted up above, you’re an asshole.

  27. Hondo says:

    tracker: true. But if the rifle was a Bushmaster, ALL Bushmaster models already come with pistol grip and removable magazine. Most also have a flash suppressor. The question becomes whether the 5 current Bushmaster .223 cal models without a flash suppressor are threaded to accept a flash suppressor or not. If so, that would makes them unlawful under CT law (as would them having a bayonet mount). And even if not threaded, if a flash suppressor could be otherwise easily added without a trip to a gunsmith, I’d not put it past an overzealous and ambitious anti-gun prosecutor to attempt to prosecute for unlawful possession anyway to see if he could set a precedent furthering his agenda.

  28. Ex-PH2 says:

    Re: my post #80 – I typed in Chicago out of habit. It was Indianapolis. Sorry. Here’s the link to that story.

    And it WAS an intentional act.

  29. Joe says:

    How ’bout we start a push to repeal the 2nd, enact gun laws similar to say Great Britain’s? You will all howl that then only the criminals will have guns, but we could willingly put ourselves at risk so that in two or three generations, when most of the guns had worked their way out of the system or rusted, little kids wouldn’t have to worry so much about being shot execution style.

  30. Hondo says:

    Old Trooper: location of purchase is nice to know, but is also irrelevant. Importing it into and possessing it in CT would be unlawful under CT law if it met CT’s specified criteria for being banned. And it sounds quite likely it did.

    Lib in CT, Old Trooper: in the current scenario, an armed defender almost certainly would have made a difference.

    The initial shots in the school’s office were broadcast over the entire school via the PA system. This removed the element of surprise and rendered the attack on the classroom – where I’d guess the majority if not all of the students were killed – subject to being preempted by defensive action. A single armed defender at the site could well have limited the deaths to those in the office. Multiple such certainly could have.

  31. Blackshoe says:


    While I understand the desire, as the Japanese showed in the Osaka Massacrea and the Akihabara Massacre showed they’re not necessary.

    And I agree with you about not wanting to let people who are insane have guns. Define “insane” for me, explain how we determine they are insane, and tell me who has the authority to declare people insane, and oh yeah, what do we do with these insane people (we used to be able to put in asylums, but that can’t be an option anymore)? What indicators do we use to determine too insane to keep weapons out of the hands of people? Getting Baker Act’d (or your local equivalent for the non-Floridians)? Jared Loughner is the prime example of this being hard: the only person who really had good indications that he was off was a Community College guidance counselor-not the most qualified individual when it comes to figuring out whether someone really is a threat or not? Especially considering a lot of the real warning signs manifest themselves in the mostly anonymous world of teh Internetz, how do we effectively monitor that world (as the kiddie pr0n makers and Nigerian scammers are showing it’s a hard world to police).

    Taking away guns completely is probably actually easier than trying to sort out the lunatics before they do something (and I haven’t even discussed what you do said lunatics), sadly.

  32. Hondo says:

    Joe: had we wanted put up with crap like that, we’d have remained British subjects in 1776. We didn’t.

    You can always emigrate should you (1) find British law and society more attractive to your tastes, and (2) con the British into taking you. But I wouldn’t hold my breath regarding (2).

  33. Redacted1775 says:

    Sure Joe, I suppose thats why, when all the ARMED first responders arrived on scene with their big scary guns, the shootings continued. Oh, wait a minute. Dumbass.

  34. RM3(SS) says:

    @72. LOL dick smudge. I am stealing that one.

  35. Joe says:

    No PH-22,
    No, a gun is not just another tool, they have a special sinister appeal, reinforced by a century of Hollywood movies, that other implements just doesn’t have, and you don’t have to assemble anything – just pay your money and you’re ready to go. And they are designed for one purpose – to kill living things. I don’t see Jonn puffing out his chest over his weed eater the way he does over his beloved guns.

  36. Ex-PH2 says:

    No, they do not have a special sinister appeal. They are easy to load, carry and use. That’s their appeal, you moron.

    If sinister appeal was the quality that makes them popular, then long-shafted edged weapons called swords, which do not require licensing or explanations, would still be in use today as weapons. But carrying a sword, which is usually more than 18 inches in length and requires a sheath to keep it from cutting into your leg and making you bleed severely, is a lot more inconvenient than a small handgun with a large load capacity magazine. And it takes longer to kill 26 people with a sword than it does if you use a gun.

    If it were just about sinister appeal, then tell us why the shooter didn’t just walk into his mother’s classroom wearing an explosives-laden vest and detonate it?

    You make it more and more clear that you don’t know your silly butt from a hole in the ground so enlighten us, Joe, you fucking asshole.

  37. Ex-PH2 says:


    It stands for Photographer’s Mate Second Class, E-5.

    The symbol is a lens pierced by lines of light.

  38. Hondo says:

    Joe: insecticide is similarly designed for one purpose: to kill living things. Ditto herbicides. Ditto rat poison. And antiseptics – including many mouthwashes. As well as antibiotic drugs.

    By your logic in comment 89, all of these should be banned. After all, their purpose, by design, is to kill living things.

    That assertion is ludicrous. They’re all simply tools; all have their place when used responsibly. The same is true of firearms.

    You are really one pathetically ignorant fool.

  39. Nik says:

    This one is for all the people saying guns are at fault:

  40. KWDriver says:

    I’m stunned at the amount of non-sensical back and forth going on here. Gun lovers: take a chill pill. The right to bare arms isn’t going anywhere. Stop expecting the sky to fall. “What’s a military style vest?” Duh! Stop feigning ignorance and insult.
    Liberal tree-huggers: accept that whether its knives, guns, explosives or plasma cannons, there will always be sick fucks who will find a way to share their hate and and anger and hurt innocents. Focus on the real problem, the mental issues, and stop blaming inanimate tools for the worlds evils.

    Now everyone go hug your damn kids and say a prayer for those that can’t.

  41. CI says:

    @94 – Bare arms?

    I have sleeves dammit……

  42. Hondo says:

    KWDriver: IMO you’re a bit off. The reaction here by most is generally to the idiocy shown by the media and the liberal end of the political spectrum towards the issue. It’s hardly the folks here who are asking “what’s a military style vest”; it’s the media who couldn’t tell one from either a crossing guard vest or body armor. However, each time an incident like this occurs it becomes “proof” that “evil guns” should be “restricted” to those who “should have them”. That’s logically fallacious on so many levels I won’t even attempt to explain the faults; I don’t have that much time.

    I see you’re pretty new here. You might want to refrain from telling the regulars here to “take a chill pill” or other similar suggestions. Otherwise, I think you’ll likely get an earful from a fair number.

  43. Just Plain Jason says:

    You know I am going to go pick up my son and think about tomorrow and when I am going to have to start teaching him about the wolves out there and how he comes from a long line of sheepdogs. He has a duty to be a sheepdog like every generation of his family before him. I hoped that I wouldn’t have to have this conversation with him yet, but I feel like this has made me start at a younger age. We are better than this and we have to be better than this, what ever happened to good men standing up and doing what is right? Do we have to start putting armed guards in schools? Do we have to start teaching our kids about bad men before they go to school? Am I going to have to teach my son how to take care of those around him now when he is very young because nobody else will?

  44. Old Trooper says:

    @83: How about we push for a repeal of the 1st as well? Why stop there and just repeal the first 10 Amendments? You’re an idiot.

  45. tracker says:

    @Hondo, flash suppressor are a no go but muzzle breaks are fine here.look pretty much the same we just have to call them a different name. I’ve been on this for a while as I shoot friendly competition with a lot of law enforcement and they love to try and disqualify when I bring my Bushmasters.
    Of course this jaggoff drove up from Jersey with it so it’s not really relevant. not sure if they’re legal there but you certainly don’t want NYPD finding one in your car with out of state plates in the southern portion of the state

  46. Mandrax says:

    I’ve been reading this blog for a while but I HAD to post on this because I know it will be read by reasonable people here. I have been seeing a constant blitz on Facebook of anti-gun people jumping upon this incident and using it as a soapbox to promote their agenda, often making the fabricated argument of “I guess if people just had more guns, like the NRA wants, the whole thing could have been prevented” (I haven’t seen a single post from a pro-gun person saying anything like that, only anti-gun people claiming that pro-gun people are saying it.) I’ve been extremely demoralized to witness the flood of posts blaming guns for what happened. And I also believe that most of these people don’t genuinely care about the incident in any deep or personal way; they’re just using it as an excuse to post propaganda and get patted on the back. It’s really, really depressing to me.

  47. WigWam says:

    @94: Right on. Everyone is always trying to push their agenda whenever things like this happen. Give it a break people

  48. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @94. You have no moral superiority here. What we feel and do isn’t always broadcast. Additionally, this is a mil blog, not the Little Sisters of the Poor. Guns are a mainstay here, as are love for our country and our Constitution. Have a nice day.

  49. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @101. Right on? Oh. Groovy that, good wigwam.

  50. UpNorth says:

    Hey Dick Smudge(Joe), if Adam Lanza was only 20 years of age, he couldn’t legally purchase any of the firearms he had.
    So, what other laws would be necessary? And, don’t pull any more of that “if only we could stop making guns” bullshit out of your ass.