search
top

Details of Sandy Hook Shooting

Via SayUncle, there are some surprising things, now that actual truth is coming out, as opposed to the circus the media created. First, I’m not sure why the fact that the killer wore hearing protection is surprising. Shooting a firearm indoors without it is loud enough to daze you. It’s painful. Second, he did frequent tactical reloads, leaving most magazines on the ground with many rounds still in them. He had 20 minutes. Total shots fired by the killer were 150. That’s ten magazine changes if you empty them all, but let’s say it’s 20, because this guy thought he was tactical or something. First, if he’s wearing molle, which is seems he was, carrying 20 mags is no problem. I am not remarkably proficient on a rifle, but just timing myself with my Bushmaster AR carbine, I can do a magazine reload in about 2.5 seconds on average from a magazine strapped to my chest. To do 20 magazine changes would take approximately 50 seconds out of the 20 minutes the killer had to do his murdering. Just in timing it a few times to get a good average, I went from around 3 second the first time down to under 2 second by the time I had done it a few times. I’m sure if I spent a few hours, I could get it down to about a second. So how is reducing magazine capacity going to matter? And is it really going to be better if you encourage mass killers to switch to far more lethal shotguns? Are you going to outlaw high-capacity bandoliers? I’ve seen some gun control advocates suggesting we ought to restrict clothing like molle wear. When you outlaw clothing, only outlaws will have clothing. This whole farce gets more ridiculous by the day.

16 Responses to “Details of Sandy Hook Shooting”

  1. Bryan says:

    It should be about mental health not gun control

    • Rob Crawford says:

      What? And violate the rights of the insane?

      No, it’s clearly better to violate the rights of tens of millions of healthy, law-abiding citizens.

      (Sarcasm, folks.)

  2. Patrick H says:

    Yeah, a Mossberg 500 with 7+1 could do just as much, if not more damage. A couple shots against a group might be all you need. Then reload and on to the next group.

    • Andy says:

      Shotguns are good at removing door locks as well.

      20 minutes and 150 rounds? Whenever a timeline is finally published, it will be interesting. It was a large school, 20 minutes is plenty of time for random rampage and a much, much higher body count.

      I don’t envy the investigators.

      • Harold says:

        Yeah, it was really ugly (enough that I’m trying to avoid reading this article).

        From the local medical examiner, who worked on 8 of the bodies (help was brought in to handle the load), each of the victims he examined were shot 3 to 11 (!) times with a .223.

        Evidently the shooter’s issues for once helped to lower the body count by whatever sort of sick focus he had. You’ll note that 27 died and 2 were injured, compare to Stockton with 5 and 30 (in each case not counting the shooter).

        Hmmm, this guy was reported to be rather obsessive–compulsive, e.g. cleaning school desktops before he sat at them. Combined that with the large number of rounds used on each victim, I don’t think we can be sure he was making tactical reloads.

  3. Harold says:

    So how is reducing magazine capacity going to matter?

    As I’m sure you’re aware, this is bourgeois truth; revolutionary truth, or at least “emotional truth” is what’s going to win or lose the day, not minor fiddling details like his doing tactical reloads and leaving a lot of ammo on the floor.

    I.e. “armed guards in every school” vs. “take your guns away”. And, yes, it has to be reduced to soundbites. (Plus of course don’t forget the polite, indirect but hopefully clear “If you vote for gun control I will do everything legal that’s within my power to see you defeated in your next election.” No need to get too fancy there, they’re just making tallies.)

    I’m sure there’s room in between these two extremes, there are the undecided or persuadable who could benefit from less detailed versions of the shooting … but finding and reaching those people, at least in large numbers (leverage) … I’m not sure how (Clayton managed to with a Canadian who survived the Rwanda genocide, but that’s too special of a case to extend generally). You at least are informing a lot of people on our side (e.g. there’s no way I’d wade in the ugliness of that article, your summary is quite enough) and from the occasional comment it would appear that search engines are bringing in those people….

  4. TS says:

    In the past I have countered the argument for banning magazines with two simple truths that destroy the narrative that these bans would reduce the damage: 1) multiple weapons and 2) tactical reloads. It appears this guy had both. He was never empty. My third argument is that changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. So even if he had only one gun and ran it dry each time we’d be talking about 30 or so seconds total out of 20 minutes where he was empty.

  5. Shootin' Buddy says:

    May we readers have the cite for the “clothing ban” arguments?

    • Sebastian says:

      I had read somewhere on the Internets some pant wetting about tactical clothing. I can’t remember exactly where. Might have been Joan Peterson.

  6. SLC says:

    I’ve heard many people state that banning the so-called large capacity magazines wouldn’t do any good because you can always reload, as it appears happened at Sandy Hook. How do we respond then when the anti-gunners turn this arguement around against us “so then why do you need 30 round magazines if switching out smaller ones is so fast and easy?”

    • LC Scotty says:

      It’s a disparity of force thing. At Sandyhook, the shooter enjoyed such an overwhelming advantage that the time lost due to reloads did not matter. If you are victimized by a team of multiple armed home invaders, that reload could be the difference between life and death.

      • Harold says:

        Echoing Sebastian below, when we’re in a reactive posture we may not have the luxury of having a reload handy.

        There’s also the scenarios where one limb is restrained or disabled. I’ve practiced one armed reloads … they aren’t quick. (You hold your gun between your knees to free up your hand.)

        The average gun fight happens at a distance of 7 feet, right? That has implications.

        However, these “details” will not go much distance unless we can package them in a good way. The mother who emptied her revolver into a criminal who followed her and her children into an attic crawlspace suggests one direction … here we’re fighting against Hollywood’s all too often “one shot, one kill/stop” meme, plus the outsized kinetic effects they portray (i.e. people being thrown distances when shot with ordinary small arms).

      • Harold says:

        I should add, “a team of multiple armed home invaders” is something most people just don’t want to contemplate. That also edges way to close to the “you’re helpless” meme, even been pushed in response to the NRA’s school armed guards proposal.

        (They like to cite Columbine; point out the police (Sheriff’s Department, actually) took 42 minutes to take their first offensive action, two minutes after which the shooters killed themselves. This is by the department’s own suspect timeline, i.e. this is the very best case they can make for themselves.)

    • Sebastian says:

      Killers get to plan. They get to choose their time, and they get to choose their place. I don’t get that luxury. So I carry a Glock 19 that holds 15 rounds. I do that because it’s easier than carrying a 10 round firearm that I have to carry a reload for.

  7. Marq says:

    Until the actual bills are introduced we will not know exactly what they are trying to ban, but one reading of the comments made and information released indicates there will be two bans. One will ban the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. If that is the only ban the argument that it will only lead to more reloads is somewhat valid if strategically flawed as a debating tool. The second ban will be on “any firearm capable of accepting a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds, or any internal magazine which holds more then 10 rounds.” See the issue? Ban 2 wipes out 200 million plus firearms. The only requirement being that at some point in history an 11+ round magazine was produced for that firearm. They have had 9 years to skull this one out. No way to retrofit firearms to reject a magazine that holds too many rounds so just eliminate the firearm.

top