Church Shooters Guns
From Sebastian, we learn of the weapons the psychopath brought with him:
* Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, purchased January 9 in Aurora.
* AK-47 assault rifle, purchased November 17, 2006 in Aurora.
* Beretta .40 cal. semi-automatic handgun , purchased January 4 in Colorado Springs.
* Springfield Armory 9mm semi-automatic handgun, purchased September 11 in Denver.
Additionally, he had a 22 pistol in the car.
Earlier reports say he died of a self-inflicted shotgun wound. So, what exactly did he have? Who knows.
Update: Oh, still think we don’t have a de facto firearms registry?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am
That’s coming from the police, so I’m betting it’s accurate. The earlier reports, I imagine, are a result of reporters not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Maybe the initial coroner’s report mistook a dozen closely spaced .355″ (9mm) wounds for a 000 shotgun blast?
December 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
That’s unpossible. Chuck Schumer tells us the police can’t trace those guns back the point of purchase, because George Bush is in the NRA’s underpants.
Or something like that.
Don’t tell me Chucky and Bloomberg have been lying to us all these years. My reality-isolation bubble couldn’t handle the shock.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Private transfer is your friend.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
If we had a de facto firearms registry, I could find out what guns Say Uncle owns.
As it is, if I actually have my hands on Say Uncle’s guns, I can find out where most of them came from.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“That’s coming from the police, so I’m betting it’s accurate. The earlier reports, I imagine, are a result of reporters not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground.”
No, it aint accurate. The Bushmaster XM15 is NOT a “assault rifle” and any “AK-47” or varient of it that can be purchased at a sporting goods store in the USA aint a “assault rifle” either. Both are SEMI-AUTOMATIC only and therefore not “assault rifles”. The cops aint no better than the media.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
In all fairness, it isn’t a de facto registry because you can only trace the gun once you already have it in your possession. The whole argument against registration is that it tells the government and criminals where the guns are, facilitating theft and confiscation. Since this “registration” only applies to guns that are already in the government’s physical custody, that argument doesn’t really hold.
Now, in all fairness to our side, I think two parts of the current system are broken:
-20 year retention is unnecessary since any gun that hasn’t been used in a crime in the first 5 years of it’s life is unlikely to have a particularly informative ownership trail
-the “surrender records to the ATF when you go out of business” rule IS creating a de facto registry when combined with the 20 year retention policy
Then there is the issue of requiring an expensive FFL and additionally requiring that FFL to be a full business with a storefront and regular hours is way too oppressive a burden upon such a fundamental right. You can’t use an enumerated power (regulating interstate commerce) to extinguish a fundamental right, which is very clearly the purpose of the current regulatory and enforcement activity.