Narrative Fail: Orlando Shooter Used Sig MCX not AR-15

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Fox just reported that, also.

Not that it will matter.





.

You're correct, but what's the point? Such a debate on the type of weapon the shooter used is about as useful as pointing out that Obama called the Glock magazines "clips." An intelligent anti-gun person will say, "Did that error make anyone less dead?"

If you want to score debating points, find something productive to note - like "The gun laws in place did not prevent the shooter from obtaining a rifle, pistol & ammunition." Or, how about "Other murderers who have criminal records & can't legally purchase guns or ammunition always find a way to get them, just as drug addicts buy illegal drugs."

C'mon, really?
Sig MCX is a variation of the M16 design.
Villainizing the type of weapon involved in a homicidal action and NOT the shooter is pure folly.

Shaq, you are exactly right. The gun was black, the same caliber as an AR and used AR mags. It closely resembles an AR. To the anti's that is all that matters.....it was an assault weapon!!!

Anybody ever try to understand the Anti's reasoning?

I did, once, but I wasn't able to get my head THAT far up my....errrr... never mind.

Doesn't matter make or model.

Grabbers are going to want to ban all of them.

This is the biggest "gotcha!" joke of an argument I've seen yet. Whoop-tee-doo. I doubt that the majority of the gun owning public would know the difference, and pretending that not identifying the exact model of the gun is misrepresenting facts is asinine.

It's an argument that means literally absolutely nothing to anyone who isn't already in the pro-gun echo chamber.

Focus on the risk of governmental overreach, not the fact that they misidentified a gun with an extremely similar layout and function.

tark said:

Shaq, you are exactly right. The gun was black, the same caliber as an AR and used AR mags. It closely resembles an AR. To the anti's that is all that matters.....it was an assault weapon!!!

Anybody ever try to understand the Anti's reasoning?

I did, once, but I wasn't able to get my head THAT far up my....errrr... never mind.

Click to expand...

Not just an assault weapon...a "MACHINE GUN"!

It is indication to me that there are boilerplate attacks on file waiting for an exploitable crisis. They were waiting for the next incident with an AR-15 to spring the propaganda attack.

This reminds me of the old cartoon by Bill Mauldin: a criminal is buying a gun from a fence in an alley, pointing to a mob hanging a revolver from a lamppost: "They decided to turn me loose and lynch my pistol."*

* Reprinted from Chicago Sun Times 1962 it was used as the frontispiece in the book Restricting Handguns: the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out edited by Don B. Kates, liberals questioning the effectiveness of the basic principles of gun control and pointing out social benefits of gun rights.

The type of weapon matters very little. The focus needs to be on the people that seem to have a propensity to commit jihad and that isn't catholic, jews or Hispanics. Homeland Security is useless as are most government agencies.

It's a black rifle that looks militarized. That makes it close enough in the anti's eyes and to the low information crowd. Besides, it's not about getting it right. It's about getting it out first and then quietly retracting after the damage has been done.

hso,
Its NOT an AR. But to say it's closer to an AK? The charging handle, forward assist, dust cover, magazines and safety say AR WAYYY more than AK.

BigBore44 said:

It's a black rifle that looks militarized. That makes it close enough in the anti's eyes and to the low information crowd. Besides, it's not about getting it right. It's about getting it out first and then quietly retracting after the damage has been done.

hso,
Its NOT an AR. But to say it's closer to an AK? The charging handle, forward assist, dust cover, magazines and safety say AR WAYYY more than AK.

Click to expand...

So piston driven AR type rifles are not AR type rifles but AK type rifles?
I'm so confused,,,
Again, semantics.
If the guy used an AK type rifle the far left would still be crying and trying to restrict law abiding citizen rights

This is from the same crowd that could misidentify a Super Soaker as a "(gasp!) AK-47", so what do we expect.

My wife was an Army (Quartermasters) brat growing up and although she hasn't been around guns to speak of until '07, she is very tolerant.

But today somebody quoted on Fox News said that you could "shoot about 40 people in a minute" with the killer's rifle.

My wife's reaction: "Who needs that much ammo in a gun?"
I then brought down four 10-rd. Saiga 7.62x39 magazines, and said that they could be taped together in two L-shaped pairs, quickly rotated Israeli Army Reserve style, and it would make little difference.

My next comment was that (reportedly) the Orlando terrorist's rifle (or handgun?) jamming did not save anybody, it seemed. How could quick magazine changes--due to smaller mags--also have helped stunned/panicked people survive?

She was not interested in hearing these responses. How do You guys/gals counter typical responses of "Who needs that much ammo in a gun"?

Walkalong said:

It's close enough we won't gain traction bemoaning the point. We must focus on other issues in the debate.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Pointing out the differences between the two I s kind of like the grammar police on forums. Just annoys folks.

Reminds me of this.

LOL! Love that chart valnar! So true!

In the 80's everything was either an AK-47 or an Uzi.


I saw a better picture comparing two Ruger 10/22s. One was clearly and "assault" weapon, and the other a "squirrel gun" by appearance. Under the cosmetics, both were exactly the same.

In a senate hearing Ted Cruz was hammering, I think the Baltimore police chief, about why adding a $2.00 piece of plastic to the bottom of the forearm made a weapon deadlier, and the reply was that "it makes it more tactical". I laughed out loud.

It is laughable how folks get all twisted up in semantics. The antis are after the capabilities of the weapon and whine about the definitions. Take a look back at many threads on this and other forums and you'll see posters commenting or seeking feedback on their particular "Battle Rifles" and associated go to war gear.
If this fight is to be based on names and definitions we will lose if it is to be based on freedom and security we will win.
The genie is out of the bottle and everyone knows what a weapon with 30+ rounds of ammo can do in the hands of someone who can operate it. The question to me is do I want to be in control of that or do I want to be at the mercy of evil that has the control.
I'll take my chances keeping myself and others like me armed and deal with the rest as it comes.

valnar said:

Reminds me of this.

Click to expand...

The same irrelevant nonsense we see from people who have no other way to defend Pit Bulls after an attack.

I am reminded of a time when a candidate back in the first round of A-salt weapons campaigns ran an ad of himself holding a rifle and talking about how such cheap AK47s were the criminals weapon of choice here in Florida.

He was waving about a Valmet M62. Oh yeah an AK, but one that cost more than I made a month at the time and four times what the Norinco were still coming in the country for. During that time period BTW at the state level the Florida Department Of Law Enforcement (think state version of FBI) could not provide an AK of any type from their library to the state legislature.....so they sent an StG44 that had been surrendered by a widow of a vet instead......what with AKs being so common in crime.

With in two months of that ad and the election a governor's office survey of Sheriffs departments found rifles of all types were seldom used by criminals and AKs no more than any other class.

Unfortuantly he won and is still in DC..........

-kBob

Meanwhile we had good old Bill and his attorney general waving about an M-1A and spouting the weapon of choice crap.

At that time there had been no criminal miss-uses of the M-1A Springfield rifle, but by gosh if the president and attorney general think so........

As the Assault Weapons bill was signed at a party in the Rose Garden, I personally was standing in a congressional office in the capital grinding my teeth at such buffoonery. All I got was ground down teeth and sore jaw muscles.

-kBob

I am reminded of a time when a candidate back in the first round of A-salt weapons campaigns ran an ad of himself holding a rifle and talking about how such cheap AK47s were the criminals weapon of choice here in Florida.

Click to expand...

Which politician?