Guy B. Meredith
Member
All the comments I've seen indicate the clown used a Remington 870, but the Second Amendment Foundation is sending out a notice which show an image of an over/under. Any really accurate reports available?
Definitive information on Alexis' shotgun?
- Thread starter Guy B. Meredith
- Start date
- Status
courtgreene
Member
870 with an extended mag tube could very well look like an OU from a distance. I wasn't there, so I have no definitive information, but I can see how that mistake could be made.
JohnBT
Member
The only detailed media report I've read said he spent $400 and change on an 870 Express HD/police model.
John
John
bubba15301
Member
what differnce does it make?
Because many media outlets, NYT, are depicting it as a folding stock LE shotgun instead of a simple Express (and we all know that they work the same, but not every victim of their propaganda does).
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Details matter... CNN's famous "AR-15 shotgun" graphic:
-- Img from http://www.storyleak.com/cnn-claims-navy-yard-shooter-ar15-shotgun/
-- Img from http://www.storyleak.com/cnn-claims-navy-yard-shooter-ar15-shotgun/
Steel Horse Rider
Member
It is a rare one.....
limpingbear
Member
The latest I read was that he bought an 870 and chopped the barrel and stock with a hacksaw. so much for the "AR-15 shotgun".
OP
OP
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Magazine capacity, then? So far we have a non semi, non AR, no detachable magazine, non high cap (but how limited 3?)... These need to be pounded into Feinstein's head.
Last edited:
I believe these are called "facts" and the opposition has no use for them. It's the agenda that matters...not the facts.
I agree with Jim243 on this one.
As long as we are quiet when they lie about our guns they will see no reason to stop. Sure their ratings have gone down. But some people still watch as a primary news source. We have the knowledge (read as "facts")to show the fence sitters and even those oppsoed to us out of ignorance, that the MSM are lying. The more we prove them wrong, the more we bring to our side. Sure the fence sitters might not want to own a gun, but showing them the lies strengthens our side. It's kind of a "Well at least they have enough respect for us not to lie to us." We need more Joe Wilson's that aren't afraid to call the MSM or even the president out.
As long as we are quiet when they lie about our guns they will see no reason to stop. Sure their ratings have gone down. But some people still watch as a primary news source. We have the knowledge (read as "facts")to show the fence sitters and even those oppsoed to us out of ignorance, that the MSM are lying. The more we prove them wrong, the more we bring to our side. Sure the fence sitters might not want to own a gun, but showing them the lies strengthens our side. It's kind of a "Well at least they have enough respect for us not to lie to us." We need more Joe Wilson's that aren't afraid to call the MSM or even the president out.
USAFRetired
Member
So my question is: Where were the security guard(s) when the shooting started? He supposedly started on the 4th floor, and in a building that size there would have to be more than one guard (you would think). And also, he got the drop on at least one and took his(?) weapon.
Something just isn't right when military installations are considered 'soft targets'.........
Something just isn't right when military installations are considered 'soft targets'.........
Last edited:
He carried the shotgun into the building in a backpack with the barrel removed. He went to the fourth floor bathroom and installed the barrel. He fired down from the fourth floor balcony at people in the cafeteria in an atrium on the ground floor. He then went down to the ground floor, shot a security guard and took his Beretta pistol. He then shot the rest of the people using the Beretta.
USAFRetired
Member
Exactly. So between the 1st shot and the guard being shot had to be a few minutes. Even in a building that size a 12ga going off should alert most folks.
Last edited:
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Wow, an AR15 shotgun for only $400. I want one…… god CNN blows.
HankR
Member
In my experience, the "guards" at these types of installations hang out at the gates/doors during normal business hours. There would be several at the main entrances and one or two at less popular entrances. Maybe one person monitoring video at several "man trap" type entrances. Very little guard presence inside the installation. There would typically be several in the cafeteria, but not as part of any assigned duty (just stopping by for coffee/breakfast). Kind of like IT systems protected only by a firewall -- "Tough (appearance at least) on the outside, soft and chewy on the inside".
At night a "roving guard force" is required if classified material is in individual safes in private offices, but during the day it's security theater at the perimeters only.
(I have never been in this particular installation, above is what I typically observed several years ago).
True that. Of course, discussing just exactly what or who "isn't right" here on the high road tends to make posts disappear.
Arkansas Paul
Member
OH MY GOD. Why are these police model weapons allowed in the hands of private citizens? I can hear it now. :banghead:
lemaymiami
Member
If I hear one more media mistake calling it a "sawed off shotgun" I may leave a puddle somewhere...
Our real problem is lots of folks in media land with nothing more than tv show or movie experience to base their reports on. These folks are pretty much clueless and think that attitude and/or opinion are the same as accurate reporting. I'm almost to the point that I'd welcome a firearms industry fact sheet every time there's an improper use of a weapon....
In this instance the "facts" as reported are bad enough. We've allowed our background system (where folks that are problems should be identified and not given any clearance at all..) to deteriorate to the point that it's almost meaningless.
From Bradley Manning to the NSA leaker, to this most recent tragedy -everyone had clearances when by any reasonable standard they shouldn't have had them at all.... We've also changed the way mental health problems are dealt to the point that no policeman can do more than a very temporary "Baker Act" (as it's called here in Florida) detention that allows you to take a problem child to a mental health facilty... where many times the "mental health professional" has them released before the officer completes the paperwork for the original detainer.... Then lastly the system for identifying folks that shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm is just laughable (but not funny at all to anyone who comes across one of these crazies with a legally purchased gun....).
I'll get off my soapbox now... Moderator feel free to trash this if I've over-stepped here.
By the way I was actually trained to do background investigations back when the Army did 90 percent of all the federal backgrounds for security clearances in the late sixties. You don't want to know just how badly things have slipped since then (according to one or two folks still in that business...). And years later as an officer, then sergeant, finally lieutenant, I was involved in many, many mental health cases from the police side of things. Most were resolved peacefully at the time, a few would give you nightmares...
Our real problem is lots of folks in media land with nothing more than tv show or movie experience to base their reports on. These folks are pretty much clueless and think that attitude and/or opinion are the same as accurate reporting. I'm almost to the point that I'd welcome a firearms industry fact sheet every time there's an improper use of a weapon....
In this instance the "facts" as reported are bad enough. We've allowed our background system (where folks that are problems should be identified and not given any clearance at all..) to deteriorate to the point that it's almost meaningless.
From Bradley Manning to the NSA leaker, to this most recent tragedy -everyone had clearances when by any reasonable standard they shouldn't have had them at all.... We've also changed the way mental health problems are dealt to the point that no policeman can do more than a very temporary "Baker Act" (as it's called here in Florida) detention that allows you to take a problem child to a mental health facilty... where many times the "mental health professional" has them released before the officer completes the paperwork for the original detainer.... Then lastly the system for identifying folks that shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm is just laughable (but not funny at all to anyone who comes across one of these crazies with a legally purchased gun....).
I'll get off my soapbox now... Moderator feel free to trash this if I've over-stepped here.
By the way I was actually trained to do background investigations back when the Army did 90 percent of all the federal backgrounds for security clearances in the late sixties. You don't want to know just how badly things have slipped since then (according to one or two folks still in that business...). And years later as an officer, then sergeant, finally lieutenant, I was involved in many, many mental health cases from the police side of things. Most were resolved peacefully at the time, a few would give you nightmares...
answerguy
Member
Isn't that what it was?
arizona98tj
Member
Honestly....do you REALLY think they are making an honest mistake? They are far from clueless. The words and phrases are purposefully selected to confuse and portray incorrect information as being factual to the clueless media watchers. The liberal media will stop at nothing to push their agenda to the unsuspecting public.
- Status
