Reports for the first several days said handsguns were used in the attack and murders. Rifle was found in the trunk after the shooter was dead and the car searched. Then it got flip-flopped because an "assault rifle" is much easier to demonize in the mind of the ignorant public than a few pistols. Typical agenda-driven reporting.
First reports were big on the whole "9mm" and "high capacity" thing. Then they decided to change it up and chew on the "assault weapon".
Same thing with the second man in the woods captured by police. Reportedly, his first words to police were "I didn't do it".
Regardless of whether the rifle was an AR or not, if it was in the trunk it wasn't used in the shootings. Dead guys don't go stow things in their automobile trunks.
You'll notice there have been no details of any kind from official spokespersons or eyewitnesses? Even the child they interviewed (why subject a kid to this, ask a surviving adult if you simply must lead with a story like this) wasn't asked basic questions a thrid graded would think to ask. Misdirection, in my opinion.
Yes, I am skeptical of the reporting on this tragedy, moreso than usual. The reports didn't begin vague and then clarify, they began relatively complete and changed entirely several days later.
ETA in reply to Dr. Rob: I agree. But there were too many details, down to makes and models of handguns used, initially reported and then changed. There was no "We think he used a handgun". Instead we were told "He used two handguns, a Sig Sauer and a Glock". Then the pistols were tossed in favor of a rifle that was firmly in the trunk for two days prior to being named as the weapon used, in exchange for the two handguns. We knew by Friday evening that the firearms were registered to his mother. If the guns had all been recovered enough to run numbers through the Cn. registry, we'd have known about the rifle being in the school that evening also. But it remained in the trunk. For two days.
