Parkland Florida Spree Killer Used Smith & Wesson AR15, Mass Media Demonization Continues

Last night, Jonathon Fishman of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department revealed that mass murderer Nikolas Cruz used a Smith & Wesson AR15 semi-automatic rifle to kill 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.American Outdoor Brands, the holding company that owns the Smith & Wesson brand, has not commented on the revelation. Nor should we expect a comment to be forthcoming. What we can expect . . .

is the ongoing demonization of America’s most popular rifle platform as a “high powered” firearm, a “weapon of war” whose sole purpose is taking as much innocent life as quickly as possible. Like this:

In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a HandgunNew York Times

But other features that make the AR-15 so deadly on the battlefield remain. It is light, easy to hold and easy to fire, with a limited recoil. Bullets fly out of the muzzle more than twice as fast as most handgun rounds.

Equally important for a gunman looking to do a lot of damage in a hurry: AR-15-style weapons are fed with box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The standard magazine holds 30 rounds. Equipped in this way, a gunman can fire more than a hundred rounds in minutes.

Here’s What You Need To Know About The Weapons Of War Used In Mass ShootingsHuffington Post

But the very same traits that have made them the preferred weapon for military personnel and sport shooters are what make them a natural choice for those who want to inflict senseless violence with maximum casualties.

It now seems the toll of mass killers is limited only by their choice of weapon, their training and their target. The political response to that terrifying reality has been to hope that people will choose not to kill. That plan clearly isn’t working.

It’s time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts sayWashington Post

The killers in recent incidents like Las Vegas, Orlando and Sutherland Springs were each able to walk into a gun shop in the days and months before their attacks, and legally purchase their assault weapons and magazines after passing a standard background check. Under an assault weapons ban, that wouldn’t be possible . . .

In 2016 the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard’s David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.

On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed.

And so on . . .

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    And if he ran people down with a Camry no one would have said a thing.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      They’d still be crying for gun control as part of a “common sense package of reforms.” I guarantee it.

      1. avatar Peter Pan says:

        ABSOLUTELY ! They would say “it was bad enough, 85 people with a Camry . . . imagine if he had a gun! Come to think of it . . . ”

        Any excuse is a good excuse for the anti-gun crowd . . .

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          Yep…. they did it for that New York thing a few months ago. Guy had a pellet gun and they ignored everything writing instead about how much WORSE it would have been if the gun was real.

          As sick as people are of school shootings, I think they are more sick of idiot news outlets reporting garbage opinions.

    2. avatar Extractor says:

      Good god people. That lame argument just makes gun owners sound like braindead morons who can’t find the sharp end of a knife.

      If Camerys were so effective we would see them on the battlefield in a capacity other than IEDs.

      AR15s are exceptionally effective at killing and wounding quickly. That is the main reason they are so popular. There are other LEGO guns out there but few enjoy the Barbie effect as much as they do with the AR15. Own up to it you sissies.

      Pretending a military pattern rifle and a Toyota sedan are the same thing just makes you sound stupid. Either stand your 2A ground or get out of the way. Don’t dilute guns or glorify cars.

      1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

        Can we equate guns to moving trucks? After all, the french lost over 80 people to one truck.

        1. avatar binder says:

          But a truck is up close and personal. Can be stopped with concrete barricades. You put in flowers so they look nice. It is EASY to stop a truck from being effective. Guns, not so much

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Your reply made less sense than the admittedly problematic comment it was to. Just because an MPR is more appropriate for a battlefield doesn’t mean that car is a less effective weapon under entirely different circumstances. It is also clear that many people are more concerned with whether death was achieved with gun than just that the deaths happened or how many there were. If it weren’t so, they’d be up in arms about dozens of more common and preventable causes of death.

      3. avatar Manny says:

        TRIVIA: Timothy McVeigh was a lifetime NRA member who received the US ARMY “Marksman” commendation due to his superior ability to handle and shoot the AR-15 (or military version thereof). So, what did he used to kill 168 innocent people quickly, efficiently, and cheaply while affording a chance to escape? Fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a rental truck. Just saying.

        1. avatar binder says:

          And try and buy that much high nitrate fertilizer today as see if the FBI is not at your door. How many rounds and magazines can you buy online before they show up. And Timothy McVeigh was very smart and hard working. Hard to keep the type from killing a hell of a lot pf people no mater what you do. It’s the other 98% that you have a chance against.

      4. avatar Sian says:

        There are no AR15s on the battlefield.

        This is like calling a Hummer H3 an armored assault vehicle.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Ask a typical vet how many times they used full auto out of a M-4 on the battlefield. An AR-15 is way closer to a H1.

      5. avatar Big Bill says:

        Just so you know, an AR-15 is not a “military pattern” rifle.
        Yes, it looks like an M-16, but as any owner of a Rolax watch will tell you, looks only take you so far.
        Someone who owns an M-1 Garand actually owns a “military pattern” rifle. As do those who own an M-1 Carbine. Or a 1911A1. Or many other firearms.
        But an Ar-15? Nope, sorry, but thanks for playing.
        What’s that? Oh, Johnny says that since you displayed ignorance about something you purported to know about, we have no gifts for you to take home. There’s the door.

        1. avatar Red in CO says:

          Technically, the AR-15 is a design rather than a particular model. and the M4 and the M16 are both iterations of that pattern. So, while it certainly disengenious to claim the military uses issues the AR-15, its not technically inaccurate (though of course that subtle distinction is lost in the majority of people)

        2. avatar binder says:

          OK, different fire control group, WOW. And how often will a solder ever use the giggle switch?
          You can get a exact spec M-4 from FN for $1500, just without the auto-sear.

          On a side note, the M-14s we had in the armory had the selector switches removed.

      6. avatar California Richard says:

        +1… everyone knows the prefered Toyota of choice for the battlefield is the Hilux (aka 4-Runner)!….. https://www.maxim.com/rides/isis-endorses-toyota-hilux-chagrin-toyota-everyone-else

    3. avatar Madcapp says:

      Katie Couric will be mad to find out that it wasn’t a Bushmaster AR.

    4. avatar binder says:

      “And if he ran people down with a Camry no one would have said a thing.”
      No they would have. I doubt if he would have manages 17 dead. And you would see car barriers going up around schools. We had them so no one could get a car into an area where students congregate. With a lot of new drivers all showing up at the same time, it was not a worst idea in the world.

  2. avatar xxSAIL HATANxx says:

    Let’s take small victories folks, they finally admitted a standard magazine is 30 rounds…

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      Today’s admission is tomorrow’s denial.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      Why is the AR15 so popular with terrorists and spree killers?
      Because it is effective, easy to use, inexpensive and readily available.
      Why is the AR15 so popular with sport shooters, hunters and law-abiding citizens wanting to protect themselves, their families, their homes?
      Because it is effective, easy to use, inexpensive and readily available.
      Why do the gun bigots want to outlaw the ownership of the AR15 by Americans?
      Because it is effective, easy to use, inexpensive and readily available.
      🤠

    3. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      I saw the same thing as a small victory. Not hi cap, standard. It is apparently still a high powered rifle though. Good thing he didn’t use a Hi Power handgun, those are crazy dangerous, .9mm guns. A blessing Browning doesn’t make them anymore.

      Another small victory:
      “But the very same traits that have made them the preferred weapon for military personnel and sport shooters…”

      Wait, sport shooters use these evil black rifles for legit sport? I thought they were military grade automatic weapons only used for killing, and cannot possibly be used for hunting or other sport, that is what Sen Bill Nelson told me.

      Some glimmers of Truth. Mostly because the other side these days frequently lets the mask slip and just goes into full “ban them all” mode so they get sloppy with their own invented terminology.

      1. avatar BJI says:

        “Good thing he didn’t use a Hi Power handgun, those are crazy dangerous, .9mm guns.”
        How about a .12 gauge shotgun? NO SUCH THING!
        What about a .9mm gun? NO SUCH THING!
        NO DECIMAL POINT BEFORE 12 GAUGE AND NO DECIMAL POINT BEFORE 9MM!!!

    4. avatar Jason says:

      Good to see a glass half full kinda guy!

  3. avatar JD says:

    Of course an armed guard with the same weapon or several members on staff trained to use whatever weapon they prefer including an AR15 would have been totally useless in stopping this kid before he got started.
    Sorry but what’s been proven time and time again to not work is the liberal mindset of gun free zones. How many more of these types of spree killers in GFZ’s will it take before the idiots finally figure out you meet force with equal or greater force. Cowering in a locked room has proven to be the recipe for failure. It’s past time to toss this feel good crap and take an offensive position.

    1. avatar Texas Gun Gal says:

      Take down the No Guns Allowed signs down!
      No malicious person was ever been deterred by them!

      In fact screams to anyone who wants to shoot the innocent, the crazy, the psychopaths and just plain evil people, “no resistance here.” Let them guess if anyone is prepared to shoot back.

  4. avatar SurfGW says:

    Expect this coming Assault Weapons ban to be something the Dems will not compromise on because it brings out their base. Republicans are in a lose/lose situation: compromise on guns with Dems to get other legislation passed and the Republican base doesn’t show to the polls; avoid a compromise and energize Democrats at the polls… bad situation…

  5. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    The gun grabbers and their trolls are covered in the blood of the innocent. Not just these school kids. The lady in Maryland that was stabbed to death while she waited for her permit for a pistol.

    We will be serious about protecting the innocent when we start hanging the gun grabbers.

    1. avatar binder says:

      My opinion is life is dangerous, big deal. Governments are way more dangerous than most things in like. The founding fathers knew that. The problem is that it is a intellectual idea until it happens. A mass shooing with 20 people dead happens a lot more often than the ovens, but when a government starts rolling you can rack up some crazy body counts.

  6. avatar Carl B. says:

    Time to buy another AR methinks.

  7. avatar neiowa says:

    I’m more interested in the info that he took a freaking Uber in order to get to the school. Uber, the choice of progs. When is there going to be a waiting period?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      But doesn’t Uber have a no gun policy?

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘The standard maga zine holds 30 rou nds.’

    The NY Times calling a 30 round ma gazine a ‘standard’ magaz ine? I’d call that progress.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ Gov. William J Le Petomane

      Noticed that and thought perhaps a Freudian slip.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Hmmm…time to buy my FIRST AR. Had 2 on layaway but had concerns about Illinoisistan banning/neutering ’em. Honestly doubt if I’d fire it much but you never know in a SHTF situation😩😖😏

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Cheap and easy to find ammo, light recoil … these suckers are fun and you might find yourself taking it to the range more than you’d think.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Loan me some bucks?!?😋😄😏

        1. avatar DesertDave says:

          Want and AR? short on cash? palmettostatearmory.com! Buy the parts on sale and put them together. You can get a pretty good AR of <$400.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Get a MP-15 sport, run it in some 3 gun and see exactly what you want and then put that together. You will find it easier to sell then a home made frankengun.

  10. avatar Joe R. says:

    The AR platform is effective (in the right hands) at killing people. That’s why the average law-abiding citizen needs at least one, in case they need to replace their government, per Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence.

    You give up your gun, and I’ll get you to give up everything else.

  11. avatar Parnell says:

    So you ban AR’s. If there’s 5 million of then in the country, who’s going to go collect them all? Members of Congress?

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    We provide Public Officials with armed, effective security, but put our children in Campuses that are like the proverbial fish barrel, then are all shocked and dismayed when some f-tard shoots them. It is time to harden school campuses and provide effective, armed security better than that provided to the do-nothing politicians and bureaucrats that have allowed this intolerable situation to develop in the first place. Gun regulation will never help because it is not what’s in the killer’s hand, but what is in his/her heart and mind that matters. We cannot know what he/she will do for certain, but we can provide effective security for our children that will stop these violent assaults more times than not.

    Personally, I think acts of mass violence against other people are means independent, as suicide has been shown to be. A determined assailant can devise means other than firearms to attack children in schools that are not properly secured, and will do so. Evidence of this can be seen in the UK, Australia and European Union States.

    No one calling for it has yet outlined what, specifically, they mean by “common sense gun regulation”, other than proposing “banning assault weapons” [which will result in masss non-compliance and feed thousands of the banned rifles into the Black Market where a determined assailant could obtain them anyway].

    I am not convinced relying on armed teachers and staff (even if extensively “trained”) is the ultimate solution. They would be in a reactive situation and that entails advantage to the attacker as well as other issues. In many locales, I am sure, we would find people who would gladly accept that training and carry concealed, but not all locales. Frankly, I know several teachers who are good people, but none of whom I would want in a classroom with a loaded gun and my children trying to face down an active shooter. Armed teachers and staff is a valid stop gap while better, long term preparations are in progress. The hardened security system, well equiped, properly structured and staffed by trained, dedicated, armed personnel put the campus into a pro-active situation and allows educators to focus on what they are trained, equiped and structured to do in a secure environment.

    We need to do what we know will work and what we can do successfully NOW. There is no excuse. Sadly, we might not succeed before another bunch of children is killed. Once the schools are secured, we can address related problems like the “mental health” and “social media” concerns.

    The only remaining question is how many more school children will we allow to die before we do what any reasonable, caring person/society would have done years ago.

  13. avatar Defens says:

    The reason that it’s easier to buy an AR15 in Florida than a handgun is because the gun grabbers didn’t hate semi-auto rifles as much as they did pistols back when that legislation was passed. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing among the left. “What? We hadn’t banned those yet?”

    1. avatar binder says:

      That and pistols are used in WAY more crimes and murders.

  14. avatar Darren says:

    I wish they would stop using weasel words like assault weapon and just come out and say they want all semi autos banned. Dems (looking at you Seth Moulton) stop lying (you know there is no functional difference between an ar, a mini14, and a 7400) and just file a total semi-auto ban bill so everyone knows where you stand. If the majority of Americans truly want it, it will get passed.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The political response to [the capacity to murder people with firearms] has been to hope that people will choose not to kill. That plan clearly isn’t working. — Huffington Post

    So close and yet so far.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Perhaps even the loony far Left are finally, FINALLY, beginning to see that “hoping people choose not to kill” is a failed strategy.

    The real question is whether the Left will triple down on civilian disarmament, again, still — or whether they finally wake up and realize that defenders need EFFECTIVE force to defend themselves EFFECTIVELY.

    If, and that is a big IF they get that far, will the loony far Left finally admit that a firearm is the only EFFECTIVE force available to stop homicidal maniacs? I would not bank on it.

  16. avatar Stuff and Things says:

    Guess that the panel missed the memo on how Columbine happened right smack-dab in the middle of the Brady Assault Weapons Ban.

    Yup.

  17. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Typical tyrannical Leftist pablum.

  18. avatar Henry says:

    If – the AR-15 were banned, it seems likely that the next weapon would be more lethal, not less. These people aren’t doing this to demonstrate firearms proficiency. I can see this escallating if these targets are not altered. The gun free zone is a low risk with a maximum payoff – reinforced by high publicity and deflected guilt.

    At the end of the week, everyone is to blamed, and the killer is a victim!

  19. avatar ebvan says:

    Sorry, I pretty much quit reading when the article referred to Bloomberg’s research whore David Hemenway as a “violence prevention researcher” and John Lott as an “ideologically driven gun rights advocate”

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Of the quotes, the Washington Post’s was by far the worst. “Studies have repeatedly shown the AWB didn’t do anything, how can we argue for a new one? Let’s do a poll of people we call experts.”

      I know it’s a logical fallacy, but as I don’t have infinite time to check everyone’s work, I have learned to ignore everything a person with a public health background says if they are talking about guns. They might be right about measles, but their research on guns has been downright stupid.

    2. avatar painlessbob says:

      Me too, ebvan.

      Let me fix it for you, NYT: “…ideologically driven anti-gun advocates like Harvard’s David Hemenway, as well as crime prevention researchers like John Lott…”

  20. avatar DoomGuy says:

    When is it time to abolish the FBI?

    The FBI let the shooter loose solely so he would go off eventually, so their buddies in the democrat and Republican Parties could push gun control.

  21. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    People bought lots of AR-15s during the AWB. You just replace the flash hider with a crowned barrel or muzzle brake.

  22. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Even if a law was made where all guns were limited to 10 round capacities, what effect does that have on mass shooting death tolls? The 20, 30, 60 round mags are still out there by the millions and if people want them, they’ll get them.

    One can reload a 10 round magazine just as fast as they can a 20 or 30 rounder and there will still be high death tolls, plus there’s nothing that says a shooter won’t bring a handgun or two or three as a New York reload.

    This is again the delusion that we can solve any problem so long as the central party passes a law. Change starts in our homes and communities, not in some big city far away by people won’t don’t know anything.

  23. avatar CZJay says:

    The Route 91 shooter wanted to give the media and government a list of AR-15 and AR-10 makers to use for a specific ban and to give victims’ families a bunch of companies to sue out of existence. That’s why he bought rifles from as many companies he could and brought them to his hotel room for effect. He thought the use of bump fire stocks, and a large amount of black guns, would terrify the nation enough to get politicians to pass illegal human rights violations.

    The Route 91 shooter was raised in California, a place where they banned guns by manufacture/name until they started banning guns by features, a place where they ban all handguns from purchase unless the specific model is considered “safe” by their government.

    The shooter didn’t understand that shooting country music listening, military/police loving, flag waving, Republican leaning, white folk, would not garner much sympathy from the Americans who seek to remove all human rights from the people of U.S.A. Thus there wouldn’t be much push for human rights infringements because the anti human rights people hated those types anyway. If he had shot up a Democrat learning concert, or a school with young “minority” kids, then there would have been a huge push (most likely a successful one at that) to ban guns from the American people.

    School shootings are the best way to get guns banned. Shooting up Republican leaning places/people isn’t, that even includes churches. I suspect that is why people on the left, corporate media and politicians don’t want to have armed agents inside public schools, but they’re okay with TSA and air marshals. Why can’t parents, trained faculty and school security have the tools of self preservation and the opportunity to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    If NRA supporters, the NRA itself, Republicans and Trump don’t bring actual solutions within the next 3 years, they will be part of the problem almost as much as the people who created it. The first step is the quickest: abolish the failed experiment of so called “gun free zones” and have trained people carry concealed handguns within the school to protect the innocent. The other required steps will take years to become effective.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      At last someone who gets it that Mr “A few ‘roos loose in the” P*****k was trying to make a statement on guns and gun control.

  24. since no one there at the school was armed, it really does not matter what was used to kill those people. high cap mags was not needed. the shooter could have used a M1 Garand with it’s auto ejecting 8 round clip and still do as much damage. actor Michael Douglas in Romancing The Stone showed us how to assault with a 5 round pump action shotgun, ( and keep it loaded during the assault). so anyone so armed and employing such tactics could still do as much damage and so could someone with a lever action side loading rifle. so it really does not matter what kind of gun was used at all.

    1. avatar skoon says:

      Agreed. An m1 with true black tip ap ammo is a truly fierce weapon.

      Case in point the naval yard shooter a few years back killed 12 with a rem 870. There probably wouls have been more carnage with a saiga than an ar 15.

    2. avatar binder says:

      Arguing that a M1 is just as effective as a AR-15 (in my opinion it is, I just would not want to have to carry it and the ammo) is not going to help protect the AR. And you can always go AR-10 pattern, best of all worlds.

  25. avatar fteter says:

    *sigh*…let’s go through the AR-15 argument yet again, in the order the article cited the salient points of the argument:

    “In Florida, an AR-15 is easier to buy than a handgun”: purchasing a handgun in Florida requires a 3-day waiting period, while a rifle can be purchased in a few minutes. But both do require the same background check. So unless someone can make the argument that the typical rifle purchase will somehow make us all safer by compelling the buyer to wait 3 days before receiving the gun, this point isn’t really relevant to the subject at hand.

    “Here is what you need to know about the weapons of war used in mass shootings”: ummm…just a technical point to make here…the AR-15 is not a weapon of war. The AR pattern is copied from the M16 and M4 pattern to a great degree, but it’s not the same…for one thing, no automatic fire with the AR pattern. Weapon of war? That’s just a statement rooted in a lack of knowledge .

    “It’s time to bring back the assault weapon ban”: I’ll come back with the tried and true argument – please define Precisely an “assault rifle”. If I swing my Daisy BB rifle at another person, putting them “…in reasonable fear of harmful or offensive physical contact” (the legal definition of assault), is my BB gun now an assault weapon? In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the top of the Main Tower on the UT campus and killed 17 people with a Remington 700. Assault rifle? And, if so, does that make all bolt action rifles “assault rifles”? Give me a bright line rule or definition of an assault rifle before insisting we can them all. At the very least, determine what you’re talking about!

    Once again, the press demonstrates a lack of understanding as well as an absence of any solid rationale on the subject.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email