Fact Check: An AR-15 Wasn’t Used In Orlando, And It Wouldn’t Have Mattered Anyway

Loading

Bob Owens:

The Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida is the deadliest Islamic terror attack in the United States since the terror attacks of 9/11.

49 people were murdered in the slaughter, and 53 more were wounded. Despite claims from the Orlando police that the terrorist did his damage in the opening moments of the attack, we know for a fact that he was still killing people at least a half-hour into the event.

The terrorist began shooting outside Pulse at approximately 2:02 AM. It was at least 37 minutes into the attack when Eddie Justice was gunned down in a Pulse bathroom, along with others patrons. He sent his last text at 2:39 before the terrorist entered the bathroom he was hiding in, and opened fire.

eddie justice texts
 
These are facts we know

Law enforcement officers failed to get any effective hits on the terrorist outside of Pulse before the terrorist made it inside. Officer Adam Gruler was working security and engaged the terrorist with his handgun, but failed to make any effective hits. Lt. Scott Smith and Sgt. Jeffrey Backhaus, both also SWAT officers, were in the first patrol unit to arrive on-scene. They also failed to make effective hits.

The terrorist was then able to enter the club.

Once inside, the terrorist then fired into the packed crowd, repeatedly and at very close range, with no apparent resistance from any of the club-goers reported. This isn’t blaming the victim by any means, just noting that no accounts of the attack show that the club goers attempted to rush or disarm the gunman, even when he shot people at a distance of 2-3 feet—inside an arm’s length—in the club bathroom, over the top of the stall.

With an ineffectual police response outside the club and no known resistance inside the club, it was sadly irrelevant which firearm the terrorist chose for his attack.

It’s important to be very clear on this: when a terrorist faces no significant opposition, any common firearm can be used to inflict tremendous casualties.

We saw this at Virginia Tech, where the murderer was armed with one of the most common and utilitarian handguns in the world (a Glock 19 9mm pistol) and standard-capacity magazines, as well as a puny Walther P22… a training pistol.

We also saw it at the Washington Navy Yard, where the murderer used a very common pump-action shotgun to take numerous lives at will until law enforcement were finally able to locate, close with, and engage him. While an AR-15 was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the outcome would have been the same if he had decided instead to use either of the pistols in his possession, or the Saiga 12-shotgun he’d decided to leave in the trunk of the car.

In each instance, these violent criminals faced no credible resistance for long periods of time, and were able to cut down people who either could not or chose not to fight back.

Counter-terrorism and law enforcement experts all agree that the only thing that is going to stop an attack is effective resistance, preferably in the form of effective rounds on target. The media and Democrat Party mocked Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association when he said it after Sandy Hook, but he was entirely, factually accurate: the only thing proven to effectively stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, which Orlando SWAT finally did three long hours after the attack began.

Black Rifles Aren’t Boogeymen

It’s frankly fascinating to watch anti-gun politicians and the media attempt to sow so much fear about AR-15s and similar firearms.

You know how scary they are?

ar-15 shooter
 
They’re so terrifying that little girls love to shoot them.

Bigger girls like to shoot them, too.

So do boys and young men, semi-out-of-shape, middle-aged gun writers, senior citizens, people with disabilities or injuries who can’t easily control the recoil of a handgun or shotgun, military veterans who prefer the familiar controls like the military’s M4 and M16 rifles, and millions of other people who simply enjoy shooting. Currently, there are estimated to be 9 million AR-15s alone in the United States.

Why are they so popular?

AR-15s are the most popular rifle sold in the United States for the following reasons:

  • reasonably-priced, ranging from $499 to $2,000+ depending on options
  • accurate
  • relatively light-weight
  • easy to use
  • low-recoiling with the most common and affordable intermediate-power caliber (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO)
  • available in a wide range of calibers
  • very user configurable, modular design
  • depending on configuration, excels at more than a half-dozen kinds of sport shooting, is excellent for home and property defense, and is favored for many kinds of hunting.

Put simply, AR-15s are inexpensive, easy to customize, and being much less powerful and using much smaller bullets than most other rifles, they’re a lot more fun to shoot for more people.

In addition to 9 million AR-15s, there are millions of other firearms that fall under the broad classification of “modern sporting rifles,” or MSRs. Their common features tend to be that they shoot low-to-medium power centerfire rifle ammunition, fire one shot per trigger pull, and feed from a box magazine. This is only a very broad classification, however: there are many MSRs which are in rimfire calibers, and some long-range target rifles that fit the overall design or an MSR, but are in magnum calibers and are perhaps the only rifles in the classification that misleading media and politicians can honestly call “high-powered.”

50-to-221
 
The round on the left (above) is the .50 BMG, one of the most powerful rifle rounds currently made. It is legitimately “high powered.” The round beside it is the .30-06, a very popular hunting cartridge that was also the standard U.S. military service rifle cartridge in World War I, World War II, and Korea. In the middle is the .308 Winchester, which is very similar in power and performance to the .30-06, but which is just slightly less powerful. Fourth from the left (second from the right) is the .223 Remington, the most common cartridge for the AR-15, and one of the least powerful centerfire rifle rounds made. It’s visually identical to the 5.56 NATO chambering, with shoots a little faster. On the far right is the .22 Long Rifle (.22LR), often used for beginner training and the second most common chambering of AR-15s after the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO family of cartridges.

“Military-Style” Firearms And “Weapons of War” Are Largely A Myth

Despite attempts by politicians and the media to claim that the common, kid-friendly AR-15 is a “weapon of war,” or “military-style,” actual military rifles have been banned from manufacture for civilian purchase for exactly 30 years.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Facts make no difference, a man bought a gun, the gun then took him to a gay bar and killed over 50 people. That gun needs to be punished.
That gun was also thinking about going to Disneyland, except none of the people there would have been drunk and wouldnt be totally confined.

According to official sources, the weapon the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX. Making a big deal out of the fact that it wasn’t an AR-15 is nothing more than irrelevant nit picking. It’s an assault weapon, designed to be a high-efficiency human killing tool. It was, in fact, originally designed as a special forces tactical weapon.

Bob Owens:

“Military-Style” Firearms And “Weapons of War” Are Largely A Myth.”

That statement is complete BULLSHIT. The truth is that weapons originally designed for the military as high-efficiency killing machines have found their way into the civilian market.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/1/31/video-sig-sauer-mcx/
Its just another rifle but can be converted to pistol grade ammo. not convertible to fully auto.
Greg needs to pull up his pink frillies and study more. A candlestick can be an assault weapon get a clue, or ask Colonel Mustard.

It was designed as a military weapon or for S.W.A.T. applications. What do you imagine the civilian uses are for weapons intended for such purposes? What’s the legitimate civilian application requiring a weapon capable of extended high rates of fire using high-capacity magazines?

Better a potential mass-murderer be equipped with a candlestick, or a weapon requiring a pause and reload after six or eight rounds have been discharged. You’re probably not going to be defending yourself from a zombie apocalypse. Why do you advocate the maximum empowerment of psychos? You seem to want the most efficient and powerful possible killing tools out to be there, with the least possible restrictions on their sale. This is just plain crazy. Because these days, there’s a crazy person on every block.

@Greg: There it is. Bill is a hog hunting weapons expert who didn’t even serve—I forgot why.

@Greg: By strict definition, a firearm must have the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be an individual weapon;
It must be capable of selective fire, which means it has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine;
And it should at least have an effective range of 300 metres (330 yards).
for your education the rifle of the gay terrorist was not repeat not an assault weapon.

@kitt, #6:

Who cares if it doesn’t meet somebody’s technical definition of an assault weapon? You know perfectly well that this guy’s choice of weapon was made with the intention of maximizing a body count. Certain characteristics of a weapon can make it far more suited to such a purpose. The main one would be an ability to sustain a high rate of fire. You commonly get this with a weapon that was originally designed to support a fully automatic option—even if that option isn’t present in the civilian version—when it’s combined with high-capacity magazines. That combination adds up to a weapon that’s ideally suited to killing a lot of people. I don’t see where there’s much other use for it, and that’s what I’d slap a lot stricter controls on. That’s my “assault weapon.”

@Greg: I just didn’t want you to look as stupid as the news people you watch but too late.
It is a semi automatic carbine rifle that does have the ability to accept a large clip.
What or why a law abiding citizen does with their firearms or the type they own is none of your business they have a constitutional right. If that makes you sad tough, hard luck, too bad for you.
Look how gun confiscation has affected the good people of Venezuela now only the murderous criminals have weapons, and they are defenseless.
More guns less death live with it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-s

@kitt, #8:

What or why a law abiding citizen does with their firearms or the type they own is none of your business they have a constitutional right.

Omar Mateen was a native-born U.S. citizen, and was evidently law-abiding until about 2:02 AM this past Sunday morning. What he was doing with his firearms and the type he bought sure as hell should have been somebody else’s business.

Look how gun confiscation has affected the good people of Venezuela now only the murderous criminals have weapons, and they are defenseless.

Why does any suggestion that screening and regulations should be tighter and seriously enforced always get turned into talk about confiscation? (A rhetorical question, of course. That’s how the NRA alarms gun owners on behalf of a gun industry that would happily put a machine gun in every closet in America to maximize profits, if it were legal for them to do so. It’s about money. The entire “Obama’s gonna take your guns” meme was nothing but an enormously successful marketing campaign. Except, of course, a lot more fools and people with anger-management problems are now armed than was previously the case. And, hey… Trickle down to the criminal element most definitely does work.)

@kitt: you can not argue with a rock.

Funny how even though gun and AR15 sales have increased dramatically that the actual amount of gun violence has decreased in the us and continues to do so, thus showing no correlation of which any ban on either weapons or magazines would be effective
The root cause is the individual not the tool

@Matt: Yes, following liberal logic if this guy had taken gasoline and a match to the nightclub we should blame Exxon Mobil and Diamond match company.
Therefore we must restrict the amount of matches contained in a box and restrict the size of gas cans.

@Randy: You are right Randy, but if I had my way every unconstitutional regulation and law that infringed the 2nd amendment would be repealed. I could then have a machine gun and maybe a cannon what fun.

Greg has only been listening to MSNBC and miss Tachel Madcow doesn’t want to clue him in
Omar Mateen was a native-born U.S. citizen, and was evidently law-abiding until about 2:02 AM this past Sunday morning. What he was doing with his firearms and the type he bought sure as hell should have been somebody else’s business.
he harassed a fellow co worker into quitting , his employer a tentacle of DHS never provided counceling or discipline for hate speech. 3 investigations by FBI I guess all law abiding citizens have that happen, ask Hillary she knows.
Its because he is a protected elite class of persons, a muslim, favored by the president thats why this happened Greggie.

he harassed a fellow co worker into quitting…Its because he is a protected elite class of persons, a muslim, favored by the president thats why this happened Greggie.

I can see how you might be inclined to imagine that similar rambling monologues on the part of Donald Trump might make some sort of sense. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes him to turn the topic back to the flood of drug-pushing Mexican rapists Obama has thrown wide the gates and rolled out the Welcome mat for.

@Greg: Speaking of bullshit, nether the Sig Sair or the AR-15, or any other rifle available to the public is an assault weapon or rifle. They aren’t available, as the article points out.

The Germans introduced the assault rifle in 1944. It is selective from semi to fully automatic, which means it cannot be purchased.

It is EXTREMELY important to accurately describe the weapons as well as the criminal. Otherwise, you leftists would be banning the wrong weapons in the hands of the wrong people. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

How about being accurate about the weapon’s capabilities? Do you think it helps when the idiot Grayson states the AR-15 (wrong gun) can fire 700 rounds a minute (bold face lie)?

If the Federal Government had spent more time investigating Mateen instead of scrubbing intelligence of non-PC terms or introducing MORE terror suspects into our society, he would not have been able to legally get his weapons. Government failure. YOUR failure.

If gun control is so important to liberals, why do they lie about it so much?

@Richard Wheeler: And you are an idiot that never reads what anyone writes. How is it that an experienced veteran doesn’t even know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 or its capabilities?

@Matt: Well, it only takes one of those weapons to be used in a tragedy. What is REALLY funny is the the only people committing those tragedies are those the left will not pay attention to, will defend and are the easiest to identify by authorities (if they could get through the PC filters).

@Bill: You can purchase an assault weapon, if allowed by your state, pay a special fee and tax stamp for the weapon, pass a background check that is much more extensive than the one muslims must pass to get into country, and have 10 to 20 grand for the weapon, the dealer also must have a special license to sell it.

One of the goals of terrorism is to get people to give up their rights. ISIS has partially succeeded thanks to the left’s compliance. The left has been attacking the 2nd Amendment (and conservatives) ever since this happened some calling for its repeal. Rather than uniting against those who would do us harm, they’ve blamed their fellow Americans and our Constitution (again) for these attacks. In the past, Americans would unite against attacks like this, but now the attacks divide us even more. Didn’t someone once say something like, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”?

The reaction to this terrorist attack is probably the best indicator to date that the divisions that exist in this country are deep and irreversible. Some big decisions are going to be made as to how this country goes forward.

@Greg:

So when the Founding Fathers wrote on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, why didn’t they include a requirement that personally owned firearms had to be less powerful and functionally capable than firearms to be used by government? Why did the early American government not enact legislation banning or restricting state of the art firearms from individual ownership after the Whisky Rebellion?

The 2nd Amendment right to own firearms was specifically included in the Bill of Rights by men who had just fought a war of liberation against a tyrannical government, for the express purpose of ensuring the people had the ability to resist government tyranny. It was not limited to permission to simply go hunting. The battle of Lexington occured when British forces intended to confiscate firearms, and the colonial forces fought to keep those arms.

Politicians and celebrities- who have armed guards – demanding that every law-abiding citizen be prohibited from owning a firearm is naked hypocrisy. The idiocy of gun free zones does not stop criminals or terrorists from using firearms to kill. Gun prohibition did not stop the use of firearms to murder dozens in France, nor does it stop the murders in Chicago, roughly 277 from guns so far this year.

@Pete, #18:

The 2nd Amendment established an underlying, governing principle, intended to inform the subsequent laws, statutes, and regulations that are always needed to address exceptions and specific situations. None of the principles set forth in the Bill of Rights are absolute, granting unrestricted license or carte blanche under all possible circumstances.

Freedom of religion does not guarantee anyone a right to build an altar on the town square for the conduct of human sacrifices. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean you can take a fully automatic weapon with you to the football game. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect your right to yell “Fire!” to deliberately incite panic in crowded settings. It was understood by the Founding Fathers that enshrined principles would exist within a rational context, because they were rational people.

The Democrat from Conn is filibustering the Senate for more gun law, unconstitutional. What part of shall not be infringed do these dopes not understand.
What does he want ? The ability to take away a citizens due process before stripping you of your 2nd amendment right. On the terrorist or no fly watch list, no gun 4 you. So how do you qualify for these watch lists who decides? How do you get off the list?
The IRS has hundreds of conservative orgs on their enemies list, some so small and insignificant it is hard to believe.
Grabby grabby grabby libs any reason to kill the constitution.

@kitt: You can’t buy a NEW one. Forbidden.

@kitt: No not new, that is true, it has to be from May 19 of 1986 or older. What a blast it would be to own one, line up the jugs filled with lime koolaid against the berm and mow through them.

@Greg:

It was understood by the Founding Fathers that enshrined principles would exist within a rational context, because they were rational people.

So, granting your statement of the rationality of the Founding Fathers, what did they actually say and write about the right to possess firearms?

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the
people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

And for those who actually care about history, and what these great men thought and wrote about not only the right of the people to be armed, but the Constitution as a whole, it takes mere seconds to search and learn.

And despite the evil lies of the scum in the ACLU about the alleged homophobia of gun owners, there is this interesting little bit of American greatness:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/15/bigots-no-heroes-u-s-gun-owners-everywhere-offering-free-shooting-lessons-to-gays/

Yesterday, Mr. CJ told me about a post from an acquaintance of his on Facebook named Erin Palette who was compiling a list of friends willing to teach firearm safety to others for free –particularly to members of the LGBT community.
Take them to the gun range, pay for their range time and ammo, teach them about guns and how to handle them safely – all of it. And these wouldn’t necessarily be whole classes on gun safety. These would be individuals who want to learn the basics of gun safety and gun laws, but don’t know where to start.

Basically, that post BLEW UP — over a hundred (at last count that I could tell) people volunteering their time, expertise, and expense to help total strangers learn how NOT to be the next ISIS terrorist’s victim.

Remind me how America is a super-intolerant and bigoted country, again?

It is the height of clueless arrogance that is a hallmark of leftist ideology to demand that because a reportedly gay, confirmed muslim and confirmed registered democrat, who reportedly beat his wife and had been investigated at least twice by the FBI (but with no action taken against him) and who proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS, murdered or severely wounded 100 people in a gay dance club – that the solution is to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms, while ignoring the islamic terrorist nature of this event. It is even more egregious for the left to ignore the glaring failure of the federal government, despite investigating this muslim terrorist TWICE, in preventing this evil vermin from obtaining weapons, while demanding that the same government that managed such a failure be placed in authority for banning law-abiding citizens from owning firearms as is guaranteed under the Constitution.

@Greg: The federal government, with the restrictions it currently has, could have easily blocked Mateen from (legally) purchasing weapons. Instead, this administration put PC restrictions in place which served to allow someone with terrorist ties, twice the target of FBI terror investigations, who beat his wife, that traveled to Saudi Arabia… TWICE and whose father has a goddamn television show supporting the f-ing Taliban to buy weapons.

So all you bleeding heart, hypocritical, stupid-blind to reality liberals can stick your pretend-outrage up your ass. You aren’t gettin any more of MY rights. If you want more effective gun control, talk to the idiots you support. We don’t need the entire nation as “safe” as Chicago or Orlando.

@Greg:

Omar Mateen was a native-born U.S. citizen, and was evidently law-abiding until about 2:02 AM this past Sunday morning.

Omar was also a Democrat voter, Hillary supporter, passed his background check and was hired by Obama’s DHS and given a security clearance and gun-weilding security jobfrom them.

Yet, somehow DHS head Jeh Johnson thinks the DHS should be trusted in deciding who is eligible to own a gun. When will Democrats “lone wolf killers” stop going to target rich no-gun zones and mass murdering people? Clearly, via the left’s logic, Democrats need to be put on the terrorist watch list.