I invite anyone opining on this massacre read this entire article at the link below.  there are some facts in here you will never hear about in the “mass media’ at all.  Read all of the facts here before pining…

 

We’ll start with the guns.  They are reported to have been legally owned by the shooter’s mother and included a Glock pistol, a Sig pistol and a .223 caliber rifle.  The rifle has been reported to be a sporting variety commonly used for target practice or hunting varmints; if the make and model reported are correct it is indeed a hunting variant (it has a fixed stock as hunting rifles typically do, no flash-hider on the front or other “scary looking” but immaterial cosmetics, etc.)  Sig makes extremely high-quality (and commensurately expensive) pistols; Glock of course makes highly-reliable and well-respected weapons as well.  A little-known fact about Glocks is that for many people they “point” funny due to a different grip angle than most other pistols; some people find them very difficult to shoot accurately for this reason.  That may be why the mother owned both (she may have bought one and not liked it, then bought the other.)  The rifle was found inside the car the shooter drove and since he never came out of the school building once going in it must be presumed that he did not use that gun in the school assault.  There is nothing particularly-remarkable about the weapons used in this assault; they are common guns used lawfully by millions of Americans for hunting, target practice and defensive purposes.

Of note is that the shooter could not have legally acquired the pistols, as he is not 21.  Federal law requires one to be 21 years of age before purchasing a pistol at retail.  In this particular case, however, it doesn’t matter whether he was 21 or not as he didn’t buy any of the weapons involved; they were lawfully purchased by his mother who the assailant murdered prior to assaulting the school.

In other words the shooter effectively stole the weapons used in the assault.  We do not know at this point (and may never know) the exact order of events in terms of his acquisition of the weapons but what we do know factually is that he murdered their owner, ending her ability to report the theft or to resist what he intended to do with them next.

That is, there was no “gun control” violation involved in this assault.  The bad guy did not obtain the weapons through lawful means and he also did not (legally or not) circumvent the background check system by, for example, buying them privately from someone (the much-maligned “gun show loophole” that people talk about but is almost-never actually implicated in an assault.)  Rather, the assailant removed the weapons from their lawful owner through, either directly or indirectly, the crime of murder.

As a retired school teacher with no reported criminal history, there was utterly no reason to prevent the mother from owning these firearms for perfectly reasonable and lawful purposes, such as paper-punching or self-defense.  Being divorced — as a single woman — she had every right and reason to be armed for defensive purposes, particularly in her own home.

via CT School Shootings; Facts Before Hype in [Market-Ticker].