Boston Bomber's firearms?

Why is it that:

If a guy commits a crime with a bomb, its the bomber's fault;

If a guy commits a crime with a gun, its the gun's fault
 
If a guy commits a crime with a bomb, its the bomber's fault;

If a guy commits a crime with a gun, its the gun's fault
Click to expand...
This guy. This guy right here. He gets it ;)

Thing is, the antis are still angry at us for crushing their agenda, so they're going to get petty. Lawrence O'Donnell claimed that the NRA had blood on its hands because it opposed legislation (when was that? 1988?) to make gunpowder traceable:

Gunpowder could be traced by investigators to a buyer at the point of sale if gunpowder contained a taggant, an element that would enable tracing of the purchase of gunpowder. But thanks to the National Rifle Association, identification taggants are required by law only in plastic explosives. The NRA has successfully blocked any requirements for such taggants in gunpowder. So such supremely helpful evidence as taggants are not available to the FBI in this investigation."
Click to expand...

Never mind that we don't know if gunpowder was used as propellant in this case, and that we've already apprehended the suspects. It's a stretch, but one they'll make. Fortunately it was on MSNBC, so only six people ever saw it.
 
Never mind that we don't know if gunpowder was used as propellant in this case, and that we've already apprehended the suspects. It's a stretch, but one they'll make. Fortunately it was on MSNBC, so only six people ever saw it.
Click to expand...

During the shootings/ bombings we were doing a lot of channel flipping. I noticed of all the networks MSNBC made up the most amount of news.

CNN had a moment of hilarity when we switched over after watching the police surround the boat for about a half hour. Anderson Cooper says; "We have a piece of intelligence that we did not to share with you until now. He is in a boat."

He was serious but that provided a good moment of tension relief.

OT- The younger brother was too young for a lic. They were supposed to have one rifle and (?) handguns with 250 rounds of ammo. What difference does it make though? They are being charged with weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/boston-bombing-gun_n_3131363.html
 
I was listening to the shootings as they happened and I would swear that I heard .22's popping off.

Granted the sound was getting bounced off every building in the area and then going over the air (mics from tv cameras) so it would have been distorted somewhat but the other shots sounded like centerfire handguns
 
It blew my mind that hundreds of rounds were fired in the exchange with the older brother, and I could only see two bullet wounds in the autopsy photo. Sure, there could've been a few that I couldn't see but there were definitely not dozens of entrance wounds.

Just slightly less amazing is that the younger one escaped amid all that lead flying.
 
Not sure if you can actually get a CCW permit in that state.

You can; a Class A firearms license gives the bearer the right to carry concealed, in addition to a number of other gun-related privileges. However, MA is a may-issue state, so a resident's ease of obtaining a Class A license depends on the whims of local law enforcement.

This topic is currently being discussed in L&CR at the following thread, which includes a link to a map:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522925

Class A licenses are reportedly nearly impossible to obtain in Boston proper, but are routinely issued in many rural areas, including some "outer ring" Boston suburbs.

Disclaimers:
I have never personally attempted to navigate the MA licensing system and I do not consider myself to be an expert on the subject.
I have no idea whether the Boston bombing suspects have ever possessed, or applied for, a MA license of any type.
Click to expand...

There are, or were, two carry permits. One allows only carrying the gun while moving in a straight line between your home or business and a shooting range of which you are a member.
The other is for what most of us consider the purpose of concealed carry - self protection - and they appear to be issued only to people who carry a lot of cash or other valuables (more concern about the tax revenue stream than the safety of the citizenry).

I had the former type of license. The process was very long and drawn out, expensive, but I dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", so got the permit. Since I was from out of state, I had to first get a MA drivers license, then the "gun ID", or whatever they call it, then I applied for the carry permit, which required that I supply them not only with my own personal information, but the name and addresses of any roommates, name and phone number of my boss, etc. I had at least three face-to-face meetings with BPD, and they always reminded me that I would have to go through the entire process - four months, $400 in real, 1990 money - before I would find out if I was going to get the permit (that is, they wouldn't tell me if an answer that I had provided would cause the application to be rejected).
I dropped two points on the shooting test - I think it was a total of thirty rounds, single-action at seven yards, and double-action at 15 yards (backwards, right?) - with a supplied .38 revolver.
 
We'll probably never know, but I think the police brass will or should review policies on fire control and just how many rounds were expended by their army of officers.

Hopefully, just for future reference, the brass should perhaps try to determine just how many rounds were fired by the brothers.

And citizens in Watertown, just for giggles, should count how many bullet scars in street pavements and holes in trees, homes exist at the scenes of the shootings of the first brother and around the boat.
 
We will probably never know for sure.

It seems however one report (I can't remember the source) mentioned that the younger brother had a revolver. Of course that source could have been mistaken.

I am sure they will eventually show off the guns at a press conference later. Or at least the guns they intend for us to see.

When we discuss hundreds of round exchanged we have to understand that most of those rounds were probably fired from the 'Gauntlet".
 
I am going to guess

that the long gun was a Mosin Nagent from 1937.

why else would they not be displaying it all over the various media sources. :D
 
that the long gun was a Mosin Nagent from 1937.
Click to expand...

lol. ARMOR PIERCING MILITARY RIFLE!?!?!?! WHO NEEDS A MILITARY GUN THAT CAUSES DEATH!!!!!?!?!


Initially the police scanners mentioned long guns that were automatic. The glock was dropped on the road around when white cap went into their hideout and eluded police from that point on. The main weapon of note was the pipe bombs and the single pressure cooker bomb they used. The pipe bombs injured one police officer and the pressure cooker bomb put up a smoke screen that allowed them to escape the initial on ground fire fight. The only gun that actually killed anyone was the two pistols which were used to kill the MIT Cop who was just sitting in his car. The sounds from the videos also lead me to believe that the two were not putting as much rounds downrange as to lead anyone to believe that they had a crazy advantage over cops even with their "high capacity magazines".
 
I was listening to the shootings as they happened and I would swear that I heard .22's popping off.

Granted the sound was getting bounced off every building in the area and then going over the air (mics from tv cameras) so it would have been distorted somewhat but the other shots sounded like center fire handguns
Click to expand...

I am anticipating that you will end up being correct.
 
I don't think these two were any where near as prepared for a gun fight as the news has made it out.

They were out to have a good time with their explosives tho.
 
ABC news is just now reporting that they allegedly only had one handgun. We will not know for sure of course until law enforcement has has made more progress with their investigation.
 
I honestly dont care what firearms they had. I really dont. They killed several people, injuring over a hundred with bombs (depending on whos counting and their definition of an injury or even death).

UncleEd said:
We'll probably never know, but I think the police brass will or should review policies on fire control and just how many rounds were expended by their army of officers.

Hopefully, just for future reference, the brass should perhaps try to determine just how many rounds were fired by the brothers.
Click to expand...

I am 100% positive they will do there very best to know how many rounds each side fired. Perhaps the terrorist should review their policies on killing or injuring others, including innocent children? Pardon me while I dont hold my breath................................
 
I don't think these two were any where near as prepared for a gun fight as the news has made it out.
Click to expand...
It doesn't appear that they had any sort of strategy for what to do after the primary bombs detonated. Resorting to carjacking in order to yank cash out of an ATM smacks of poor long-term planning.

That said, they did have explosives, which are far more indiscriminate and destructive than guns. The idea that these guys were able to assemble them under the radar, with schematics easily found on the internet is going to be attractive to copycats. And it's easier than resorting to straw-purchase of theft of firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top