Yahoo News
Among the weapons officials have said were in the possession of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were not only several bombs, but handguns, an M-4 carbine rifle and more than 250 rounds of ammunition.
Much of that arsenal was on fiery display when the brothers engaged in a wild gun battle with police in suburban Watertown early Friday, shortly after images of them milling about the marathon's finish line were released to the public by the FBI.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, died following that gun battle while a Boston transit police officer was gravely wounded. The Tsarnaev brothers are also the prime suspects in the execution-style shooting of a security officer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a couple of hours before the gun battle.
"There was a lot of firepower employed," White House press secretary Jay Carney told the daily news briefing on Monday.
Neither Tsarnaev brother had licences to carry firearms, police say.
But even if they'd wanted to acquire the weapons legally — unlikely, considering they were allegedly plotting a terrorist attack — they could have obtained them without submitting to a background check under current laws.
Tougher background checks likely would have caused problems for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died following the shootout, given his past brushes with authorities.
Yes, indeed, this is the first high-profile tragedy which points to the terrible fallacy of the Senate vote last week.
There will be more. The pro-gun fanatics will, instead of taking responsibility for these incidents as a inevitable down-side to their policy of gun-rights, will accuse us of dancing in the blood of the poor victims.
But, that's all right. The necessary changes will eventually come. Too bad for the future, unnecessary casualties, the gun-rights folks are so stubborn and self-centered.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
In case you hadn't noticed, they lived in Massachusetts, a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. If they didn't have a permit to own firearms, they were already in violation of the law. But I suppose you're claiming that if we'd passed one more law, they would have seen the error of their ways?
ReplyDeleteYeah, Mr. Greg sarcastic, just one more law, like the one that prevents guys like you from selling them guns without a background check.
DeleteMikeb, that was already a crime in Massachusetts. Don't you get it? Criminals and wackos don't care about the law. They sell each other guns. There are so many guns in the system that a Federal background check law would have no effect for decades.
DeleteYou mean like Massachusetts' requirement that sales be reported to the government? True, it's not a preemptive background check, but if it and the requirement for a firearms permit were ignored, there's no reason to think they and their supplier wouldn't have ignored the background check law.
DeleteAnd so the 3 dead and hundred wounded drop to the back of the story as the media shifts the focus to the gunfight at the end.
ReplyDeleteI'll save most speculation and commentary until we know more, but the one thing I can say is that based on the reporting we have right now, either the reporters are misnaming one of the guns, they stole it from the cop, or they had some serious black market connections that couldn't be stopped by a background check.
This and many other reports have said that the long gun in the boat was an M-4. The M-4 is a select fire, 14" barrel carbine not available on the civilian market. Either this was a standard, 16" AR-15 that is being misnamed; the cop had an M-4 (or misnamed AR) that they stole after killing him; or they got a real M-4 from some truly shady black market connections--connections that never would have run the background check,regardless of any law, because doing so would land them all in jail for possession of an unlicensed machinegun.
Any statements beyond that would be pointless because we don't have enough information yet.
"Either this was a standard, 16" AR-15 that is being misnamed; the cop had an M-4 (or misnamed AR) that they stole after killing him"
DeleteAn interesting possibility. I hadnt considered that as a possible source of part of their "arsenal". I wonder what reasonable gun law might have prevented that.
"Arsenal"--LOL
DeleteIt never ceases to amaze what can be called an arsenal. I'm waiting for the news story that says that when Joe Schmoe got arrested, the found an arsenal containing a sniper rifle and 50 rounds of highly-accurate, devastating, ballistic tipped sniper ammunition.
I have to wonder what a reporter would call my armory...
DeleteI thought the same thing. It sounded like a pretty meager "arsenal." And, some reports are now saying it wasn't even that much.
DeleteAn arsenal is a government facility for the storage and maintenance of weapons. The fact that some dictionaries include erroneous definitions only goes to show what's wrong with post-modernist thinking.
DeleteHi mike,
ReplyDeleteAll we really know is that they didn't have a purchase permit or a permit to possess. I'm thinking they didn't have any permits for the explosives either. Even with the surviving terrorist cooperating, it will likely be awhile before we have much information about how they acquired their firearms.
The Brady Campaign ranks Massachusetts third in the nation in strict gun laws. They have an assault weapon and magazine ban. They also require that all private purchases be reported to the government and requires the seller to refuse the sale if the buyer doesn't have a permit to purchase. After the sale, the seller reports the transaction. In spite of these strict laws, they still managed to acquire these firearms.
The press is being a bit sensational in calling a rifle, pistol, and 250 rounds an arsenal. That was pretty much what I carried in Iraq. Minus the IEDs.
The instructions to make the explosives is online for anyone to read. Thank heavens for that first amendment. It's much less dangerous than that pesky second.
This is now the second criminal act in the nation where the criminal was dedicated enough to build explosive devices and use them as part of their assault. Maybe we need to concentrate more on reasonable explosives laws in the US.
Here is an interesting development. Its sounding like they might have only had one gun.he operating theory now in the investigation is they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother and the fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go. Officer Collier had a locking holster, it’s like a three-way lock. If you don’t know how to remove the gun, you’re not going to get it out. There was apparently an attempt to yank it and they couldn’t get it and left. “ We still don't have the whole story yet, but it sounds like it might not be gun owners' fault.
DeleteAh the old "sure they got them illegally- but it could have been legal loophole". Unfortunately that isn't true because this was Massachusetts which has licensing and registration- you know, "proper gun control". It's illegal for them to posses a handgun without a license, so there could not be a legal buy without it.
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems clear they got all their guns illegally. The problem is that you lawful gun owners are feeding that black market with your guns that are stolen too easily, straw purchased too easily or sold into the criminal world privately without a background check.
DeleteYou are responsible for that gun avbailability and you keep fighting to keep those sources of guns available to the bad guys.
No, we keep fighting your efforts to make getting guns a whole lot more difficult for good citizens. There are so many guns floating around right now that your proposals would have no effect on crime.
DeleteSold privately without a background check is illegal in Massachusetts. The point of this post was to say they *might* have gotten them legally, and that is simply not correct.
DeleteThe problem is that you lawful gun owners are feeding that black market with your guns that are stolen too easily, straw purchased too easily or sold into the criminal world privately without a background check.
DeleteThe problem is "[we] lawful gun owners," "feeding the black market"? How so? None of my guns have been stolen. I've sold two, and given away one--I know where all three are, and know that they have never been used criminally (at least not since before I ever saw them).
I, therefore, have never "[fed] the black market." Nice try, for an idiot.
Keep working on it.
Well Kurt, if all or nearly all gun owners were as good as you say you are, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, they're not.
DeleteIt's pretty slick of you to suddenly base the entire discussion on your singular behavior. In other moments you love to claim kinship with the 100 million. That's why I say You (plural) gun owners.
"Well Kurt, if all or nearly all gun owners were as good as you say you are, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, they're not." And so you must suffer with the rest of them. Beatings will continue until morale improves.
DeleteKurt, don't you love how we're supposed to feel so nice because Mike pats us on the head and tells us that he just wishes that All gun owners were as good as us, right before he tells us how he wants to infringe that which "shall not be infringed," "just a little bit more."
It's pretty slick of you to suddenly base the entire discussion on your singular behavior. In other moments you love to claim kinship with the 100 million.
DeleteWhen you accuse me of being a member of a group on whom you have decided to lay responsibility for "arming" homicidal killers, I am going to point out that I am a member of no such group (the group who provided weapons to murderers). If you're going to libel me, and further, to stupidly libel me in a way that's not remotely credible, I am going to call you on it.
I am no more responsible for these assholes acquiring weapons than all Muslims are responsible for what said assholes did with the weapons.
The same is true for me. Only one gun has existed my collection, and that was a trade, so the net guns owned at the end of the transaction was the same as before it started. You make broad accusations about gun owners and then weasel your way back from it all the time.
DeleteYou guys who support minimal restrictions on gun ownership are responsible for the results. Own it.
DeleteT.: "Mike pats us on the head and tells us that he just wishes that All gun owners were as good as us"
DeleteActually what I said was if all gun owners were as good as YOU SAY YOU ARE. I don't expect full disclosure from any of you guys, you're much too biased and dedicated to your cause to do that.
To your first comment--We support the protection of our liberties. Criminals take advantage of all freedoms. The answer is to catch and punish the criminals, not to take away liberty in order to make things more difficult for criminals. This is true of all liberties, not just gun rights.
DeleteYou are firmly in the camp that wishes to trade liberty for security--a trade that doesn't work out well. All I can say is may your chains rest lightly upon you...and you know the rest.
To your second comment: Aww--I didn't appreciate the pat on the head, so you're going to take it away and highlight the fact that you consider us liars. I'd say you hurt my feelings, but you've already let me know that you don't think I have any.
And yes, I'm sure you have a zinger about how I wasn't so caustic in the past, but seriously--you do everything but call me a liar to my face and you don't expect me to get a little sarcastic?
Gun control freaks are typcial bullies. They attack and taunt until someone responds, at which point they run to the teacher and whine like cowards.
DeleteYou guys who support minimal restrictions on gun ownership are responsible for the results. Own it.
DeleteWhaddya know? Mikeb says I'm off the hook. Since I oppose all restrictions on gun laws (including the "minimal" ones), Mikeb absolves me of all guilt.
Let's think about this for a moment. Two men were determined to kill as many people as possible. They researched how to make a bomb, actually made three bombs, and then detonated two of them. When law enforcement gave chase, these men shot at law enforcement. One of the men chose to die rather than surrender. The second man only surrendered after receiving several gunshot wounds from police and being near death.
ReplyDeleteThese are not "normal" people. You cannot reason with them. Laws do not affect them. A background check would not have stopped them from making bombs, detonating them, acquiring firearms, or shooting people. They were determined to kill and ready to die in the process.
The only way that we, the good people of our nation, can stop people like that is with deadly force. Whether the police or a responsible citizen delivers that force does not matter. Sadly, gun control makes it harder for responsible citizens -- who are everywhere unlike the police -- to be able to stop such heinous criminals as the two bombers.
- TruthBeTold
"... the gun-rights folks are so stubborn and self-centered."
ReplyDeleteAnd the gun grabbers finally reveal their hearts: a person who exercises and wants to keep their rights and liberties is stubborn and self-centered.
As far as the gun grabbers are concerned, the only rights you have are what the public or government confers on you -- and whatever they confer on you they can take away. Of course that means what gun grabbers call "rights" are actually privileges.
In MikeB's world, citizens can only have what his kind considers reasonable, needed and safe. That is wrong. It is at the least bullying and at the worst tyranny.
- TruthBeTold
Is this post about background checks for real? Please tell me it's a fucking bad joke. This is pitiful. Do you realize what happened in the aftermath of the Boston bombing? Do you have a clue?
ReplyDelete4,000 police, federal agents, military personnel looking for one 19 year-old kid. That in itself is ludicrous, but to do it at destruction of the Constitution is absolutely frightening. And people cheered at this total disregard for law, rights, and what we fought for in 1775. The fourth-largest populated area in the country was put under martial law. An entire town and its citizens were put under house arrest. People and property were searched without warrants, Militarized vehicles, military-style weapons and militarized police wandered streets and into peoples' homes with no just cause.
People were threatened by these militarized maniacs in armored vehicles with death for looking out a window at what these borgs were doing. Pitiful.
As one writer expressed, we have crossed the Rubicon and are now living in the Post-Constitution World. Fuck your background checks.
orlin sellers
Not everyone was forced to stay at home--the cops made sure that Dunkin' Dounuts got its workers in to keep the cops well fed.
Deletehttp://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/19/cops-request-dunkin-donuts-stays-open/G1bOARVwHkqlf0pLmSYtPM/story.html
What's that old line about some pigs?
According to the report from ABC news, the brothers had one handgun, and its serial numbers were "obliterated." Now they may have done that themselves, or they may have bought it in that condition. If the latter, they didn't buy it from a legitimate source, since defacing serial numbers is a crime. More and more we're seeing that background checks wouldn't have stopped them.
ReplyDeleteThey couldn't have bought it legitimately anyway. The younger brother wasn't old enough, and the older one was on a Green Card which only allows you to buy long guns. It had to be a straw purchase, or a direct purchase from the black market.
Delete