The Sandy Hook “Two Handguns” Myth

There is a myth about the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings that was started by gun rights activists but has become so pervasive that even some gun control activists have started repeating it.

The myth is that Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook using nothing more than two handguns — a Glock 10 and a Sig-Sauer P226.

That is not true.

Every person that Lanza murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary was killed with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S .223 caliber rifle. The only person Lanza killed with a handgun during his shooting spree was himself. He ended his own life with a single shot from a  Glock 10.

Lanza’s mother — the first victim of his rampage — was killed with a .22 calibre bolt-action rifle that Lanza left on the floor next to her bed after murdering her.

Connecticut police have attempted to correct the record on this point, but the myth still persists,

Connecticut State Police
Public Information Office


January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **


In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons
seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized
at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

The shooter used the Bushmaster .223 to murder 20 children and six adults inside the school; he used a handgun to take his own life inside the school. No other weapons were used in this crime. This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

Disinformation on “Assault” Gun Ban

According to The Associated Press,

While manufacturers look for a boom in business as people buy up previously banned weapons like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s, police chiefs warn of an upsurge in crime.

Actually, even under the “assault” weapons ban, you could legally buy a fully automatic AK-47 in the United States provided you wanted to jump through a bunch of red tape.

And if all you wanted was the semi-automatic version of the AK-47, you could essentially buy that too. There are a number of AK-47 semiautomatic knockoffs that, with minor cosmetic changes to comply with the “assault weapons” ban, went on sale immediately after the ban (the major changes that were made were removal of pistol grips and ability to mount a bayonet).

The Associated Press also falsely claims that,

Just over a year after the San Francisco shootings, President Bill Clinton signed Feinstein’s bill into law. It banned the sale of 19 specific semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips of 10 rounds or more.

Wrong! The law banned the manufacture or sale of new ammunition clips of 10 rounds or more. It did not effect the sale of such clips that were manufactured before the law went into effect. The main effect was that the price of larger ammunition clips increased during the period the law was in effect, but they were still widely available for sale (in fact, manufacturers of such clips dramatically increased production of larger clips before the ban went into effect precisely for this reason).


Assault weapons ban to expire Monday. Associated Press, September 13, 2004.

Good Riddance “Assault” Weapons Ban

Per the Bureau of Alochol, Tobacco and Firearms,

By statute, the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, certain sections of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and its implementing regulations, 27 CFR Part 478, are no longer in effect.

Of course YMMV depending on whether you live in a girlie-man state such as California that has its own “assault” weapons ban.

What Ever Happened to the Million Mom March-ers

Tanya Metaksa has a hilarious look at the aftermath of the Million Mom March at FrontPageMag.Com. Several marchers, after going on about the horrors of violence, were themselves involved in violence, including gun violence.

The march also had its share of victims; people who had suffered as a result of the criminal use of firearms or gun accidents. Many stories were poignant and heartbreaking. One victim was Barbara Lipscomb, a mother and grandmother, whose son, LeÂ’Pierre Clemons, was gunned down on Martin Luther King JrÂ’s birthday just four months prior. LeÂ’Pierre was another victim of teenage violence in the nationÂ’s capitol, and his mom told everyone she was going to the MMM to stop the violence.

Yet, 2 months later, on July 14, 2000 Barbara Lipscomb, now known as Barbara Ann Martin, found herself under arrest on a charge of assault with intent to kill. According to the Washington Post, D.C. police say they found three handguns and a TEC-9 submachine gun at her home.

Oops. Metaksa also reports that the shooting was basically an attempt at vigilantism, the only problem being Lipscomb/Martin shot the wrong man.

Of course just because some members of the MMM turned out to be hypocrites doesn’t make them wrong. What does is their bizarre logic.

Right before the MMM, I happened to catch CNN coverage of the March while working out. A woman, perhaps it was Lipscomb/Martin, was going on about how her son had been killed by gun violence and if only guns were illegal her son’s shooting might have been prevented. Very sad, to be sure.

The only problem being that they flashed where she lived and it turned out her son had been murdered in Washington, DC, where it is already illegal for people to own guns. If laws were the answer to gun violence, a reasonable observer might think that Washington, DC, would have a relatively low rate of gun violence instead of always being near the top of murders.

I should qualify that statement by the way. The same Congressman and their aides who fight for gun control have passed a special exemption that allows a member of Congress or anyone on his or her staff to carry a concealed weapon. I can’t imagine why they feel they need guns — surely a member of Congress could talk an attacker into surrendering or waiting on the oh-so-efficient DC police to resolve any disputes.

Gore Driving NRA Membership Through the Roof

    Al Gore has clearly tried to mute his anti-gun pronouncements, going so far as to arrange for Tommy Lee Jones to describe the vice-president hunting. Unfortunately for him, gun owners aren’t buying it and membership in the National Rifle Association has grown by leaps and bounds since Gore wrapped up his party’s nomination.

    This month the NRA passed the 4 million members mark, and NRA officials were hinting that membership was continuing to increased rapidly enough that they were well on their way to 5 million members. All of those extra members mean extra money that will in part be used to target Gore and other anti-gun politicians — the NRA will spend up to $20 million in the remaining few weeks until the presidential election.

    About the only thing that can be said in favor of Gore’s record on guns is that he isn’t quite as extreme as former Sen. Bill Bradley, who challenged Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination and flat out favors a ban on most guns. Gore, though, favors mandatory registration of all guns which is the first step on the way to a ban.

    In an article about the increase (Bush’s Silver Bullet?), John Fund noted,

It’s fashionable for national political reporters to demonize the NRA. But it’s also true that few journalists have ever bothered to find out why so many Americans belong to such a controversial organization. Most NRA members look at the recent successful efforts of governments from Canada to Australia to limit gun ownership and are resolved to give no quarter when it comes to public policy in this country.

    Of course the NRA could probably get 15 million members and the media would still insist on trying to marginalize it as a bunch of wacko extremists. The media love to tout the importance of the Constitution, except when it comes to organizations that dare defend the Second Amendment.

    Gore is probably wise to avoid going on the attack on gun control because exit polls in the past have suggested that when it comes to guns those who oppose gun control are very likely to be single issue voters who will reject a candidate based simply on that issue alone, whereas while many Americans tell pollsters they favor gun control, they are much less likely to vote for or against a candidate based solely on that issue.

    From personal experience, I’m amazed at the number of people I know who don’t own guns, but who have nevertheless joined the NRA in the past 4 to 6 months. Like me, they don’t necessarily want a gun in their home at the moment, but at the same time they don’t want Al Gore and the Justice Department telling them they can’t if they feel they need a gun for protection (and let me tell you — the two kids who live next to me each have an armed robbery conviction and for awhile a woman in our neighborhood was dating a man just out of jail on a homicide charge. I and my wife have a fundamental human right to adequate self defense of ourselves and our daughter, which means a gun if we so choose).