Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

No guns used in Boston

April 21, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: I would just like to point out that there were no assault rifles (registered or otherwise), no guns with magazines capable of holding more than seven rounds, no semi-automatic......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-21-13 7:47 AM

No, but there were certainly illegal weapons used to kill the MIT officer and seriously wound a transit officer in their escape. And most certainly, it doesn't change a thing about the murder rate in this country which involves all of that and more. Most of all, I don't think it should be used for political commentary, which it was no more than 5 minutes after the bombing hit the news, basically the same thing you just said.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 9:01 AM

People shouldn't write letters if all they have to offer is name-calling, wild-eyed speculation. Christopher's argument covers the response beautifully.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 9:14 AM

Why did the Senate not pass the universal background check? If people NOT guns kill, then should we not have background checks on everyone who is buying a gun? Who could be against this? Oh that is right, 94% of all Americans AGREE with universal background checks. We just saw how the Senate IGNORED the will of the wide majority of people in our Country.

Still waiting for anyone to explain to me what weapons and ammo should be restricted and why. Or do some think that there should be NO restrictions, including weapons such as machine guns, etc

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 9:32 AM

judeye judeye judeye. Again? Christopher at least makes good observations and evolves in his commentary. You just post the same thing over and over, and even though you have been answered many times, you claim you haven't. 94% now? That number keeps getting bigger!! It is also a lie.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 10:32 AM

Wonder when that number will evolve to 100% of the people RipleyResident. Yes for once some of what Christopher says is good.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 11:14 AM

Judeye,please go to 3w dot policeone dot com.Read the gun control survey(answered by 15,000 police officers)and let us know if you learn anything from it.Then read "11 key lessons from officers perspectives",also read "are legally armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?"

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 9:41 PM

judeye keeps stating how the majority of people want this gun control but watching the run on pistol permits and the statements of disagreement from law enforcement I really doubt the accuracy of her statements!

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-21-13 10:16 PM

RipleyResident, I was gong to say the same thing. The other day she said 90% and now it's 94%.

That 90% was based upon a MSNBC survey of 1100 people. Obama and Judy are wanting every state to change its laws based upon what 1100 people surveyed. You can bet your life MSNBC didn't conduct that survey in states like Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Missouri, Alaska, etc.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-22-13 9:14 AM

Maybe what we need is background checks for anyone wanting to buy a pressure cooker. At some point we will come to the conclusion that the source of the problem is hatred evolving from American foreign policy.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-22-13 11:47 AM


While I agree that we shouldn't use things like this to score political point, I also said the same after Sandy Hook but people continue to stand on the graves of dead children to try and push their own political agenda.


When Congress passed Obamacare the majority of American's opposed passing it. So I have to ask, is the will of the people only important to you when it supports your views and meaningless if it opposes them?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-22-13 6:25 PM

“No guns used in Boston”

Not on Monday, but how about on Thursday and Friday? How about the MIT officer?

Didn’t the police recover two pistols and a Colt M4? (We can flip for the BB gun.)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 8:24 AM


still NO answer to my question. Just lots of insults and discounting of the facts of the polls.

If you do not agree with what I say, fine...that is your opinion. When I ask for facts or what you would restrict and why, you can only use flashy words. Is the question really that hard to answer

No answer from anyone is why I keep asking it. Each you, write a comment on which weapons you would restrict and why those weapons and not others. I am trying to understand your logic. So far, all you have given me is derogatory comments that fail to answer the basic question.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 8:44 AM

OK Judeye I will bite.

I feel that we should access to all weapons that are not fully automatic or in your terms machine guns. That means the so called media termed "assault weapons" should not be restricted. I want access to all weapons that fire one bullet every time you pull a trigger regardless of their appearance.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 10:10 AM

I'll agree with CKP5600 on the semi-autos and wouldn't restrict hi-cap mags at all.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 10:12 AM

Agree with CKP, and I've said it before already, but you'll claim otherwise at the next opportunity. An AR-15 is no different than any other semi automatic rifle, you just think it looks scary. Those looks do not make it more dangerous. The Magnum Research Desert Eagle is a NY assault weapon because it weighs more than 50oz. How does that make it an assault weapon? There is no sense to be made of this law...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 11:02 AM

"When I ask for facts or what you would restrict" Fact is judeye, law enforcement has said that these feel good laws will make no difference in gun crimes. They will not stop any mass shootings at all. As far as what I would restrict NOTHING NEW AT ALL. There is no reason to restrict anything new at all. More bans or background checks will not stop even one killing. Yes you on the left have been led down a primrose path by people like Senator Feinstein who advocates banning all gun ownership. There is absolutely no need for more new gun laws judeye.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 11:03 AM

This just in: SHOCKING news from Mass. Police-Bombers did NOT have pistol permits.The 19 year old was too young(need to be 21)and his Brother had no permit and so had no background check.I HATE it when the bad guys don't follow the rules.I think we should raise the age to 25 years old,make the jail time twice as long,fine them $1,000,000 and limit the magazines to 7 rounds-there problem fixed(Judeye and Paul will be so proud of me now that I understand what they were talking about)

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 11:50 AM

You mean this guy didn't get the guns legally. He didn't go through a background check first. What is wrong with criminals and terrorists. Don't they know we have laws to stop them from obtaining illegal weapons. Where was obamas gestapo when they bought these guns?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-13 8:31 PM

We need to pass a law that requires bad guys to follow the rules that should solve all the problems!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-13 8:55 AM

CKP5600..thank you for answering.

So you support NO ban on any weapon unless it can fire rapid shots by holding in the trigger.

When I said machine gun, I meant what is shown in movies from Al Capone days. Just wondered if anyone thought they should be brought back.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-13 8:56 AM

American..he might have bought them at a gun show or over the internet. That would be legal..and NO background checks. Thanks Senate

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-13 10:11 AM

Most sales at gun shows are from licensed dealers, who are required to perform background checks whether at a gun show or in their shop. The only sales at gun shows that are not required to run a background are those from private sellers. Judeye - bet you've never been to a gun show, you just hear about what happens there from the media and other folks who don't attend. There are a lot of background checks at gun shows.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-13 11:43 AM

Your right judeye I do say "Thanks Senate" every day since they voted against all these restrictions on our freedoms and rights. Now if we could only get them to do the same thing with the PATRIOT ACT and get Cuomo impeached and the SAFE ACT repealed it would be a step in the right direction.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 2:52 PM

American, you have not looked at the data.k 40 years says Yes, there is a direct relationship between gun control and a reduction in gun deaths. Period. You can't talk over or through or around or under decades worth of data. The U.S. consistently has lax gun control and higher gun crime than every single industrialized nation.luding this one going bac All the data from every company inc

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-28-13 2:54 PM

Wow, what a mess. Basically, my jumping cursor prevented my point that comparative data reveal a direct relationship between gun control and less gun violence.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web