General Discussion

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

7. Wait, *I'm* obsessed?

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:36 PM

Apr 2013

I made a post discussing various versions of what guns these guys had. You jump in prattling something about prohibitionists and bans and whatever else you happen to be on about. Can we discuss the actual content of the post without your obvious obsession hijacking the thread?

I refer to it as a military weapon because that's how it is labeled in the New York Times. Apart from that, I have no idea where you get anything regarding this wacky "prohibitionist" nonsense that you have brought up now in two posts on this thread, despite the fact that it has squat to do with the OP, the thread, or anything else, outside of whatever you imagine to be happening here. Since the thread has zero to do with your obvious "prohibitionist" obsession, your second paragraph is irrelevant.

I didn't post it in the gungeon because the post has nothing to do with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which seems to be the decided topic of that forum.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Guns of the Brothers Tsarnaev [View all] alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 OP

Thanks! AnnieBW Apr 2013 #1

So the "military rifle like an M4" was full-auto? That is the modern standard for military use. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #2

Why don't you run it by your gunner buddies in the gungeon alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #3

But you seem to obsess on "military" type; you comment on that. So I'm running it by you. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #6

Wait, *I'm* obsessed? alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #7

You should cool down. Read your own comments to my question... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #11

Whatever alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #12

If you review any of my stuff (heaven forbid)... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #13

so we don't know if it is full or semi auto? snooper2 Apr 2013 #55

As I understand it, there are no fully automatic M4s alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #65

actually, three round burst is gejohnston Apr 2013 #67

Thanks...I was going by the way people discussed it on the Internet alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #68

under the NFA gejohnston Apr 2013 #70

Right, they're both machine guns alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #71

I never thought about full auto as being different gejohnston Apr 2013 #74

Indeed...that was my understanding, and the reason alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #76

Good point--why the hell is this OP even IN GD, if the only MADem Apr 2013 #46

It's actually: which news story: this news story, that news story, some other? alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #58

Trying to pigeonhole a particular weapon based on trivial technical minutia baldguy Apr 2013 #18

And yet "(t)rying to pigeonhole a particular weapon based on trivial technical minutia"... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #32

K&R discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2015 #91

I doubt that it was 1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #43

It'll be interesting when the dust clears. liberalmuse Apr 2013 #4

hmmm johnwarde Apr 2013 #5

There may be a civilian type of M4, but some folks here... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #8

Hello ~ johnwarde In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #35

Some police officers have a rifle in the car instead of a shotgun. They might have stolen that. nt rrneck Apr 2013 #9

The second story is pretty clear that they got zero guns from Officer Collier alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #10

Maybe there is something to that.. pipoman Apr 2013 #17

The idea being alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #19

If it were a true 'M4' (full auto), that would tend to implicate a police officer's patrol rifle. X_Digger Apr 2013 #22

If it existed at all alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #23

Well, that whole line reads as a theory, too. X_Digger Apr 2013 #24

Indeed it does alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #25

so they didn't have a whole arsenal? reading various posters gave me the HiPointDem Apr 2013 #14

The jury is apparently still out alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #15

their cars too. lots of cloudy points. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #16

What's with the two cars? How did both get to the shoot out scene? alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #20

yeah, and how did they shoot 200 rounds + more? grasswire Apr 2013 #21

All the reports I read said 200 rounds were fired during the firefight, by everyone involved. Common Sense Party Apr 2013 #26

if you're talking about during the car/suv incident, it sure didn't sound like it. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #30

Didn't sound like what? Common Sense Party Apr 2013 #37

Some report were that the brothers fired over 200 rounds ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #40

This is what the NYTimes said: Common Sense Party Apr 2013 #44

It is still evolving and things are still unclear ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #79

i think there were more than two involved, actually. it's confusing. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #27

They were in separate cars, and they had been MADem Apr 2013 #52

I'd guess the M4 came from the MIT officer's car kudzu22 Apr 2013 #28

That's been the suggestion alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #29

Or it's a carbine-sized semi-auto AR Recursion Apr 2013 #34

Carbine sized ARs are very popular ..... oldhippie Apr 2013 #39

I see them everywhere, even in CA ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #42

I think that's even more plausible than my explanation kudzu22 Apr 2013 #38

If there is no semi-auto M4, then I stand corrected. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #49

I didn't mean to pick on terminology kudzu22 Apr 2013 #53

I understand. That was what prompted this discussion (I think). One thing for sure: Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #64

The fuckers had a gun they used to kill a cop at MIT. MADem Apr 2013 #31

Then why join a thread that's discussing what guns they had? alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #36

Well, gee....you said MADem Apr 2013 #45

I'm mystified alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #47

Well, maybe this thread IS better suited to the "gungeon." MADem Apr 2013 #48

Have a nice day alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #50

I didn't say the discussion was "irrelevant." MADem Apr 2013 #56

I apologize alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #57

Respectfully, most of us in the "gungeon" are just as horrified. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #51

I have no doubt of that. MADem Apr 2013 #54

I agree with you. I wonder how much longer the Mods are going to allow this.. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #63

We don't have mods anymore, we have hosts, and they MADem Apr 2013 #66

For those curious, the M4 is a somewhat smaller and lighter AR-15 Recursion Apr 2013 #33

State of MA has said neither of the brothers had gun paperwork ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #41

The serial number was filed off the gun they had. MADem Apr 2013 #60

That's the ticket! Thanks alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #61

Maybe the unnamed source was parsing, though. MADem Apr 2013 #62

The reports are still confusing. bluedigger Apr 2013 #72

I agree alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #73

The source used the word HANDgun. MADem Apr 2013 #75

I realize that. bluedigger Apr 2013 #78

The local news (WBZ) reported that this evening, as well--that he was unarmed, at MADem Apr 2013 #85

A number of news reports today pretty much confirm the one-gun theory alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #88

I've listened to audio of both gunfights cleduc Apr 2013 #59

technical correction gejohnston Apr 2013 #69

Both of those have been extremely strictly regulated for 80 years Recursion Apr 2013 #77

Well, mystery seemingly solved here: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no gun at all (in the boat) alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #80

My question now is -- Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2013 #81

Panic and movement alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #82

Yeah, I noticed the story changed a bit -- Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2013 #84

Yes--he was shot in the firefight where his brother got run over. MADem Apr 2013 #87

I know they were shooting a lot of flash-bangs at him. MADem Apr 2013 #86

Here's what started it... squids Apr 2013 #90

No guns at all. Wow. Skip Intro Apr 2013 #83

They had pressure cooker bombs and pipe bombs. MADem Apr 2013 #89