TX School Shooter Did NOT Use a Semiautomatic, Do We Now Scream Ban All Guns?

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli

Ban Everything
Since the Santa Fe, Texas school shooter did not use a semiautomatic weapon to kill or injure his victims, will antigun groups now seek to ban all firearms?

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)-  Antigun groups must be throwing a temper tantrum. When the Santa Fe High School shooter committed his horrific act of murder and mayhem in May 2018, he had the temerity to use the wrong weapons.

Antigun groups fully expected the shooter to destroy innocent lives utilizing a semiautomatic long gun, a firearm often referred to by the politically charged but specious expression, ‘assault weapon’, thereby keeping with the antigun zealots’ running narrative.

But the shooter killed or seriously injured innocent students, teachers, and a police officer, with a shotgun and with a revolver, not an “assault weapon.”

Moreover, the weapons utilized by the shooter did not belong to the shooter and the shooter did not procure them from a gun dealer, through the internet, or through a third party at a gun show. No! The weapons belonged to the shooter’s father who had failed to properly secure his weapons from his severely mentally disturbed son. The failure of parental responsibility, here, is, in the first instance, where blame for the tragedy rests and where blame should properly be placed.

What Weapons, Specifically, Did The Shooter Use In Committing His Horrific Act?

Remington: Model 870 - 200th Anniversary
Remington: Model 870

Specifically, the shooter utilized his father’s Remington model 870 pump action, manually operated shotgun, along with his father’s .38 caliber revolver to maim, injure, and kill innocent people. The police have not, apparently, identified, or otherwise officially released  the specific make and model number of the .38 caliber handgun utilized by the gunman as of the posting of this article. No matter. It is clear enough that the weapons the gunman utilized were not the typical firearms of choice for committing murder and mayhem—semiautomatic long guns—as antigun proponents and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, constantly and erroneously, maintain. But, that fact didn’t stop some individuals from surmising, without bothering to first verify, the nature of the weapons used.

Apparently, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, John Cornyn (Senator-Texas) said, as reported by the Houston Public Media Service, that, “. . . the 17-year-old student accused in a fatal shooting at a Texas high school used a semi-automatic pistol and a sawed-off shotgun to kill 10 people. The Republican from Texas says investigators are still determining whether the shotgun’s shortened barrel is legal.”

Well, contrary to Senator Cornyn's conjecture, which he asserted as fact, the American public quickly learned that the shooter did not use a semiautomatic handgun, after all, and that the shooter likely did not use a so-called “sawed off shotgun” either. The killer used a common revolver handgun as mentioned above. And, as for Cornyn’s ludicrous, off the cuff remark about the shooter having used a“sawed off shotgun,” if that were the case, how long would it take “investigators” to determine whether the “shortened barrel is legal?”

It is, of course, possible, but highly, and presumptively, unlikely, that the Remington Model 870 pump action manually operated shotgun the shooter’s father owned had a barrel length less than the limit prescribed by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. A cursory check of the Remington website does provide the prospective buyer of the popular Model 870 pump action shotgun with in depth data about the shotgun along with substantial graphics. The Model 870 shotgun is available in a myriad of configurations and in several barrel lengths, from 14 inches to 30 inches, to meet a user's specific needs, whether employing the weapon for sporting uses or for self-defense.

Did The Santa Fe Texas High School Shooter Use A Shotgun With A Barrel Length Less Than 18 Inches—A So-Called “Sawed Off Shotgun”—As U.S. Senator, John Cornyn, Maintains?

If, in fact, the shooter’s father’s Remington Model 870 had a barrel length of less than 18 inches, then ATF approval for a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches, or less, would be necessary. As pointed out by the ATF, in the atf.gov website;

“A shotgun subject to the NFA [National Firearms Act] has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length. The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device.”

A Quandary For Antigun Proponents

Unlike sophisticated semiautomatic weaponry, manually operated pump action shotguns and manually operated revolver handguns have been around for a long time, approximately 130 years. The pertinent question is this: how have antigun proponents and the mainstream media spun the narrative in the call for further gun restrictions since the Santa Fe, Texas school shooter, here, didn’t use what antigun proponents, along with the mainstream media, often refer— contemptuously, pejoratively, slyly, and clearly erroneously—to as an “assault weapon?”

It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain, that, for your average, garden variety killer, who desires to create carnage,any weapon at hand will do. Unless a killer happens to be a psychopathic “professional” assassin or a psychotic member of a drug cartel, either of whom would likely have the contacts, wherewithal, and grim determination to acquire access to specialized, unlawfulweapons, the kind of weapons that fall in a domain well beyond those weapons commonly available to the law-abiding American public—an American public that generally acquires firearms through a licensed firearms dealera killer will use whatever weapon he is able to get his hands on. That was certainly the case with the Santa Fe Texas shooter. But, given the circumstances of that recent school shooting incident in Santa Fe, Texas, antigun proponents are in a quandary as to whether to stay with their present running narrative—that non-semiautomatic weapons only are okay for law-abiding, rational, average American citizens to possess because semiautomatic weapons and full auto or selective fire weapons are weapons of war that have no place in a modern civilized society—or to sharply alter the current narrative, admitting to the American public, at long last, what it is they are truly after: a ban on civilian ownership and possession of all firearms—to turn the entire Nation into a “Gun-free Zone.”

Clearly, antigun proponents’ calls for increasingly tight restrictions on civilian access to so-called assault weapons—meaning, of late, virtually all, not merely some, semiautomatic weapons—suggests a marked reluctance on their part to show their hand too soon, by calling for a total, or, otherwise, comprehensive ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms of all typesAntigun proponents and zealots have traditionally preferred an incremental approach to gun bans and gun confiscations—one category of firearms at a time, and ever widening the domain of Americans who are precluded lawfully from owning and possessing any firearm—in order to slowly acclimate the public toward acceptance of a gun-free Country.

In fact, antigun proponents—a few of them, ostensibly gun owners, posturing as supporters of the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—disingenuously claim by mere assertion, and rarely if ever by hard argument—that some firearms are specifically designed for self-defense, and so, are deemed the good weapons; and that other weapons—various kinds of semiautomatic firearms, the so-called “assault weapons”are designed for war; and that this latter category of  firearms therefore fall, presumptively, into the bad kind of weaponry that, as antigun proponents vehemently exclaim, civilians should not have access to.

Antigun proponents evidently like to recruit and trot out seemingly avid antigun gun owners” who, in accordance with the central theme and narrative, argue for reinstating a national ban on “assault weapons,” a catchall expression that is increasingly becoming synonymous with all semiautomatic firearms, not merely some semiautomatic weapons. Antigun proponents falsely assert that no one is trying to take all firearms away from the civilian population of the Country, just some of them—the bad sort, the ones they have corralled under the brand of “assault weapons” or “weapons of war.” They assert that banning such weapons of war is okay because, after all, law-abiding, rational Americans can still keep true self-defense weapons, like .38 revolvers and shotguns handy at the ready, at home.

But is that assertion true, especially when it is clear that so-called weapons for self-defense, or for sport, or for plinking at targets, like revolver handguns and shotguns, are capable of offensive use, as well, and with devastating effect, when in the hands of irresponsible individuals; or in the hands of gangbangers; or in the hands of the common criminal; or in the hands of  severely disturbed individuals, such as the shooter who murdered, maimed, and injured several innocent individuals in a Santa Fe, Texas high school? Do not these self-described antigun gun proponents, after all, deviously, deceptively, insidiously, mislead the American public by proffering a seeming reasonable compromise solution to curtailing gun violence and at once “permitting” lawful gun ownership? Are American gun owners expected, honestly, to suspend their skepticism? How many times in the past have American gun owners heard antigun proponents and antigun legislators preface their antigun diatribes with the assertion that they do, of course, support the Second Amendment, when clearly we know that they do not? So, whom are these antigun proponents and antigun legislators really fooling?

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

  • 11 thoughts on “TX School Shooter Did NOT Use a Semiautomatic, Do We Now Scream Ban All Guns?

    1. Gun banners have used a divide and conquer strategy for years, inviting people who own certain kinds of firearms to throw people who own a different kind of weapon to the wolves. As despicable as this is it shows a certain cunning that deserves a little respect. The gun owners who have fallen for this are fools and cowards, and deserve no respect until they recognize and correct the error of their ways.

    2. Darn, I musta missed something here. I was told the idiot used a brand new weapon, the AR-double barrel assault shotgun with hat black thing that sticks up and fires over 300 buwwets in 4.2 seconds from it’s high capacity 30 round magazine. Somebodies lyin here. Just who???

      1. @VT Patriot I know what you are saying but it is obvious someone is running their mouth about something they know nothing about.

        1. @Tomcat

          I think Vt Patriot was being facetious,using the language of the civilian disarmament proponents,”it is obvious someone is running their mouth about something they know nothing about.”, and you are correct,They know diddly squat about what they are trying to ban.

          1. @Green Mtn. Boy Yea I know he was being sarcastic and it was humorous but I should have said so. On the other hand there were sure enough blown up accounts of what he did use.

            The shooting in Indiana where the teacher got shot taking the gun gets very little publicity. I don’t think I even heard what kind of gun he was using. There wasn’t a bunch of people slaughtered so it wasn’t news worthy.

            1. Of course I was being sarcastic. Didn’t I sound just like a gun grabber? They have this marvelous way of turning a pop-tart into a deadly weapon. But then, our marvelous soon to be ex-governor decided that a kid picked up by the VTSP for posting online that he intended to shoot up the Fair Haven VT high school, was released 2 days later because he hadn’t committed the crime yet and threw the stupid new GC Laws on us.
              Will not comply………………

    3. He must have used a semi-automatic shotgun. I know this because the former astronaut Mark Kelly said that he did during an interview with a Fox News host on the Sunday following the attack. Former astronaut Mark Kelly would know these things because he owns a number of guns himself according to him during the same interview. Surely a former United States Naval Officer would not lie, would he? And as we all know Mark Kelly is looking out for our Nation’s health when he says that he hopes everyone likes eating their vegetable as much as he does.

    4. The National Socialist propaganda term “assault rifle”, morphed into the Damn Nuisance Caucus propaganda term “assault weapon”, will include all firearms, bladed objects, and blunt objects, each in their turn, just as soon as the elitists think that they can get away with it.

    5. U.S. Senator, John Cornyn,Why are the good people of the state reelecting this RINO,primary the RINO and be done with him,surely there has to be a real conservative that could beat him and truly represent the people of Texas.

      1. @GMB, He is not up for re-election this time. He is really organized. He has monied backers.
        We’d have to beat Corny in the Greedy Old Putz primary or be stuck with a Depraved Nincompoop Conspiracy party candidate in the general election.
        To get my vote, Corny would have to ride a horse, give shots to calves, and shoot some clay targets ON CAMERA! He can skip all the talking.

        1. @ Wild Bill

          Yeah I hear you,we have our own Greedy Old Communist Putz aka El Burnmeister . His worthless @ss is up for reelection,he just can’t decide whether to run for the senate or the man who would be king,my vote is for neither he can retire to his lakeside estate the the Clintons and DNC bought for him.

    Comments are closed.