Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: A question [View all]

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
18. While you may not realize it, you've asked a two part question
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 06:40 PM
Jun 2016

You presume that mass killings often include an assault weapon, rifle. This is sometimes the case but never a requirement.

To make an accurate and complete characterization of the decision leading to choose an an assault weapon, rifle, you need to consider all of the possible reasons for that choice. Let me highlight the aspects of the decision of which I'm alluding. You see someone who plans a heinously evil act, choosing such a gun and you infer (based on that choice) that attributes of the weapon have determined his choice. The "assault weapon" line of thought, the BS ban ideas relating to their use in crime and especially mass shootings and singling semi-auto ARs and AKs, in particular, is wholly invalid, materially distracting and essentially works to undermine the idea of gun laws influencing crime at all.

It is entirely possible that some mass shooters (criminal, evil, and/or crazy) choose a rifle like an AR-15 for same reason lots of non-criminal, non-evil and non-crazy (regular) folks do. Rather than try to explain why regular choose the AR, I'll refer you to the thread that covers that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172196149

I mentioned that you asked a two part question and the beginning of my reply addressed the implied portion. The explicit question, (Why do we see so few mass killings by fully automatic machine guns if legality doesn't stop criminal mass killers?) has a simple answer. I have been told that generally there are two very useful functions of full-auto that can't be addressed as efficiently with a semi-auto. The first is suppressive fire. This is entirely useless to a mass shooter since just about all of them choose venues where folks are unarmed. If you choose a venue where no one is armed, there is no hostile fire needing suppression. Generally suppressive fire is employed by group. These gutless mall-ninjas tend to work alone. The second scenario where full-auto shines is in 'clear the room' tasks. This is where the task at hand is to neutralize a room full of hostiles who will return fire. As I already said, these cowards generally choose disarmed victims. A room full of disarmed victims means one can take his time shooting and killing them all.

Eventually these useless turds are confronted by armed resistance (usually police) at which time they are shot, shoot themselves or are captured. They mostly lack any exit strategy other than suicide (sometimes suicide by cop) or the hope fame and interviews by the BAU and the media.

Somewhere you mentioned that fertilizer access was now more restricted than it used to be. That's true but ammonium nitrate/fuel type explosives are only one of numerous combinations of readily available substances which could be used as explosive components or provide the raw materials for explosive components.

Guns were never as common in the UK as they were here but they have become even more scarce and some mass killers have moved on to arson as their means.

It is not the law or law enforcement that will by force mold society into a less violent image of itself. Education, alternatives, support and empowerment are the means to reduce violence.

A question [View all] Shankapotomus Jun 2016 OP
They are legal jtx Jun 2016 #1
So they're highly regulated Shankapotomus Jun 2016 #2
NFA jtx Jun 2016 #4
But pretty much everyon agrees that the last assault weapons ban TeddyR Jun 2016 #13
Not only highly regulated... krispos42 Jun 2016 #16
Fair question. needledriver Jun 2016 #3
That's actually a classic gun control myth. JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #6
No kidding. needledriver Jun 2016 #7
Needless to say potentially personally lethal if done incorrectly. JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #8
Anecdotal evidence suggests that it was done correctly. needledriver Jun 2016 #11
Perverted ideology enables the murderer to engage in their action. JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #5
An answer Just reading posts Jun 2016 #9
Lack of supply. Press Virginia Jun 2016 #10
Full auto.. Puha Ekapi Jun 2016 #12
Why were guns almost never used in England gejohnston Jun 2016 #14
Correct. Terrorists will always have access to weapons - even in the European model jtx Jun 2016 #15
Because they are ridiculously expensive and there aren't many of them Lurks Often Jun 2016 #17
While you may not realize it, you've asked a two part question discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #18
Thanks Shankapotomus Jun 2016 #19
While I'm sure the answer is yes, I not sure of the scope of the question discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #20
Because the general rebuttal to gun bans or more restrictions Shankapotomus Jun 2016 #21
For the sake of your idea... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #24
Fully automatic weapons aren't preferable Matrosov Jun 2016 #22
^^ This. pablo_marmol Jul 2016 #23
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»A question»Reply #18