NYPD cop Brian Mulkeen was killed by FRIENDLY FIRE from fellow officers as he fought with gangster for control of his ow

[AnalHamster]

Because the 2nd amendment says you don't have to argue about it, at all. What is it people don't get about this?

Preeeeeeeetty sure the forefathers never intended for this to apply to assault rifles and protect people mowing down hundreds of innocent people at once. But hey, keep hiding behind that amendment, I'm sure that plus thoughts and prayers will make you feel better after your kid is shot in the face at school.

2nd amendment. No argument necessary.

Lord knows they never changed any parts of the constitution to keep up with the times. :eyeroll:

The individual right to bear arms was discovered by them pesky activist judges in a 2008 case. The Holy Fathers just wanted folks to have muskets in their militias to keep the pesky Brits away.

That is a mischaracterization of what occurred. I can assure you that, as an American going back many years, we never questioned the right as an individual right. That the court finally came out and said it is not at issue.

The court actually overruled its own precedent in establishing the individual rights model, and different circuit courts had split over the individual rights or collective rights interpretation. Claiming there never was any dispute shows ignorance of the topic.

[VinceBordenIII]

Im not saying there never was any dispute. I’m saying the idea that the right was that of the individual is not new. Most any honest American beyond a certain age will tell you that, despite their own feelings on gun ownership. In fact, some early framers felt the amendment was unnecessary, as it was obvious.

[allwhitemeat]

its always been a personal right, the stated need for "militias" makes it clear that it was an individual right if you use some common sense

lets first look at what the text actually says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

without rearranging the order of anything but saying it in a more clear and modern (read modern as "incapable of critical thought") it says "since we need a militia to keep the security of a free nation from Govt tyranny like we just escaped, the peoples right (all people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

it makes sense when you think of it like "if a militia is our final line of defense from govt tyranny, then PEOPLE, ALL PEOPLE need to have the right to keep and bear arms so that when it becomes obvious that a militia needs to be formed and assembled for duty the guns are ALREADY IN EVERYONES POSSESSSION WHO WANTED ONE. The power to form and arm a militia doesn't come from the GOVT, its a DUTY of the people, ALL PEOPLE. you don't HAVE to be in the militia to own a gun, but you need a gun to be in the militia. Therefore, you get a gun, you get a gun, everyone gets a gun. The militia only exists IF the people own the guns and if you are looking to the GOVT for a right to own a gun to fight their tyranny you are fighting tyranny wrong.

Its not the potentially tyrannical govt job and nor is it appropriate for them to decide who can be a member of the ANTI-GOVT militia or decide when and what type of guns they can use to STOP A TYRANT.

in modern dumb speak it would read "since a well armed militia is necessary to maintain a Free USA and keep the govt from murdering us in our homes, the right of the PEOPLE (not the milita) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed such that a militia can be assembled if and when the need arises to stop the govt and stack some bodies like firewoos" its putting the horse before the cart. if you are looking to your govt for approval to form and arm a militia the Free State is already dead.

[AnalHamster]

I actually agree with the Heller ruling, I just pointed out it was not found as an idividual right in the SC until the activist judges in 2008 did so, and before that the two schools of thought were getting about an even split in circuit court while the SC had to overrule its own precedent. It's silly given that to claim it can only be interpreted one way and can never be revisited. Scalia's argument that the whole point of a militia was that it be equipped with the military tools of the day makes sense to me though, it's just a silly amendment in the modern age.

The real problem is the failure of the political system to update the constitution. A militia is no longer essential to the security of a free state. If the US government has the loyalty of the army, the tubby racists running round with their semi-autos that are a modern day militia will be wiped out in a day or so, and anyone not living in a bunker who is not on the same side as the army is getting drone striked. A modern army, navy and airforce is essential to the security of a free state, a militia no longer is. This whole thing was because the Holy Fathers didn't want a standing army, given their tendency to get bored and conquer the country.

I've actually written a new amendment for y'all which makes much more sense for the modern day -

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed for public safety, but they can still have some little ones to play with subject to background checks and mental health checks, because guns are fun and it's kind of traditional at this point. We regret the school shootings and mass shootings, but will revisit this in another century or so. Toodles.

[allwhitemeat]

good to know AnalHamster is still the voice of logic and reason around here. I agree with your general synopsis on almost all points. At this point, our guns wont stop a modern military unless we all have tanks and anti-anthrax medications and reinforced bunkers. the only thing stopping the military from turning us into a pulp is the will of the soldiers to disobey an order like that and a lack of will to use nuclear arms against our own homeland. any soldier in this scenario though that disobeys an order to open fire on the America People would probably be the first shot by their CO, but the refusal of servicemen to murder American citizens is our only true defense at this point.

the problem I have is that everyone wants to "take the assault rifles but not handguns" even though about 7000 people are killed every year from handguns and only about 400 from rifles. ALL rifles, not just scary looking assault rifles. So, yeah, they will take the "assault rifles" and the stats wont really change. then they will take the "sniper rifles" (the rest of the rifles) and it still wont change. Then they come for their real goal, handguns.

pandoras box is open, the guns are here. Im not a small dude so I don't feel intimidated in my home or public. If I was one of my daughters, id be strapped everywhere I went. Everywhere. Its the only equalizer there is for small women in a violent mans world until guns become obsolete and we move on to directed energy weapons or something.

[AnalHamster]

Come to think of it, even a reinforced bunker isn't going to do you much good at this point, with the latest ground penetrating bunker busters. But at least you'd have the satisfaction of knowing they had to use a really expensive bomb to get you.

Traditionally you start a coup by getting the senior officers on side and withholding information from the men until you offer them the payout, trickier to do in the age of the internets and not really conceivable in the modern day US.

There's not a great deal of point banning new weapons sales in the US without a massive buyback, the country is already flooded with guns. I'd argue you need that buyback, then universal registration and a system of universal background checks that also holds the last seller liable if they cannot prove they sold the weapon with a background check or filed a report it was stolen. Not going to solve the problem but it would certainly help. Here we banned handguns after our first and still only school shooting, back in 1996. Worked because we didn't have many and those we had were tightly regulated. With hundreds of millions in circulation and many untracked, it's a job that will take a decade of dedicated expensive effort and y'all aren't ready to even start.

[Stapes]

Wolverines!!!

[Animal]

good to know AnalHamster is still the voice of logic and reason around here. I agree with your general synopsis on almost all points. At this point, our guns wont stop a modern military unless we all have tanks and anti-anthrax medications and reinforced bunkers. the only thing stopping the military from turning us into a pulp is the will of the soldiers to disobey an order like that and a lack of will to use nuclear arms against our own homeland. any soldier in this scenario though that disobeys an order to open fire on the America People would probably be the first shot by their CO, but the refusal of servicemen to murder American citizens is our only true defense at this point.

the problem I have is that everyone wants to "take the assault rifles but not handguns" even though about 7000 people are killed every year from handguns and only about 400 from rifles. ALL rifles, not just scary looking assault rifles. So, yeah, they will take the "assault rifles" and the stats wont really change. then they will take the "sniper rifles" (the rest of the rifles) and it still wont change. Then they come for their real goal, handguns.

pandoras box is open, the guns are here. Im not a small dude so I don't feel intimidated in my home or public. If I was one of my daughters, id be strapped everywhere I went. Everywhere. Its the only equalizer there is for small women in a violent mans world until guns become obsolete and we move on to directed energy weapons or something.

i am certainly no expert on this topic, but i think when you compare deaths by handguns to deaths by assault rifles to make the point of what most people get pissed off about when stories make the news, is really an attempt to spin the argument.

I don't know the statistics, but I don't disagree that more people are probably killed each year from hand guns than they are from assault rifles. But stop for just a moment and think about where those killings probably take place and who is killed. The hand gun killings aren't happening in churches and malls and concerts and schools, etc. I mean, yeah, you can probably find some isolated examples. The point that "most" people make is that they have a problem with assault rifles because of what they can be used for (and are used for at times). They don't like the "pew pew pew pew" guns being available to people to have.

And, no, i don't really think that most of those people have some over reaching goal to start with one gun and work their way to all guns.

[PimpDaddy]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

[spudoc]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

[Antknot]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

[spudoc]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

[Animal]

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

you have lost your fucking mind.

Let me make this really simple for you. Let's say I present you with a game. We are going to do this in a mall full of people. I am going to time you and your objective is to wound enough people that a qualified paramedic feels they have serious enough injuries to go to an ER. Each of those people is a "point". In this game, if you score more people than a secret number I have selected, then you win $100,000. You, however, don't know the target number you have to reach, only that you need to get as many as you can. The event is timed and you will only be allowed 60 seconds to score as many as you can.

Now, I present you with 2 weapons. A handgun. And an AR-15. Which one would you choose?

[Wut]

I choose a bag full of hand grenades.

[Cassandros]

While not really in line with the conversation between rifles and handguns; something that should be noted is some of the proposed legislation says 'assault rifle' in text, but its actual language could be applied to all semi-auto weapons- including handguns.

Be mindful of emotion-based support of, well, anything.

More often than not the emotional response is there to trick you.

[Antknot]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

[Antknot]

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

you have lost your fucking mind.

Let me make this really simple for you. Let's say I present you with a game. We are going to do this in a mall full of people. I am going to time you and your objective is to wound enough people that a qualified paramedic feels they have serious enough injuries to go to an ER. Each of those people is a "point". In this game, if you score more people than a secret number I have selected, then you win $100,000. You, however, don't know the target number you have to reach, only that you need to get as many as you can. The event is timed and you will only be allowed 60 seconds to score as many as you can.

Now, I present you with 2 weapons. A handgun. And an AR-15. Which one would you choose?

Another goalpost move from lethal to hit.

[AnalHamster]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

So if you wanted more lethality you're saying you'd use the less potent weapon?

Looks like a transparent and rather stupid dodge to me.

[Antknot]

I find it silly people get all upset about 'assault weapons' but are OK with handguns, given the death toll as mentioned above.

I also find it silly when someone suggests to ban all semi-auto guns!!! but it is OK to keep handguns. Being the majority of handguns sold are in fact semi-automatic.

LOTS of people have uninformed opinions. It's too bad the loudest idiots get the most attention, and spread their lack of knowledge as fact.

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

So if you wanted more lethality you're saying you'd use the less potent weapon?

Looks like a transparent and rather stupid dodge to me.

Do you own a rifle? A pistol? A shotgun?

Do you have experience firing them?

Honestly if I were only interested in "hits" I'd think long and hard about a 12 gauge with buckshot. Speed loaders are available for shotguns, so round count isn't limited.

[megman]

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

So if you wanted more lethality you're saying you'd use the less potent weapon?

Looks like a transparent and rather stupid dodge to me.

Do you own a rifle? A pistol? A shotgun?

Do you have experience firing them?

Honestly if I were only interested in "hits" I'd think long and hard about a 12 gauge with buckshot. Speed loaders are available for shotguns, so round count isn't limited.

An AA-12 fits all the criteria.

[Wut]

Sounds like a pretty good excuse if she wasn't a trained police officer, all police should be adequately trained to handle situations they solely manufacture by unlawfully breaking and entering into someone's home.

yeah, or she got home (to what she thought was her apartment) and the door is unlocked and she assumes those fucking bozos that checked for mold had left it open because its hard to lock and she's pissed and she has 3 bags in her left hand, arm and shoulder (which she testified to) and only her gun hand available after she walks in and finds a guy coming to beat the shit out of her because he thinks she's a robber.

All of the errors in this situation were hers, her lack of awareness as to where she was, her being distracted by her sexting, and I guess her being distracted by her bags.

She doesn't get to claim self defence to shoot an unarmed man eating ice cream while sitting on his own couch.

[AnalHamster]

You don't see a qualitative difference, especially in terms of lethality, between say an AR-15 and a Beretta 9 mm handgun?

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

So if you wanted more lethality you're saying you'd use the less potent weapon?

Looks like a transparent and rather stupid dodge to me.

Do you own a rifle? A pistol? A shotgun?

Do you have experience firing them?

Honestly if I were only interested in "hits" I'd think long and hard about a 12 gauge with buckshot. Speed loaders are available for shotguns, so round count isn't limited.

Don't own any (I live in a civilised country) though I have fired all three. Don't really require personal experience shooting paper targets for this one though do I? If you want to maximise your kills in a mass shooting you pick the assault rifle, it's what they are for.

[Antknot]

There are a lot of factors affecting lethality.

Lethality greatly depends on shot placement. In untrained hands the longer sight radius of a rifle improves the odds of a shot hitting the target vs a hand gun. In trained hands a rifle increases the distance where a shot will hit the target. Comparing shots hitting the same spot then a shot in the head or heart pretty much kills you so no difference. The shot that Will show a difference is one not instantly lethal. The wound channel for the rifle with it's higher velocity most likely will be larger. However then bullet type comes into play.

A rifle is harder to conceal than a hand gun before it is brought into use. This allows the shooter to close distance. Thus improving the chance of a lethal shot.

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

So if you wanted more lethality you're saying you'd use the less potent weapon?

Looks like a transparent and rather stupid dodge to me.

Do you own a rifle? A pistol? A shotgun?

Do you have experience firing them?

Honestly if I were only interested in "hits" I'd think long and hard about a 12 gauge with buckshot. Speed loaders are available for shotguns, so round count isn't limited.

Don't own any (I live in a civilised country) though I have fired all three. Don't really require personal experience shooting paper targets for this one though do I? If you want to maximise your kills in a mass shooting you pick the assault rifle, it's what they are for.

If by "assault rifle" you mean fully automatic the I agree. However they are already highly restricted. For me to own one the hoops I'd have to jump through would most likely should want intent to misuse it.

If you mean a semiautomatic rifle that looks "killey" you've been brainwashed by the hype.

Oh by the way, you moved the goalposts again from hits to kills.

[Wut]

I'd think you'd get more hits and kills with the AR-15.

[AnalHamster]

So now lets compare apples to apples. Let's assume the weapon handler is untrained except for the basic functions of the weapon, such as pulling the trigger and reloading. Let's now assume untrained weapons handler wants to shoot up a supermarket. Which weapon is most likely to result in a higher casualty count? Clearly the rifle is the far more potent of the two.

Goalposts move from lethal to casualty.

So if you wanted more lethality you're saying you'd use the less potent weapon?

Looks like a transparent and rather stupid dodge to me.

Do you own a rifle? A pistol? A shotgun?

Do you have experience firing them?

Honestly if I were only interested in "hits" I'd think long and hard about a 12 gauge with buckshot. Speed loaders are available for shotguns, so round count isn't limited.

Don't own any (I live in a civilised country) though I have fired all three. Don't really require personal experience shooting paper targets for this one though do I? If you want to maximise your kills in a mass shooting you pick the assault rifle, it's what they are for.

If by "assault rifle" you mean fully automatic the I agree. However they are already highly restricted. For me to own one the hoops I'd have to jump through would most likely should want intent to misuse it.

If you mean a semiautomatic rifle that looks "killey" you've been brainwashed by the hype.

Oh by the way, you moved the goalposts again from hits to kills.

If the mass shooters and school shooters could get their hands on full autos, of course they would. If they had any sense they'd still use single or 3 burst shot for the accuracy though. They use assault rifles over handguns where they can because those are more lethal weapons for mass killings. If they could get hold of a gatling gun and hold it in their generally weedy little arms, don't you think they'd go with that? Or a grenade launcher? It's pretty simple dude, they select the most lethal weapons they can get hold of, and assualt rifles are generally it. Full autos are rather harder to come by, coinkydink that they are illegal?

I'm not moving the goalposts, the aim of mass shootings is mass killings. That is the goal. The goalposts are either side of the goal, try to keep track of who you are talking to.

Why do you think the las vegas shooter used a bump stock? Is there perhaps some simpler more accurate alternative to a bump stock that you can think of?