Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Architect Of Fate]

So far you really don't seem to have point.

[arewethereyet]

Now you are a gun expert?

Amazing, truly amazing.

[FlatAssembler]

Even if gun control did indeed ban precisely the guns that mass shooters would use, would that be a good idea? Let's apply that logic elsewhere. If some type of car was disproportionately common in traffic accidents, would it be a good idea to punish everybody who happens to own that type of car? Of course not.

[FlatAssembler]

Now you are a gun expert?

Amazing, truly amazing.

"I am not a gun expert, but if politicians pass a law banning some type of a gun, I guess that law makes sense, even if it doesn't make sense to me."
...Really?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Should I toss that one back so you can move the words around and make an ounce of sense?  I'd love to be able to answer your question I'm just not sure what you're asking.  Like..theoretically, do you really need an ar for a mass shooting?  OFC not, any number of weapons will do, and ofc in the general there's always bombing - which they also employ?  Here in the us, the black rifle is just their thing, the same way an ak has shown up on so many republics flags.  To restrict it is to restrict both their most effective tool in direct terrorist action...and a symbol of their counter-cultural identity.

My point is that banning high-tech guns (which can shoot with high precision) would disable the people who can potentially stop a mass shooting much more than potential mass shooters. To injure a mass shooter before he kills many people, you need to shoot very quickly and with high precision. That's way easier to do with high-tech guns than with regular guns. And mass shooting can just as easily be done with a regular gun.

Given the number of privately held firearm in the US, it seems reasonable that at least some of those are the ‘high-tech/precision’ guns you’re talking about. It also seems reasonable that a percentage of those weapons are in the hands of people trained to use them (a gun - no matter how high tech - in the hands of someone untrained in its use is little better than a club).

That being the case, why aren’t more mass shooters being stopped by armed civilians?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

My point is that banning high-tech guns (which can shoot with high precision) would disable the people who can potentially stop a mass shooting much more than potential mass shooters. To injure a mass shooter before he kills many people, you need to shoot very quickly and with high precision. That's way easier to do with high-tech guns than with regular guns. And mass shooting can just as easily be done with a regular gun.

What on earth are you talking about?  Bans don't apply to cops. That's one of the many things the nuts go nuts about. The idea that only law enforcement, then, would have these weapons. Essentially imagining themselves at a disadvantage against government forces in a firefight come rahowa.

[FlatAssembler]

That being the case, why aren’t more mass shooters being stopped by armed civilians?

One reason is that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus, another one. What's the point? I've got a proposition that you'll love. We hand everyone -but- the terrorists an ar on their 16th bday, which they're required to carry. We ban the terrorists from having any guns whatsoever, and we make it the legal duty of all be-gunned individuals to eliminate any terrorist they see with prejudice. Probably outta shoot their dogs too, just in case.

[FlatAssembler]

Bans don't apply to cops.

For most mass shootings, when seconds count, police is minutes away.
And even when police is in the building, they are often too far away. In the mass shooting in Đakovo in 2019, the shooter Andrija Drežnjak passed by an armed police officer, who failed to stop him. Had people in the room where the mass shooting happened been armed, maybe fewer people would have died.

[Angrboda]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.