3 ms·
On the other hand, we should be so lucky if more mass-shooters try to use full auto. There are very few situations where that would result in more deaths rathe
by Auracle 4y ago
On the other hand, we should be so lucky if more mass-shooters try to use full auto. There are very few situations where that would result in more deaths rather than less.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoThese aren't the choice you'd use for a planned mass shooting. The problem is gang bangers killing more innocent bystanders with the latest gun fashion.
- Auracle 4y agoAfter three such incidents involving children in Minneapolis in a short period last (?) year I mused on how it would maybe be a good idea for someone to start a nonprofit that brings gang members to gun ranges to train them. I think we'd all rather they kill each other than bystanders.
- dragontamer 4y agoThe Las Vegas bump-stock shooting was one of the deadliest in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting The fully-automatic question comes up because of pragmatism and practicality. The guy used 1000+ bullets to fire upon a crowd. You physically cannot do that if you only had semiautomatic.
- Auracle 4y agoThat's true, and that's what I was thinking of when I said "few" instead of "none." Luckily very few mass shooters have plans that are so well thought out.
- Zak 4y agoI wonder if this might have been more deadly if he had fired fewer shots but deliberately aimed each of them at a person. The percentage of wounded survivors in that shooting was atypical.