What would or would not be "liked" on the part of myself holds no relevance to the discussion at hand. The entire scenario being presented on the part of yourself requires an admission and acknowledgement of the fact that some random individual, for reasons that are not understood on the part of anyone else, is going to go out of their way to kill as many other random individuals as possible, and that there is simply nothing that can be done to either stop their efforts, or prevent the unnecessary loss of life at the hands of one who qualifies as being deranged based on the established mental health criteria. The entire hypothetical scenario on the part of yourself is nothing more than an open admission that the entire system in place in the united states, which is supposed to keep the public safe from harm, is completely powerless and useless when it comes to doing just that. With the vast myriad of ways individuals have gone about successfully orchestrating and carrying out mass killings in the double and triple-digit ranges, even in countries where firearms simply are not commonly available to the public, there is no legitimate reason to even be having such a discussion in the first place, so long as the perpetrators themselves are left free in society.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367 An attack by knife-wielding men at a railway station in Kunming in south-west China has left at least 29 dead, the state news agency Xinhua says. Another 130 people were wounded in what authorities said was a "premeditated, violent terrorist attack". Did the lack of available firearms serve to make this situation better for the affected individuals?
Not derailing to call you out on questions designed to support your bias. I don’t participate in polls (or questions) of hypotheticals designed to obtain results to support predefined conclusions. Your objective is transparent, and a poor attempt at a leading inquiry. Even your hypothetical scenario is bogus, not reflecting the motives/objectives, triggers, planning, preparations, and other common factors revealed the post analysis of mass killings. It’s why I suggested that if the objective is body count, a knife can be superior to a rifle. For instance, if body count is the objective, an easily concealable, requiring not carrying ammunition, unlimited capacity and silent weapon could be used in selecting isolated victims in a shopping maul (pun intended), killing silently, then moving to other victims without drawing attention. Using a rifle, raises alert immediately, drawing armed response, limiting a body count to the time required for a converging armed response. Just reported on the anniversary of the LV incident, the shooter’s motive was still undetermined. But, consider the objective in terms of what he did. If his objective was simply body count, he had a pilot’s license, time to plan, and access to aircraft; he could have simply crashed an aircraft, loaded with fuel into the crowd. But, he instead, used several rifles with devices simulating full auto, fired from a barricaded room, which he likely knew would be breached and where he was committed to take his own life...so, was part of his objective body count, terror, or ? In N.Ireland, dissident groups had access to rifles, full autos, and even mortars, but more often than not used bombs...why? So, regarding you question of preference, I like anyone else would prefer that a whacko choose a weapon for which I can be alerted of the threat as quickly as possible, have either a suitable defense or as fast an armed response as possible.
I would prefer he choose an Assault Rifle as that would greatly minimize his chances of getting one because of the extremely high cost of such firearms and all the hoops he would have to go through getting BATF to allow him to purchase one.
The government protecting me never crossed my mind, why would I expect them to? Did you answer the simple poll?
Logically, reasonable minded people would want a nut case to have the least deadly weapon that was available. Would you agree?
If 3 guys are trying to get into your house to kill you, what are you going to do? You have private security? There is no answer I can pick from your poll. Ask the 5 police officers stabbed to death today in Paris.
So you are conceding that some people will murder others regardless of the laws in place? Gun or knife is irrelevant, murder is already illegal, that's the thing we need to stop, not the inanimate objects involved...
I wish to make it as tough as possible to keep nut jobs from killing innocents, and Assault Rifles are not easy to obtain and they are prohibitively expensive one BATF signs off on buying one.
You would have to set a thread or poll up for that scenario. This one is where the nut case is perturbed and he's gone home to grab a knife or an assault rifle. Which one would you have hoped he picked up and why?
Ok, but which weapon did you hope he picked up? You're in the mall with family, he's gone crazy and landed with a weapon. His choice was a knife and an assault rifle. Which one do you hope he had?
A person who believes the government will protect them is likely to be killed by the protectors. NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill announced Monday that Officer Brian Mulkeen was killed by friendly fire on Sunday. New York, NY – Officials announced Monday afternoon that the New York Police Department (NYPD) officer fatally shot in the line of the duty on Sunday morning was killed by friendly fire. NYPD Police Commissioner James O’Neill faced reporters from police headquarters and explained what investigators believed happened when NYPD Officer Brian Mulkeen was shot. “Our investigation so far has found that Officer Mulkeen retained his firearm during the entire violent struggle he had with the suspect,” Commissioner O’Neill said. “Brian was the one who fired his own weapon and he fired five rounds at the suspect. As we told you on Sunday, the suspect’s loaded gun was not fired during this incident.” “Investigation has also found that Officer Mulkeen’s partners fired 10 rounds, and two of those rounds struck Officer Mulkeen,” the commissioner continued. https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...ighting-armed-suspect-EV6zG01-mUGPy4DK0Iwdow/
In reality though a knife could be much more deadlier than a firearm because it is silent, people will instinctively run away from gunfire, but someone dropping to the floor with their throat cut isn't going to get as much attention as a person who was shot.
There's only two scenarios: 1. Lunatic gets a weapon and wants to kill me 2. I'm armed and can fight back or 1. Lunatic gets a weapon and wants to kill me 3. The law disarmed me and I'm defenseless
Circular definition. Utterly meaningless. Define "assault rifle". Definitions MUST make reference to something outside of themselves... There is no "the dictionary". There are numerous dictionaries. Many of them even contradict one another... Define "assault rifle".
A knife, since it would be easier for someone else with an AR-15 to stop him (instead of it being AR-15 vs AR-15, but that's still better than what you propose). YOU want him to illegally have an AR-15 and me to legally have a knife. YOU want me to be at a disadvantage.
Which is why 5 police officers were murdered today in Paris, and it's the chosen weapon of serial killers. https://www.bbc.com/news/49921145
