Ban semi-automatics = ban mass shootings?

Hi.

Something that has never made sense to me about the Australian anti-gun narrative is as follows:

1. We banned semi-automatic firearms for all intents. There is no level of training or licensing you can go through to purchase one.

2. This stands in stark contrast to New Zealand, where AR-15s are legal to purchase. Yet we never hear criticism of New Zealand. I put this down to the joy of a good old Yank bash.

3. We still have bolt action rifles available for any Australian citizen who can wait 28 days. Felons need not apply, but any other citizen can with relative ease and lack of any demonstrable need get a bolt action rifle. Just legally purchase a property letter.

4. Heck, if they're not complete bums they could get off their asses and join a club for 6 months, letting them have semi-automatic handguns. Statistically by FAR the most used type of gun in crime.

4. So let's say that pre-1996 a mass murderer gets it in his head to go and shoot up a school and kill dozens, God forbid. He goes to his local gun store and finds out that semi-automatic rifles are now banned.

Does he

a) go home, hug his wife and become a functioning, law abiding member of society, or,

b) buy the completely legal bolt action rifle and go and shoot 15 people a minute instead of however fast he could have pulled the trigger?

Why would the mass shooter abandon his plans entirely instead of just downscale them slightly. You can aim and shoot 15rpm on a bolt action with some practice. I'd say easily 10 per minute for someone with the most basic of training.

So where are all of these Australians who would have shot up a school had only they had access to an AR-15? Should we not have expected the same number of mass shootings, but them being done with bolt action rifles and occasionally handguns?

Anticipating your response,

Steady Pie.

 

My question is why would anyone go through the trouble. I thought knives or sledge hammers were just as effective, yet mass killers seem to prefer guns hm wonder why?

 

You left 250,000 of them in the hands of criminals who didn't turn them in.

 

Most of them otherwise Law Abiding citizens converted into criminals by the stroke of a pen !

 

The most successful mass killing in Australia happened after Port Arthur and was done with fire.

 

The only people who commit mass killings are people who want to die.

The question isn't why do we have so many mass shootings, the question is why do we have so many people who want to kill as many people as possible before dying themselves.

People with families, jobs, and lives who aren't mentally insane don't commit mass shootings.

 

I wonder why they run and hide when confronted by an armed citizen? Not saying you are wrong, but why would they curl up and die like that?

Weird.

 

I simply will point out that mass murder isn't the domain of semi automatic weapons any more. It seems all one has to have these days is a credit card and a drivers license. I would suggest that guns are simply stand off technology. Modern vehicles seem to be just as effective on any given day, on any given crowded street.

 

I'd say that some of the more sane ones probably have a change of heart in the middle of what they're doing. The drive to survive is instinctive and I would guess sometimes comes into play. Maybe being a mass shooter isn't all they thought it was cracked up to be?

 

It’s the defensive profile of rabbits.

 

He buys a bolt-action AR and a semi-auto AR upper - both legal in Oz.
He then swaps uppers and BAM a semi-auto rifle.

The only reason Australia does not have the mass shootings we do is the lack of desire.

 

Your "logic" so to speak is quite homespun and entertaining.

For close-in killing like Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook CT USA, a sawed off shotgun would have been better -- even perfect. But all he could get his hands on was his mom's Bushmaster AR-15.

Same is true for Holmes in Aurora CO USA -- had he been smarter he would only have brought the shotgun not the AR-15 and he would have sawed it off first. Double-aught buckshot (which is really deer shot) works great in a crowd.

Most of the morons who choose an AR to commit their mass killings don't have any idea what an AR is designed for.

On the other hand the Las Vegas shooter (who was older and very rich) used the AR with the bump stock perfectly from a high perch and at a range of 200 to 250 yards. He killed 50 and wounded 500. Excellent employment of his AR. But then not that many if any shooters are old and rich.

Most of them are young and dumb.

 

Assuming that someone in Australia can't get a black-market AR-15, AK-47 etc, I'm afraid you've left out the most readily available weapon of mass destruction: the "Molotov Cocktail" or even worse, homemade / ersatz napalm.

Admittedly, pipe bombs etc are more difficult to make but determined individuals who have made up their minds to kill a large group of people are going to do so.

 

Charles Whitman from the Texas University tower shot 49 people killing 19 some of the hits out to 500 yards and the only weapons he used was a bolt action 6 mm Remington 700 and a slide action .35 cal. Remington Mod. 141.

Now if Whitman were have used a 5.56 mm AR-15 with 30 round magazines he probably would have 13 hits, killing 6.

Whitman had in his possession a M-1 semi auto carbine with him and only used it when in a fire fight with cops at close range. Whitman got one hit with a kill.

 

I think that comparing shootings compared to different countries is flawed because it doesn't account for the different demographic make-up.

Your opinion?

 

Yep.

That's why I said they should be glad the Vegas shooter chose 556 with a bump stock over a 30.06 with a scope.

 

That's certainly part of it.

 

Or an M1A.

 

Ammonia, Nitrate and Diesel......................you want those banned too?

ANFO (or AN/FO, for ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) is a widely used bulk industrial explosive. It consists of 94% porous prilled ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) (AN), which acts as the oxidizing agent and absorbent for the fuel, and 6% number 2 fuel oil (FO).

Every farmer has this stuff in his barn right now, you can blow up a city block with the above.

 

Delete your post TOG 6 before a California liberal see it and starts calling a M-1A an assault weapon.

Never mind...California has just recently added the M-1A on the list as being an AR.

Most liberals still think "AR" means "assault rifle."

AR = Armalite Rifle.

 

Most on the anti-gun side know little to nothing about guns -- they just follow the talking points.

 

AR means whatever the government says it means...................

 

Incorrect. They know that guns are dangerous, and should only be in the hands of those who require them for practical purposes (farmers, LE, veterinarians, etc).

 

Motor vehicles are catching on.

 

On the contrary - I can cite any number of statements that illustrate the abject ignorance of the anti-gun side with respect to firearms.

Of couse they are - else they'd be useless.

Unsupportable nonsense.