Since you made no mention of the "assault rifle" being loaded, I would chose the "assault rifle" since without ammunition any rifle is little more than a club. The reason that you are having difficulty getting people to make the choice you want are: - It's clearly a leading question. - You omit any specific details that allow people to make an informed choice. For example, do you mean loaded or unloaded "assault rifle", how many rounds (bullets), what sort of knife etc.
Black assault rifle, with 68 bullets, slight scratch on the barrel, was stood upright in his pantry beside a box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes that was opened 15 hours previous. The knife is 8 inches and 3/16ths of an inch in length, sharp edge, leather handle, blue badge on it, little silver "Made in China", kept in bedside table drawer beside a packet of condoms that are past their use by date. When he went home to get one to cause a massacre, he farted twice, scratched his balls once, skidded in the dog poo on the kitchen lino, said hi to his mom and then left with a weapon. Unfortunately, I don't have details on the weather, time of day, transportation method, how long the grass was or how many birds tried to crap on him. So would you hope he picked up the gun or knife, assuming you have enough information to make your informed decision.
Then there will be no shooting, he will be arrested for brandishing an unloaded rifle, the 68 bullets will be bagged as some form of useless evidence much like having a pocket full of tacks and life at the mall will go on as usual.
You're missing the point of my post so there's no reason to get snarky and facetious because you''re frustrated over having bungled the creation of an ill-conceived poll. I'm simply trying to explain why you're not getting the responses you wanted. You're still omitting salient information that should have been included in the original question while substituting superfluous details about farting, ball scratching. Are the 68 bullets simply loose in his pocket or are they already loaded into magazines; what size magazines, what specific type of "assault rifle"? Is the killer a well trained military Veteran & experienced with the weapon or a clumsy, enraged teenager who just grabbed an "assault rifle"? Are you beginning to understand why this poll is not going the way you expected?
Throw in another fact: More people are killed with hammers and clubs than with all rifles put together- single shots, .22's, .big calibers, faster and slower fire, larger or smaller magazines. And knives were used in mass murders for centuries, they are not limited to peeling apples or slicing baloney. October third- an angry civilian in Paris had a knife:tacked police headquarters: "A veteran police employee in France slipped a knife through security at the heavily guarded Police Headquarters in the heart of Paris on Thursday, killing four of his colleagues before being shot dead in the building’s vast courtyard". Using the current definition, (4 or more) that is a mass killing. With a knife- against an armed and secured police facility. Killing with a knife is quieter, in the right circumstances such a person could be killing and those nearby might have no idea it's happening.
The question reminded me of many lawyer tactics, such as the question "Have you quit beating your wife?"
I know why the poll has not gone the way you think that I don't know. Those who protect guns and the 2nd amendment will do absolutely anything not to criticize, diss or slag off a gun in any situation whatsoever. Personally, as I've said before, I hope he picks a knife because my chances of escaping unharmed are exponentially greater than against an assault rifle. And because you have so much invested in your gun beliefs, any question containing the word gun is viewed pessimistically. Did you know I own two shotguns? If I was shopping, say in the Metro Centre, and a nutter had gone home and picked a weapon up, I would hope is was a knife and not a shotgun.
Your poll is not working as expected because you framed it to produce a predetermined result and most people are smart enough to see right through that ruse. Maybe if you could turn off the prejudice and anti-gun bigotry you might find people willing to discuss the issue, but when you enter a discussion using terms like nutters you get written off as being one.
Which is how you wished it to be, don't blame for that it is what you wanted. If you want the truth in a poll, set your prejudices aside and try again. But as long as you wish to be bigoted about the subject, you can expect answers you will not agree with. That's not debating facts, that's making a statement that you wish others to agree with but do not.
And a wonderful country where it citizens tolerates this kind of behavior. Revealed: Police Failed to Act as 1,000 Girls Beaten, Pimped, Raped, and Even KILLED Over 40 Years in Britain’s Worst Grooming Scandal https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...lled-40-years-britain-worst-grooming-scandal/ Paedophile grandfather sold children for sex in a Telford 'rape house' where perverts queued down the stairs to abuse youngsters https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ndfather-sold-children-sex-Telford-house.html A disarmed society is a forced to be a passive society, which is what you are living in, we don't need that crap here, nor do we need your advice on how to regulate firearms in our country, while within a disarmed society in your country is allowing such evil crap to happen! Solve your serious and disgusting criminal problems over there and once you have completed that task, then you might have a few inches of ground to come back and preach to us how to solve ours. Until then but a button on it and go away, you have nothing moral to back your complaints upon or argue about they way we live within our freedoms, freedoms to protect ourselves and others around us, which you totally lack.
You're right. Since I also reload some of my own ammunition, I know that bullets are simply the projectile but intentionally used a more commonly applied term for those not so familiar with technical firearm / ammunition terminology.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I try to respond to all civil & legitimate questions within 24 yours but the day just slipped away. I think that the author of this thread wants to emphasize the lethality of so called "assault rifles" by comparing them to knives but has omitted so many variables and salient details that it makes it difficult to compose an informed response. For example, is that "assault rifle" even loaded and if so, how many rounds does the hypothetical killer have? Is the hypothetical killer trained or untrained in knife fighting? How big is the knife? What, exactly, comprises an "assault rifle" and does the hypothetical killer know how to operate it? It is at least my opinion that these details should be spelled out in the poll before one can make an informed choice and for that reason I have difficulty understanding and voting in this thread beyond noting the author's obvious enmity toward "assault rifles".
Some questions are not asked to illicit an informed answer, but designed to be leading to illicit an answer to set up a particular point. Reviewing posting history the author of the post should easily reveal what was intended (hoped). They represent a good analog for survey designs often employed by the Left on a variety of topics from gun related issues to which election candidate is preferred where question design, order, phrasing is cleverly designed to get a result that supports a predetermined conclusion. However, in this case, the design was not clever and so transparent that no one elected to to provide answers. Then, because of that, the poster revealed bits of his objective by badgering and attempting to shame other posters into answering by suggesting that perhaps the questions were not simple enough... a left handed tactic born of frustration to yet reveal the dripping bias and intent anyway...and, if you follow along, only part of the intent and point to be made was able to be made; no one played the stacked game.
I don't believe that the OP means to single out any particular individual so "he" could be any hypothetical mass killer. To be sure, you could ask the OP, himself if "he" is a particular person.
