It was? My mistake. Still, I stand by my original point. Obviously we can't ban everything, and no method is going to 100% prevent future attacks, but we can at-least reduce the chances of this repeating.
Also, you need a background check as thorough as one to become a federal agent, to acquire automatic weapons. And last I checked, they put a freeze on getting new machine guns. You could get a Maxim Machine gun though, without any checks.
TL;DR everything, but he did have a bomb and handgun too, and homemade bombs in nightclubs can do just as much damage as am assault rifle. Don't blame the weapon, blame the ideology.
As for guns, there is zero justification for needing to own an assault rifle. Automatic, semi automatic. It doesn't matter. No need to own one. Zero.
It must be an individual weapon It must be capable of selective fire It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)
AR-15s (the variant used by the shooter at least) aren't select fire and therefore aren't assault rifles.
TL;DR everything, but he did have a bomb and handgun too, and homemade bombs in nightclubs can do just as much damage as am assault rifle. Don't blame the weapon, blame the ideology. I would blame both the weapon and the ideology just saying. As without one or the other, this doesn't occur.
You guys thinking you can get rid of gas and bombs in any modern society is purely ridiculous. It's incredibly easy to make them, and with parts and ingredients available at many convince and hardware stores. You can even make guns with parts from hardware stores.
Semantics. No need to own semi automatic weaponry. Period.
Not semantics, it's the actual definition. You know what a definition is, right? And if you're going to disarm the populace, you better disarm the military. If no one needs a semi-automatic rifle, then no one needs A-10s for sure. Even though semi-automatic rifles are useful for hunting and self-defense.
You guys thinking you can get rid of gas and bombs in any modern society is purely ridiculous. It's incredibly easy to make them, and with parts and ingredients available at many convince and hardware stores. You can even make guns with parts from hardware stores. Homemade equipment generally doesn't have the quality necessary to function as well as the military-grade equipment that people literally own in the US today. If you even have the knowledge and skills to make a semi-auto from hardware parts, odds are that the gun made by you won't last the 100+ bullets needed to induce such a shoot-out without malfunctioning.
And if you're going to disarm the populace, you better disarm the military. If no one needs a semi-automatic rifle, then no one needs A-10s for sure. Even though semi-automatic rifles are useful for hunting and self-defense. The Military needs A-10s mostly to fight other country's air forces, While I am all for reducing the size of the military and demilitarizing the police, this another potential derail, so lets stay on topic. Semi-autos are useful for hunting?, a basic non-repeating rifle works just as well, self-defense? unless you have an armed criminal gang, the non-repeating rifle or handgun works again.
These were guns to get guns. Shoot a police officer/soldier, and grab his gun. And these would still be useful in mass shootings, since you could replicate that tactic.
