The arguments always get deflected when I read them from afar. Someone says assault weapons should be banned then someone else says guns don't kill people do.
I have never once had someone explain to me why an assault weapon should be legal here. Everything else aside, why? What's the rationale for its legality? Even if this shooting still occurs, why should that weapon be legal?
"Assault weapon" is a BS term, so some people reflexively want to shout down the BS, then it all gets dragged into the weeds.
I can guess with almost 100 % certainty, the rifle used was a semi-automatic rifle. Even in the USA, it's hard to get your hands on a full-auto firearm.
So aside from styling that makes it look "assault weapon-y" it is no different than any other .308 semi auto "hunting" rifle.
Ergo, I could make an "assault" on massed people with a 'hunting rifle', and it's no different outcome then using an "assault style" rifle.
So to make a consistent coherent argument, the anti-gun position has to be, ban all semi-auto firearms.
This argument is of course grounded in the assumption that if this person hadn't been able to get their hands on a semi-auto, they might not have killed so many people... accepting that he if he was this driven, he would get his hands on a gun and kill people either way (with a bolt or lever action etc)... which is a ****** and ineffectual bar to aim for. (Look to Europe for mass killings with Ak-47's in very gun controlled countries as an example).
I've always found the focus on "type of gun" argument to be weak.
It's much better to push for better licensing, screening and background checks for prospective gun owners.
All that being true and valid.. in this case it does very much appear to leave the elephant in the room unaddressed.. that being suspected radical Islamic motivation.
