But it is a valid point to make and we need to be prepared to answer if the question does arise in a debate. "Why did the killer use the Bushmaster and not the pistols, shotgun, or world war 2 rifle?" What do we say to that? It's tempting to just say, "Because the Ar15 is a more efficient and easier way to commit mass murder". And this is of course the right answer but then we will be in a trap. We can't just ignore it because then we will be just as bad.
If anyone asks you to be interviewed on this subject, Grudgie, please decline. I understand your point, but I disagree with your answer. You'd make a great GOP candidate though-- open mouth, insert foot
In any other murder case, the investigators are the only ones asking that question, "why that particular murder weapon?", while the public simply asks "why did he kill them?". For your particular question, it is a trap because everyone knows the answer and the question is loaded, but my answer would be "because the AR is a high capacity rifle that fires high powered rounds with minimal recoil and allows for better operator control, same reason it's my home defense weapon. It was the superior weapon of the choices he had, I emphasize
the choices he had, it was his choice, his decision to use this tool for evil ".
This is a completely reasonable answer when comparing a machete to a butter knife, or a baseball bat versus a cricket paddle, or a stone statue versus a plastic figurine, etc... but because of the underlying political agenda, this answer leads to the discussion of removing that choice. Using the example I just gave of other potential murder weapons, the other side will automatically come at me with, "the other items are purposed for tasks other than killing, but an assault rifle is a killing tool and nothing more", to which I say, "there's no difference between these items, none of them were manufactured for the purpose of killing innocent, unarmed people."
They do not want to engage us in a debate, they want to deny us the opportunity to speak and be listened to, telling us we don't have answers after we answered their questions, just like the Pratt/Morgan interview. They want to break our composure so the world can see, and live in fear of, all of the trigger happy hotheads that own these efficient killing machines, and it's up to us to stand our ground while not engaging in this illogical, unreasonable fight. We must emphasize that an AR is not a killing machine, a machine can complete a task without human input at every step, an AR is a tool that requires a thinking accountable human to operate it.
Given these definitions I laid out, I wonder if Barry considers his drones to be machines or tools?
