The AK 47 seems to be the weapon of choice of all the massacre murderers. Because it kills more folks faster and shreds their insides?

The following is an updated version of an answer I posted on the defunct Yahoo Answers:

What exactly does the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment really guarantee in practice:

The Second Amendment guarantees each U.S. citizen the opportunity to be part of the U.S.’s yearly tally of those massacred by arms bearers.

In the U.K. when a legal issue arises regarding the interpretation of legislation, sometimes the judges may refer to the official parliamentary record to see what was in the mind of the legislators when they passed the law in question.

An investigation needs to be conducted to see if the right to bear arms was intended in 1791 to be any arms no matter how powerful then or in the future.

Until any repeal / replacement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, its wording should be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a view to interpreting it in a "strict" manner, with the effect that only the weapons available in 1791 should be allowed. This is because although the Second Amendment places no restrictions on the type of weapon, it also fails to provide expressly for any right to bear more powerful weapons than those available in 1791.

Please see the following for the type of weapon available in 1791:
https://columbiaacs.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html

 

The Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced by wording permitting, only where strict necessity is can be established by an individual, small single-action arms. It could only be such, that were envisioned by those who drafted the Second Amendment.
There can be no effective controls in the United States, until the Second Amendment is repealed and replaced, or itself amended.

 

People often refer to countries where incidents have taken place despite strict gun controls. That is an inappropriate rationale. Strict controls may well prevent many more incidents that those that do occur despite them. Regarding the Las Vegas October 2017 incident, Nevada has virtually no gun controls.

 

Others argue that there are incidents where those with concealed-arms have prevented incidents by others seeking to “misuse” guns. On gun-control that constitutes dishonest argument, since many people, including unsuitable people, currently have arms which they would be prevented from having by effective gun-control. In other words, with effective gun-control there may not have been such incidents to prevent in the first place.

 

Did you know that somehow people in most countries seem to survive without owning firearms!

As the Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms while appearing to not place limits on the type of weapon, perhaps you Americans can also therefore claim that each person should be able to have shoulder-fired missiles; or that perhaps each family might own a silo full of ballistic missiles.

I perceive a lack of proportionality of the U.S. citizen whose purchasing thoughts are:
"Why just own a handgun, when a military grade semi-automatic / assault weapon will do",
and also:
"why own one, when you can own 10, or more".

Is the time right for talking about gun-control straight after an incident - Indeed it is, and only those who sell arms or have a political interest in the sale of arms, would say otherwise !

Gun proponents often argue that trucks can be used for murder, and so just as we would not ban trucks, we should not ban guns. Clearly just about anything not designed as a weapon, can nevertheless be used as a weapon. Since guns are devices designed to kill, the "truck" argument is simply an attempt to create a dishonest-diversion from the issue of gun-control.

It's probably the weapon of choice because it is a magazine-fed automatic or semi-automatic with quite a long range. Even if there is a  "civilian" version, the gun was designed for the battlefield where a soldier rarely has the time or opportunity for precision sniping.

The damage the bullet does is not really relevant - the shooter intends to kill and is satisfied that he has fired at least one bullet into oeach victim.

What is more salient is that a mass-murderer wants to kill as many people as he can as rapidly as he can, and although the sort of bomb used by terrorists will do that too, it does seem that guns and ammunition are far more readily available in much of the USA than bomb-making materials.

Poisoning is slow and uncertain - ask the Russian secret service - strangulation can kill only one person at a time and is hardly "effective" against a crowd.

Urrrgh. Horrible things.