What Do These "Prolific" Serial Killers All Have In Common?

[RetiredGySgt]

Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman, on the other hand, committed their crimes with military-style "assault weapons" and had extensive Marine training in their use. The Beltway Snipers used military rifles to kill 10 people. The Columbine shooters used hand guns. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 23 people with a hand gun and the Jonesboro, AR school shooters killed 5 with rifles and pistols. At Red Lake, MN 10 were killed with police weapons belonging to the shooters grandfather.

Need I go on? Just in the past 2 decades, 136 people have been shot to death just on school property in this country.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lee Harvey Oswald was not a serial killer or a mass murderer.

Charles Whitman had an undetected brain tumor, which contributed to his rampage.

Neither Oswald or Whitman used "assault weapons". They both used semi-automatic, bolt-action rifles. The "Beltway Snipers" used a Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifle that fired .223 ammo. It was NOT an "assault weapon", because it did not have a full-automatic mode.

REAL "assault weapons" are switchable between semi automatic and fully automatic. I've seen PAINT BALL GUNS that LOOK LIKE "assault weapons", but they obviously are not.

The point of my list is that we all know about the serial killers and mass murderers who use firearms to kill their victims, thanks to the news media and gun control nus. But we rarely, if ever, hear about the MASSIVE list of serial killers and mass murderers who DO NOT use firearms to kill their victims.

Oswald and Whitman may not have used "assault weapons" by the modern definition, but they were certainly military weapons which were used as assault weapons during WWII.

In any case, the point of my comment was to highlight that guns have indeed been used for mass murders (however you define that) and that means exactly nothing to the current gun debate...just as your post does. It means diddly. Neither my post, or yours, proves a damn thing.

Less then 400 murders a year are committed with RIFLES. Much less the supposed assault version. Yet we are to believe that there is a compelling reason to ban them?