Steve, in this debate you said many interesting things, and quite a few "interesting" things, but with this one you've outdone yourself.
What's the euphemism this time: "stopping" the enemy? Pacifying, neutralizing, bringing the peace? Killing them softly?
Oh, wait, this must be it: I made a mistake, shouldn't have used "murder" instead of "killing." So, my sentence should now read:
"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass killing?"
Wait, another edit:
"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass RECREATION?"
1. I always answer your questions, yet you ignore mine. I had asked you about your background with firearms.. perhaps it's further down in thread.. I hope so because you exhibit a certain ignorance (I don't intended the use of this word as a put down,. but simply a description of fact) of the subject which to those who don't make you see a bit funny. You are always welcome to ask when you don't know something. I recommend doing so before further response. Allow me to give you a professionals view on why we call it "stopping" vs. "killing" and why it's a mindset.
First, it is not in a police officers job description to kill. We never want to kill. We really don't want to even hurt someone. I used to address all the people I arrested, took down, tazed, etc.. as "Sir" and with strong politeness. Why? Two reasons. You gained a lot more cooperation by being polite and it tended to defuse even the most violent situations. Even after I'd have them in cuffs I'd continue. Why? Because there was a point in the process where you had to remove them from the cuffs and they had the chance to even the score if they thought they could. And career criminals were often big brawny guys. Why was I polite? The job description said I had to detain, arrest, search, incarcerate them.. it said nothing about pissing them off. My job was MUCH easier if we had a professional but fun rapport. I'd much rather make them laugh, than make them broken. Gow jai mak?
Remember now, I call it a mindset for a reason. Not for a funny. Let us continue. A call comes in a strung out speed addict is holding several children at knife point. This is a gun free zone, hence the knife (that was a funny). I walk in, try to reason with a strung out junkie (usually not a productivei feat) , and he gets a crazed look in his eyes, tells me he's going to kill the girl he points to fifteen feet way.
To the untrained individual 15 feet seems a long ways off, giving the police professional more than enough time to over take the junkie and arrest him. But the trained police professional knows it could take well under 2 seconds for the junkie to span the fifteen feet and KILL his victim. Not acceptable.
What's left? You scream "kill him, kill him!" I ask "method?" You scream "shoot him in the chest, in the head, KILL him.." If I did this a bullet to chest and one to the head would certainly KILL him. But it probably wouldn't prevent the girl from being killed too. EH? Seriously. A junkie, even a jonsing junkie high on speed can often take several bullets to the vitals and keep on going until loss of blood kills them. In such cases they tend to get tunnel vision of purpose and you can almost bet that would e the outcome. A dead girl, possibly two. Not acceptable.
Not to worry, I have training and I'm not thinking about killing him. Remember, I'd prefer not to. My goal is to stop him and that is all. There's a difference? Yes, there is. I would draw my service pistol and shoot him in the pelvis until he crumples. A pelvis shattered by a bullet crumbles. A man cannot stand, leap, jump, travel with a shattered pelvis. It's impossible. I could them relieve him of his knife (nasty things, we should outlaw them) and say "Sir, you have the right to remain..." Though, a shattered pelvis is extremely painful.
Can you see now why we train with this mindset? It wasn't always this way, but it has been for at least 35 years that I know of. A point of interest. Many police officers who get shot and die.. get shot AFTER shooting the other guy. They were probably shooting to kill.
2. From a journalistic standpoint.. I'd use "designed for war" if they indeed were that type of weapon. Or "designed for competition" , or "designed for cowboy action shooting", or "the make and model.. " Whatever is most relevant..
3. Irony.. maybe there's better things to say..