He didn't use a sling and rock... You contemptuous moron.<quoted text> Had that weapon not been available to him it is your claim he would not have killed? How about a bomb? Let's say WalMart sold bombs and machine guns would he have chosen one of those instead of a semi auto rifle? See you limit this to guns showing your true intent of attacking gun owners instead of the criminal. Had the gun not been available a criminal just adapts a new weapon. Humans are very resourceful. We have created weapons for thousands of years and you demanding the banning of one would just spawn the creation of new and probably better ways to kill. Spend a little time in a war zone or prison and see the weapons created by those with no access to guns or very little resources. IMPROVISED weapons abound and even under lock and key and 24/7 guards, criminals still make weapons and still kill. Banning guns simply makes for easy victims.
It was a military style, assault weapon designed for tactical warfare.
It was purchased, owned and IRRESPONSIBLY cared for by one of your "responsible", "law abiding", "all-so-good" citizens.
What part of that particular concept are you having trouble with?
You're a dysfunctional pea-brain.