Feinstein calls for banning more than 150 types of firearms, including pistols and shotguns.

And history has proven that these extra seconds are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL in this type situation. The teacher who locks the door, overturns the desk, turns out the lights, hides the students in the closet....EVERY SINGLE TIME that peopel survive these things it's generally due to quick thinkign over a period of seconds.

Hell, It takes about 1-2 seconds to close 20 feet on somebody fi you want oto go vigilante on his ass and be a hero.

YOu really don't think if he would have had to stop every 30 seconds and reload six bullets manually , more people wouldn't have gotten away to safety? Why do you hate the laws of physics?

 

Was happy to lurk for a day, but this post of yours is so absolutist and illogical, I wanted to respond.

Using your logic, why have seat belts, speed limits, or air bags? It's all or nothing, and people are still getting killed in huge numbers on our highways. Just ban cars, or let them operate without any safety laws. Right, all or nothing?

Using your logic, there is no reason to monitor the nation's food supply. People still die of food poisoning. You need to ban food or let distributors and grocer's sell whatever the heck they want, with no expiration dates or testing, etc. Right?

And so, using your logic, there is no reason to prohibit fully automated weapons. Retired from the marines? Take your modern weaponry home with you! What a perk! You would also be able to have your own thermonuclear warhead, as others have pointed out a million times.

We've posted this until everyone is blue in the face. There has *always* been a line. The line moves. It moved in the 1960's after the rash of assassinations. The NRA accomplished moving the line in the other direction in the mid-1980's (and almost got automatic weapons legalized.) The line moved again in 1994. Again in 2004. Now they're talking again about the line, and hey, sure enough, it's about a ten-year cycle.

Just quit freaking out because the NRA and our stupid anger-at-all-costs-to-increase-ratings media are goosing you all the time.

It's going to be fine, and the line won't move much at the end of the day.

 

If you advocate for a total gun ban, I respect that. I don't respect a partial ban of weapons that only result in 2% of shooting deaths.

The Virginia Tech shooting is a fair barometer to go by. He didn't use 30 round magazines. He didn't use ultra efficient killing bullets.

He used a .22 mm and a 9 mm handguns, two of the smaller class of weapons. On adults, not children. Banning certain weapons does no justice and its an insult to those who continue to die from gun shots.

 

And I think those 2% should live because you haven't really provided a valid basis as to why we should trade them away...the cost benefit analysis doesn't really work out in your favor.

 

Have you ever answered this: then why ban anything? Why not automatic weapons on every corner? Missile launchers next to back-yard trampolines and kiddie pools?

If you don't respect having a line to demarcate dangerous things in society, you pretty much don't respect the bulk of existing laws governing people on the planet Earth.

If you want to say "don't you move that line!" that's great. But saying it's all or nothing is just NRA bullcrap. It's never been all or nothing.

 

Do some research on the VA Tech shootings and get back to me. Oh, and those were college students and adults not kindergardners. Crazy people usually carry 2 guns or more.. just saying.

 

You're an ignorant fool if you think most of the 2% wouldn't have died anyways. That is the point you are not getting. Sandy Hook shooter would have used handguns, just as Cho, and still killed just as many. He could have probably killed more if he was able to walk in with a backpack full of magazines and surprised a classroom full of kids instead of shooting up the front office first.

While ignorant liberals such as yourself feel happy about banning weapons in which you are very poorly informed on, there are others who are more concerned about the 98% that could be reduced.

 

Don't move the line just to say you moved the line. That is insulting. Don't suggest policy that is geared for a very small minority (mass shootings) while ignoring the much bigger problems (over all gunshot deaths).

Don't threaten policy that creates mass hysteria in which amplifies the bigger problem at hand. How many deaths will be be prevented with the assault weapons ban? A few? How many deaths will be attributed to the guns and ammo that has now flooded the market due to the scare? Possibly hundreds?

I understand you're not in the states, but you don't realize how hard it is to find ammo now. Law enforcement is having to cut back on on training and yearly re-certifications because ammo is hard to come by. All that ammo is now on the streets, and lots of it is in the hands of inexperienced people.

 

I appologize for leading you to the impression that I don't believe in the line. I do. I just don't believe in the "scary weapon" ban because I believe the line is where it should be. In my defense I did qualify my argument saying "if you want to save lives". I'm not freaking out, my 2nd amendment rights are covered.

 

Oh, well, this is getting dumber and dumber. It's like trying to take candies away from a 3 year old.

 

Is B-Bob on vacation and out of the country? I thought he lived in the Bay Area.

 

It is meaningless in your view but not to many of us. It could be easier without these "waste" if you guys start to have some common sense.

 

And if Choi had an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine do you think the death count would've been higher or lower?

Y'all keep on arguing that things like AR-15 and high capacity magazines don't make much difference in lethality but if that is the case then why should people have them for any reason if a 9MM pistol will do?

 

OK - here's my research - all people whose quick thinking saved them, generallly in a matter of seconds, e.g. blocking the door, jumping out the window, moving the desk against the door, hiding in closets

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/helpers-and-heroes-at-vir_b_47275.html

Your position is that had they had EVEN MORE time to react rather than the seconds that they had, it wouldn't have had a chance of there being EVEN MORE lives saved?

There is nothing remotely logical about that.

 

That is a great piece and a lot of the things it mentions we cover in teaching self-defense.

 

If these things are so unreliable what is the point of having them?

You contradict yourself right away by saying that it is a fantastic self-defense weapon because of accuracy but what good is accuracy if it is as unreliable as you say above?

This seems to be an often repeated argument in this debate (pistols are just as lethal as semi-automatic rifles, expanded magazines make little difference) but Hell no don't ban them because they are great for self defense and fighting off the Fed..