when you allow a lobby to steadfastly oppose any hint of eliminating these firearms, then we have to ask the question.........what do the recipients of the gun lobbys' "gifts" , garner? I can't imagine that the votes gained or not lost is worth the pain that is experienced by those effected. Maybe now, for once , legislators (and Obamma) will put THEIR political "life on the line" , bulldoze this gun lobby and show them who is boss.
We digress here...but, it is a national issue. My views/experience:
1) Banning "assault" weapons or large magazines is a "feel good" or "emotional" solution but will not stop people from killing if that is what a misguided person wants to do. It is not a "gun issue" but a "social issue" (there are other countries where firearms are allowed and where this type of behavior is much less prevalent; there are also other countries where these types of weapons are banned but where killing is much more prevalent).
2) If we are serious about doing something, we must address the reasons why some in our society behave this way. Are we doing what we can to address the "mental" issues (that some have) properly? Do the violent movies and especially the brutal/killing video games contribute? We need to change the culture as new laws will not be effective (we already have laws to "prevent" such tragedies).
we know the reasons why mass murders occur, serial killers are everywhere etc. Some people are mentally imbalanced but before you can readily define who is a direct threat among these people, many innocents will be murdered. Doctors, neighbors, family members will cite exact facts whereby "this guy was suspect from the beginning", " I knew him in high school and he was sort of weird". In the meantime, assault weapons will be an ongoing production avenue for the Smith and Wessons'(there are other weapons manufactureres out there , I know but this came to mind) profits and for no regard where these weapons wind up. All I am asking is for these assault rifles (start with the most potent )to be taken out of circulation.Just by shear numbers, taking some guns (repetitive firing instruments if you will-- machine guns?) out of circulation will save countless lives. The problem with "gun control" is that some expect a panacea and gun murders come to a halt.You know that is a failure in thinking. What we need is slow increments in reducing these types of murders. If that guy in Conn. was simply limited to a hunting rifle or a hand pistol the murders would have been reduced dramatically. In fact, he was so incompetent since he had this mental problem, that by the skill required alone in using a non-assault automatic weapon he might not have killed anyone. To start, he would not have been able to shoot his way through the door as he did. .I agree, the mentally imbalanced are some of the problem, but taking them off the street is more difficult than taking guns off the street.
I have to agree that there is no "good" use for public ownership of assault weapons. I don't own any such weapon, but a single shot 20 gauge for varmits. I am, however, considering purchasing home defense weapons just in case, because I don't like the direction we as a society are taking, and because of all the nut jobs out there. None of what I will purchase falls into the catagory of assault weapons. Note that I am "considering" purchasing and haven't done so yet. My hesitation has been from the thought of having to use it to take a life for whatever reason, even for defense. Just not in my nature.
The majority of people who purchase assault weapons legally do so not to defend themselves from other people, but fear the Gov and do so to defend themselves FROM the Gov. It's paranoia and a dangerous mind set. It's a "cool" protrayal out of the scripts of Hollywood. It permeates our movies, video games, etc., and influences weak minds. I'm not against removing assault weapons purchases from the public. The issue is where to draw the line on what is assault and what is not. I can assault you with a pea shooter. I like many, don't trust politicians living in a bubble, who are surrounded by armed guards, to define what is safe for me.
Your remark "Ths issue is where to draw the line on what is assault and what is not." Hits the nail on the head so to speak. We have all seen in the past how our politicians take a little at first and then just keep nibbling away at us. Today an AR15 is the assault weapon, tomorrow the family single shot in a caliber of their choosing is the assault weapon. Remember, "An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.' No one ever believes tyranny can happen in their country. History has taught us differently and we best remember those lessons.