I harvested this off of a gun site:
To those who claim that the '94 assault weapon's ban had been effective. Are you aware that the school shooting with the highest number of dead and wounded occurred during that ban? Research the Virginia Tech shooting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting. The perpetrator used a ban compliant pistol to kill 32 and wound 17 people.
How is it possible that one person could do so much harm, without using what is deemed an assault weapon? Firstly, the perpetrator was motivated to do maximum harm. Then, the police surrounded the building and took a very long time to enter and confront the perpetrator. Similar to the recent shooting in TX.
An assault weapon is any weapon used to commit assault. Whatever makes a weapon effective for assault makes it effective for defense. Else, why do the police use AR-15s? Certainly not to kill as many people, as quickly as possible.
We do have a problem. Why have people in general lost respect for, and patience with each other on such a large scale? Why are so many youth without any sense of the value of life - theirs and for others? What makes it OK to hurt people who have not done anything to the perpetrator? When I grew up we were told, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Now, we are told that "silence is violence"; and anything people don't want to hear can be dismissed as hate speech. In some locations people uttering "hate speech" may be attacked, with no intervention for the authorities. No wonder our grandkids are confused.
So, even if a given type of firearm is banned, a person with a knife could easily kill 19 children in an hour, when their victims are trapped and defenseless. And receive no medical attention after being injured for such a long time. If you want to prevent that the motive for killing innocents needs to be understood and defused.
There may appear to be too many unjustified shootings by police. When that occurs we focus on the individual cop and the circumstances surrounding the shooting. I have never heard a police shooting being blamed on the gun, or the type of gun. Whatever logic applies to police shootings applies to that committed by civilians. The individual is always responsible. Getting rid of cops does not help. It encourages lawlessness and makes the public buy more guns, because they realize that they are on their own.
How effective are civilians at protecting themselves with guns? While guns are not for everyone; below is a link to an article of a woman with a pistol carry permit, stopping a mass shooting last week. The perpetrator shot at party goers with an AR-15, but was killed before he hit anyone:
www.ktnv.com/news/national/police-say-w ... arty-crowd
One person on the scene, who was motivated to immediately respond to an emergency situation made the difference. Unlike the 19 cops in Uvalde. Compare immediate action against standing around, keeping parents and other law enforcement from helping.
Nobody likes the idea of needing to turn schools into high security locations. Yet the value concentrated there seems greater than what is protected at banks - paper money that is insured. The lives of politicians that would vote to ban some or all guns, for the public have no problem with their armed bodyguards, using what they would ban for the public.
So, it is not the type of guns that matters; as much as who has them and for what purpose. To save life, or to take it. Legally or illegally. Justified or not.
Certainly, the police response to the Uvalde shooting, suggests that telling people who want guns for self defense, to rely on the police for protection, is likely to be met by this truism: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or right there, doing nothing, for an hour.
In summary; rather than banning some guns for all people, I advocate banning all guns for only some people.
Sorry all for perpetuating this topic drift.....
