Liberal Forum

I don't want to ban them ALL.Then weapons are still available and gun free zones are still targets. Is it your position youdesire to still have defenseless victims of school shootings and will refer to them as collateral damage because only "assault" weapons were banned? The mere banning of so-called assault weapons does not lessen the risk of danger.But for the life of me, I don't understand why anyone needs the type of weapons and extended magazines that have been used in these last few shootings.Who are you todetermine what any person needs?And I haven't seen anyone articulate one logical reason why ordinary citizens need this type of weapon, or these high capacity magazines.teacher supplied an articulable statement within his thread.Are some citizens somehow more exceptional or special deserving of more rights than others?Would you prohibit law enforcement from using these weapons?Their only purpose seems to be to inflict a lot of carnage, very quickly.And how is that a bad thing? Isn't superior firepower beneficial when dealing with bad people?Look around, the photos of SWAT and the like that surrounded the school after the shooting. They had better weapons than the shooter but were nowhere to be found when it came to saving the victims. The shooter could have used a .22 and killed as many people.Law enforcement wasn't available even though they possessed weapons most "ordinary" citizens are denied.Teachers were unarmed.Point.