I don't care how rabid I look. It's much easier to get a gun banned than reversed. I dislike people like you. It's not ok to suggest taking away, when you get nothing taken away. That's not give and take. It's just take take take. Any gun can kill. Like the thread I made, a 22 pistol is said not to be very effective unlike a 38 or more. But a man killed his wife with a 22 through a wall using it as drill.
If an incident like that happens again right after a ban, what keeps gun thieves like yourself from wanting to ban a Colt Woodsman 22 next?
There's no logic behind your unthinking thought process. All you care about is, "guns bad, Canndo ban!"
REally? so the "assault" weapons ban didn't sunset out? Why then are we seeking to ban "assault weapons" that were once banned?
I would much rather you liked me as I enjoy you quite a bit but unfortunately it is not in my nature to alter my belief system in order for me to be liked, even by you. Your argument is reduced to the same old thing - and that same old thing is just not cutting it any more. We know, we know, guns don't kill people, people kill people, we know we know, putting a grip on the front end of a semi-automatic weapon does not make it an "assault" weapon, we know we know, you know more about the effectiveness of individual weapons than most, and certainly more than I.
But all this is very old news. What is new is the FACT that 20 some odd kindergardeners were killed and killed rather efficiently by a person.... that was equiped with a very efficient "tool". There are many who have had enough of the arguments you present when in fact 20 some odd children are dead and the person who killed them would have had a much harder time fulfilling his task had he not had the weapons he managed to obtain. Sure, he "could" have used ampho, he "could" have used a bat, or a brick or a knife or poison or black widow venom but he used a gun, a gun that was readily available to him and one that a very large industry has seen to it for decades that he be able to easily aquire.
I see that you don't really understand what I am saying, in fact what you are doing is performing the same knee jerk reaction that I suppose you see most, including me of doing in the face of just one more gun related tragedy.
What am I saying? I am saying that the schism between adamant gun owners and liberal reactionaries is growing wider and the distance between the two will be filled eventualy by some sort of legislation. Pro gun owners can be proactive and at least appear to want the same ultimate results as the anit gun folk or they can appear to be.... advocates of murdering children.
Your choice. you can argue with me all day about the absolute fact that you don't want to murder children and that those killings really had little to do with the implement used and everything to do with individual intent but in this environment that isn't the argument.
It would be best if the pro gun folk at least appeared to be against the murder of children and so long as they park their arguments in the theoretical, so long as they dig their heels in at their 2nd amendment rights, they will be on the wanting end of this now admittedly emotional debate.
"all you care about is your right to carry any weapon you wish any time you wish - which means you don't care about the lives and deaths of tiny school children" - see how silly that sounds?
JK. 
