Honestly, between the events in Colorado and Omaha, this sentiment is probably reflected in much of the voting population. Face it, most Americans don't own "assault" rifles and have no desire to. Furthermore, people are really sick and tired of disturbed young men marching in to a public place armed to the teeth and taking out as many innocent people as they can before putting a bullet into their heads.
That being said, I fail to see what a ban on assault weapons will accomplish --other than putting another "feel good" law on the books. Even during the Clinton ban, I still saw plenty of assault weapons in the local gun stores.
Finally, when you have a depressed kid who has a plan to kill himself and "become famous" with a body count, preventing these crimes are virtually impossible. Mass killings followed by suicide are rare but they are not a new phenomenon nor are they uniquely American.
“That being said, I fail to see what a ban on assault weapons will accomplish...”
1. It undermines a major purpose of the 2nd amendment by reducing the most militarily effective arms owned by significant numbers of Americans.
2. It legitimizes the idea that the 2nd amendment is meaningless and can be violated with impunity by the federal goverment.
3. It helps to “freeze” the military technology available to the ordinary man, thus setting the stage for eventual obsolescence through technological advance.
4. It limits the choices in self defense and makes self defense against multiple attackers more difficult.
Attacking the legitimacy of self defense is a major strategy of the anti-freedom forces.
There, now I hope that you see some of the things the proposed legislation would accomplish.
This guy in Denver would never suspect for a moment that he was in trouble he'd be so busy looking for a big ol' assault weapon.
By accepting the premise that this is a “gun problem”; you miss the point entirely. This problem does not fit on a bumper sticker and is therefore too complex for the “voting population” you describe.
The weapons here are not the problem. Our society (not our government) continues to fail to identify and treat people for severe mental diseases [like terminal liberalism]. But, part of the problem is a lack of means or acceptance on the part of our “free society” as to how to deal with aberrant behavior.
Our politicians and news media need these tragedies to continue to happen. For the politician the boogie man needs to be real to keep you dependent and them in control. For the media, “if it bleeds, it leads” and they are in the business of selling news [not to mention their biased agenda].
Look at the history of spree killings. They involve a wide variety of weapons, tactics and opportunities to exploit.
People who commit these acts do act out well before these major events happen. What motivation or means is available to a family, a school or an employer take steps to seek serious, behavior limiting, intervention. Even Mainstream TV shows like Dr. Phil, who seems to represent the best of nannyism, struggle to find solutions for the truly aberrant. Currently its just not PC for individuals to limit the behavior of others when they chose a destructive a path.
It is so much simpler to claim that the problem is the weapon than it is to confront the real problem. Our courts have done their part to exacerbate the problem in telling us that people do not have a responsibility for their family and friends or any means to redirect their behavior. At the same time our government claims to be the omnipotent nanny to fix the problem through legislating to limit the behavior of law abiding citizens. If you doubt this assertion then just look at how the citizens who have taken action to stop these people are treated.
This sad situation is the result of years of moral relativism and the erosion of personal responsibility. When these problems are addressed, many of these sad instances will be reported accurately and in a proper prospective. They will loose their luster to those who seek infamy in their self destruction.