"There were at least 6 weapons to choose from immediately at hand. The fact that he didn't take

[HooptieWagon]

39. Uhhh, good luck.

All reason and logic have flown out the window. DU isn't interested in any meaningful action, they are interested in an emotional knee-jerk reaction that demonstrates their "power", even if the end result is meaningless. Its the left's version of teabaggers.

I don't own guns either. I've shot other people's gun a few times in the long ago past. I do read up on statistics, including FBI's own report. I conclude that banning "assault" style rifles would expend political capital with little to show for it. They simply aren't used very often in gun deaths...that is why the ban was allowed to expire.

If I may make an analogy... Supposed a segment of the public got in a panty-twisting uproar over the number of concussions in football. After a huge campaign, they patted themselves on the back for successfully persueding Congress to face down the NFL and ban kneel-down plays. Okay, they won. And kneel-down plays aren't essential to the game of football. But they lost- because they expended a large amount of political capital banning a play that isn't responsible for many injuries.

If the gun control crowd really wants to make a difference, as opposed to just boosting their egos, they should take on limiting handguns. That is where the most deaths are, and where the biggest impact can be made.