Quote Originally Posted by moondog-sparky View Post
response for you and davids: no way can you truly read what i posted and go here...seriously?!?

please re-read my statement where i specifically say, "i get the difference". not playing what-aboutisms here or even justifying one vs the other. was simply pointing out that there are many risky things we accept (have accepted for decades) as a way of life. the benefit for the majority of these things (pills - pools - cars - booze, etc) vs the risk to a very small minority is tacitly understood and accepted by our society. does not mean i accept mass shootings as a way of life. it does mean i try and keep a bit of perspective when going through the decision process for legislation to control / restrict personal freedoms. the gist of my post was simply that we can't, nor should we expect, legislation to provide us with zero-death results.

but go ahead and continue to play the Moral Outrage Olympics game as you race to a podium spot. we're all human here. and we're all outraged. just because you are more outraged, does not make you more right.
my point was the comparison isn't really a comparison. car, drugs and booze, cigarettes, pools, so on and so forth are not things that are literally designed to kill as many people as possible, as efficiently as possible.
from what i understand, some of these "assault rifles" really only fire a common hunters rifle cartridge. so what makes them so much more efficient? i guess it would be expiring so many rounds in such a short amount of time.
i would think it would be in everyone's interest to put some kind of regulation on mag capacity.