Someone tried to shoot up a restaurant and theater in San Antonio.

Thankfully, an off duty Sheriff’s officer, of course carrying a concealed weapon, takes the would-be mass murderer down, with one bullet, saving an untold amount of lives

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

This is what happens when we have armed citizens in public.

Sorry catpaw, but thanks to ACLU inspired laws and court rulings, nuts have more right to be loose on the streets shooting kids or pushing people in front of subway trains than most of us have to be prepared to defend ourselves.

I’m not confident that the average citizen would have the same reaction in a crowd as an experienced, trained, veteran police officer as the link reports.
As it is now, the problem is too many guns on our streets. Your solution is to put more guns on the streets. I know alot of gun advocates take exception to the logic, but face reality. Tombstone in the 1880′s is a thing of the past. We don’t need self-styled vigilantes running amok in public. Armed citizens anticipating a crazed murderer or sinister criminal are going to eventually find one. It might be in the form of a seedy-looking pan handler or a loud drunk, but by damn I’m a-gonna stand my ground and shoot somebody.

Lets keep this in proper perspective. This was an off duty police officer, not some random redneck with a rifle.

The NRA has lost its mind! If you think the Zimmerman case is a three ring circus, lets arm every citizen in a crowded area with a gun and see what happens. Fart too loud and somebody dies! Our courts will be flooded with wrongful death lawsuites. I’m convinced there are some more moderate and reasonable heads that own guns. I’m equally convinced that the NRA is completely irrational. I’m concerned that the NRA will turn this into the next chapter of the civil war since the segregationists riots of the 1960′s. As was the argument in the 1960′s, times have changed and so do certain elements of our society.

What is the rational for having assault style weapons such as the Bushmaster, and/or 30 round clips?

Probably the same one for owning a 450 horse power automobile – power. They are toys for grownups. They certainly aren’t tools. That’s the distinction Australia makes in gun ownership. You can’t get one unless you state a reason for having it. In other words, it’s not a toy for recreational use. It’s a tool. And, most importantly, self-defense is immediately rejected as a reasonable purpose for owning a gun.

I saw this idea today: We tax cigarettes and gasoline because of the harm they do to individuals and the environment. Why not a tax on BULLETS? Start at around $50.00 a bullet and lets see how many people simply must have one. Want a box of ‘em? Fork over $2500.00 for 50 and, Thank you for funding a security guard at every door at our schools so the teacher can teach and kids can learn.

Mile marker and Groucho…please define what you call an “assault weapon”.

Milemarker.
bullets cause 10% of the damage automobiles do, looking at deaths by devices. what would you say there? tax cars too? Besides, hundreds of abortions are performed on a daily basis across the country leading to a large body count, should we tax abortions too?

As far as the money for armed guards at our schools. did you know that just in the state of CA, on a yearly basis that the average cost of books lost that taxpayers bought is 30,000 dollars? that is per school site. Take into account that there are 10,221 public schools in the state.

Doing the math, that is almost 307 MILLION dollars. Enough to fund your idea of raising the cost of ammo to an absurd 2500 dollars for 20 rounds.

First of MACH, let’s see what THEIR definition of an assault weapon is…….Then we can go in that direction, but let them answer first.