rob
06-26-2004, 07:08 PM
The following is a statement by Senator Feinstein entered into the Congressional Record:
"Mr. President, a little before noon five years ago today, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris began a killing spree at Columbine High School that left a dozen of their fellow students and a teacher dead, and more than two dozen others wounded.
The Columbine incident was a wake up call to a nation awash with guns, and showed us all once again what one or two grievance killers or malcontents can do with powerful, semi-automatic assault weapons.
Klebold and Harris were troubled young men who chose, tragically, to take out their angst on fellow students.
Twenty or thirty years ago, that decision might have simply led to a fist fight during recess outside on the playground. But now, with the prevalence of high-capacity, high-powered firearms, that decision quickly led to the deaths of more than a dozen innocents, and then the two shooters themselves.
Using several long guns and a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic assault pistol, Klebold and Harris were able to move through their high school with impunity, firing shot after shot in rapid succession, and quickly ending the hopes and dreams of so many youngsters.
Nobody could take them down, because their weapons made them, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable.
And while Columbine was tragic, it was not unique.
Similar grievance killings have occurred across the nation, in every forum:
* In a San Ysidro , California McDonald's in 1984, when a gunman with an Uzi killed 21 and wounded 15 others.
* In Stockton, California, in 1989, when drifter Patrick Purdy walked into a schoolyard with an AK-47 and killed 5, wounding 30 others.
* In Long Island, New York in 1993, when a gunman killed 6 and wounded 19 others on a commuter train - he was only brought down when he finally stopped to reload.
* In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 when two students were killed.
* In Paducah, Kentucky in 1998 when three students were killed.
* In Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998 when five were killed, and ten more wounded.
* In Springfield, Oregon in 1998 when two were killed, and 22 wounded.
* In Atlanta, Georgia in 1999 when a troubled day trader killed his wife, two children and several people trading stocks.
* At a Granada Hills, California Jewish Community Center when a gunman wounded three and killed one.
* At a Fort Worth, Texas Baptist church where seven were killed and seven more wounded at a teen church event, all by a man with two guns and 9 high capacity clips, with a capacity of 15 rounds each.
* And the list goes on, and on.
Just last week, I spoke at the funeral of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza, who was shot and killed by a gang member armed with an AK-47 and a 30-round clip. Officer Espinoza took three shots in his back as a gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds, giving Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, no time to seek refuge.
Officer Espinoza was a bright young star in the San Francisco Police Department, and he had a promising future and loving family. Now, that future is gone. His wife Renata is without a husband. His beautiful three-year-old girl Isabella is without a father.
These are the real consequences of assault weapons. This is not a political debate about a theoretical issue. This is about the death, and tragedy, and loss.
That is why Senator Warner, Senator Schumer and I are seeking to pass legislation to reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban for another ten years, before it expires on September 13 of this year. "
i didnt quote the whole article, that was when i stopped reading.
considering the aw ban was in place during most of the examples how would it be able to stop future occurences of events like those if it has clearily failed to do so in the past? i ask also why there seem to be more examples of shootings of the type after the ban was implimented?
the aw ban must die in sept. it has done apsolutely nothing to solve crime, considering that about 1-2% of crimes where comited with so called "assault weapons" in the first place it is obvious that it would have a very little impact reagardless. :cantbeli:
i think its funny that it took an amendment to ban alcohol which isnt garuenteed by the constitution but it takes so little to ban a type of weapon which is garenteeded by the constitution.
the further consider the stupidity of gun laws, california is currently trying to ban .50 rifles, even though a .50 has never harmed a californian resident.
/rant
"Mr. President, a little before noon five years ago today, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris began a killing spree at Columbine High School that left a dozen of their fellow students and a teacher dead, and more than two dozen others wounded.
The Columbine incident was a wake up call to a nation awash with guns, and showed us all once again what one or two grievance killers or malcontents can do with powerful, semi-automatic assault weapons.
Klebold and Harris were troubled young men who chose, tragically, to take out their angst on fellow students.
Twenty or thirty years ago, that decision might have simply led to a fist fight during recess outside on the playground. But now, with the prevalence of high-capacity, high-powered firearms, that decision quickly led to the deaths of more than a dozen innocents, and then the two shooters themselves.
Using several long guns and a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic assault pistol, Klebold and Harris were able to move through their high school with impunity, firing shot after shot in rapid succession, and quickly ending the hopes and dreams of so many youngsters.
Nobody could take them down, because their weapons made them, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable.
And while Columbine was tragic, it was not unique.
Similar grievance killings have occurred across the nation, in every forum:
* In a San Ysidro , California McDonald's in 1984, when a gunman with an Uzi killed 21 and wounded 15 others.
* In Stockton, California, in 1989, when drifter Patrick Purdy walked into a schoolyard with an AK-47 and killed 5, wounding 30 others.
* In Long Island, New York in 1993, when a gunman killed 6 and wounded 19 others on a commuter train - he was only brought down when he finally stopped to reload.
* In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 when two students were killed.
* In Paducah, Kentucky in 1998 when three students were killed.
* In Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998 when five were killed, and ten more wounded.
* In Springfield, Oregon in 1998 when two were killed, and 22 wounded.
* In Atlanta, Georgia in 1999 when a troubled day trader killed his wife, two children and several people trading stocks.
* At a Granada Hills, California Jewish Community Center when a gunman wounded three and killed one.
* At a Fort Worth, Texas Baptist church where seven were killed and seven more wounded at a teen church event, all by a man with two guns and 9 high capacity clips, with a capacity of 15 rounds each.
* And the list goes on, and on.
Just last week, I spoke at the funeral of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza, who was shot and killed by a gang member armed with an AK-47 and a 30-round clip. Officer Espinoza took three shots in his back as a gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds, giving Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, no time to seek refuge.
Officer Espinoza was a bright young star in the San Francisco Police Department, and he had a promising future and loving family. Now, that future is gone. His wife Renata is without a husband. His beautiful three-year-old girl Isabella is without a father.
These are the real consequences of assault weapons. This is not a political debate about a theoretical issue. This is about the death, and tragedy, and loss.
That is why Senator Warner, Senator Schumer and I are seeking to pass legislation to reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban for another ten years, before it expires on September 13 of this year. "
i didnt quote the whole article, that was when i stopped reading.
considering the aw ban was in place during most of the examples how would it be able to stop future occurences of events like those if it has clearily failed to do so in the past? i ask also why there seem to be more examples of shootings of the type after the ban was implimented?
the aw ban must die in sept. it has done apsolutely nothing to solve crime, considering that about 1-2% of crimes where comited with so called "assault weapons" in the first place it is obvious that it would have a very little impact reagardless. :cantbeli:
i think its funny that it took an amendment to ban alcohol which isnt garuenteed by the constitution but it takes so little to ban a type of weapon which is garenteeded by the constitution.
the further consider the stupidity of gun laws, california is currently trying to ban .50 rifles, even though a .50 has never harmed a californian resident.
/rant