THE DEBATE over the nation's assault weapons ban will be repeated this spring, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein arguing the need for extending her groundbreaking legislation. Lest she need any more ammunition, tragic news has provided it -- the recent cold-blooded slaying of San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza at the hands of a killer wielding an AK-47 assault rifle.

That there is still strong opposition to extending the weapons ban in spite of its obvious merits speaks to the power of the nation's gun lobby, which has fought every effort for sensible gun control. Earlier this year, Senate Republicans killed their own bill aimed at granting gun dealers and manufacturers immunity from lawsuits filed by shooting victims rather than agree to extend Feinstein's legislation.

But none of the rhetoric from the National Rifle Association can stand up to the facts. The percentage of assault weapons used in crimes since the original ban passed has been reduced by two-thirds. There is simply no justification for making military-style assault weapons available to the general public.

While the NRA seems to gloss over the worst incidents involving assault weapons, such as the horrific 1999 Columbine High School shootings, Bay Area residents cannot. Feinstein's bill grew out of the 1993 massacre of eight people at 101 California Street in San Francisco by a gunman armed with two semiautomatic rifles. The shooting death of officer Espinoza, allegedly at the hands of 21-year-old assailant, serves as a chilling reminder of the availability and danger of assault weapons.

The need for the ban is painfully obvious. Reasonable gun control is in everybody's interest, even those citizens who make up the NRA.