On Nov 13, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Jared ''Danger'' Earle wrote: > On 13 Nov 2008, at 22:06, Charles Bennett wrote: >> The important part of the text was. >> >> "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban >> permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on >> our streets." > > > Sounds like a good idea. >
You do realize that it didn't make a statistically measurable difference in violent crime the first time they tried it right? Assault weapons[1] make up only about 1% of the 200+ million guns in the US. (that's a 1994 stat, I think the number is a lot higher now) so if EVERY assault weapon was used to commit a crime you would see a max 1% change. I know for a fact that 1/2 of 1% of all assault weapons are actually used to commit crimes so 1/2 of 1% of 1% is what you MIGHT see if you could actually get rid of the ones currently in circulation. But wait, it gets better. The ban only stops new ones that fits a particular look and doesn't take any new one away. So the "good idea" would do as close to ZERO as can be measured. I guess you might *feel* safer if the law passes, but now that you've read this, every time you hear the AWB ban mentioned you should think 1/2 of 1% of 1% difference some time in the distant future when all of the assault weapons already owned have worn out. If you are logical it should cause cognitive-dissonance when you do. What I'm really getting at is why bother to redo a symbolic gesture that did nothing the first time and will do nothing, again, the second time. Wait a sec. We *are* talking about congress they do more symbolic things that do nothing, mean nothing and change nothing before lunch than most real humans do in a life time. There is actually a genuine risk to passing the AWB law (to the left that is) Get this. If you read the Heller decision, they explicitly stated that one "might" make the argument that the only reason military firearms (machine guns, full auto.. roaring 20's style) didn't meet the "in common use" standard was that they had been taken away from the public, in 1934 and they they might be open to an argument about that later. They didn't touch it because that wasn't the question in front of the court but if the AWB comes back, it will be and if they lose then, they lose it ALL. All federal and state regs might be tossed and re- legislated against a must wider standard of "common military (full auto) weapon" D.C. Played that game and got it's ass handed to it, and finally got the court to rule unequivocally on the 2nd. (thanks D.C. BTW) Do they REALLY want to risk it all, with this court? I'm tempted to encourage them the go for it.. In any case, as soon as the Police, FBI, BATF, and the secret service give theirs up I'll think about it. In the mean time, it's "Molon labe" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe > =c= [1] accepting the common term. Actual assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire, so the ban didn't actually address them at all. The 1934 firearms act already did. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
