On Nov 15, 2008, at 2:35 AM, LuKreme wrote: > On 13-Nov-2008, at 18:40, Charles Bennett wrote: >> You do realize that it didn't make a statistically measurable >> difference in violent crime the first time they tried it right? > > > And yet every mass killing I can think of involved Assault Rifles.... >
It's interesting how perception and reality can be so different. The media coverage is so slanted it's ridiculous. Here are the few that come to mind. Famous and/or recent shootings.. <http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/14/university.shooting/>. 16 wounded 5 dead. Shotgun, only. (Northern Illinois University) <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17124042/> killed 5, wounded 4 ... a shotgun and a .38-caliber pistol. None would have been banned or regulated. <http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/02/store.shooting/> 5 women dead. pistol only. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre> pistols only. 32 dead in a "Gun Free" zone. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard> . pistols only. 23 wounded 20 dead. (Fameous.. Lubby's Cafeteria Texas) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson> pistols only wounded 19 killed 6 (Long Island Railroad shooting. ) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting> 9mm pistol only. 5 little girls dead. (Amish shcoolhouse shooting in PA) Even Better.. Surely Columbine MUST have been done with assault weapons right? Bzzzt.. Weapons used. 9mm High-point carbine. 2 shot guns and a pistol plus a bunch of home made bombs. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms> 9 mm high point carbine (cheap 9mm rifle, A) Not an assault rifle under any legal or reasonable definition. Not outlawed by the AWB, not a configuration not covered by it. not even on the list of "evil" rifles. Not really much more than a 9mm pistol dressed up as a rifle Oh.. the magazines they used were the legal 10 round capacity type per the AWB's requirements not the high capacity type but I'm sure you never read that in ANY news report. The shotguns were normal hunting guns that NO one would ever ban. I know.. "Chuck.. What about the belt way sniper? HE used an assualt weapon.." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks> Beltway "sniper" Not really a mass killing, since he did it one at a time, but I'd play along.. Note.. He used an Bushmaster XM-15 *almost* like the one I have. Fine choice for CQB, sucks as a "sniper" rifle.. but wait.. His did NOT have the bayonet lug so it was NOT covered under the AWB and he only used AWB legal, 10 round magazines. [1] (We all know how many times bayonets mounted on assault rifles are used in mass killings..) From a technical AWB making a difference point of view. it was NOT an assault weapon. Off hand, I'm stuck the other way. I can think of only ONE that had what we would all agree was an assault weapon, and that is the westwoods mall shooting except for the fact that the AK was already in country so it was a "legal" one under the AWB rules. Once again the AWB made no difference. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting> used an AK-47 and 30 round mags. killed 8 wounded 4 Of course he was in a MARKED "Gun Free" zone, so the shooting should have been impossible from a Liberal law makers point of view, but that argument is for another day.. What mass killings are you thinking of that actually used Assault Weapons. Better yet. Which would have been covered or prevented by the AWB such that you think bring it back would make a difference as that is the question under debate. =c= [1] Remembering that my argument is all about if the AWB made a difference and if it bringing it back would make any difference this time. It's useless to talk about weapons that would not have been covered under the AWB law. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
