On Nov 15, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Charles Bennett wrote: > 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.
Maybe because I'm just up the road from where it happened at the moment, but the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout was clearly a case of assault weapons used to inflict mass casualty. I'm with you that it doesn't take an assault weapon to kill people - legal weapons do that as well - but I hardly see that as a reason not to restrict (or outright ban) private sales. I have absolutely no problem with responsible private ownership of weapons, not only for hunting, but for fun and for self-defense. However, if I were arming myself to protect my home, I cannot imagine wanting to use an AK-74, or even an AR-15 knockoff. I see no real use for these weapons *except* high intensity combat, or perhaps for fun. Do focused gun bans stop violence? No, obviously not. Does it mean we should not regulate weapons sales at all? That seems to be the disagreement. I see the balance of risk vs. reward being against private sales of assault weapons, just as I see it workng against sales of cheap, low-quality, crime-oriented zip guns. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
