🚀 go-pugleaf

/> >In article <NEWTNews.4814.782702587.woolfson@woolfson.unicom.net> Eric 
/Woolfson <woolf@unicom.net> writes:
/> >
/> >	Well, the prohition-era ban on machine guns reduced their use 
/> >   in crime to zero. In fact, the Bush ban on imported assault 
/> >   weapons has resulted in a 45% drop in THEIR use in crime, just
/> >   since 1989. But when the ban is being extended to domestic makes
/> >   as well, the cry goes up that it "just won't work".
/> >	Why not? 
/> 
/> [This is an example of the sort of disingenuous reasoning that seems
/> to crop up all the time in the gun debate.

      "Disingenuous reasoning?" 
      Just what is "disingenuous" about the simple reporting
      of a statistic?   

/> 
/> First of all, the subtle implication of the paragraph above is that if
/> there is a 45% drop in the use of "imported assault weapons" in crime,
/> then this means that there is some slight drop in gun crime as well.

     That is your implication, not mine.

     Ban on object takes effect, use of object of ban declines.
     Cause/effect.

     If you want to read into it some other result not
     reported, then do your research and post it.     

/> In other words, the person who might have gone and robbed a liquor
/> store with his/her "assault weapon" instead stays home and watches TV.
/> This is not necessarily the case -- that person may have wind up using
/> a handgun or an equivalent non-imported rifle instead.


      "might" "may have" "not necessarily"

     Aside your speculations, where is your data?


/> Based on the data I've seen, imported "assault weapons" have never
/> accounted for more a fraction of a percent of all gun-related
/> crime. If you reduce it by 45%, big deal -- the Bush ban has not made
/> a statistically significant change in the overall level of gun crime.

      What data? - You have yet to post any.
/> 
/> Instead, the ban accomplishes two things. First, it makes some people
/> FEEL as though some progress has been made, which is in some ways
/> worse than if nothing had happened at all. Second, it adds a little
/> bit more to the government beaurocracy -- more forms to file, more
/> laws to maintain, etc., etc. Blech. I don't know about you, but I
/> object to my tax dollars being spent on creating zero-effect,
/> feel-good measures.

     AND it leads to a 45% drop in the criminal use of the
   banned weapon. Period. 

    

> 
/> By the way, I would like to ask you for the source of your 45%
/> statistic above. Thanks.
/> 
> Nat

     Sure. 
     My source is the congressional testimony of Tony
    Loizzo, Vice President of the National Association
    of Police Officers delivered May of this year.