🚀 go-pugleaf

|In article <NEWTNews.19076.782802392.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? 

To which I responded:
|/> 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.

To which he responded:
|
|	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.     

Ok, let me rephrase my comment as a question.

Suppose that the use of "imported assault weapons" drops 45% in crime.
Does this or does this not make our country a better place?

Thanks,

Nat
--
Nathaniel McIntosh     |    Department of Computer Science
mcintosh@cs.rice.edu   |    Rice University, P.O. Box 1892
713-527-8101 x2740     |    Houston, Texas 77251   USA