For some reason, I can't help but think that if control of handguns is increased, then the criminals that normally use them will continue to use them, and the other people that may commit a violent crime may use other weapons, like a shotgun, a rifle, a pen, a pencil, their fists... etc. Perhaps I am completely mistaken.
The__Kraken
well yeah. Although I'd be a lot happier being robbed by that guy with the pencil, than being robbed at gunpoint.
It stands to reason that if you reduce the amount of criminals that have access to firearms, you will reduce the amount of deaths incurred in violent crimes.
I've mentioned this a bunch of times. The ban being pushed is actually a closet handgun ban. Look at the organizations pushing it. The Brady Campaign used to be called the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH). They realized that banning handguns was becoming increasingly unpopular so the invented the term assault weapon. Its so broad that they can make it include handguns as well.
Its easier for them to garner support when they intentionally try to confuse people into thinking they are banning fully automatic weapons.
They are hoping the average person can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. Most people who are for the AWB believe they are banning fully automatic firearms.
UnknownSniper65
Maybe you should email them and tell them what they should call it then.
If people are more in favour of banning automatic weapons than 'assault weapons', maybe they should just call it the 'automatic weapon ban'.
I really don't get people raising this as if it were a serious objection. It's semantics. They could call it anything, ultimately all that matters is the specifics of what will be allowed and what will not. Which will get watered down by NRA lobbying to the point where it has minimal effect, and then the NRA will turn around and be all 'see, it didn't work'.
Log in to comment