I've explained this numerous times in numerous threads. I guess because you're "new" here, maybe you haven't seen those posts? Though despite the fact that you have 14 posts as of this moment, you're acutely aware of my stance on banning and the crux of previous arguments. That's interesting, but sure - I'll play along.
You say that criminals have access to "bazookas" and grendaes...can you show me the last time a bad guy used a "bazooka" or grenade in any civilian attack here in the United States?
Banning "bazookas" or heavy artillery weapons works because no one has them. They're incredibly expensive to obtain, almost unavailable (unless you have a corrupt military contact) and really, what's the point in going through all the difficulty to get them when you can just build a home-made bomb with some parts from Home Depot and a quick browse of the internet?
Banning "assault rifles" (such a stupid term, but let's stay with it) is not so much about the right or wrong as it is about the effectiveness of the ban. Assault rifles have been banned several times before in several municipalities. The two I can quote you right off was the Federal Assault Rifle ban during the Clinton years which the government said had no noticeable effect at all. All it did was raise the street price of the hundreds of millions already in circulation. It didn't even make the existing ones illegal - because the government realized there was no way to practically do this. New York State tried later on, and still has one in effect. They even put a buyback program for those weapons banned and only 4% of those estimated to have the weapons actually came forward. Of course, there's no way to know for sure as there is no national registration list of those who own said rifles, so no one really knows who owns them and who does not.
Now that I've answered your questions, please tell me. Who are you under this new sock puppet? I'd just like to know which previous user I am talking to.
