|
Can't be done, that was the point of the Politifact write-up: it didn't noticeably reduce assault weapons usage or crime. But the statistically insignificant reduction, which may not have even amounted to a net reduction overall, nonetheless occurred within one narrow but interesting category of usage.
A + B = C
A is big and bad (criminals mostly killing criminals), B is small and abhorrent (nutjobs killing innocents and children.) Getting rid of B is still worthwhile, even if C is still effectively equivalent to A. The only question: is getting rid of B worth the trade-off of hunters having to hunt with low-capacity magazines?
|