AR-15s

Clodfobble · 06-26-2016, 04:06 PM

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?

06-26-2016, 04:06 PM	#20
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	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? __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)