Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
Assault weapons bans affect non-criminals, they dont affect criminals. You know this is true and when you say otherwise is simply you denying fact. I love the people that use sandy Hook as the reason we need more gun control. The problem with their argument is that even NY's gun bill would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook from happening. The current gun control measures worked when Lanza was denied when he tried to purchase a weapon. The fact that he simply went and stole one and used that is proof that a ban only affects those currently legally allowed to purchase a firearm.
First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.