Gun profiling?
I found this:
Interesting opinion in the Beacon News: “Bush playing both sides on assault ban.” It discusses the potential renewal or expiration of the assault weapons ban.
At the end of the article, I read this: “The endangered statute is designed to help stem the senseless arms race that has had grisly consequences for thousands of innocent victims. That is why it is endorsed by scores of law enforcement organizations as well as trauma surgeons who deal on a daily basis with the damage done by these firearms.”
I noticed that this is written in the present tense, i.e., law enforcement officers and trauma surgeons are today, now, dealing with “the damage done by these firearms.”
If doctors and law enforcement officers are indeed dealing with this, how can anyone believe that the ban is working in the first place? Yes, I know, earlier on in the article, then-President Reagan is quoted, stating that the ban would not eliminate crimes involving assault weapons, but would tend to dry up the supply of the guns, thereby making them less accessible to criminals. I’ll try and dig up the original wording of the ban and see just exactly which “assault weapons” are listed there. These days, a gun that merely looks like someone’s idea of an assault weapon is in risk of being added to that list. I don’t think this is what Reagan had in mind.
That being said, I find it most interesting of all how so many on the left are also hot-to-trot to keep this law in effect. Ask the average leftie what s/he thinks of profiling, and you’re likely to get an earful of reasons why it’s so terrible a practice. What is this ban but a case of profiling a gun merely on its looks?
Gun profiling? I like it.
