[Hugin]

As a corrollary, the NRA says that only 1-2% of guns used in a crime are "assault rifles", so they shouldn't be banned.

Can you provide any evidence that the NRA has ever said that? That the reason they should not be banned is because they are seldom used in crime? I doubt it.

They have pointed out that statastic to counter the Brady/Clinton adminstration claims that the banned guns are the "weapons of choice" for criminals. Should they not refute that assertion?

[Redcloak]

The Brady Bunch claimed that these guns are the "weapon of choice" for criminals and thus ought to be banned. This, of course, isn't true. The affected guns are used in ~1% of all violent crimes. Why point this out? Because no gun law shuld be enacted on specious reasoning.

The law as a whole is similarly flawed. There is no difference in performance between the banned guns and other semi-autos. The reasons for banning this gun but not that one is strictly due to cosmetics. But once the ban passed, we were a step close to banning guns based on performance. Letting the "weapon of choice" lie stand would have helped towards that end. The grabbers would have been able to say "This gun is functionally identical to this ugly, banned gun and is thus the weapon of choice for criminals." And, in fact, that's what's been happening in California. New gun laws here are performance based; but it was the bill on appearence that got the ball rolling.

You can't let these people get away with any of their lies. The one you leave unchallenged is the one they'll hang you from.

[cruiserman]

Not as a basis for refuting the ban, since it sets up the straw man of letting the choice of criminals determine our rights.