Suppose that a study is done, showing that most muggers and rapists wear athletic shoes, while committing crimes. It is proposed that the wearing of such shoes permits these people to escape more quickly, and to be able to more easily climb fences, scale walls, and go through woods and parks. It is eventually determined, through police records, that over 70% of the perpetrators of these crimes wear athletic shoes during their commission. Now a reasonable person might decide that the one has nothing to do with the other, and that while it certainly makes sense to wear athletic shoes during the commission of these types of crimes, where a quick escape may be needed, the shoes have little to do with the means, or the motivation to commit such crimes. In addition, many people own and wear such shoes, and the vast majority commit no crimes at all. Finally, even were it impossible for such shoes to be obtained legally, it would make no difference. Criminals would either obtain them illegally, if they decided that they really needed them, or would simply commit their crimes wearing regular shoes. It is unlikely that the inability to acquire athletic shoes would prevent a criminal from committing a crime, even though the wearing of these shoes might be preferred to the wearing of regular shoes. A reasonable person would understand this - an ignorant, simplistic, self righteous type would not. This type of person might insist that such shoes should be banned, or at least greatly restricted. That only athletes involved in legitimate athletic events would have any need for such shoes. The claim would be made that since such shoes are worn during the commission of 70% of street crimes, this would reduce such crimes by 70% or perhaps more. It might also be suggested that a regular street cop, having to wear standard uniform dress shoes, would be at a huge disadvantage against criminals so shod. He would be, as it were out shoed.
Now the previous might sound pretty silly, and it is pretty silly, yet the same argument is taken very seriously when used by liberals attempting to ban all guns, or certain classes of guns. The truth is, violent crime was a pretty popular pastime for hoodlums, low lives, and other useless types, long before the invention of firearms, and will continue to be so, even should all firearms be banned. Because of this foolishness, the Raven has the distinction of spawning a number of pieces of firearms legislation, and of being a poster child for gun control. This is a distinction it shares with the Thompson, AK-47, AR-15, 50 BMG, 50 S&W, and a number of other famous guns. Though Ravens may not be great guns, they are at least in good company.
excerpt from http://www.notpurfect.com/main/raven.html
Now the previous might sound pretty silly, and it is pretty silly, yet the same argument is taken very seriously when used by liberals attempting to ban all guns, or certain classes of guns. The truth is, violent crime was a pretty popular pastime for hoodlums, low lives, and other useless types, long before the invention of firearms, and will continue to be so, even should all firearms be banned. Because of this foolishness, the Raven has the distinction of spawning a number of pieces of firearms legislation, and of being a poster child for gun control. This is a distinction it shares with the Thompson, AK-47, AR-15, 50 BMG, 50 S&W, and a number of other famous guns. Though Ravens may not be great guns, they are at least in good company.
excerpt from http://www.notpurfect.com/main/raven.html