You raise an interesting point, and honestly, one I just realized a few nights ago. The legislation around gun bans seems to based on what could possibly happe

You raise an interesting point, and honestly, one I just realized a few nights ago. The legislation around gun bans seems to based on what could possibly happen, and not what's been demonstrated to happen. There seems to a be a "scary" factor, or maybe a public appeal, or maybe even just a future politicking angle when it comes to weapon bans. (i.e. what if the terrorists get 'em!?) I had a "let's get caught up on current events" night last week, and decided to dig into the proposed rifle ban (of which I hear about constantly from my family). So I read through Obama's Now is the Time plan, and the only thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was the ban on Assault Rifles (Barring that, and two of the other items, I actually think it's a pretty good approach). I remember when Clinton's ban was set to expire, and the media exclaimed that it would be like the "Wild West," and then it happened, the bill expired, and rifles went on sale.. and.. everything was exactly the same. It was actually reminiscent of Bill Hicks' bit: >"War, famine, death, AIDS, homeless, recession, depression, war, famine death, AIDS…" >Then you look out your window it's just: (Birds chirping) >Where is all this shit happening, man? Ted Turner is making this shit up! This fear of these weapons seems based on, well, a characterization that doesn't line up with reality. Yes, they have great lethality, but when you look at the stats, the data that you would need to see to justify a ban just isn't there. When checking all this stuff out, I pulled the [FBI's Uniform Crime Reports](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...) so I could investigate everything for myself. Here are some fun stats: * Of the total gun related felonies, only 3.8% of them involved rifles. One unfortunate bit about the available info, is that all rifle types are lumped together. So there's no way to tell if the weapon used was of the "assault" class, or a simple hunting rifle. However, I'd wager, that "assault" rifles make up only a small proportion of the rifle category -- but that's pure assumption; back to the data! * You're actually slightly more likely to be murdered with someone wielding a shotgun, than one wielding a rifle (though only marginally so at 4.1%) * You're 2.3 times as likely to be punched or kicked to death than to meet the same fate by riles. * You're Five times as likely to be stabbed to death than to meet the same fate by rifles. So, as I looked through all the stats, I was left with this feeling of "What the F* is the point?" Banning rifles just seems based on terrible, fear based, reactionary logic.