An excellent question from Aasif Mandvi....

[frazzled]

7. I have been saying this all weekend

and slapping myself upside the head when people don't seem to get it.

Just because people will break laws is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for not passing them. Laws express the intent and values of our society. They will never be 100% effective: laws will always be broken.

The question "how effective would a ban on assault weapons be?" is wholly immaterial and specious. When we pass such a law we are saying that we don't wish to have people in our society owning or using these dangerous weapons. We're not saying they won't obtain them illegally, or use them for crimes. Just as most states have laws that say, "if your car can't pass an emissions test, we won't allow it to be on our roads." Or "if a refrigerator or air conditioner contains freon, we won't allow it to be sold." Same with semi-automatic rifles. If we decide that people can use other firearms that are more societally acceptable to hunt or do target practice, and that there is no reason for these more dangerous weapons to be in use in our society, we have this right to make such a law.