Wednesday, October 16, 2002

I've already explained this

But Bush needs to be taught slowly.

Sigh. Here, I explained why a ballistic fingerprinting test seems the best way to keep crazies like the Maryland Sniper from committing crimes -- or, at least, multiple crimes. Bush came out since the attacks began and disagreed with me. The best part is when sophist-for-hire Ari Fleischer said (and I kid you not) "How many laws can we really have to stop crime, if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?"

First, the fingerprinting wouldn't necessarily stop shootings, but would, after we've tracked illegally purchased weapons back to their straw man buyers, help stem the tide of illegal gun sales.

But here's the kicker. This is a spokesman for the same guy who would love to outlaw abortion and make drug laws tougher. Would he not make abortion illegal because it's proven that people will get abortions anyway? Will he legalize drugs because laws not only seem to not stop their sale, but to actually increase the violence around that sale? Give me a freakin' break!

Update: Bush will now study "whether "ballistic fingerprinting" technology would be an effective crime fighting tool." What do you want to bet the study comes out like his "study" to find out whether his tax cut helps. It seems that not only is Bush some kind of political genius, but is also psychic, because, no matter what happens, current events and the results of his studies always seem to support his prior suppositions.


Post a Comment

<< Home