In a discussion on Fark about California's proposed new "assault weapons ban" which includes any rifle with a detachable magazine, one of the antis first posted that "limiting the guns in civilian circulation would prevent criminals from getting them."
When asked why, then, do police need weapons, he said it was to "protect themselves and the populace from criminals who might get guns through other avenues."
It's almost as if.... we've already thought of that, and come to the conclusion that because of the ingenuity of criminals, bans are ineffective! Inconceivable!
One other anti raised an interesting idea, from a thought experiment standpoint more than practicality. He suggested allowing private ownership of military "assault weapons," including machine guns, and banning handgun ownership.
Although it's an idiotic idea, it raised an interesting thought in my head. Would I care so much about a handgun if I was allowed to open carry a real, burst firing M4 throughout my day to day life?