Are they trying (incompetently) to play a shell game, or are they really this logic impaired?

Most of this article simply reinforces the notion that this is a dangerous world, with evil, brutal people who think nothing of ending the lives of those who get in their way (as if that notion needed reinforcing). It's the story of Miami-Dade police officer Keenya Hubert, who was recently on the witness stand to testify against just such a man, who is finally on trial for shooting her.

The shooting occurred in 2004, when Hubert, after hearing gunshots, saw a car moving at high speed. She gave chase, after which the fleeing driver stopped and fired at her with what the Miami Herald refers to as an "AK-47." That may be the firearm he used, although I'd be willing to bet a box of .500 S&W ammo that it was actually some semi-automatic copy of the AK-47 type rifle. That's not really important, at least for now (perhaps later). Whichever, she was hit twice, including a shot to the forehead.

Fortunately, she not only survived, but has recovered fully, and is back on the job. Apparently, being shot with a "high-powered assault weapon" (or even a "souped-up, body-shredding death machine," right Chris?) isn't the automatic death sentence some would lead us to believe.

This is when we get to the part that makes me wonder if the citizen disarmament advocates are trying to prove the theory of evolution wrong by demonstrating that they, at least, haven't improved on the cognitive abilities of australopithecus.

The shooting occurred just days before the federal assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, leading some in South Florida to question [the wisdom] of letting the ban expire.

Get that? The shooting occurred before the end of the ban, which might be an indication to those with an IQ larger than their shoe size that the ban was doing little in the way of its stated purpose of protecting law enforcement officers from "deadly assault weapons." Nope--not to these Mensa candidates--they are somehow using an instance of the failure of the legislation to accomplish its ostensible purpose, as evidence that it should have been renewed. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

There is, I suppose, another possibility. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that the firearm that Holt (the would-be killer) used really was an AK-47. The problem is that since real AK-47s were not regulated by the AWB, the expiration of that law would have exactly zero relevance.

So . . . again I ask, are they trying to fool the public into believing that an instance of a policy's utter failure constitutes evidence that the policy should be continued, or do they actually believe that themselves?