Ran across this article today:

http://news.yahoo.com/stick-poor-congressional-strategy-080500785.html

While I'm not going to question the veracity of this author's numbers, I would like to point out a few things–as a Devil's Advocate–about some of her statements.

The idea is, if you can't pay for your home without government assistance, you don't deserve to live in one. In this spirit, budget cuts due to sequestration will take rental assistance vouchers away from 140,000 low-income families by the beginning of next year, making housing more expensive as agencies raise costs to offset the budget cuts.

This is a reference (through the in-line linked source in her article) to Housing Choice Vouchers which is undergoing sequestration cuts.  The more authoritative article the click-through story is probably talking about is here at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Basically, it's a budget reality issue.  Across the board cuts under sequestration to try and meet the budget limits are provoking agencies to try and make due with lower budgets.  One way is to reduce the number of vouchers and a second is the amount paid out per voucher.  While I'm not going to argue putting people on the street is a good thing, you do have to ask what the alternatives are and what are the likely results if no change is made.

In this case, pulling money into this program necessitates either pulling more money out of other programs (like she laments more on throughout the article) or trying to raise taxes. The irony in this second course is the people most likely to be hit by raised taxes—commercial property owners and businesses—are the same people establishing the rent amounts in the first place.  In other words, one major alternative would probably create a similar problem anyway.

If you're lucky enough to keep your home, don't expect to heat it. Sequester cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) meant that 300,000 low-income families in 2013 were denied government support for energy costs.

The in-line link (included) links through to this article from the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA).  The LIHEAP is a major source of "big oil tax subsidies"  which has been a presidential and congressional target since the election of Barack Obama.  Although the story currently is driven by the effects of sequestration, the irony is this program has been in the political gun sights of many liberals for a long time and their success is also their failure in this case.

The recent reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits has affected more than 47 million Americans and is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964.

Two parts to this story.  First is the expiration of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on 1 November 2013 which was envisioned as a temporary increase during the recession.  That—by itself—is an illustration of a faulty mindset attributing temporary, exceptional measures with a status quo going forward.  The second is the basic food costs covered by SNAP are tied to agriculture subsidies—also under attack—to keep food costs low by helping to offset production and some transportation costs.  Without one (subsidies), the other costs more.

Again, a victim of potential successes.

Generally, the impression I get is one who doesn't understand the money funding these programs is somewhat finite and comes from the people of the United States (and elsewhere, in some cases) directly or indirectly.  Additionally, while it would be nice to be able to provide everything for everyone from a certain perspective, the reality is—sometimes—the best thing you can do for someone is back off and let them solve their problems themselves.

In this case, expecting the Federal government to do it for you is like betting on a racehorse to pull your kid's wagon.  The wagon might get there, but it's highly doubtful it (or your kid) will be in the condition you'd like it to be.

A War on Ergonomics and Manufacturing Standards

What amuses me about the whole Assault Weapon Ban idea is that it is simply an exercise against ergonomics and manufacturing standards.

I mean, look at it this way:

http://www.logarchism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/0815d2ed-66d9-4159-8691-0c61dce8d026-new-guns-slide-1.jpg

Collapsing stock: Primary use of a collapsing stock is to adjust the length of the stock to fit a shooter better. The basic idea is to make it easier for a person using it to accurately fire and adjust to recoil without requiring a customized stock or dealing with a one-size-fits-all stock. Main people it generally helps would be women and shooters who aren't of average (male) size and build.

Folding stock: Primary use is to reduce the overall size of the weapon for storage or carry when not in use. The basic idea is simply to allow the weapon to be where the person using it is more comfortably when the weapon isn't actually being used. If anything, folding stocks increase inaccuracy in some designs and/or increase felt recoil in designs where the conventional stock it replaces contains a recoil reducing mechanism.

Pistol grip: Primary use is to change the angle of the hand to the wrist, usually to allow a more comfortable position and reduce strain on the wrist. It also tends to increase the ability to control a weapon for people--like women--who do not have a wide grip span or a high grip strength. While some people say it's to allow "spray-and-pray" hip shooting, one of the first weapons designed to allow for "hip firing" was the Browning Automatic Rifle and (early versions) used a conventional stock. Later adaptations and many of its peers used pistol grips, but were primarily intended for use from and initially were equipped with bipods as walking fire is generally less accurate than fire from a stable position farther away.

"Barrel shroud": In the "basic" form, simply a ventilated barrier between a chunk of metal that gets hot (because you have put burning gases through it) and the rest of your body/hands/etc. Sort of like the grill on a space heater to keep you from touching things that will burn you. Other "more advanced versions" may allow the attachment of things like lights (so you know what you're aiming at) and sights (so you don't hit what you aren't aiming at).

Flash suppressor: Primary use is to turn a large fireball at the muzzle (depending on the barrel length/ammunition combo) into one where you aren't trying to shoot blind after each shot. Simply, it allows a shooter to continue to identify targets/non-targets as well as not disrupt other shooters' vision. You don't typically see these on pistols because the type of powder used is usually consumed quicker reducing blast. You often don't find these on shotguns for the same reason and on long-range hunting rifles because the barrel is longer to allow greater power and accuracy.

Bayonet lug: Original use was to attach a bladed, melee weapon to your rifle in case you ran out of ammunition. Currently, most of these are more collector items than the weapons that can fit them as well as the US barrel length requirements often making bayonets no longer able to securely attach to a weapon. This currently exists--primarily--due to manufacturing standards for the various parts (front sight assembly, gas block, muzzle device, etc.). For manufacturing, the availability of standard parts shared with military models--but not parts of the fire control mechanism--often drives the presence of these.

Although not explicitly listed in most lists, the general appearance or "black rifle" look is generally based on manufacturing standards. In most cases, "assault weapons" are black due to the finishes applied and the lack of concealment of various parts by wood. Generally, this is to allow these firearms to meet requirements regarding rust-resistance, resistance to various oils or acids, as well as to decrease shine on the weapon. 

The use of wood--historically--was dropped for most military weapons because of susceptibility to humid climates, reduction of weapon weight, and simply the added cost and time to produce while being difficult to reliably meet production standards. The resulting designs--primarily of metal and plastics--also allows more modular, reliably interchanging parts between those weapons produced to the same specifications. Sort of like the parts of a modern car. 

The problem with the specifications banned is not address the lethality of the weapons or their actual use. In order to protect hunting, lethality can only indirectly be addressed through ammunition capacity because most traditional hunting rifles (and shotguns) are more powerful than most "assault weapons" because the focus for these weapons is usually on ergonomics and manufacturing standards more than lethality. Even addressing the magazine capacity--itself an ergonomic compromise between weapon weight (loaded) and how frequently magazine changes are required for the same number of rounds fired--is only applicable in theory to the first magazine fired's total capacity and should actually not matter if any time at all is required during a fight to do something like move or locate a target. 

In these cases, the ease of reloading--another ergonomic measure--reduces the limits on lethality based on magazine capacity.

Overall, however, I think the actual result of passing such a war on ergonomics and manufacturing standards without directly addressing the behavior of criminals is more likely to simply push development of decentralized manufacturing of weapons as well as "parallel" lethal technologies like pneumatic weapons to which many of these rules might not apply. Additionally, with the protection of older, more lethal weapons, the ongoing design and production of more ergonomic "chassis" to install older weapons in--like those for older M14/M1A rifles and even M1 Garands--will likely continue and exploit the lack of focus of this sort of legislation to create weapons just as lethal and nearly as ergonomic while missing the opportunity to address the criminal behavior behind these mass shootings.

It doesn't take a gun to kill a lot of people. It doesn't even take a well-designed one either.