I think that Mr. Zimring is correct, that, for instance, the cheap handgun ban, the safety testing that they are going to mandate, I'm not convinced it will stand up in court if it's challenged in part because it is difficult to tell them apart, but also in part because it's not clear it's directed at handguns because they're faulty. The problem is they are working properly and some people don't like the fact that guns can be misused to kill people. And no one is claiming that they're safety hazards in truth. And so it's cosmetics than anything else. It's a powerful symbol, but it is symbolic, and it certainly doesn't mean that California is sort of at the cutting edge and now others will follow.
Symbols can be important.
Well, obviously the political symbolism of gun control in 1999, the year before a presidential election, is enormously important. It's particularly important for Democrats who have a history of being on the losing end of the crime issue and have found in guns, under the political genius of President Clinton, a way to make Republicans uncomfortable on a crime-related issue. So the symbolism is quite important. Yes, go ahead. It's not clear that even random lethal violence is happening more often.