Statistically over the last four years and even longer than that, the use of the long guns in crime has actually dropped precipitously. The use of handguns and illegal guns has gone up marginally, and it may have peaked at around 2005. We haven't seen the 2006 figures yet, but the suggestion seems to be that it probably peaked at 2005.
Let me ask you this. There is a general consensus. Even Professor Doob, who is so far probably the strongest witness other than you to oppose this legislation, was clear that it's probably not going to make any difference at this period in time. Those people who are faced with the charge of using a gun in a crime are not likely to get out and simply won't get out.
What I want to ask you is this. If we incorporate this and make the assumption that it's not going to make any difference or hardly any difference at all, down the road, if crime rates continue to drop, gun crimes continue to drop, and gun crimes with handguns and illegal guns start to drop, what do you see happening at that point with the judiciary? Will they continue to keep them in, even if we only have one murder a year with a gun? Will the practice stay? Will they become more willing to entertain arguments that will allow the person out on bail pending the trial?