SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (41575)11/22/2005 7:01:01 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
There is no significant increase in safety to law enforcement personnel from banning "assault weapons". Such weapons are defined primarily by cosmetic details, not functional details that greatly affect their performance as weapons. Hand guns are the main weapon of crime (they can be cheap and they are concealable). Shot guns have more close in power. Normal hunting rifles have greater effect at very long ranges. There are any number of guns with very similar characteristics to the so called assault weapons that were not classified as such because they lacked such features as a bayonet lug.

The "assault weapons ban" was portrayed by it supporters as banning automatic weapons. It did not, they where already heavily regulated.

If you only want to hunt a deer--you don't need a grenade launcher.

Grenade launchers have little to do with the idea of an assault weapons ban. Many so called assault weapons are comparatively low power weapons.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News