On Jan 26, 9:16*am, Rifleman wrote:
" wrote:
Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale
of guns and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the
choices that the "casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has
available to him, to "water down" the choices, such that only
the bland, non-cool-looking guns are left (which are still
perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have a certain
class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. *?

No, it's clearly not the intent at all. *Did you read my post?
NY state had a 10 round limit on magazines. *They had an
assault weapons ban. *They just passed even MORE restrictions
including a 7 round limit on magazines.

You're missing my point.

No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder. It's just that your *point* makes
no sense.




I'm not questioning the technical merits or differences between various
styles of rifles. *All it takes is one bullet fired from any type of
rifle to kill someone.

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

I'm wondering if there is a class of weapons-buyer that is turned off
(or would be turned off) by the prospect of buying an "ordinary-looking"
rifle if a law went into effect that banned military-style (ie -
military "looking") rifles.

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome", deadly,
dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting rifle?

Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are those
the people that you really want to own such weapons?

There are tens of millions of those weapons out there.
99.999% of legal gun owners are not using them to
commit murder. There is zero evidence that the type
of stock or grip has anything do with crime. The guy that
wants to commit murder,
you think that because a gun doesn't have a particular
stock isn't for sale legally in the gun store, that is going to
stop him? He'll just buy the same gun, minus the stock
or obtain one illegally on the street.

You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals. All it's going to do is **** off the
99.99% of legal gun owners. But that's exactly what
the libs want to do, because the real plan is to eliminate
all guns, one step at a time. They take one dumb idea,
like yours, after another. They don't work. We know they
don't work. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years.
We had a magazine limit for 10 years. It did nothing.
Even the libs know it. They just then use the fact that
what they did had no effect to then clammer for MORE
restrictions. 15, 10, 7, 3, 0. Capiche?