Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Smooth,
While you made an observation, specifically the statistics don't support you in that folding stocks are prefered by criminals committing crimes.
Are they sometimes found?
Yes.
But there doesn't appear to be a problem.
NOW:
Yes, I can say that the law was based on looks.
I don't have time right now, but if you want me to when I get back, I can pull up the quotes of the senators who drafted the law.
To paraphrase, they went through gun publications like "Shotgun News" and picked out the ones that looked scary.
I'm not making this up.
That's how they picked many of these weapons.
For example, that is EXACTLY why the Ruger Mini14 (a .223 semiautomatic rifle, that has many aftermarket parts available, including folding stocks and large capacity magazines) is on the "Good Rifle List" in Appendix A of the regulation, while the Colt AR15, (a .223 semiautomatic rifle, that has many (blah blah blah)) is specifically banned.
Yes, I promise you, without doubt and by their own words, our Senators and Representatives did this based on emotional reactions after looking through gun magazines.
Not function.
Looks.
|
OK, well, I wasn't arguing that criminals choose one weapon over another, just that it's silly to me to argue that there is no functional difference between a folded stock and an unfolded one--they have two different purposes, with the former being ease of concealment.
But I can believe that legislature members did pass a law based on fear or looks or what they might have thought represented the most dangerous weapons. I started my point with speculation. So if you say you've got the quotes and all, I'm not too bent to gainsay you.
The stats in relation to crime rates though, since that's what I stare at all day, I'd like you to PM me someday. I'll walk through them with you and we can discuss what's going on.Keep in mind of course, that they are starting to rise again.