It's an emotive subject and I hope we can discuss it rationally without getting too worked up. The problem is that the arguements to ban things are largely from an emotive standpoint, much like people wanting to ban hunting because 'think of the animals'. Show me some concrete evidence that banning lawful, licensed, vetted firearms owners from owning certain things which are cosmetic features of a firearm will achieve any net good that is worth the reduction in freedom. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips,etc.
I can't have an adjustable LOP stock on my AR, but it's okay for me to have one and pin it at the shortest position as long as it's over the legal minimum length, or have a gun with no stock at all as long as it's over legal length and not designed to be fired with one hand. It's ridiculous. Anyone who wants a short concealable gun for a crime is just going to break that law anyway, because they're already planning on breaking laws, they're not going to care if their sawed off 12g isn't over 762mm.
You can say 'that sort of gun attracts "The wrong sort of person". Well I like 'that sort of gun', (although I'm just as picky about semi-autos as I am about bolt guns, and everything else, because I'm a fussy bitch) so do a lot of others, and I'm not "the wrong sort of person", and I find it very insulting that the assumption is made, it's an intensely obnoxious and prejudiced phrase. "The wrong sort of person" shouldn't have any gun and that should be prevented in the initial licensing/vetting process. If "the wrong sort of person" gets their hands on any gun and intends to use it for nefarious purposes, they're not going to obey the laws regardless, it is just restricting the freedoms of one of the most heavily vetted to be lawful sectors of society.
And this is getting political I guess so I shouldn't even be posting this stuff. I don't know why I bother since people are very unlikely to be swayed from an opinion on an emotive subject like this by a discussion on the Internet, regardless of merit.
Bookmarks