WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Fearmongering headline seen this morning in the Boston Globe: "Influx of assault guns feared as federal ban lapses". (The link goes to the less hysterical but still debatable headline that appeared in the actual paper: "Influx feared as arms ban ends"). The head as written above appeared on the front page of boston.com. Surely a paper perpetually pursuing national noteriety need not stoop to such sensationalistic strategies!
This headline is especially unfunny considering that 2004 is becoming known as the Year of the Brazen Daytime Shootings in and around Boston. The city's murder rate is twice what it was last year at this time, even without so-called "Assault Weapons."
Posted by
Johno
on
| § 3
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Of course, the assault
Of course, the assault weapons ban was never more than a ban on weapons that look like assault weapons.
And a very selective "look",
And a very selective "look", at that. If I understood it correctly, you could have a bayonet sheath, a folding stock, a pistol grip, or a grenade launcher on your weapon. But you couldn't have more than one of these things (plus one more which escapes me right now) at a time on the same weapon.
How friggin' silly is that? At a minimum, anything that replaces the AWB ought to at least include a concise description of what's being banned, no?
Flash suppresors also are
Flash suppresors also are doubleplusungood, because the belief was that they help mask a firer's position.
From which belief people kind of extrapolated that they were magical, cop killing nightshades of invisible doom.
Except that they don't, and they aren't. They help reduce impairment of the firer's night vision.
Not that anyone asked, you know, a manufacturer, owner, gunsmith or anybody.
BTW, what's an "assault weapon"?