The Folly Of Gun Bans By Aesthetics
February 19, 2013 by Sam Rolley
Second Amendment advocates often complain that the biggest problem with gun restrictions — besides the Constitutional questionability — is that the laws are usually written by people who know very little about guns. The fact that the latest legislative effort at an assault weapons ban both bans and exempts different models of the same .223 caliber Ruger Mini-14 based solely on aesthetics lends credence to the complaint.
American legislators who wish to ban certain firearms believe that one of the rifles in the photo below is far more deadly than the others. Can you guess which one?
The assault weapons bill introduced last month by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would ban 157 specific firearms the Senator believes were made for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. The bill also would eliminate magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The banned weapons were placed on the list because they accept detachable magazines and also have one other characteristic, such as a pistol or forward grip, that make them more “military.”
The Associated Press reported: “Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, said the Ruger Mini-14 model that would be banned under Feinstein’s legislation is easier to hold while firing because it has a pistol grip, and it’s easier to hide because it has a collapsible stock. That’s what makes it more dangerous that the Ruger Mini-14 with the fixed stock which would be exempted under the Feinstein bill, she said.”
According to the Ruger website, the collapsible stock makes the rifle 2.75 inches shorter.
By Feinstein’s logic, you should assess the guy on the right as a much bigger threat than the guy on the left in the pictures below.