General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This is another gun thread for those hiding them. [View all]Animal Chin
(175 posts)People use the term "cosmetic" to illustrate that the features which are being banned are not related to the function of the rifle. For example Senator Feinstein's proposal defines an assault weapon a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and any of the following features: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. So, a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, but none of these features is not an assault weapon.
How do any of these features make a rifle more dangerous? I can see how a collapsable stock would be easier to conceal and might be outlawed for that reason, the same way sawed off shotguns are. In fact, I think there's probably a pretty good argument for banning collapsable stocks across the board...that actually addresses a real harm. But does a pistol grip make a rifle more dangerous? A forward grip? I'll skip grenade launchers and rocket launchers since I believe those are practically illegal anyway (and if not, good luck finding rockets for your rocket launcher).
Remember: Connecticut has an assault weapons ban. One of the strictest in the nation. The AR-15 that Lanza used at Sandy Hook was not an assault weapon, as defined by CT law (as well as the 1994 federal ban upon which the CT law was based). The reason -- it lacks the features that define an assault weapon. Given that, do these cosmetic features really matter?