Reply #139: But they could have used a rifle without a protruding handgrip...

[benEzra]

The beltway snipers would have had a hard time using their feet.

But they could have used a rifle without a protruding handgrip. Or, at the very close ranges they were shooting, a shotgun with slugs.

Banning protruding rifle handgrips wouldn't make a bit of difference.

The killer's of JFK, MLK, RFK, would have struggled using their hands.

Hmmm. They all used straight-stocked, hunting-style rifles, didn't they? Bolt-actions, even, at least in the cases of JFK and RFK.

So, you want to ban bolt-action deer rifles, too? The mask comes off...

Terrorist Tim McVeigh said that if he it to do over again he would have used a rifle instead.

And I'll bet he couldn't have killed 168 people with a rifle...but if he had used a rifle, whether the rifle had a protruding handgrip or not would have been irrelevant.

You think he could have caused this much destruction with a civilian rifle?

400 dead people don't matter, they're statistically insignificant to you

"100,000 dead people don't matter, they're statistically insignificant to you, because you oppose alcohol prohibition." Would that be a fair statement?

You also are ignoring the fact that banning protruding rifle handgrips would do NOTHING about the tiny percentage of homicides that are committed with rifles, because stock shape is irrelevant to the rifle's lethality. Just like whether a car has a decklid spoiler or chrome exhaust tip is irrelevant to drunk driving fatalities.