It's perfectly legal for them to run studies, what they can't do is lobby for said studies, nor openly admit (as they have before) that they've already decided guns are bad and are deliberately designing their studies to produce a pre-conceived conclusion.
Aren't there laws specifically prohibiting the CDC from pulling shit like this.
Indeed. The problem is if he said that in congress on camera gun control would be hosed for decades, they really aren't going to want to admit they've been restricting constitutional rights over whether or not something looks scary.Assualt Weapon: an otherwise regular weapon dolled up to look scary and "tacticool".
Take the Kimber line of bolt action rifles. There's the regular ones which wouldn't look too out of place in a BW photo staged to look like it was taken during WWI. Then there's the tactical ones which include things like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, detachable box magazines, &c which just look silly unless you're cosplaying SWAT.
Then there's the tactical ones which include things like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, detachable box magazines, &c which just look silly unless you're cosplaying SWAT.
The ones I mentioned are $1,600 bolt-action hunting rifles. Spending an extra $1,000 for the tactical version isn't going to help someone put Bambi on the dinner table while the pistol grip might be a bit of a hindrance if you need a second shot.I think that's going a bit too far in the other direction, those features have some utility and practical use, otherwise they wouldn't be so common.
The relevant issue is that they only provide a marginal advantage over weapons that lack them (which is not particularly relevant in a civilian context) nor are any of the features disproportionately useful to criminals vs law abiding citizens.
The ones I mentioned are $1,600 bolt-action hunting rifles. Spending an extra $1,000 for the tactical version isn't going to help someone put Bambi on the dinner table while the pistol grip might be a bit of a hindrance if you need a second shot.
A bit of both, actually. They are very good rifles to start with and they're going to make you pay through the nose for the added optional extras.With Kimber, I don't think you're paying the $1000 for the tacticalness, you're paying for it saying "Kimber" on the rifle.
A bit of both, actually. They are very good rifles to start with and they're going to make you pay through the nose for the added optional extras.
It's a 1911. They're pretty interchangeable and a lot like vodka: you're paying for the label and the priciest ones aren't always the best ones.Really? I've heard really bad things about Kimber 1911s, especially for the price.
Do you mean to get rid of guns or pervert the justice system into a kangaroo court to try people for their parents, ancestors, or childrens 'crimes'?New tactic?
New tactic?
Michigan School-Shooting Suspect’s Parents Plead Not Guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter
A judge set a bond for the parents of a Michigan teen accused of killing four high-school classmates this week at $500,000 at their arraignment on charges of involuntary manslaughter.www.wsj.com
The media is going on about how the victims are angels, but I don't buy it for a second. They all sound like popular kids, the type who get away with all sorts of things. I want to know how badly they were bullying the shooter. It takes a great deal of abuse to convince someone that the only way out of their suffering is to take on the world head on.