@hightor,
hightor wrote:Only to differentiate between the choices of weapons people use in mass shootings.
Since there is no functional difference between the cosmetic choices, what does it matter which cosmetics they choose?
hightor wrote:I guess you missed where I specified three designs commonly used in hunting rifles which do not allow for detachable magazines.
If I'd missed them, I wouldn't have responded to them.
If you check, you'll notice that each time you tried to pull that trick, I took you to task for trying to justify your claims about cosmetics by talking about something other than cosmetics.
Incidentally there are lever action rifles that take detachable magazines.
hightor wrote:Because a collapsible stock is easier to stow or conceal.
Irrelevant. (For all the reasons I explained in my previous posts.)
hightor wrote:They are more lethal than handguns because of other factors which I've mentioned.
Bad logic on your part.
Rifles being more deadly than handguns may be a reason to treat rifles differently from handguns.
Rifles being more deadly than handguns is
not a reason to treat "rifles with pistol grips" differently from "rifles without pistol grips".
hightor wrote:Obviously. But many of them are not exactly easy to reassemble, requiring simple tools and a bench — sort of a challenge when you're trying to get as many shots off as soon as possible.
Except I had expressly referred to the ones that are especially designed to be quickly split in half and quickly reassembled.
hightor wrote:oralloy, I'm choosing not to respond to any more of your posts on this issue. They basically all say the same thing. Okay, I get where you're coming from.
The replies say the same thing because you're making the same untrue claims over and over again.