The discussion posted by the OP is naive psychologically. People categorize objects according to the core conceptual description of an object. That contains its properties and usages. The core of the gun is as a weapon and not a tool or sporting instrument. That is does this by launching a projectile is not the core conceptualization.
Trying to say this to try the failed 'excuse' defense of some gun folks for gun ownership. It will not work. The legal definitions of what constitutes a firearm are really irrelevant as Frank pointed out to the real world of public opinion.
Last, as said many times, the 2nd Amend. exists to protect the ability to have a lethal weapon and not a projectile launcher. The shooting sports are irrelevant to protecting gun rights. They are derivative of their weapons usage. Now some guns may have evolved for them in a manner not optimal for lethal usage. So what!
I had some UK gun magazines from before their bans and they mocked the IDPA and IPSC humanoid targets as showing crazy American lethal intent. They later tried to defend their guns as for sports. Since they were used lethally in the UK, that really didn't work as they had constitutional protection of their lethal concept and core usage.
Same thing happened in Australia. Australian men are supposed to have a 'sport'. The gun folks argued that they shouldn't lose their manly sport. They did.
If someone managed to killed all the folks at Las Vegas, Sutherland and Parkland with a bowling bowl, you'd bet there would be controls on them. We have legal controls in some places on selling spray paint to control graffiti.
The idea of a gun as not being a weapon in core and protected usage is just some useless choir delusion.
Trying to say this to try the failed 'excuse' defense of some gun folks for gun ownership. It will not work. The legal definitions of what constitutes a firearm are really irrelevant as Frank pointed out to the real world of public opinion.
Last, as said many times, the 2nd Amend. exists to protect the ability to have a lethal weapon and not a projectile launcher. The shooting sports are irrelevant to protecting gun rights. They are derivative of their weapons usage. Now some guns may have evolved for them in a manner not optimal for lethal usage. So what!
I had some UK gun magazines from before their bans and they mocked the IDPA and IPSC humanoid targets as showing crazy American lethal intent. They later tried to defend their guns as for sports. Since they were used lethally in the UK, that really didn't work as they had constitutional protection of their lethal concept and core usage.
Same thing happened in Australia. Australian men are supposed to have a 'sport'. The gun folks argued that they shouldn't lose their manly sport. They did.
If someone managed to killed all the folks at Las Vegas, Sutherland and Parkland with a bowling bowl, you'd bet there would be controls on them. We have legal controls in some places on selling spray paint to control graffiti.
The idea of a gun as not being a weapon in core and protected usage is just some useless choir delusion.