Some_Mook
Member
You are correct, the military idea of why to use a rifle was to allow infantry to place better aimed fire against enemy troops and cavalry at a greater distance to dissuade them from closing to within bayonet or saber range. During the Crimean War it was also found that a rifle could be effectively used to suppress artillery. In later years, the machine gun was found to be even more effective against stopping enemy troops from closing to within edged weapon range than a rifle with the trade-offs of being less mobile and being crew served.IIRC, the bayonet bracket on the rifle is one of those "features" banned in IL-ANNOY.
That's why I voted "No". Besides, isn't the whole idea of a "rifle" is to keep them further away? I would just as soon choose to keep them WAY beyond "bayonet range".
There are few valid reasons why politicians would think banning bayonet mounts on rifles would make any difference, one would be that they believed that making a rifle less scary-looking would make it less desirable to use for nefarious purposes. Either that or they figured that if they limit ammunition capacity or otherwise manage to slow down a shooter's reload time AND by preventing said shooter from having a bayonet attached it would be easier for the average unarmed citizen to charge the shooter and disarm them.