I have a question that I have been unable to find an answer to online without rifling through 180000 pages of opinion pieces.  There is a lot of opinion tossed left and right on this but I want a specific answer to a specific aspect of the debate.

Why does the law believe the firearms with military style features (as defined in the law), are more dangerous than those without these features?

I dont want to know if they actually are more dangerous.  I want to know why they lawmakers thought they were when the law were written.  What facts did they base these laws on?

Helpful would be information that is not speculation on what the lawmakers were feeling (such as "they thought they looked scarier") or someone screaming at the other side, etc.  Facts only, please.  Even better would be facts backed by stats.


Your Email has been sent.