Policticians have gone down this road before... I think it was New York among others that did it, with "dangerous" dog breeds.
The first error in logic is that there will always be something - some breed that is the most dangerous. So once they have done away with and declared victory over public enemy number one, the breed that was second on the list moves up to first place on the hit parade and becomes the new public enemy number one.
The second error in logic was that the dog breed that was responsible for the most reported bites of humans held that place not because of temperment but only as a function of the sheer number of dogs owned. Thus, the most popular breeds became "the most dangerous". If I remember correctly New York ended up with Golden Retrievers as technically being the most dangerous dogs.
If they would have done away with the Golden Retrievers, another breed would have moved up - Yorkies or something, I don't know.
The other thing that happened is that New York never solved the original problem with so called dangerous fighting type dogs / pit bull variants. People simply misnamed / misclassified the dogs. Instead of being a "American Pit Bull Terrier" a dog became an "American Stafforshire Terrier". If the state targeted American Staffordshire Terriers, the dogs became Staffordshire Bull Terriers - it was a shell game with the breed name.
Boston is doing the same thing with weapons. Even though they haven't solved the core issue of criminals obtaining weapons, they've declared victory over the issue of criminals obtaining firearms and now they're moving down the list.
They'll find that criminals can really stretch the definition of what a knife is. It's well known that criminals would use long screwdrivers as weapons - a screw driver with a 14" shaft will kill you quite dead - as will a 12 or 8 incher... And of course there is the venerable spoon...
I'm sure they'll succeed in ridding bean town of "knives" and then it will be on to bludgeons !
