I need a conclusion about banning assault weapons

it is difficult to ban a thing for which a definition is lacking. Even if a very lovely worded definition were to be created, to ban a weapon that is in most cases simply “scary looking” to any who dislike firearms in general is a direct affront to the USA with its 2nd Amendment; and to begin to rip at the Foundations of the USA is a negative and destructive thing. To see Senators (or anyone) be vehemently against any weapon is made nearly comical when this Senator is on Live TV trying to insert the magazine into the weapon BACKWARDS. I mention it because I have seen it. In rural areas, where crime is generally very low, certainly when compared with the cities, a weapon is just another tool. How silly I would feel calling the office of the Sheriff if confronted with an obviously rabid animal - one that is very dangerous and would be long gone by the time “help” arrived. There are differing opinions to be sure, but to begin to undo the Constitution is the thin edge of the wedge, and ultimately damaging beyond imagination. It is far better to enforce rules already in place than to ban a thing that is difficult to define in the first place, no matter how well intended, this is harmful. There are a great many rules that are never enforced, and other laws made to make enforcement more difficult for those philosophies which are “politically correct” but short sighted in the end.

Explanation:

the answer is

r ≈5.641

plug in the area of 100 yards into the equation

100=

divide each side by pi

≈ 31.8309=

take the square root of each side to find r

=r

r ≈5.641