Actually the feats tha allow you to use other items as a Rogue also reduce the number of sneak attack dice or reduces the die type. So if you are going to house rule a shortbow for a Rogue then you should make the feat similar to the others that reduce the sneak attack.
No. That's really awful reasoning.
For a single feat you can get a weapon with a 1d10 damage die that has +3 to hit, and requires a minor action to load.
Losing +1 to hit is a bigger loss than gaining your minor action back, especially for a rogue.
A +2/1d10 load free weapon is, at best, even with a +3/1d10 load minor weapon.
If you think it should require a sacrifice of sneak attack dice as well as a second feat to get an inferior weapon, then you should be kept far, far away from game mechanics.
Of all those sneak attack sacrifice feats, only the dwarven one is actually vaguely sensible, and even then it's only sensible if you assume that anybody who takes it is going to wield a craghammer.
All up the rogue weapon proficiency limitations stink of a last minute addition OR a rule that persisted because of pure oversight. One merely needs to realise that garrote requires a light blade to perform to realise that it's not something anyone looked at in depth.
