@FireMadeFlesh I am going to copy/paste a replay I made to @wundayatta in a related thread;
Define “assault weapon”. There is the rub.
In some cases it is clear, but the CA definition is rather broad. (That also is why Barrett won’t sell to CA law enforcement; their rifles are 49-state-legal, but CA got over-zealous in their legislation.) In truth, if only one bullet is fired per squeeze of the trigger, it does not fit the accepted definition of “assault rifle” so we already have some confusion over terminology.
However, it also doesn’t address the issue that most firearms violence involves handguns; weapons that fall well outside the definition of “assault weapon”. To my mind, that is like banning planes because they can kill 300 people in a single crash while leaving cars alone despite the fact that they kill (on average) 47 people for every person that dies in a plane crash.
_Oh, I should also point out that “military grade” is also rather comical. Trust me, those are built by the lowest bidder, and often handed down through generations; some of the 0311s I served with had M16s older than they were! On average, it is safe to say that anything you buy at the sporting goods store is better than what Uncle Sam issues to grunts.
I agree that civilians don’t need firearms that fire more than one bullet/shell per pull of the trigger (burst/full-auto should remain in the hands of the military and law enforcement) but the M1911 and M9 semi-auto pistols are also “military grade”. Want to ban all handguns too? After all, many are “military grade weapons”. Look how well that worked in DC ;)_
As you can see, the devil is in the details. Additional legislation regarding “assault weapons” will run afoul of The Law of Unintended Consequences. So how about we enforce existing laws and work on the other side of the equation; the people? I know plenty of places that have easy access to guns that do not have a bunch of trigger-happy psychopaths running amok.
Also note that Timothy MacVeigh didn’t fire a single shot.
Most importantly (though you hint at this…), the US is not Australia! As for those weapons “only usable for killing large numbers of people”, you mean that you seek to ban the teaching of chemistry and welding? I can think of ways to kill more people more quickly and efficiently than a gun using simple household objects.
How about if we reframe the issue; if Australia had as violent a culture as the US, how well do you think those gun laws would work? I say that the issue is not legislative, it’s cultural. Banning guns won’t work. Adding too many hoops to legal ownership will create the same sort of underground. The only real way to solve the issue is to fix society.