What do you call "something that can spray an area with 30+ rounds" though?* After all, fully automatic weapons are still illegal. (Aside from some grandfathered-in older ones, which have not been shown to be an issue as far as criminal activity goes.) And I've seen some convincing arguments lately that larger-capacity magazines help the legitimate user far more than the mass shooter.
*Also, under many circumstances, a shooter doing this is less likely to successfully hit anyone, but that's a different issue.
"Easily available" is, unfortunately, pretty vague in the context of this argument. There are a lot of variables involved. My personal preference is shall-issue with proof of -good- training to non-felons, with permit fees that normal people can afford to pay.** Restrictions on what weapons are available to be based on what those things actually mean in use.*** (30 round magazines? Just fine. Explosives? That's a problem. Anti-material rifle? Not only no, but hell no.) Because there's actually statistics giving me reason to believe that laws like this would give the results I want to see.
**You may note the lack of mental health clause in there. I've seen some concerns about the abusability of these, and it's not clear that they do a great deal to keep guns out of the hands of the people one wants the guns away from anyway. Since I don't know of one that would do what I want it to, I'm not suggesting one. Anything else that is lacking I might just not be thinking of right now.
***It was rather stunning to read about some of California's gun laws. Bans on cosmetic or minor-convenience items that don't affect the lethality of the weapon. And then they ban one specific type of .50 caliber round, which would actually be sensible if they also banned the other types of .50 caliber rounds, all of which are pretty much lacking in having a reasonable civilian use.)
-Morgan.
*Also, under many circumstances, a shooter doing this is less likely to successfully hit anyone, but that's a different issue.
"Easily available" is, unfortunately, pretty vague in the context of this argument. There are a lot of variables involved. My personal preference is shall-issue with proof of -good- training to non-felons, with permit fees that normal people can afford to pay.** Restrictions on what weapons are available to be based on what those things actually mean in use.*** (30 round magazines? Just fine. Explosives? That's a problem. Anti-material rifle? Not only no, but hell no.) Because there's actually statistics giving me reason to believe that laws like this would give the results I want to see.
**You may note the lack of mental health clause in there. I've seen some concerns about the abusability of these, and it's not clear that they do a great deal to keep guns out of the hands of the people one wants the guns away from anyway. Since I don't know of one that would do what I want it to, I'm not suggesting one. Anything else that is lacking I might just not be thinking of right now.
***It was rather stunning to read about some of California's gun laws. Bans on cosmetic or minor-convenience items that don't affect the lethality of the weapon. And then they ban one specific type of .50 caliber round, which would actually be sensible if they also banned the other types of .50 caliber rounds, all of which are pretty much lacking in having a reasonable civilian use.)
-Morgan.