I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a gun control debate, but fuck it. Such statements need to be contested.
Given that gun control has no real effect
on whether people have access to guns illegally or not (check out the stats by country of illegal guns on page 2 and 3 in particular) we should not be focusing on robbing law abiding citizens of their property (and their right of self defense) without monetary compensation and worse, sending police who are trained to gun people down at the faintest sign of resistance (say, someone reaching for a weapon or flash light
because they have no idea who the fuck the intruders are in their home are that are yelling and waving machine guns at them) to raid the homes of those who are suspected of not obeying the law. It's bad enough that people are gunned down in their own homes by police because their neighbors have put in an anonymous tip about smelling marijuana smoke, we don't need people who have never harmed anyone with a gun and never will being killed for the terrible act of wanting to defend themselves or their family, or in some cases having a gun collecting hobby.
For that matter, given that hammers kill more people per year than assault rifles in the US (all rifles combined, actually) if you want to argue from a perspective of reducing violence we're better off banning those. And kitchen knives, too. (Come to think of it, there is
a group in England trying to ban kitchen knives.)
The gun control argument also seems particularly silly when you consider that Germany, with it's very strict gun control laws, has had more people killed in mass shootings than the US, even counting the latest one and this is without
factoring in the inherent moral problems that come with gun control laws.
For that matter, while it takes more courage to kill someone with your bare hands than a gun (but apparently not more courage than required to kill someone with a melee weapon if we're making a comparison with assault rifles) it also takes a lot more courage to kill someone in a place where people might defend themselves than it does to gun down people in a place where you know that anyone who is capable of defending themselves (or others) is 15-30 minutes away. There is a reason
that virtually every single shooting happens in a 'gun free' zone and a reason that mass shootings almost never occurred prior to the laws creating gun free zones. Even the Aurora Colorado theater shooter, armed to the teeth and with a full set of body armor on, insisted upon picking the only gun-free theater in town. Banning gun free zones would do a hell of a lot more to see to it that mass shootings didn't happen than gun control ever would. That strategy also has the added benefit of not involving robbing people of their property and civil rights or sending police out with orders to bring them in dead or alive even though they've never committed a violent act in their life and don't intend to.