I for one do not like bans or restriction that only apply to certain type of weapons. The reason is simple: The guns aren't the problem, people are. All restriction should be about
who should be allowed to own
any type of guns.
I mean sure if someone goes crazy with a blackpowder muzzleloading rifle (legal and license free in several countries) or a single/double shotgun (legal and license free in many countries) then he might have a smaller bodycount than if he had been armed with an assaultrifle.
But, and this is important, would anyone go to the families of those who had been killed in the rampage and say that these deaths are acceptable since he did not have a more dangerous weapon. That simply having a law that bans "military type weapons" is good because this
limits the casualties in spree killings.
No, I don't think anyone would. Many say that even one death is too many in such cases and I'm agree but the only way to prevent every single killing spree is to stop the would-be-killer before he strikes (possibly getting some medical/mental help to him/her.) Especially since knives, cars and improvised explosives have also been used in mass murders.
Which brings me to my point. Gun control should be about
who gets a firearm license, not about what kind of guns that person can have. For example, I own several firearms. Few years ago I sold about half of them. Does that mean I am 50% less dangerous now? Or if I wanted to buy another gun would it make me 20% more dangerous? Would the type of the gun matter? I mean I have a pistol and shotguns and rifles already. So getting another shotgun would not really help me shoot more, since I already have more guns that I can carry on my person at the same time. What if I wanted to buy an assault rifle? (for the record I am interested in trying action shooting as well as a certain shooting competitions for reservists and both would require the use of an assault rifle. Can't afford to start those hobbies yet though.) If the police would refuse my license for an assault rifle, what would that mean? Does it mean that I am a threat to other people if I had it? Then shouldn't they take away my other guns as well? I mean if even one death is too much then if I would be a threat I should not be allowed to have any guns. And if I am allowed to keep my other guns does that really mean that I only become a danger to society if I get some type of "gun overload" where I exceed the safe amount of firepower that I can posses.
That was a long rant.
Sorry, here is a funny song: