Much of the gun violence in the US, especially mass shootings, isn't committed by people that break into homes and steal, or have any kind of criminal record. The shooter in the recent shooting in Maine was an otherwise law-abiding person, he worked for the military as a firearms instructor, in fact.
Maybe so, but mass shootings true mass shootings like the one last week ( defining that as seemingly not connected to any other violent crime such as gang violent or or people killing whole families ( it only takes four to be considered a mass shooting) True mass shootings like this one are rare when compared to total gun deaths ( better than half of which are a person taking their own lives and no one else with them by the way. The mass shootings are the ones that tend to make the national and sometimes international news yes and shooting committed with "assault weapons" whatever on Earth those are, but that make up a VERY small percentage of total gun deaths.
For example, let us suppose we had 1,100 that would die we had two choices
A We could save 1,000 people over the course of say a year
or B
we could save 100 of those people in the course of a single day
Assume for the purpose of this that saving all 1,100 is not an option
Which would make more sense to lose the 1,000 or lose the 100
In this context the strict regulation /banning of "assault weapons and other large mag weapons is the 100(because yes they take the most lives at one time and are what makes the news outside a local area ( giving the appearance that more lives are being saved.
The 1,000 on the other hand are hand guns and/or other long guns like hurting rifles things like that (but probably 995 would be nothing but handguns.)
Now hand guns are already some of the most highly regulated guns ( outside of guns that are nearly completely illegal like machine guns for civilians.) These guns already generally require the highest minimum age to purchase ( 21) and most states carry ( particularly concealed most states that too is 21, yet those are the guns people usually least likely support adding restrictions and certainly are less likely to want to see them banned.
Given that example of the 100 vs the 1,000 which would make more sense to try and save? Yet the types of restrictions the most people are the most gun ho about (no pun intended) are the ones that while they are not currently as regulated would save the 100 lives ( because those are the ones people hear about when they happen outside of their area and those are the ones that take the most lives at one time, but would we whether it be about that or total body count?
