Pretty much. Handguns, often cheap revolvers and small-caliber semi-autos, make up the majority of gun deaths and gun crime in this country.
"Assault Weapons" make up a minority, but they're "flashier" and get press. Which is part of why they're focused on by both the ban-proponents and the shooters. IMHO I think that focus and attention is part of why mass shootings are occurring more often. There's such a storm of press and attention around all of these incidents, with the pundits arguing for weeks, and of course online: how many threads here are discussing the latest one? And that doesn't count the tweets and facebook posts and everything else. For a person that's already got issues, usually feels isolated, and wants to be noticed or prove they matter, what better way to get attention? And we sure give them attention afterwards.
AS to bans, it's an emotional reaction, not a rational one. Think about the arguments:
1. They're designed to kill (same as any weapon ever created, from the stone club to the nuke).
2. They look like military rifles (even though most of the military features are removed-no flash suppressor, no select-fire, etc., and there are other rifles with similar capabilities that wouldn't be classed as assault weapons)
3. They cause deaths and have no useful purpose (not true; they are used for varmint control, hunting, and defense as well as recreation. But you don't see this argument made against alcohol, whose ONLY purpose is recreation, and there are twice as many alcohol-related deaths each year as gun-related)
Add to that that most of those calling for firearms bans of various sorts have very little knowledge of firearms (i.e.-the assault weapons ban of 94), and that ignorance leads to ineffective legislation. Even for the goals they want, that seems odd. "Know your enemy" as a saying has been around quite a while, after all. I'd think if they were truly interested in a functional solution, they'd do some research...instead is mostly based on emotional factors (they look like military weapons, and militaries kill people!).
Now, that being said, we do need regulation improvements. I don't think a ban is politically achievable, practical, or functional. I've always been a proponent of a licensing system, much like a driver's license: An extensive background check initially to determine if you're eligible, along with a requirement for training on use, safety, storage, and law. Pass that, you get the license. License is revoked if you ever have a disqualifying event. Maybe a 4 or 5 year time limit after which a renewal is required (another background check, but maybe a quicker one this time, similar to what's done now, to keep costs lower).
And get rid of the stupid regulations that don't allow various gun records to be put in an electronic format and used efficiently.
But any sort of gun regulation is a treatment, not a cure. It's Tylenol for the fever, not an antibiotic to actually stop the infection. We need better mental health in this country, desperately. We need ways to identify those with problems and get them help before it turns into something like this...whether they choose a mass shooting, driving a car into a crowd, building a bomb, or whatever other method of mutual destruction they pick. We need to work on less tribalism, picking causes and sides and dying on ideological hills, and more pragmatism: being willing to include everyone in our democracy, and quit viewing compromise and negotiation as an evil. Compromise is, after all, the foundation of functional society.
But that's just my opinion, and I fully expect these comments to be twisted to strawmen, and to be hit with numerous insults about how I simply have a fetish to kill people, which is why I rarely post in gun threads. I don't need the ulcers.
