Originally Posted by woj

it's not clear how banning "assault style weapons" would "curb media sensationalism of mass shootings" or even "curb mas shootings" in the first place? If "assault style weapons" are banned, then obviously the nutjob would use a different weapon, perhaps an ordinary handgun, a pipe bomb, or any of dozens of other possible weapons, which seems at best would be only marginally less lethal and news worthy?

So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this...