In 1966 I was trained with the M-14. I was taught

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Sure...but there's the matter of proportion.

So-called "assault weapons" cause a LOT less harm than handguns...we're talking an order of magnitude difference (and probably more than one order). Why isn't the discussion about them, particularly when not only do they figure in more harm on an outright basis, but are far, far more proportionally involved in homicide and other violent crime (given that handguns are the overwhelming choice of most gun-armed habitual criminals)?

Is it because after an atrocity like Newtown, these weapons are considered "low hanging fruit?" If handguns are an unrealistic target, aim for something that the level of emotion, etc., will make vulnerable? I suppose that makes sense if one's goal is simply any increased level of gun control...but it makes little sense if the goal is to make a genuine, significant dent in gun-related violence. Banning assault weapons (even an outright ban, not just prohibiting new sales, which is almost certainly the only even slightly attainable goal) won't even make a blip.

But like I said upthread, it'll make some people feel good...