Simple - and serious - question - why is anything other than a handgun, shotgun or rifle needed?

[rrneck]

30. It seems to me

that there are three ways to regulate a firearm:

1. Caliber
2. Capacity.
3. Rate of fire

Caliber:
That's the size of the bullet. Anything over .50 cal is heavily regulated as a destructive device. When it comes to getting shot by anything smaller there is really no difference. There is no such thing as a benign bullet.

Capacity:
That's those famous high capacity magazines. You can limit them I guess, but even a rusty operater like me can switch mags in under two or three seconds. Guns that accept magazines are designed to be reloaded quickly.

Rate of fire:
Full auto means continuous fire as long as you hold the trigger down. Those are very expensive and highly regulated. Semi auto means one shot per trigger pull. People have been buying over a million of them a month. A semi auto firearm is a standard gun these days. Again, rusty as I am I can empty a Colt 1911 (seven rounds) in under two seconds. It's almost a distinction without a difference.

The number of guns is not the problem. There is no way to regulate them any more than they are now. The distinctions between "civilian sporting arms" and "military hardware" are almost non existent and not much more useful from a public safety standpoint. I haven't seen a single public policy proposal that couldn't be sidestepped by someone intent on doing harm before the ink is dry. Not one.