Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
Why not start with just banning military weapons? Surely it shouldnt be hard as your not infringing on anyones rights to bear arms, just certain ones.
If these mass shooters had hand guns, shotguns etc then they would still be able to murder but the list would be a lot shorter plus it may give people a chance to stop him.
They were outlawed for ten years until the sunset provision in the legislation kicked in. It's probably not a coincidence that only one of the deadliest mass shootings occurred during the ban.
The one that did occur (Columbine) during the ban shows us that someone sufficiently determined will find a soft target, catch them unprepared and kill a lot of people as long as firearms are legal, irrespective of what's legal.
The one in Ohio speaks to your point that that any given mass shooting likely would be much less deadly under a ban. Compare what happened at Columbine, and the comparative eternity those shooters had, to what happened in 30 seconds in Dayton with a 100 round magazine.
An assault weapons ban won't stop mass shootings, but it's a start on addressing the problem. To understand why that hasn't happened, you have to understand that the NRA has been completely captured by the gun lobby and that the industry's profits for the last fifteen years have come largely as a result of very successfully marketing assault weapons. As a result, they are willing to spend a lot of money to keep the golden goose from getting killed off.