In the wake of the shootings, many have said we need to reinitiate the assault weapons ban, among other ideas (ie, also high capacity magazines and military-grade combat armor). Many have been saying this all along.
They are opposed by those seeking to uphold the status quo. The common, if not only, refrain is that it doesn't matter whether assault weapons are available. Rather, that the only thing that matters is the individual.
I suspect the people that say this are being reactionary and simply opposing something because it was said by someone identified as a liberal. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that my suspicion is incorrect.
The way you can do that is by forgetting about the status quo and pretending it's a blank slate. Tell me where you would draw the line in terms of weapon sales, but don't just announce a line. Give a logical explanation that can be removed and compared to the current gun control proposals.
See the problem with the position that the only thing that matters is the shooter is that, if one honestly meant it, one would argue for zero restrictions on the type of weapon sold.
If only the shooter matters, M16s should be legal.
If only the shooter matters, Howitzers should be legal.
If only the shooter matters, grenades and RPGs should be legal.
If only the shooter matters, rocket launchers should be legal.
If only the shooter matters, cruise missiles should be legal.
So too tanks, land mines, flamethrowers, combat jets - all machinery of death.
Because hey..... it's only the person that matters. Maybe I just like blowing up the trees on my 500 acre midwestern ranch. So why shouldn't I have a rocket launcher if I can afford one? Why shouldn't I be able to drop a smart bomb on a herd of deer with my military drone?
Where do you draw the line, and if you want to avoid looking like a fraud, pray do give a sufficiently detailed logical explanation of why.
Rote shouts of "freedom" and "mental illness" do not suffice for the reasons I have laid out.