"Do humans cause climate change?" is a question of fact. "What type of gun control should we have?" is not a question of fact, so you shouldn't expect that simply stating some facts relevant to the issue would automatically change someone's opinion.
Or don't care for pedants who try arguing that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle... because the issue isn't about terminology. Although trying argue about that does deflect from the real issue though.
>or that you can shoot up a school 99% as well with a `regular` rifle
Are you trying to say a bolt action hunting rifle is 99% as effective at massacring large numbers of people compared to a magazine fed semi-automatic weapon? Since you seem to have some complaint about "assault rifles" being used colloquially you might want to define what is a regular rifle, technically.
>people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of beliefs but people hold on to them pretty strongly.
What you mean to say is you can tolerate the tens of thousands of gun deaths each year. And your belief is that if we take all those guns away those same number of deaths will just transfer over to stabbings or poisonings. Well while I'm not a badass or anything, I'll take my chances with a knife wielding maniac over a gun wielding maniac.
So... all those developed first world nations that have strong gun control laws still have an equivalent amount of murder and weapon assaults because everyone who would have used a gun still picks up a less dangerous weapon and is somehow just as efficient as they would be with a gun?
The biggest problem the U.S. has with gun control is that there's so many guns in the country that it will take a generation, maybe a 100 years for anything but the most draconian laws to have a tangible effect. And the whole time you'll have 2nd amendment wonks crying every day for 100 years about how gun control doesn't work because it didn't instantly fix the issue. However doing nothing hasn't been working either.
Please come back with an internally coherent argument, and then we can start from there.
Whether you want to call a qualifying weapon a "regular" rifle or an "assault" rifle is not pertinent because neither of those terms is well-defined.
Magazines larger than ten rounds are OEM standard on the regular rifles that are in common retail sale.
You're still failing at being internally consistent.
Well, I look at it this way. Both the left and the right (including our current administration in the US) as well as those who financially and politically support the current administration (such as the NRA) agree emphatically that gun control works, and lack of guns in the hands of laws abiding citizenry is safer. So when both the left and the right agree through words and policies, and it's demonstrated through safety and security, it's hard to argue otherwise. The question really then becomes one of scope.