I have a few guns and enjoy the shooting range and from my perspective the safety situation would be improved by: stricter background checks, making assault rifle (type) weapons illegal, and the toughest problem: "de-fanging" the NRA.
True machine guns like the M2, M240, M249 aren't assault rifles, nor are machine pistols.
We do need a new term for "military-style semi-automatic intermediate caliber rifles", but assault rifle is already used.
I'd suggest "black rifle" or "military-style rifle".
1) 100% transfer-time identity/legal status/mental health/etc. checks (NICS++)
2) Progressive licensing for possession (various classes of weapons); license the owner, not the gun. A gangster with a .25acp pistol is a lot more of a problem than my .338 Lapua Magnum rifle.
3) Streamlining all existing regulations, which is a combination of eliminating ineffective/irrational stuff (SBR/SBS being more regulated than pistols, 922(r) parts counts, etc.) and strengthening other parts (licensing, treating handguns and semi-auto mag-fed rifles more strictly, etc.) Deregulate suppressors, deal with SBS/SBR, and raise the full-auto tax to $2500-5000 indexed to inflation, but also allow post-1986 automatics under that restrictive regulation.
Some laws or proposed laws say a pistol grip and box magazine == "assault rifle". Most gun people would call a rifle that looks like an M-16, AK-47 or FN an assault rifle.
No private citizen can buy a machine gun today.
The dirty secret of the whole gun control thing is that most of the issues associated with people stockpiling weapons and smuggling pistols were dealt with in 1934 via an excise tax.
Basically, any short rifle and some pistols were subject to a $200 tax ($3400 today). Instead of blanket bans, the law defined classes of weapons and taxed them out of the market.
There was, until people who don't know anything about firearms tried redefining the word for political reasons.
In any case, the only AR-15s and AK/FN variants you can legally buy today are in no way more dangerous than an ordinary semiautomatic rifle.
Actually there is. What there isn't a consensus on is "Assault Weapons," which are different. "Assault Rifles" are illegal to own for US citizens, but "Assault Weapons" are not. They are two different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
You can not buy a _new_ machine gun. The ones already registered are just like any other NFA item and can be transferred to anyone willing to pay the $200 tax.
Private citizens can import/manufacture machine guns provided they are properly licensed. These can't be sold to other private citizens however.
Seriously considering getting an FFL(07) for our company/office or a related entity once we have an office in a place like NV. Unclear if we want to just make suppressors (and keep post-1986 NFA items around for compatibility testing) or manufacture a range of NFA.
Mainly because now that crypto isn't so much an ITAR thing, I want a reason to register with ITAR again.
What features would you ban and why? Most AWB features don't have a whole lot to do with a weapon's ability to kill people or suitability for criminal use. Magazine capacity is really the only factor that has any practical effect, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence that restricting that had any impact on crime.
One thing about very large magazines: totally not required for having fun at the shooting range. Large calibre ammunition is expensive. It is difficult to imagine someone firing off 100 rounds very quickly when for the cost of the ammunition they could buy their family dinner.
My favorite gun is my 22 Ruger very long barrel semi automation pistol. It has a 10 round clip, and since 22 ammunition is cheap, a clip costs me perhaps twenty cents. I know that a lot of people are down on guns, but when I go to the shooting range with my wife and friends, it is a lot of fun!
Magazines are a removable component, and many interchange between different types of gun, so what you really want to restrict is magazines, not guns. You'd do better to argue for that and leave "assault weapons" out of it lest you be put in the position of defending restrictions on barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs.
By the way, "magazine" and "clip" aren't the same thing. A clip is a device used to load an empty magazine with ammunition quickly. Some people will assume you are ignorant about guns in general if you use them interchangeably.
* I think that limiting magazine capacity would have a large impact on mass killings, but perhaps not crime.*
I think you're right about crime and wrong about mass killings. The VT shooter set a new record for the number of people killed, and he fired an average of ten shots per magazine, though some of his held 15. A person shooting unarmed victims can generally time his reloads so that it would be difficult for victims to rush him. A person using a gun in self defense likely has less opportunity to do so given that they're generally dealing with determined, armed opponents.