When you start saying things like "rifles of any kind are rarely used in crimes, why focus on assault rifles" you will gain credibility.

I've already said that in this conversation:

I really think handguns are a bigger issue than rifles. I know that rifles occasionally get used in mass shootings, so they're high profile and scary looking, but the concealable nature of handguns makes them much worse. You can at least see the guy with the AR-15 slung over his shoulder coming.

I'm honest when I say I don't want to ban guns. I think a lot of what is specifically banned now is banned simply because it's scary looking, and not for any other reason. Cheap handguns are used for more crimes over other weapons by a wide margin.

I do really think that accountability needs to be increased. I know the Chuck's Guns article was biased, essentially every article about gun control is biased one way or the other, but when it gets to a point that a business has literally supplied thousands of guns used in violent crimes, something is wrong with the situation.

Mandatory reporting for lost or stolen firearms is a tiny step that could be taken, but even that is opposed as anti-gun. There was a gun shop a few counties over that was accused of dodging background checks for sales, but every time a gun got traced back to them, their reply was "that inventory is unaccounted for and believed to have been lost or stolen". It's just kind of funny that gun shops apparently keep getting burglarized, but never bother to call the cops or claim the losses on their insurance.

I really don't know what the answer is, but business as usual seems to be rather ineffective. What would you do differently, given the power to rewrite gun legislation? Honest question.