So where does that leave non-firearms related weapons? Potassium nitrate bombs are easy to make and can result in far more deaths than guns can. You can make napalm by soaking styrofoam in gasoline. Should we control the usage and distribution of packing peanuts? It may sound like a ridiculous argument, but it's the exact one you're making. What about machetes or hunting knives?

If the real focus is to inflict mass casualties, there are tools far more appropriate for that sort of thing than guns and non-automatic rifles that take as much (or as little) planning as getting a hold of a gun and ammo.

As someone else already said on this thread: you can't ban mental illness with legislation.

"It's just too convenient for people to cause mass murder right now."

We've had repeating firearms for more than a century--this is not a new thing to be afraid of.

We've been killing each other on much larger scales much more inefficiently and painfully than that--try millenia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots ).

The problem is not inefficient killing. The Rwandan genocide was performed largely without firearms, but required massive planning and mobilization. It was a collective and political massacre involving the complicity of many.

The problem I have is with the proverbial army of one. It needs to be harder for a single person to murder 30 people in one incident.