One real problem not addressed is the concept that many have that since they do not see a need for something or other, that same something or other ought to be prohibited or restricted. And their justification for this position is always the same, someone may (or has) done something bad with the something or other.
It doesn't seem to matter much specifically what it is, people who don't see a "need" (or have a personal use) for the thing are quite happy to agree on laws restricting it. As long as its not their personal ox being gored, they don't care. In fact, lots of them will actively work at getting what they don't "need" restricted.
Coffee drinkers are often fine with a sin tax on soda (which they don't drink), but if you want that same tax to be applied to coffee, whoa! slow down there fellah, can't do that....
It wouldn't bother me if there was a $200 tax on golf clubs. I mean, after all, why do you need a whole bagful of clubs, anyway? One can take that line of reasoning a long way, false though it is.
I don't have a need for a baby stroller, or an SUV, but I wouldn't even begin to think of telling anyone they shouldn't be able to buy one.
Recent shootings with hi-cap mags are bad, but then all murders are bad. Dahmer, Gacy, and Bundy, etc.. killed dozens + and never used a gun at all.
A handful of fanatics killed over 2,000 people one September day, and didn't use a single gun or extended capacity magazine to do it.....
People who spend their time and energy trying to restrict/ban spring loaded metal or plastic boxes don't have their priorities straight.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.