Was talking to an semi anti gunner, would like some advice on how to reply.
We're friends, and he's not exactly against banning, though he certainly leaning that way. He made some points that I'm not entirely sure how to reply to them and I'd like to be able to give him a better explanation if possible.
He is of the opinion, that if there was to be any form of legislation to try and mitigate crime with guns. He thinks that if semi automatics were banned it would make it much harder for the shooter, the average joe or jane, to inflict harm on a mass number of people. School shootings would be harder to carry out, if the shooter walked into a theater with said hunting rifle, the civilian populace would try to over power him so that he couldn't continue his evil deeds.
I already made the point that laws won't do anything, also stating that a bolt action rifle such as the old WWII rifles are not exactly hard to use, and you can put an impressive amount of firepower down range, albeit not nearly as much as say an AR15.
He believes that due to said semi auto firearms being banned or if magazines period were banned, the average joe or jane, such as a teen or college kid would not be able to find let alone have the know how of contacting an illegal arms dealer to obtain said firearm.
I talked about Charles Whitman, and he replied stating that he was a trained marine sniper, and most don't have the skills to be able to do what he did.
TL;DR Essentially I'm trying to tell him what would be the reason you would want a magazine fed rifle or handgun. He agrees that banning aesthetics and such does not limit the lethality of the firearm, what makes a firearm more deadly is the amount of rounds someone can put down range in a short amount of time. Thus, if the user was forced to use only a single shot or WWII style rifle, he or she would not be able to cause the mass deaths as seen in the recent shootings.
Your insight would be appreciated.