I'm no mole, just a moderate millennial snowflake gun owner who doesn't see a great number of reasons for making it easy to put lots of bullets downrange.
Honestly, that might be part of the perspective issue that's driving our different opinions here. I'm not sure how long you've owned guns, or if you were raised around them. But, if I were taking a wild guess on this, I'll say that you're probably new to gun owning within the past ten years, and perhaps a new generation of gun owner within your family. I think that's significant in these discussions, and here's why:
If you haven't been around guns for a long time, you haven't really had a chance to closely watch the silly legislative cycle play out as it pertains to laws related to the violent action of others. Many of us started out with a notion that the "common sense gun laws" are actually common sense, and with time learn that they really aren't. I'm only about 5 years removed from the Millennial Generation myself, but I did grow up around guns, and started shooting at a very young age (around 5). Strangely, I came from a household that never had guns, and my parents are very politically moderate. My dad wasn't anti-gun, but he'd had a friend die in a hunting accident as a kid, and just never really got into guns. He did buy me my first pellet gun, and with the blessing of my parents, I learned to shoot real guns from my grandfather on my mother's side, and from my best friend's family growing up (who always took me hunting).
Anyway, I've watched the anti-gun nonsense of the mid-1990's play out (the original nationwide assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limit), which wasn't far on the heels of the closure of the machine gun registry. As more and more laws were written, I came to realize how pointless these laws really are. Criminals don't follow the laws, and any law can be easily circumvented by someone who intends to harm others (use Nice, France as an example). I also came to realize that the idea of "common sense laws" is defined only by those who believe no guns should be owned by anyone, and that "compromise" means I give something to them and get nothing in return.
There's an idea coming from the left that seems to suggest that we're always just one good law away from being able to curtail the homicidal urges of evil men. Unfortunately no such legal protection works, and it only takes from those of us who really mean no harm to our fellow man in the first place. In the 80's it was machine guns, in the 90's it was the AWB, in the 00's we saw a big push to continue the AWB at the state level legislature, and now we're seeing an attack on accessories like bump stocks (which really don't cause any functional change to a firearm).
My perspective shift happened in the mid to late 1990's, as I attended gun shows on a regular basis and began to see gun control for what it was. I'd go up to a gun table and see a "pre-ban" and "post-ban" AR-15. One was aesthetically and ergonomically more interesting, and the other functioned just the same. One was $2,500 because it was banned, and the other was $700 because it was "post-ban" and safe. Around that same time we began to see legislators crying foul on the post-ban guns, talking about how gun manufacturers were trying to circumvent the law. Nothing could have been further from the truth... the gun manufacturers followed the law precisely, just as they were asked to. They removed collapsible stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc. They did as they were instructed, and no good came from it. So, at that point the legislators began asking for more comprehensive bans, and perhaps even bans on semi-autos.
In the time since I first became aware of gun control, I've yet to see a compromise, I've yet to see common sense, and I've come to learn that one side will always want to take, and won't be satisfied until all guns are gone. If you believe this is alright, I guess you'll keep your opinion on this issue. If you don't believe that's alright, then I think you will (with time) come to see the perspective that so many of us are talking about in this forum.
EDITED TO ADD:
If you don't think the left is just attempting to gain political traction from a tragedy, then tell me why Clinton, along with a handful of Democratic legislators, are currently using this shooting as a justification for arguing against moving suppressors from Title II to Title I. Removing suppressors from the NFA is just smart legislation, but we're using hysterics and political energy to suggest that they are somehow responsible for these kinds of things.
