Right now, it appears the rifle was in the trunk of the car not used in the shooting. The murder weapons were pistols.
Around 75% of all gun violence is done with a pistol. I do not think that is an insignificant distinction.
We shouldn't make gun regulations based on the type of firearm used, unless we are doing it for a good clear reason. CA created this new term/classification of things called, "an assault rifle." Well, gun makers simply worked around the strange features that were considered more dangerous or bad, and made CA legal rifles.
Let's look for measure which increase safety across gun ownership in general, and then also consider special regulations for types of weapons or features that make sense to regulate more closely (fully automatic, large cap' magazines, etc.).
Fair enough and I agree. I think rather than using some definitions of what an X or Y is we should focus on the capacity to cause widespread damage. I assume this is why explosives are not legal (heck maybe they are, I don't follow this too closely). So maybe regulation should focus on rounds per (unit of time). This would be hard to get around from a manufacturing perspective right? I mean, can't we all at least agree that having a weapon capable of firing millions of rounds per second (hypothetical) is a bad thing?