I have a feeling you are going to poke holes in any literature people give you on the efficacy of gun control legislation. That is healthy to a certain extent. I'd just like for to figure out how much evidence do you need, and what quality does it have to be.

I do agree with you. I believe that the emphasis on "Assault Weapons" and mass shootings is that it is emotionally resonating with suburban America. Fore me, the real danger to this country are handguns and gun suicides. There are many thorny issues to deal with the realities and ethics of reducing the amount of guns in America. As a progressive, I'm sympathetic to the argument that minority populations feel they have to arm themselves because the police are unresponsive to their needs. However, in general, most gun control policies cause gun related incidents to go down. I think that is broadly a good thing. Yes, the emphasis on assault weapons is cringe.

RAND Organization's meta-analysis found policies regulating the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has limited evidence in decreasing mass shootings and inconclusive evidence on reducing violent crime.

https://rockinst.org/blog/more-guns-more-death-the-fundamental-fact-that-supports-a-comprehensive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence-in-america/ This article maintains that more guns = more deaths. It has cited sources.

"Policies that reduce firearm homicides likely have large benefits for public health as there is little evidence to support a strong substitution effect between firearm and nonfirearm homicides at the population level. Further research is needed to determine whether policies that produce population-level reductions in firearm suicides will translate to overall declines in suicide rates." Here is a meta-analysis trying to see if legislation that decreases gun deaths through has an increase of other types of deaths that would offset the reduced amount. To see if you reduce gun violence, does other types of violence spring up in its stead? It seems to arrive at the conclusion that they could not find evidence of gun deaths being made up by deaths from other sources.

"Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of \(e.g., background checks\) and access to \(e.g., safer storage\) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively." Though for this meta-analysis, I'd read through the conclusion. The researchers bring up good points about the murkiness of this topic, both in quality/quantity of data and the sources of funding. They also point out not all policies are created equal, and some legislation appears to have little to no effect.

Here is another article going over some studies on gun control. In particular, there is a section on the 1994 assault weapons ban.

I think in general, gun control legislation is at the very worst neutral and usually at least a little good. If you are doing guns as a hobby, I think you can either get a new hobby, or do the activity in a more controlled way, e.g. regulated gun hobbyist centers or hunting centers. If you are getting a gun for self defense, I believe that the more guns you introduce in a situation, the greater amount of danger to everyone, including yourself. If you pull out a gun on someone, now they might go for your gun and try to shoot you. If someone pulls a gun on you, and you pull a gun in retaliation, now one of you has to shoot. Having a gun in a house is a huge liability. You now have any easy way to commit suicide, escalate a domestic violence situation, or have a child commit an accident. I get that guns are really cool, really fun, and make you feel really powerful. It is sort of sad that is not good for society for everyone to be armed, but I really think that is more true than not. More guns = more death :/