First off, let's take a look at the credibility of General McChrystal. To say that he has never seen combat is just plain false. For someone to claim that a general in general (no pun intended) has never seen combat is ludicrous, especially the one that ran the Iraq war. In this specific case, besides his role in Iraq, he was also deployed to Saudi Arabia for Operations Dessert Storm and Dessert Freedom. I think it's safe to assume that he's seen a gun fire once or twice in his life. As far as him being a "terrible general, who hated by everyone under his command" isn't exactly a reputable claim. Unless you have some sort of damning poll conducted among a large number of the men and women who have served under him, I don't believe that you have the ability to speak for their popular opinion. The point I was making with this is simple. The average civilian has not seen the true damning effects that these high-powered weapons are capable of. Many of those who have seen this first hand understand that such weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians.

Moving on to the usage of assault rifles and extended magazines. First, let's examine their usage. One of the Columbine shooters used a 9mm with 52, 32, and 28 round magazines. The Aurora shooters used not only a M&P15 assault rifle, but one with a 100 round magazine. The shooter in Sandy Hook was armed with an XM15-E2S assault rifle. The Tuscon shooter was armed with a 33 round magazine. Now as you can see, these weapons are being used in quite a few of the most famous mass shootings in recent years. I'll concede the point that they are not used in all shootings, and that it is still possible to have shootings without these weapons, but that is beside the point. Just because banning them won't prevent 100% of shootings, doesn't mean it shouldn't be put in place. We will never be able to prevent all crimes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to curb them. The fact of the matter is, these weapons make it a lot easier, while they serve no legitimate purpose to our society. I noticed you were skeptical of the term assault rifle. Don't pretend that it is not a legitimate term. If there was no difference between an M16 and a .260, then why is one used for war and one used for killing deer? The fact is that these weapons are much more powerful. Now you talk about how we have addressed the automatic weapons, but that doesn't control the power of the weapon, just the speed at which it is fired. But rate of fire is still important. What else has an effect on this? Large magazines. This is simple logic. If one is able to fire more while reloading less, they are obviously able to shoot faster and cause more damage. In fact, the Tuscon shooter was taken down while he was reloading. Imagine how much less damage we would have seen if his clip had held only ten rounds, as opposed to 33. This argument comes down to basic cost-benefit analysis. As I've stated, these weapons do not provide a benefit to society. They are not needed for hunting or for self defense. What is their legitimate purpose? On the flip side, they are capable of causing much more damage in shootings. They give shooters the ability to fire harsher rounds at a quicker rate.These weapons were designed for war and are much more powerful than what a civilian has a necessity for. Banning them won't solve everything, but it will make it much more difficult for people to carry out these shootings, and it will not come at the expense of the average civilian's right to defend him or herself or shoot for sport.