Can you please avoid using the term "assault weapon" without defining it? If you mean all semi-auto rifles, say that. If you mean scary looking rifles with certain evil cosmetic features, like the ineffectual, now-expired 1994-2004 ban dealt with, say that instead.
[edit] Okay, you've defined it, although pretty much all semi-auto rifles have magazines; I think the distinction you're after is whether they have detachable magazines, which affects how fast they can be reloaded. What you're asking for goes far beyond the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Furthermore, by "ban" do you mean grandfathering in old firearms, like the 1994 ban did, or would you run a buy-back program to "get them all"? That's in quotes because if you think such a buy back program will get most "assault weapons", I think that's wishful thinking. It's also less likely to be politically viable. At most, the anti-gun establishment will be able to reenact something roughly akin to the 1994 ban, maybe expanding what it covers a bit, and even that would come at a very heavy political cost.
None of your proposals would probably stop another Lanza. Most of the people crazy enough to drive their kids crazy like this won't obey a federal mandate to turn in their guns.
What you call "comprehensive" gun control, would have to be a ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, semi-auto handguns and revolvers, because all of those can be quickly reloaded. If it could be enforced, it might work, but there's no way to either collect them all or prevent new guns from being smuggled in (or stolen) without extensive 4th-amendment violations. Not to mention that it would require a constitutional amendment (or one of the pro-gun supreme court justices could be replaced with an anti-gun justice, I suppose).
This needs to be re-stated: What are you calling an "Assault Weapon"? The federal Assault Weapon ban pertained to cosmetic features only, not the rate of fire. If the firearm could only fire one round, with each pull of the trigger, but possessed a cosmetic feature (pistol grip adjustable stock, etc) then it was illegal as an "Assault Weapon". This ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons. Both the CDC and the United States DOJ published reports after the Assault Weapons ban stating that it had little to no effect on violent crime.
The problem is, the media sensationalizes guns, and what you think of when someone says "Assault Weapon", is actually a military grade "Assault Rifle", which is very different. An Assault Rifle is a firearm that can fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms can not do this, and they can not be changed to do this without expensive modification, by a highly skilled machinist that is licensed to do so. Just to be clear, Assault Rifle's are very regulated by the ATF, are very expensive, and have a long (months) process required in order to get one.
Not to stir the pot too much, but all of these shootings are happening at schools, which are Federally mandated "Gun Free Safety Zones". These nut jobs know that no one there can defend themselves. I'm not saying everyone should have a gun. I am saying that when the bad guys can't tell who has one and who doesn't, they are going to be a lot less likely to do regrettable things
While you're right about bad guys in the form of criminals / gang members, I don't really think the people going into schools to kill are in a state of mind where they worry about what kind of resistance they meet.
[edit] Okay, you've defined it, although pretty much all semi-auto rifles have magazines; I think the distinction you're after is whether they have detachable magazines, which affects how fast they can be reloaded. What you're asking for goes far beyond the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Furthermore, by "ban" do you mean grandfathering in old firearms, like the 1994 ban did, or would you run a buy-back program to "get them all"? That's in quotes because if you think such a buy back program will get most "assault weapons", I think that's wishful thinking. It's also less likely to be politically viable. At most, the anti-gun establishment will be able to reenact something roughly akin to the 1994 ban, maybe expanding what it covers a bit, and even that would come at a very heavy political cost.
None of your proposals would probably stop another Lanza. Most of the people crazy enough to drive their kids crazy like this won't obey a federal mandate to turn in their guns.
What you call "comprehensive" gun control, would have to be a ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, semi-auto handguns and revolvers, because all of those can be quickly reloaded. If it could be enforced, it might work, but there's no way to either collect them all or prevent new guns from being smuggled in (or stolen) without extensive 4th-amendment violations. Not to mention that it would require a constitutional amendment (or one of the pro-gun supreme court justices could be replaced with an anti-gun justice, I suppose).