A flash suppressor, threaded barrel, collapsible/folding stock, pistol grip, or bayonet lug will not make a rifle any more/less lethal than your run-of-the-mill deer hunting rifle. Banning cosmetic features and the appearance of some firearms because you think it will stop someone from using guns in a criminal act is no different than banning red cars because you think it will slow down traffic accidents. It simply doesn't make sense.
High-capacity magazines are convenient scapegoats, too, but at the end of the day, regulating magazine size doesn't improve the safety of my children either. California may have the most restrictive firearm laws. Magazines can hold no more than 10 rounds and cannot be detached from an AR15 without the use of a tool. American ingenuity should never be discounted. This video demonstrates how quickly magazines are changed. (Spoiler: It only takes a few short seconds to change a magazine). By the end of the video, it's obvious that if the goal is to "slow down" an assailant, magazine limitations are ineffective.
Even if we do try to put the toothpaste back in the tube, and new bans are put in place and they work (they won't, but we can live the fantasy for a moment), it doesn't change the fact that less than 10% of crimes are committed with these types of rifles. Do you really want to get behind a perfect world solution that may stop 10%? Shouldn't protecting the other 90%+ be part of the argument?Preventing more school shootings is probably impossible, but that doesn't mean we have to give up. What we need to do is protect our children like the valuable assets they are. I don't know of anything more valuable to me than my children, and I am sure if you're a parent you agree. Here is another excerpt from my email exchange with the principal; I wrote: