Changing what is available will gradually change what is available to criminals, as well, whether they care about the laws or not. So, your blanket proclamation of an inability to reduce the number of bullets is false.
Changing the severity of a law means little to most mass shooters, from what I can tell. The death penalty carries no threat to the suicidal. So, I see no prospect for saying that "using a firearm increases severity of your crime" to have any deterrent effect, nor any ameliorative effect. Thus, I don't see where it addresses what I am asking about. I don't pretend to speak for Bradley on that.
I never said reduce the number of bullets so nice try there.
As for the suicidal remark. Do you mean to imply that every criminal that commits a crime with a gun is suicidal? Of course jot but the laws that govern what you can and cannot do with a gun seem to have no effect.
It is already against the law to use a firearm for an illegal activity. Such as robbery or rape. Does not seem to stop them though.
Also I do not accept that my rights to gun ownership, within reason (I don't need a bazooka), should be limited because others are not capable of personal responsibility. Banning a rifle because it has a pistol grip makes it no more deadly than a hunting rifle.
An AR-15 uses the same caliber as a normal hunting rifle (.223). It does not fire faster or have more power. It is simply scarrier looking. That's it. Banning them in no way shape or form controls or limits gun violence.