However, restricting that even further because "they look like automatic firearms!" is a absolutely stupid and pointless action, done for political points rather than for any benefit to the people.
*coughs* I'll not argue about the rest of it, but the "looks like" argument actually
is a decent one for gun control. Part of what stringent gun laws does is make sure there are very clear signalers for when someone is doing or carrying something illegal -- the more clear that is, the more effective that portion of the controls are. If you actually do have something that is mistakable (and, for stuff like this, "at a distance" is a fairly good measure) for whatever's been identified as particularly dangerous, that
is something that could be desirable to fix. It probably
is just panicked PR stuff, and wouldn't have prevented what happened (basically nothing that's been proposed by anyone major would have

) but still. The visual similarity
is a fair reason to restrict. Gun laws aren't just about restricting gun ownership, they're also about giving police very clear points (generally, when firearms or certain forms of them are being carried or transported) for when they should be investigating something. Something that gives police a reason to relax in the face of targeted weapons (in the case given, visual similarity to legal ones) can be a pretty valid issue.
... though this really isn't exactly the thread for that line of discussion, now that I pay more attention to what thread I'm in. So I'll drop that there and back out.