Like characters in a video game, Valerie Fowler and Kaitlyn Roll were among the targets of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, running for their lives from a sniper whose powerful arsenal is redefining America’s gun debate.

Many survivors with ties to the Bay Area are only beginning to comprehend what happened when a 64-year-old white man employed his legally modified semi-automatic rifles to rain rapid-fire terror from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas high rise. But almost a week after the shooter killed 58 of their fellow concert-goers and wounded nearly 500 more, some like Fowler are wishing they, too, had something during the madness Sunday night: a gun of their own.

…

“I don’t think that what’s being discussed is particularly far reaching or significant in terms of gun control legislation, but I think it’s a move the GOP has not been willing to make in at least 15 years,” said David M. Studdert, a Stanford law professor and expert on gun violence. However, he said, “a cynical view is that this is just a strategic move to pre-empt or forestall any effort to get any more far-reaching gun control legislation.”

But it’s futile to think any legislation enacted to stop mass shootings will have a meaningful effect on gun violence in general, Studdert said.

“It’s a bit like designing financial regulations around Bernie Madoff’s behavior,” he said. “Ninety-nine percent of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are unrelated to mass shootings.”