There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)
I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.
Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.
If you want to ban semi-auto’s, then I always press the question of why not just ban handguns too since they kill more people in the U.S. every year than semi’s? I still have not figured out the gun issue and think that there are convincing things on both sides. For one thing, an actually successful eradication of guns from ALL citizens sounds like a utopia. But the point brought up by the pro-gun side of how criminals will still get the guns illegally has always made sense to me. I need to set aside a few days to mull over some research/data and come to a well reasoned conclusion cause I am still absolutely lost on what to think of this issue.
Other countries have much more stringent gun laws than the US. Take Sweden for example:
It is considered a privilege to own a gun in Sweden, and to get one you have to have the proper training and follow stringent safety procedures.
I think this is a far more sensible way to move forward on gun control in the US than just banning handguns. The Republican argument is that guns in the hands of responsible citizens are an essential right, and so enforcing training and safe storage standards is fully in line with this right. After all, the right to bear arms is only in the service of a ‘well regulated’ militia.