Ahhh - so there is a problem with the drug trade so we should ignore all other problems.
Frankly I think handguns should be far more highly restricted too - They are a tool, and just like a screwdriver, they aren't made for hammering nails.
Most deer or pigs or ducks won't notice if you don't have your gun concealed. That's a mostly human trait.
Dealing with violence resulting from guns in general - I would love to see that vanish. But, no, I am not your naive bleeding heart favorite foe who one dimentionally thinks banning all guns would automagically solve all problems.
however, if we return to the gun restrictions proposed, and quit pretending these propositions will solve the drug trade, or wipe out organised crime, or stop all gun violence.
It's already been shown that mass killings without access too automatic weapons, and those modified to be, and with restricted access too other guns, suddenly kills a lot less people.
So a case study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _AustraliaIf you look forward from 1996, the port Arthur massacre - as that was the instigating event for the heavier gun restrictions in Australia - you'll notice that there is a marked decline in deaths in mass killings.
Strangely enough, it's a lot harder to kill more people when you have to line them up with a car, or actually stab them, or keep reloading a hand gun.
And again, just incase you choose to miss it again. I never said this resolves all gun violence, or organised crime, or mass killings for that matter.
It makes mass killings harder to do, and shrinks their size.
Then you want to compare with countries like Israel and Switzerland maybe? Countries that have manditory military service. So that every citizen is properly vetted, and trained in the use of the weapons, rather than in america where any yahoo with 20 min and the ability to sign their name just has to go to the right state to get signed off on having a gun. Because there could never be a problem with that.
is there a problem with organised crime? yes. Is there a problem with general crime violence? yes. Are those going to be solved by restricting access to weapons? no. they may be assisted by it, but that's not the point. The point is that just because they are problems doesn't mean we have to ignore other problems.
But hey, If you prefer setting fire to straw men, I hear that burning effigies is popular in the us, so be my guest, it comes under free-speech right? Just don't pretend that it actually answers the problem, accept that you just don't want to deal with the problem and let everyone who does, go deal with it and solve it for you.
For my opinion, I would ask what use any general citizen would possibly have for a hand-gun, or something fully automatic, or even semi-automatic for that reason.
They are tools. And I have yet to hear a single cogent argument that holds water as to why a general citizen would need to have a tool that is about concealing having a human killer, or killing mass numbers.
Anyone who would apply to have the license should probably be looked at with more than a little suspicion.