OP you asked and I will do my best to answer.
There is a middle ground that can be reached here. Bernie Sanders has the right of it. We need to talk and not just scream at each other about how wrong the other side is. But this is the internet, where snark and one-upmanship rules the day, so I guess I'll post this and keep my expectations low. God knows I've tried to have reasonable discussion about this on NeoGAF before and it has blown up in my face with all kinds of people calling me paranoid, stupid, etc. But here we go again.
-I am a gun owner.
-I am for more gun control.
-I am against an outright gun ban.
My thoughts on a complete ban:
I don't want an outright ban because I've seen what desperate people look like. You might think this is a joke, but look at some Black Friday videos. Not everyone is literally out there killing eachother for Tickle Me Elmos, but it has happened. Now with that in mind, consider what things might look like when climate change has taken hold. I have no faith in our government to change our course in time to prevent the worst from happening. I believe we may face severe drought or food shortages in our lifetime, and I hope I'm wrong, but if that happens, people will not hesitate to do shitty things to each other in order to obtain food/water. I don't want to be unable to defend my home or family when that time comes. Hell, it doesn't even have to be climate change. People riot over their football team winning or losing the championship.
That said, I don't need a full-auto rifle for that. A shotgun/handgun or even hunting rifle might be fine. I'd hope that any attempt to get into my home by a group of people would quickly be abandoned the moment one of them gets shot. If not, I'm probably done and no amount of full-auto is going to help me.
Full Auto/Assault Solution?
I'd propose a legal limit on how many rounds a magazine can hold. The military would obviously be an exception, otherwise I don't think I'd be against having magazine capacity caps.
Problem:
Capacity limits won't solve everything. There are tons of guns out there already, and I'd say maybe you could begin to enforce laws that require owners to adopt lower capacity magazines, but of course you may never get them all off the street. (magazines and weapons)
Solution?
Enact a buy-back program to entice people to turn in their large capacity magazine AND their assault-style weaponry. This will cost us tax money of course, but God knows we've pissed away money on worse things like foreign conflicts we don't need to be a part of. Again, I'm very aware this will not solve everything, but I believe it is one of many small campaigns we can begin that will reshape the gun culture and market in the country.
Popular argument:
We need a complete ban in order to recover all the weapons. Its the only way!
My thoughts on that:
A complete ban will not get every gun secured. There are many that people have inherited or been gifted over years and years. Even more that have been purchased privately with no paperwork and no documentation of ownership change. You can't collect what you don't know is out there. Then of course there is also the issue of illegal ownership among the criminal element. I think that's actually less of an issue than all the inherited/privately bought/gifted guns out there. The govt can speculate on what those numbers are, but how would you ever enforce it? You just can't. So why leave responsible owners without a legal way to defend themselves when there will always be an underground market and tons of undocumented guns anyway?
Popular argument:
Hunters want to be able to continue hunting.
My thoughts on that:
I actually think this is an important thing that should not be overlooked. I don't personally hunt, but I have lived in parts of the country where certain wildlife populations actually become a health risk for the general public. Hunting keeps this in check each year. If you live in an urban location it's probably hard to imagine this, but the rural Midwest is a great example of a place where car accidents involving deer are very common around specific times of the year. That's just one example to kind of make my point here, but there are others for different parts of the country involving different wildlife, and cars are not always the thing at risk.
Problem:
Guns are getting into the hands of the wrong people. Mentally unstable people, terrorist sympathizers, etc.
Solution?
Nation-wide waiting periods for purchases. Minimum of one-week, maybe more. I'm hardly the go-to source here, but I believe it starts here. There should be a real vetting process. Have us take tests of some kind? I don't know. But I do think a week for a background check (hell, maybe 2 I don't care) would be far better than the current system. Where I live, I bought two guns and each time I walked out of the store with both of them in under an hour. I find that unsettling. I want a deeper probe into anyone who wants to buy one. What do we have to lose there? Nothing, IMO.
When I got my driver's license, it was a big deal. They made me take a test to drive a car legally. I see no reason for us to not be taking the same precautions for weapon ownership.
Problem
Concealed carry needs to end. No more concealed carry!
My thoughts on that:
Anyone who wants to commit a mass shooting will likely just conceal their weapon anyway, regardless of a permit to do so. A piece of paper that gives you the right to have it isn't going to change your plans either way. Asshole killers will just keep their weapons in their waistband or under a jacket or in a bag or whatever. You can carry a gun around without anyone knowing. I think ordinary people carrying is fine. I dont do it myself, so its not something I've really thought long and hard about, but I think the bigger problem is making sure the gun isn't acquired in the first place. See my point just above. The permit doesn't matter once they have the gun.
You're crazy, we will never see shortages/armageddon/etc
Say that all you want, but I know people who lived through the LA Riots. Have you ever been in a situation like that? I'm on the West Coast. We may see an earthquake that could devastate the area and potentially cut off supplies from certain places for weeks. The local police may be completely overwhelmed with emergency calls. Who will be watching your back in that time? You and your loved ones. That's all you've got to count on. These things may or may not happen in my city in my lifetime, but I'm not willing to gamble on it. Me having a couple of guns stored in my home is not hurting anyone and I'm happy to have them in the event of the most serious emergencies. Nobody knows what tomorrow may bring, so please resist the urge to call me some tinfoil hat wearing nut from "doomsday preppers" and humble yourself enough to realize that something completely unexpected could happen when you least expect it.
You'll never defend your freedoms against the government:
Probably not. I'm not fit to go up against a military unit that thinks they're on the right side of a conflict with the government's people. I'd need to be in a well organized and maintained militia, which is something the country does not have right now. I believe we SHOULD have them, but I don't know that the right people would step up to lead them. We have too many extreme Fox News viewers who would jump at the chance to start a militia so they could "take Obama head on!" which I find ludicrous. I don't agree with the TPP and I believe he's a corporatist, but the people who talk about removing him by force are insane. I don't believe we are at that point yet. Maybe if Feurer Trump were to take hold, we'd be in some real trouble, but I don't know. That's all mostly hypothetical shit that I don't really think about because I think its so unlikely. The media has effectively played its role over my lifetime in getting us focused on the wrong things while the super rich have gained an absolute stranglehold on the world. I don't know if that can really change at this point, barring worldwide events of some kind. I'm more of a "keep my head down and watch my back" kind of guy than some kind of patriot warrior. I don't even know if a real militia could even effectively combat our own government at this point. It'd probably be pretty one-sided, but I'm no military strategist.
Closing thoughts:
The USA won its independence with firearms. Hunting was an essential part of life for many citizens then. Different times from now, certainly, but the seeds were planted. The idea that a man can defend his home and his family or secure his freedom with a firearm is something that began with the birth of our nation. Not everyone feels the need to take advantage of our rights for that and that's fine. However, I don't know that we are at a point in worldwide civilization where everyone would be comfortable with giving up the right to do that for themselves. We'd need to live in a Star Trek (TNG of course) society that is vastly different from the "fuck you, got mine" sort of place we live in now in order for people to feel like they no longer need to have a way to defend their homes and families.
Thanks for reading. If you disagree, please do your best to avoid typing up a snarktacular response. The internet has met its quota on those.
