Hmm. Not sure why you were down voted. I’m interested in hearing logical arguments. I have no idea if your statistics are correct for “almost all guns are semiautomatic”.

One impression I’ve had regarding recent 2nd amendment rights arguments is that we need guns for hunting, home protection, self protection, and protection from the government.

1. I’ve never met a hunter that insists on semi automatics for hunting. To many that seems un sportsman-like. 2. Shotguns are very effective for home protection against the most common types of home “invasion” since they don’t need perfect aim. They are not generally semi-Automatic. 3. I understand that for many, self protection may mean a hand gun. Sure some are semi-automatic. 4. If a modern government “wants you”, no amount of currently legal private arms will stop them regardless if they are semi-automatic.

So of those scenarios, only #3 has a strong argument for semi-automatic imho. And we don’t often see hand guns as the main tool in mass shootings (though they are clearly a tool in general crime related gun violence - gang shooting, robbery, demos tic abuse, etc).

I’m interested in logical arguments why the gun lobby argues against this idea. Note, I’m not saying I agree with the idea that guns are the best solution for 2 and 3. I do believe in responsible hunting. I have fired a number of different types of guns.

Given that all guns, and a large number of non-gun objects (such as vehicles or big rocks) can be effectively utilized to kill nontrivial numbers of people in a soft target situation: is it possible that a more effective intervention may be found somewhere in the fact that several dozen young American men/boys feel compelled to murder as many strangers as possible before commiting suicide each year?

This also seems to me, at the very least, to be a less intractable/objectionable avenue. Less media coverage would probably do more to ease this problem than the banning of some subset of firearm.