>and those kinds of killings would be the target of a new assault weapon ban.
Maybe you slipped there? You're right, the original desire, and the always desire, from the left, is to ban everything. Not even just semi-autos, they want to go to the UK/Japan model where everything is banned. That's the desire. If you want something else, it's going to be step 1 in the incremental ban of everything. That's always how it is. It's an article of faith with the left that guns are bad and only bad people want guns.
We need to ban guns (maybe "some" guns that are scary enough or you or somebody has determined I shouldn't be able to own) for the children because guns kill people. That's the argument you are making, even if you couch it in other terms. If you're not, what argument are you actually making?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/...
It's pretty much banning firearms unless you're rich. The training requirement alone would cost thousands of dollars, the licensing requirement costs 800 bucks a year, and it has an outright ban on magazines.
So, if we apply the same standard to voting or publication...
As I've said repeatedly, and you don't seem to be acknowledging: the original gun control proposals were far more ambitious than what they got whittled down to. The original proposal, as I've said, was semi-automatic rifles writ large. Appeals to the performative "crime bill" restrictions are not interesting.
I'm also losing patience with the arguments about "bans". I don't think bans are a good idea either, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop demanding that I defend them.