Finally someone who speaks rationally instead of polemically. People in rural areas feel they have a legitimate need to own guns, and the Left’s failure to acknowledge that is part of the disconnect in discourse on this issue.

I agree with many of the author’s ideas. We need to treat guns as dangerous instruments and manage them at least as proficiently as we manage motor vehicles — perhaps even the way we manage licenses for commercial trucks.

An assault weapon — or a hunting rifle that is based on an assault weapon design — is more dangerous at distance, because the rounds are much faster and go farther.

The question is, why do people need semi-automatic weapons at all? Our grandparents did not need them. Bolt action rifles are fine for hunting, and you can’t shoot as fast unless you are a marksman. A revolver holds six shots, which is enough for self-protection: reloading is laborious, so it could not easily be used to kill lots of people.

I think it is the fast-shooting and fast reloading magazines that are the problem. A semi-automatic handgun or rifle can be used for mass killing only because of the fast reloading and high magazine capacity. Take the magazine away, and one would have to carry multiple guns to be able to kill lots of people in a short period of time.

Hunting does not require fast reloading. If you miss, the deer hears the shot and runs away. Plenty of time to pull the bolt on the weapon to reload. If you need protection from bears or wild boar, a revolver is the way to go — it will never jam and can carry rounds with enough stopping power.

We need to make it so that to obtain a semi-automatic weapon, you need a very strict license that requires a-lot of vetting. Everyone else should be able to buy the kinds of guns that our grandparents used and found to be perfectly adequate.