> You'd need really strong protections for all kinds of semi-auto rifles to convince people that it's not just a gun-grabbing conspiracy.

I'd support that. There are many valid uses for guns, and I do believe in their protection under the constitution (and I believe they have a good reason to be protected). I just don't think handguns are a useful progression of those reasons.

> Home defense might be more complicated.

In execution, possibly. It's slightly more unwieldy. I'm not sure a shotgun isn't a better choice in that situation anyway (and it has less lethal ammo options for those that want that).

> But keeping a rifle ready, yet away from children is a little more complicated than for a pistol I think.

I'm not sure it is when you are taking what I believe most people would say are appropriate steps to secure a gun when there are children in the house. Lock the gun somehow or lock up the gun in a gun safe. A safe would have to be bigger for a rifle, but a trigger guard should be fairly cheap. It may not help with theft, but I'm not sure the incentives apply quite the same with stealing rifles as handguns.

> A lot of people aren't really protected by police, and it would trouble me to take away their handguns.

An exchange program, possibly?

> Recent estimates suggest there are about a zillion handguns in the country. Even with 100% compliance, that suggests a logistical challenge.

It does, and this proposal might be entirely infeasible. That said, if we reduce the number of handguns to the point that they are much less common and/or worth much more money, we might find their use in a lot of crimes diminished. Banning sale of handguns and a generous federally funded turn-in program (e.g. 50% over MSRP for anything bought over a year prior to law passing with serial and registration showing such, 90% MSRP for more recent, adjust for inflation as the program runs in the future and there is no longer a recent MSRP).

As people turn things in over time, or guns get stolen and turned in for quick cash with few questions (and no returns to the owner, sorry), handgun supply might go low enough that the more lucrative way to use them is to sell them to a private collector willing to pay a lot of money rather that keep them for actual use (whether that be illegal or protective). I'm not sure how that would work with the turn in program.

> Then again, some people like pistols, and that's reason enough to respect their rights (if you believe such a right exists).

Huh? Since when does what some people like play into a discussion about national safety? Some people like driving at extremely high speeds as well, but we don't protect their preference by allowing that everywhere, we cordon that behavior to small specific venues. I'm not opposed to special licenses for gun ranges to carry their own handguns for in-house rental use.

All our laws that restrict liberties are a trade-off for safety, and should be viewed in that light. In that argument, what people like carries fairly little weight with me. What is functionally equivalent in the most acceptable ways while achieving the safety gains we are looking for is where the argument should center, in my opinion.

> Really, I'd be OK with your proposal. It crossed my mind before.

Thanks. It's nice to hear what sounds like an honest assessment. While I fully admit it's logistically challenging to say the least (but let's admit it, what solution or event partial solution to this won't be?), I think it might be the best "bang for our buck", in that it has the least impact of actual use for most the reasons people cite they want a gun while eventually providing a nice boost in safety. It definitely wouldn't be cheap or easy though.