I am very much for having a sensible and reasoned conversation about guns and gun control. The reason I am replying to you is in part to set an example for potential readers. Having said that, it is late so I will try to keep my response short.

First, the laws regarding assault rifles do not seem to be nearly as strict as you imply. I live one town over from Sandy Hook, where a year ago a deranged man with a history of mental disease used multiple automatic weapons to gun down an elementary school. The guns were all legally acquired by his mother for his use. This must not happen. I do not see a way to prevent this via background checks. We cannot get into people's heads and getting access to medical records would even be in my book a greater violation of privacy than this is worth. So my conclusion is that we must ban the sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons to civilians; ban them at gun stores, online stores, gun shows, private sales, etc. (two years ago I went to a gun show in North Carolina where I saw people simply walking around with two assault rifles, one over each shoulder). I would go so far as to criminalize all possession of automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

Second, handguns are a plague on large cities, where lots of people get hurt or killed using them. I do not see their use in hunting as a great way to justify their sales. This use is rare, and I am certain there are other ways of killing wild boars, etc. Your original point about hunting was that to take away a hunter's rifle will leave him/her hungry. It does not seem to me that taking away a semiautomatic pistol would do the same. Revolvers are different in some ways. They are simpler, easier to care for, and even possibly safer to handle. However, we should look at the numbers here (which I naturally do not have handy) to figure out what should be done here.

In general, as far as hunting is concerned, I would like to see hunting safety classes tied more closely with the gun licensing process. Also, making the use of hunting guns legal strictly for hunting would help here. For example, if you cannot hunt after sunset, then your gun must be locked and the rounds separate from it. This would surely not be a problem for a full time or a serious amateur hunter, but would hinder a criminal who is trying to carry a rifle.

Lastly, enforcement is often brought up. The argument goes that the good guys will give up their guns, while the bad guys will still have them. I do not buy this as a reason not to try. First, the status quo is very broken as many mass shootings as well as deaths via hand guns show us. The anecdotes are heartbreaking but the numbers do not lie. Second, there are precedents. Australia had a gun buy back and it worked. German police fired something like 45 rounds last year. We can get there too. Non-lethal weapons are getting better and better, and for self defense are more than sufficient. We can and must try to change the current state as the current state is not in anyone's best interest. Realistically, no, not everyone will give up their guns for a buy back, but lots of people would. Those that have guns for self-defense would feel better knowing that there are less guns out there and some criminals would definitely jump on the opportunity to exchange a firearm of questionable origins for a few hundred dollars. Over time the number of guns possessed by non-hunters can be reduced to nearly zero.

I appreciate this discussion. I did learn something from you. Also, it is very late and the Christmas Eve is almost here so I doubt I will be able to contribute much more. So in that spirit, Merry Christmas if you celebrate it. If not, Happy Tuesday!