Actually, it's illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons made after May 1986. For the remaining automatic weapons (pre may '86); any purchase (dealer to civilian or civilian to civilian) requires a lengthy background check, fingerprint cards, a $200 excise tax and a 3 to 9 month processing delay as the forms are processed through the BATF and background checks are performed by the FBI.
The price range of automatic weapons ranges from $3000 for an automatic MAC 10 to $15000 for an M16.
In contrast, the combination of glass bottles and gasoline requires no such background check, is much more affordable and creates much more widespread and indiscriminate destruction. My point is that the term and concept of "gun-crime" is as illogical as "spoon-calories", or "penis-rape", or "crow-bar burglary". Further gun regulations imposed on the non-criminally minded Americans would be an iron-door-paper-house security scenario. It would provide an old stage for acting out additional plays of security theater that would rival the TSA.
If you're curious about existing gun regulations and the burden, ask an American gun-shop owner about all of the bureaucracy that they have to struggle with. It's easy to assume that the media's narrative is accurate. It's not. You've seen it with technical stories. I don't believe that it's due to a nefarious agenda other than profit through sensationalism and the cost of getting details correct. They often blur the lines between semi-auto and full-auto. If a rifle is black and has a pistol grip and removable magazine, then it gets called a "military style" or "military assault" rifle even though the military wouldn't consider it to be an assault rifle.
Next, our 2nd amendment is written in a very particular way as part of its checks and balances. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because our government's authority comes expressly and voluntarily from the people, there must be a mechanism with which to resist should the government (federal or state), militia, or other citizens attempt to take more authority than was given to them through law. It's very apparent that it wasn't written for hunting, or sport. Penn and Teller have a very good youtube video on the subject. Now, the argument would be: "But if the US became a tyrannical government, what are the civilians with semi auto rifles going to do against a modern army with UAVs, Tanks, Helicopters, Aircraft carriers, etc?" 2 things:> 1st: We have a civilian volunteer army. Think through the implications of that statement. 2nd: Can you think of this situation in history? A massive, highly technical military force against a poor equipped indigenous guerrilla force. We've played both sides throughout American history and have many examples where the local indigenous forces either kicked butt, or made the fight so costly that it ended. The first one started in 1776 and the guerrilla force was us. A more modern example would be Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The large, technical force didn't fare so well.
With regards to the story. The genie is out of the bottle. Multiple genies are out and have been for some time. No one can put them back in. Guns are in this country and as the Japanese said during WWII about the problems with invading mainland America: "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." A semi-auto (and likely a full auto) gun can be manufactured surprisingly easy.
What you don't see on the news regularly that is skewing the perspective is how many legally owned concealed carry weapons are around. I was taught to shoot from a very early age. I carry my Glock 26 wherever I go (where legally allowed). Yet, it doesn't make for very sexy news. Therefore, you don't hear about it. You don't hear about it, therefore your whole base of experience is from it going wrong. There are many examples (on a fairly regular basis) of a concealed carry individual saving lives. I pray that I never have to use mine. You'll also hear statistics that push a flawed conclusion stating that you're x% more likely to be killed by a gun than using it defensively. These statistics for some reason include gang vs gang killings, suicide, bad guys getting shot while committing a crime.
I don't blame you for your views, there's a lot of information out there that's just wrong. It's really hard and time consuming to objectively look through the data, weigh the risk and form a good opinion on the topic. But there are too many competing agendas to make decisions without doing your own homework. Talk to some more Americans on both sides of the debate. Try to sort through the mindless slogans and inductive reasoning, and you'll see that a well armed populace is a good thing. Are there negatives? Hell yes. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Yes. Is there a way to reduce or eliminate guns from society? No. Attempts would be both ugly and unsustainable. It would create an imbalance in power that would collapse between 10 and 50 years.
