I have no problem admitting that it is too easy for the wrong people to get possessions of firearms. I also have no problem in admitting that it is a dangerous thing for the populace in general to be forbidden to access firearms. As I see it there is a worsening gap between these two statements. I do not see a solution.
There is a strong presence of politicians and voters who would like to ban all firearms, from so-called assault rifles and handguns to shotguns that are primarily used for hunting. These people strategically do not usually speak this way, but rather argue for incremental removal of dangerous weapons. By banning some weapons, criminals will choose those easier to obtain. Then those easier to obtain must be removed from circulation. Eventually, all firearms would be banned, then sharp objects. They seek to disarm all a nation’s population, leaving firearm possession to police, military, and some private security (especially for the elite members of society). The (usually) unstated assumption of this group is that a strong central governing authority must have the security to operate in the best interest of all its citizens, and that such a government, free from the threat of violence from the populace, will always be benevolent and do good to those citizens. This mindset does not believe that mere humans can be trusted with firearms, but believe that rulers of people can be. Human depravity is only a problem of the individual, never the state.