Where do you draw the line? Are knives okay, swords? Bows? Maybe some certain kind(s) of firearm? At what point does a firearm become exceedingly powerful, how is it defined?
Handguns kill an excessive amount of people compared to all other types of weapon, including other firearms, partly because they're easy for a criminal to conceal. A full ban on guns might not be necessary, but at least remove handguns.
AR-15s etc get more media exposure because they tend to be used in the relatively minute amount of mass-shootings, but they account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths.
As an American, I would fully support requiring licensing, training*, and reasonable** psych evaluation requirements for handgun ownership,
if the 1934 National Firearms Act is repealed, "assault weapons" bans are explicitly banned themselves, and firearm safety and handling classes are made to be a graduation requirement in high schools***. Legally, the people are the militia. The people should have the knowledge and training for that to be reality. I also support a large increase in mental health funding to get people the help they need.
*To include safety training, assembly and disassembly of the weapon, information on the firearm carry and self-defense laws of the state in question, and live-fire exercises
**By this, I mean that simple mental illness should not be a disqualification. A person with an anxiety disorder is probably much less likely than the general population to engage in violent crime, and thus should not be prevented from owning a handgun because of their illness.
***See *
Edited for clarity