Right to bear arms

Okay, so in the states people have the right to bear arms. In Canada, we do too, but it's not as publicized and I think there are more restrictions.

One things I've never understood though is the distinction between different types of guns. Sometimes semi-automatic and automatic. So people will say "who needs an assault rifle anyway?" So they will propose banning the more powerful guns.

But I don't get this logic. I mean a small gun can kill people, perhaps many people. A semiautomatic weapon could kill many people no problem. Yes, an automatic weapon could probably kill even more people, so that would mean the logic is this:

1) killing a handful of people is bad but not that bad. people have the right to do this.
2) killing a bunch of people is really bad and the government should ban weapons which can do this

So what I don't get is the logic. "Who needs automatic weapon?" Well, maybe you need to kill a bunch of people, or you want a powerful weapon to kill an individual and that will allow you to do it more easily. I mean the point of having the right to carry a firearm is not just for hunting, it's for killing people if necessary.

So if the intent is to kill someone who is threatening your life, what difference does it make if you kill him with a handgun or an AK-47. He's still dead. An AK-47 doesn't kill him "more".

Maybe what these people are really saying is that no one should ever have a weapon to possibly kill someone else. That's another debate. If that's what they are saying, they should advocate a total gun ban, not just the more powerful ones.

Anyway, I don't think guns should be banned at all.