"I am not willing to put additional limitations on law abiding gun owners just so we can say we did something. Very little I have heard proposed convinces me that it would affect violent crime in any way."
So what is the solution to reducing violent crime. Enforcing current gun laws might be a good start, but like most countries dealing with violence, reducing the reasons for violence is going to be the only long-term solution. This would no doubt entail huge changes in socio-economic climate which is particularly tough when economic times are bad. The disparities in soci-economic equality are the main drivers of violence throughout the world. The war on drugs certainly doesn't help either IMHO.
However, the homicide-by-gun statistics also point to guns, in and of themselves, being a driver of murder and injury in the US, both intentional and unintentional. What I hear in this thread is that those of you who argue for being able to carry weapons are extremely responsible gun owners. It would appear, again just judging by the stats, that this is not true of a significant portion of gun owners, even legal gun owners. You need only look at the child injury and death rate by accidental gun shot to recognise this. Do kids accidentally stab themselves or their friends and family to death with knives? Not often. To me, this is an issue I see as a big one. If you or a family your kids visit have guns in the house, you cannot be too careful with how these guns and ammo are accessible. That and of course I still can't see why ordinary citizens 'need' semi-automatic weapons for self-defense. Sure, you can commit a mass killing without a semi, and sometimes even without a gun. But it's a lot harder. However by far the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed with hand guns. I don't know what the solution is, but I can't see how an escalating arms race with criminals is a good long term solution.