Here's what I think....as if it matters.... (Page 10)

It's legal for me to own a fully automatic machine gun. Requirments are strict, and I personally have no good reason for one, but I just have to fill out the paper work and pay the tax fee.

I think the point is, you could hunt these small game with a different weapon maybe slightly less effectively - but as a non threat, I imagine that puts you in the category of law abiding citizen.  So if this rifle gets put on the illegal list, I have no doubt you will hand it over whether you agree or not.

On another note - if a Mt Lion is small game what the heck is big game - elephants???

If it is legal then it's not a problem - if they made it illegal where do you stand?  Would you hand it over and downgrade or whatever the correct terminology is?  I think you would because you already have proven by taking the appropriate ownership steps that you obey the law.

Forgive my naive approach i live in Australia this is very alien to me.

We disagree with the extent, but I am not opposed to a structure similar to being able to carry concealed. I mean seriously... you can trust me to carry concealled, but not own a semi-auto rifle?

Small... deer/ medium... moose elaphants large

Bolt actions are much more effective. Higher power and more accurate. Semi-autos are a compromise. I actually do want a .308.... but it is so far down on the list it just isnt a big deal. My life would not change with or with out.

The point is... we are talking about compromise.... the deal here is not to restrict law abiding people with a broad brush and ban everything.... nor is it to allow everything. Any sane reasonable person most certainly wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, mentally unstable and violent people. Heck, I would have less of a reason to own one myself if we did that.

Some say there is not reason to own one... I say there is no reason for law abiding responsible sane people not to... those are not the ones causing the harm. So how do we compromise and accomplish what we are really after here... keeping bad people from doing bad things.... if your only answer is to take away certain bad object from everyone.. then you will solve nothing.

I used to live in Perth as a kid.

I most certainly would turn it over if it came to that. I follow the law. I like my freedom. I am way too busy to get into a shootout with Federal agents. Next fdecade isn't really looking good for me either.

Then this argument follows that there is no reason for anyone to drive anything other than a Ford Focus car. It gets you to and from work, carries your groceries and doesn't have exceptional horsepower, i.e. less dangerous. No one should be allowed to drive any sports car, muscle car, etc. using your approach to using a different gun.

That's what I think is part of the problem gun owners have with gun control legislation. The gun owner has done nothing to even become a blip on the radar of problems with society, handles their firearms safely and stores them safely, and yet is now told that because some jackhole uses a certain type of gun, the gun owner can no longer use the gun of his choice. And yet there is no restriction on vehicles that are capable of speeding/dangerous driving that causes 3x the deaths than firearms. In both instances, its how the person uses the car/gun that is the problem, yet the guns are viewed as evil, dangerous, etc. and need to be taken from society to protect the public.

Oh great, so then only wealthy folks could finance deadly shooting sprees?  

I absolutely agree the problem is in fact the people not the weapon.  I don't have an answer - does anyone?  i have no idea how your mental health system works.....could it be improved - I suspect every country could improve in this area. 

BUT would further restrictions hinder these people, make it harder for them to perpetrate such acts?  Again I don't have the answer - could it be worth a try?

That's what I thought, and I think those that are not a threat will all do the same as you.  As you said in a further post - this does not remove the bad people from the equation.  But again - does it make it more difficult for them...could be.

The "local Wal-Mart" is still an FFL dealer and is required to go through the same process as any other gun store. They still maintain an inventory submitted to BATF, they still have the FFL forms the purchaser is required to fill out, they still are required to verify the background check or in some states that the person is authorized to purchase a firearm through a permit, etc. Wal-Mart gun sales are no different whatsoever than the guns sold at the local gun store.

I also beg to differ that it is easy to convert a firearm to fully automatic. It can be done but it requires some knowledge of machining/milling. It's not something that can be done with a dremel and a file.

JMK made the argument that if the cost of "x" to society is greater than the value to the individual, "x" should be banned.

I've seen the statistic that 1 in 7 people on the road between midnight and 7 am is legally intoxicated. Wouldn't the same logic apply?

Is the ability to drive 90 mph worth enough to the individual that it is worth the risk to society. If we are going to make this value judgement here, where else should it be applied?

I am by no means advocating for unrestricted gun sales. I have never owned nor fired a gun and I don't have much of a problem with common sense gun controls. I just don't agree with the logic used in this case to get there.

A car generally, when driven is used as a mode of transport a means of getting from A to B.  A gun when fired is intended to damage in some way or another - hunting or otherwise.

One law at a time - a tragedy occured over the weekend because someone of not sound mind got hold of a weapon and intended to do damage with it.  I say concentrate on that first and any laws or actions that can be taken to prevent it happening again.

Sure - death from car misuse or RTA's  is extensive - unbelievably so and laws are constantly evolving to try and eradicate some of these unnecessary deaths.  But that's another discussion in my mind.

There are also consequences to improper use of a firearm. My point is that if we are going to prevent the use of something solely because the rare potential negative outcomes, shouldn't we be consistent?

I wasn't advocating the banning of cars though. I was advocating the installation of breathalyzers into all cars to prevent driving under the influence and governors to prevent speeding. Neither would negate the majority of the benefits of cars.

Ya, this has been beat to death on page 3, 6, 10 and here we are again.