weemadando wrote:I'm saying that if you have no NEED for a gun you shouldn't own one. I'm aware that the right to own a gun is allegedly protected under the US constitution, but I believe that ownership of a firearm should most definately be a priviledge.
And who are you to determine NEED for everybody else?
As a cop I can tell you that we do not protect people most of the time; we respond to the scenes of crimes after the fact. We very seldom prevent the murder, we show up and draw the chalk outline around the body after it's been done. Some people who live in crime ridden areas have a genuine need for a firearm as a means of protection.
In the first place, law abiding citizens who engage in shooting sports for pleasure DO NOT USE their guns to kill or injure other people. You are proposing restriction of an activity that does not harm people, and is conducted very safely, and has one of the lowest rates of injury of any sport. The actions of criminals are a different story entirely. And they do not obtain their weapons from the same sources; regulating law-abiding citizens is not going to stop them.
Take full auto weapons, for example. Since 1934, they've been highly regulated, but legal to own, if you pay all the fees and follow all the steps. I could, right now for example, go to a Class III weapon's dealer (there's one in Hampton VA, just 20 minutes by car from where I live), pay $2400 for a British Sten submachine gun he has, and pay a $200 fee for the Class III weapons permit, and I can legally own this fully automatic weapon. No doubt you would object to this, but the fact is that since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed, only two people have ever been killed with legally owned machine guns. Far more people have been bludgeoned to death with baseball bats.
So when people are enjoying a hobby that has a very safe record, and does not harm you or anybody else, why should you object?