... The short answer is hunting weapons of sufficient caliber to humanely kill the game being hunted. That's it, with few exceptions. ...
I also find this complicated. But I don't understand the hunting exception. I own guns, including military type guns, but I don't use them to kill animals. Why should I be disallowed from having a gun just because I don't want to kill an innocent animal with it?
It's really not nearly as complicated as you're making it. tcp, have you examined
why you would rather not let other people have weapons except for hunting? I'd wager it boils down to something along the lines of "I don't want them to shoot me."
The problem is, even a little .22 varmint gun, if aimed well, can kill a human. And if you're hunting large game, that gun can easily kill a human. And it's not like a "hunting gun" can't be pointed at a human. So, even your restriction of "only firearms for hunting" is no more effective than "No big scary black guns."
Howabout this restriction:
"Own whatever weapon you like, but don't use it to kill people."
Simple, yeah?
It's really not like that for me--I think you're reading into what I said. I believe you should be allowed to own as many guns as you want and use them for whatever you want as long as you don't break the law. I do however think there should be reasonable limits on the type of gun you own which is the focus of this thread. RodeoX uses the phrase "military style guns" which is very subjective. A semi-automatic AR-15, for example, is functionally almost no different than many .223 "traditional" hunting rifles. (Let's leave the magazine capacity argument aside for the sake of discussion since it's a different can of worms.) For some reason, apparently for no other reason than because the AR-15
looks more menacing, some people believe it should be restricted. I don't agree with them since you can reasonably use that AR-15 for hunting. But if you argue anyone should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon or a Barrett .50 then you've lost me. That's not to say
no one should be allowed to own them, just that
most people shouldn't be allowed to own them.
So what's the requirement to own a full auto .50 cal Ma Duece? Training? Military only? Police and military only? And why?
As I mentioned, my opinion is ever-evolving. The hunting justification is not an absolute line in the sand here but in my mind a rough guideine of what might be considered reasonable. I use it as reasonable because where I live most top level predators have been destroyed and management of game populations falls on humans since we created the problem. I realize that even that is not cut-and-dried but it's a starting point. Of course, if you believe the world is on the verge of ERL (Excessive Rule of Law) or WRL (Without Rule of Law), which I don't, then we are starting from a different set of assumptions and I don't see much room for compromise. On the other end of the firepower spectrum we have handguns. Since I think the usual self-defense justification is quite weak I fall back again to the hunting guideline. If it can't reasonably be used as a hunting weapon most people shouldn't be allowed to have it. Again, if you disagree with me on the self-defense argument then here again there's little room for compromise.
The self-defense argument is not weak. It's the solid truth. Criminals don't like attacking armed citizens, and if concealed carry is allowed in an area, criminals are reluctant to attack
anyone, because they're unsure who's armed, and who isn't. Hunting can be done just as effectively (though obviously not at the ranges allowed by guns) with a bow and arrow. If hunting is the only reason you feel a private citizen should be allowed a weapon, then why not ban guns entirely, and limit people to only owning compound bows?
