Neu California wrote:Why not background checks, or psychological evaluations?
Surely you don't want violent/sexual criminals or people who are mentally unstable to have guns?
The above as well as strict limitations on automatic/sniper rifles pretty much sums up my views. There is no real reason why anyone needs those. Not for hunting (unless you're ging for utter overkill) or self defense.
Because such 'tests' can be influenced by the grader, and depending on their personal beliefs can be used to deny/discriminate against certain people or groups.
As for the second question, what makes you think that if a person is intending to commit a violent act, denying them a gun won't stop them from just going and using a knife, a bat, or their bare hands? Do you think a firearm is inherently evil? That it possesses those who use it like a demon? Don't think so. The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
As for the latter part, you really should do more research. Your ignorance is showing. Since 1934, only 1 murder has been committed by a civilian owned, lawfully registered machine gun. And that was by a Police Officer who used a personally owned MAC10 to off an informant.
As for 'sniper' rifles, again do research. Because banning 'sniper rifles' would result in most of the shooting community laughing at you and simply changing nomenclature to get around the law.
Personally, I shoot iron sighted rifles at targets not much bigger than a human head at distances up to and including 1,200 yards. And I'm not a great shot by any stretch of the imagination. Would that be a 'sniper rifle' under your definition?
