1. Yes, you must jump through hoops to acquire a Class 3 FFP; this is for the 'collector' or 'enthusiast' who just has to have one. If a criminal is caught with a fully automatic weapon; the judge tends to throw the book at the perp. This is fine with me.
2. I would argue that an idiot with a machine gun is far more dangerous than with a semi-automatic weapon. Instead of emptying a 9 round clip; he can unload 40 rounds, reload and drop another 40 on his drive-by. I'd much rather try my luck at dodging 9 rounds than 80.
As for 'gun nuts'; I'm a gun nut. I have deer rifles, shotguns and a couple of pistols laying around the house. I have no problem 'dropping' a perp on an attempted break-in. To me, that's part of the risk a robber has to take.
By the same tone, I can afford my 9mm Taurus; it's an equalizer against the bad guys. I can not afford the fully automatic weapon, and wouldn't be crazy about having my neighbors owning one either. If my neighbor fires off a round, the odds are better than 99% he'll miss me. If he opens up with a machine gun; he may miss me, but he's gonna do a LOT of damage to everythign around him. Someone is going to get hurt/killed.
I don't know if you served in the military; but I believe very few soldiers who have used fully automatic weapons would want them freely available on the street.
In Iraq, our soldiers have no problem with Iraqi citizens owning AK-47s. But thank you for asking whether or not I've served instead of automatically assuming I haven't.
If you are a gun nut, then I hope you criticize gun-banners as enthusiastically as you criticize your fellow gun owners.
Actually, I'd be far more worried if that same idiot had a bolt action rifle, or a shotgun. In the case of the bolt action rifle, you've got a chance that this guy will take shot placement seriously. In the case of a shotgun, a single blast of 00 buck has a much better change of hitting and killing the target than some idiot doing a "spray and pray."
Think about that for a second... How many shots were fired by that a$$h0le$ in the DC area at each target. They were "snipers." The fact that they were using a semi auto didn't really matter if they only took one shot.
And look at the number of people killed and injured in one of the most infamous incidents where fully automatic weapons were being used: That bank robbery in CA, where the 2 criminals actually fired thousands of rounds. There were people seriously injured: I don't remember the number of fatalities, although I know that at least one of the criminals died on the scene.
Another example would be the McDonalds shooting that started the whole "assault weapons" craze by the gun grabbers. Again, given the number of rounds fired, there were surprisingly few injuries or deaths. If the perp had actually aimed, or used a shotgun, the death toll would have been far higher (although I believe that he did have a shotgin).
Mark
"If my neighbor fires off a round, the odds are better than 99% he'll miss me. If he opens up with a machine gun; he may miss me, but he's gonna do a LOT of damage to everythign around him. Someone is going to get hurt/killed."
So what you are saying is that if the neighbor shoots and misses with anything other than a machine gun, no one will get hurt/killed? Wrong, that happens quite often.