You do have a good argument (my position roughly matches what's been stated here; I don't believe people should carry weaponry in public, but I don't see why sports shooting in secure environments shouldn't be allowed).

However, there's a balance to be reached; no secure environment is entirely secure, and weapons kept and used safely in those secure environments can occasionally end up stolen and in the hands of dangerous individuals (as could have happened with your guns had the twat had more smarts, for instance).

So with that in mind, I can see why some measure of limits might be a good idea; so that dangerous criminals aren't able to steal and use highly dangerous weapons like assualt rifles; if they aren't there to steal in the first place, they can't get them.

At one end you have small handguns. At the other end you have, say, an atomic bomb. Somewhere inbetween you have to draw a line between what is suitable to be enjoyed as fun sport by sensible individuals, and what is really too dangerous to have around.

Lurkaloid asks why shouldn't someone be allowed to carry around whatever he wants if he's been properly vetted? My answer is this; I could carry an atomic bomb and could be trusted to never press the big red button on it, but the person who mugs me and steals it is another matter.

When it comes to things like guns, I'm not happy in relying on Joe Public's immunity from theft/mugging to ensure my safety from heavily-armed criminals.
(Musuko, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 16:15, Reply)