Originally Posted by luv
I have a question, and I don't want to create a thread in order to ask it. I don't believe that guns should be banned. I do, however, believe that not just anyone should be allowed to purchase a gun, and that some types of guns are not necessary outside the realm of personal protection or hunting. If I don't agree that owning a gun is a human right, but I also don't want them banned, then where do I fall in the grand scheme of things? I'm pro guns, but also pro gun control.
So here's the rub...how do you define what a valid sporting use is? I have absolutely zero desire to hunt, I don't kill things it's not in me. For the same reason I have almost zero interest in self defense. Outside of a threat to loved ones I don't know if I could shoot someone even if only to defend myself. The personal cost would be massive for me.
That said shooting is fun, I love target shooting and other shooting sports. One fun competition is 3-gun shooting. It's generally timed and involves rapid target shooting on the move with pistol, shotgun, rifle(hence 3-gun). Many of those same 'evil' looking features have valid uses in this sporting shooting competition. Because I don't hunt or I don't believe in self defense, does that make my choice of shooting sports a second class citizen? Why do I not have the freedom to choose my tools of my sport?
It's funny the ATF actually freaked during the recent importation of the VEPR-12 shotgun because it had a folding stock(welded open) which they felt made it a non-sporting firearm. What's funny is that shotgun was designed for 3-gun competitions and that folding stock was there for that sport. By removing the folding stock the ATF actually made the shotgun LESS sporting.