>>>>Okay. Does a reasonable person think any individual civilian needs to own weapons that can fire 10's or 100's of shots per second?
>>>
>>>The bushmaster can not fire 10s of rounds per second. You should understand what you are talking about before spewing wrong information.
>>
>>Perhaps. Let me ask you a direct question. Do you think there are weapons that civilians should not be allowed to own? That is, can we find some common ground and work from there?
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Civilians are not allowed to own full auto weapons (like the press and you keep trying to imply were used in this case), cannons, bombs (larger than fireworks), flamethrowers, etc w/o BATF licensing/fees/background checks/storage requirements/etc.
>
>I don't have a problem with that.

Great, common ground.

To work from the other end, I don't have a problem with people owning hunting rifles and other weapons clearly intended for hunting or for the work of ranching and farming. (You have a vocabulary advantage here. I don't know, nor do I particularly want to know, the names of different kinds of guns.) I'm also not opposed to those living in isolated places having appropriate guns to protect themselves from dangerous animals.

Can we find any more common ground? I'm open to hearing why individuals should have guns in other situations. Are you open to the possibility that there might be other weapons that shouldn't be in private ownership?

Tamar