I kind of feel like the price and the amount of training/skill it takes to properly utilize a Barrett are regulatory enough on their own. I don't know any people who have on in the U.S. at least on the civilian level, and if we don't, I doubt criminals do.
I also agree that the regulations on machineguns are fair, though the Pre 86 deal is a bit stupid. On the other hand I'm on the fence about whether or not the current requirements for obtaining a machinegun, along with the price drop that would come, would stop people from just buying the machinegun instead of the semi-automatic variant; if the Pre 86 clause was abolished and modern machineguns were available, it might botch the "civilian market". It would be nice to have a fully automatic Assault Rifle, but to know that nearly anyone else can have one too makes it a bit more frightening. If they do fall into the wrong hands, they could potentially mean much more trouble than their semi-automatic counterparts. I can think of any well known shooting incident (except maybe North Hollywood where they DID have automatic weapons) and say "what if they had a machinegun too?" and only imagine how much worse it might have been.
I want to be clear about this, I'm not against the ownership of machineguns by responsible civilians, but as of now I can't justify allowing them to be as available or abundant as the semi-automatic variants, at least not with the current laws.
|