Waste of time
 

If it was actually such a waste of time, why would you take the time to respond? I have not personally responded to any of the posts in this thread, but I have read each and every one and I find it very interesting.

Financial loss
 

so if Susie JoBob owns a high end chassis rifle accessorized with high quality optics, a suppressor, a bi-pod and other competition accessories. Maybe he/she owns multiple high end competition weapons. When the confiscation time comes or even a buyback, do you really think he she will be compensated fairly? Maybe he she should just lose their investment? How about when they outlaw combustion vehicles and they come to take your Mercedes and your Lexus and your kids Nissan should they compensate you fairly? How will this be funded? Who will pay for it?

Who said anything about confiscating weapons? Stopping the sale of certain ones and maybe holding gun manufacturers and sellers liable for foreseeable injuries.

I find it humorous when the uneducated call for military style or AR/AK weapon ban. There is nothing available off the shelf today in a plastic scary black configuration that is any different than its wood stock version. I can put racing decals and a number on my Camry, but that does not make it a NASCAR. In the picture below, we have the same gun in differing stocks. Same projectile, same action system, and same barrel configuration. Nothing differentiates the lethality of one gun over the other. The guns that so many want to ban is nothing but a "normal" gun in a scary black costume.

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.

You really need to change the website you get your erroneous information from.
I can think of may adjectives to describe Australia, and Australians, (Specially when they beat us at cricket!)
But 'Suppressed?'
You really haven't a clue what you are talking about!:ohdear:

Where does this information come from? I have American family members who have lived in Australia for 15 years. We've spent many months there.

Your statement is so not true. What a crock.

the bad guys always find a way around the law.

The Kennedy assassination

The Kennedy assassination etc

In the end our enemies would like to make sure Americans do not have any guns. Then only the crooks, military and China/Russia have guns. Then with the help of all the illegal young people placed all around America we can be overtaken with ease.

Perhaps we'd be looking in the wrong direction.

America has a gun homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000, and we have relatively non-restrictive gun laws. However the two countries in the Americas right behind us in population, Brazil and Mexico, have very RESTRICTIVE gun laws. You'd expect them to have a lower homicide rate per 100,000, but they don't: Mexico, with only two gun stores in the entire country and where owning a gun legally means exhaustive paperwork and months of waiting, has a gun homicide rate nearly twice ours at 11.1 per 100,000, while Brazil, where the minimum age to own a gun is 25, every gun purchased has to have a license (which is purchased and renewed at significant cost), and where even carrying a gun outside is limited to special groups such as police, has TRIPLE our rate at 18.5. per 100,000.

Guns are only a tool. Limiting them does NOT necessarily reduce the crimes committed with them.

We need to reopen mental health facilities where the worst are housed

That particular boat sailed in 2005.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime." (Wikipedia)

John Wilkes Booth in 1865 comes to mind