I think for us "gun folk" we are technical people by nature in that we are seeing it from that point-of-view. But for the general public and masses, and for the government that is pandering to the fear of the ignorant, it's a simple enough motion to impose a ban on something that they can easily and simply deem as a killing tool. The jargon they use in the OIC is just a means to an end. There is no actual rational formula by which they are doing it, even though we are trying to make sense of it from our very technical points-of-view. The classifications contained in those documents are just a means by which they can easily umbrella models and makes of firearms into the ban at whim. It serves THEM. It does nothing for gun-owners.
For anti-gunners it is a simple thing: eliminate all potential tools for violent use in the form of a firearm - by any means necessary.
For the government, it's just a way of "preventing/circumventing future mass shooters". They just don't want to admit it as such. As stated by many before, it's just a lazy and quick way to garner admiration and support from the ignorant masses who see any form of further gun control or elimination as a positive thing. For them, upsetting a few hundred thousand owners and potentially preventing even one such incident is worth it - especially when they have at least another 14 million people in blissful ignorant support. It is a means to an end.
These people do not see the "sport" in our hobby. They don't see a "need" and they certainly cannot be reasoned with from a technical and rational sense on the topic. If we try to make analogies of any kind related to the actions the OIC imposes on us as private citizens and property owners, it will be shut down quickly by anyone opposed to gun ownership because they just cannot compute or accept that a firearm is anything but a tool for killing. They will never trust anyone that owns a firearm and sees anyone owning one as a potential killer.
Instead of us as a society looking for solutions to real problems i.e. combating gang violence, curbing illegal weapons smuggling, and perhaps a rethinking of acquisition and ownership laws to prevent these things from being used in the wrong hands: that is, a compromise of some sort. We must all be willing to admit that such tools in the wrong hands can do harm (like anything else). But in good faith we must show our concerns as fellow citizens. We're all on the same side. Legal gun owners have family, friends, dogs and cats just like non-gun owners. None of us want harm to befall the people we care about and by extension, our fellow neighbours and countrymen.
But the further both sides polarize, I fear that we owners will continue to lose out in the end.
I feel though my little rant here is far too late. Maybe many before me have already tried to express this in the past and it fell on deaf ears.
I leave my hopes in the CCFR and other groups trying to take the legal route. Perhaps a new change in government will be able to reverse this - perhaps not. What I do know though, is that the more of an extreme stance we take on this, the worse it will get for us. That is not to say we shouldn't fight this. We have to voice our concerns as citizens and oppose this recent change. But we must do it intelligently and in a way to show that we are on the same side of public safety. The real injustice is that NOTHING is being offered for combating the real problem. Just a handwavium "we'll deal with the other stuff later".
A total cop-out. The message being sent loud and clear is, "All legal gun owners are potential mass shooters. Let's nip it in the bud. Criminals and your illegal guns? Well, we'll deal with you..... some day... one day.... . another day".
If we do somehow repeal the contents of the OIC and win (back) the day, we must STILL be on the government's case for going after the real criminals. That's our responsibility as good citizens - owners and non-owners alike.
