The way i see it is that if a gun has a legitimate use (defense, or hunting ), it is in societies best interest to let people use it as a toy (referring to target shooting, or other non defense related purposes) people will become more comfortable and proficient in it's use, leading to better outcomes in situations where it needs to be used and less accidental harm to the users. So for just about any gun, i say load it up and fire away. I'm pretty darn accepting of weapons of almost all kinds, i enjoy them, think they are beneficial to society, and that anyone who can safely be trained to use one should have one.
That being said, what the hell logic is used that says a civilian can have artillery? It is mind boggling, if we were talking reservists, or full time military personnel, who obtained a special permit, i could digg that, they may be able to put skills to use they learn via firing it, but seriously we are not talking something that can kill one other person (which for the record in cool with), or even something that can kill lots of other people if need be (again, totally down, who knows what one may face), but something that can take out buildings.
I just don't get it, i believe in weapon ownership because while violence is rare, it does happen, so people should be able to be prepared, and if people can own weapons they should be able to do what they want with them within legal boundaries, but come on folks, artillery? Could we maybe tone it down just a bit? Maybe stop at any gun to big to carry for private citizens? It's crap like this that really gives the anti gun folks ammo.
