[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Trama

I'm for the individual right of gun possession, but the access and namely the calibers and typology should be regulated. It is a way of protecting gun owners themselves.

calibers are already regulated. anything above .50 caliber is considered a destructive device and illegal outside of military use.

typology: automatic weapons (machine guns) are NOT accessible to the public. they are not illegal strictly speaking, but they are so highly regulated and expensive to own, people can't go into a store and walk away with one.

any and all weapons are/have been "military" at some point, including the measly .22LR which can make for an effective sniper rifle. look, ma! i have a sniper rifle!

Originally Posted by Trama

There other ways to grant people access to military grade weapons. Private possession of said weapons is not the best option imo.

a so-called "assault rifle" is simply a semiautomatic rifle like the kind people use for hunting. semi-auto loading is a 100-year-old technology. it is NOT a machine-gun. it is one trigger-pull per bullet, just like a revolver.

look at this video-- a bit old but pretty excellent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

the "nato" caliber is actually less powerful and has less recoil and has a smaller round than the extensively popular .30-06 used by deer hunters-- which is why it's good for home defense-- it is more controllable, and has less penetration when it hits a wall (less even than many handguns).

one person's "assault rifle" is another person's "home defense carbine"-- easy to aim, easy to handle in close quarters, endowed with sufficient stopping power, and safer than a hunting rifle or a shotgun.

Originally Posted by Trama

Also, I think society should strive to make them less necessary, not the other way.

this-- yes. everyone, including gun owners, agrees with that.
but this is exactly the problem-- banning guns for their looks or made-up names or magazine sizes does not make guns less necessary.