guns, public opinion, restrictions - or not

I've been trying to make some sense (personally) of the recent threads about 'black guns', and related. I've posted this as a separate thread because I don't think it's (only) about black guns.

Talking about guns in society, there are some facts that seem to be agreed andl supported by evidence, notably that most gun crime is committed with unregistered weapons, and that most registered users do not commit gun crimes. However, there have been some terrible crimes committed by registered users, with registered weapons (for example, Dunblane, Dawson College).

Also, Government action is driven by public opinion, and that opinion could take (some) guns away (it happened in UK after Dunblane it happened in Australia). Politicians don't like to be unpopular with voters, otherwise they'd be out of a job (I'm not going to say if that'd be a good thing or not). If politicians have to pick between being unpopular between two groups of people, they'll generally go with the majority.

Other things seem to be more a matter of principle, and open to debate, including that here are some people that should never have access to a firearm (for example, people with mental illness so severe that it impairs their judgement, people with a recent history of violent crime, young children). How you implement this principle is open to debate (probably there's a number of different ways, some better than others) - but the principle itself seems sound.

But what about another principle held by some (at least), that there are some firearms that should not be available to any user, whether that user is registered or unregistered (for example fully automatic weapons, as currently). This is where it seems to get tricky, because the immediate response (and quite rightly) is - 'so, where do you draw the line?'. There's been quite a discussion on the board about this.

But isn't the immediate issue really 'Do you believe in this as a principle?'. If the answer is yes, then it's a matter of accepting that implementing the principle will be about judgement and compromise, and will necessarily be imperfect. But, if the answer is no, it's about standing up for your rights. So, on this principle there appear to be two points of view:

1. Some will take a libertarian approach, crudely put as 'why shouldn't any weapon be available to any registered user - if someone is seen as capable of being responsible enough to own a gun, why shouldn't they own any gun they want to? And related to this, the view that if some guns are disallowed, pretty soon most (or all) guns will be disallowed.

2. Others will say that it's a matter of risk management, that we know that some registered users and registered guns will be used in awful events (it's happened in the past) and to manage the impact of these events when they do occur we should not allow weapons that cause high numbers of casualties in short periods of time (for example, no full autos). That way, injury can be minimised in the time that it takes law enforcement to deal with the situation.

What'll drive political action is public perception, and the willingness of the public to balance personal freedoms against the risks that those freedoms can sometimes bring. And (probably) any more events like Dublane and Dawson College will leave the public less wiling to accept the risks associated with the right and freedom to own firearms.

But, isn't there also opportunity here? On this board over the last few days a number of members have suggested public engagement and education. What other actions could the gun community take? What about campaigning for more severe sentencing for gun crime (didn't somewhere in the US automatically double sentencing for any crime involving a gun)? What about working with law enforcement to devise innovative ways to prevent guns being available illegally? Aren't there other proactive actions?

Anyway, I'm trying to think through some of this stuff.

So, questions:
1. Are there some guns that shouldn't be available to any user?
2. If so, what are they (fully automatics, as currently)? If not, how should gun owners stand up for their rights?
3. What can the gun community do to in a proactive way in this debate?