No MSSA's aren't everywhere. Semi auto rifles may be common everywhere, but MSSAs aren't.
Are you trying to say that before 1992 you could have mental issues and get a license? That doesn't accord with my understanding. Because that it the point I'm making, the problem is the wrong people got a FAL. The correct reaction is to improve vetting (which was done). A range of pointless restrictions based on looks was not required.
Port Arthur and aramoana both have key similarities you don't seem to want to hear. People who shouldn't have had FALs were given them. Chaos resulted. The changes to vetting practice made sense, the MSSA BS does not.
Vetting is supposed to give the greatest chance of picking up mental issues, by interviewing those closest to the applicant. Are you trying to say that we may as well give up, since it is hard to pick mental issues anyway, and just rely on banning scary looking guns? I don't think you are, but there does seem to be a lack of consistency in your reasoning.
I can even see why you'd think that about the various Acts you list. I agree that the enactment date of the principal acts you cite are older. The real question I'd ask is how many substantial updates were made to those principal acts since their enactment? Then how many changes were made to the MSSA provisions of the Arms act in the same time? I'd suggest that is a more accurate way to compare the currency between them.
I still think the semi auto rules are outdated, and don't reflect where the world has moved to. As more and more people adopt semi platforms, that view is held by more and more people.
Bookmarks