Who said without evidence. I'm assuming some system similar to our CPS or a court would need to enact the ban. It's easy to see the rights of the person being restricted not so easy to see the rights of potential victims if the suspicions are true. It appears we have some common ground on the access to firearms, why do you (as I do) accept limiting the rights of those of whom there is no suspicion.
There is evidence from opinion polling that if tightening American gun laws were put to a referendum there would be a majority in favor of some restrictions.
Incidentally I agree with you on the slipperiness of the slope, in this case the loss of liberty is minor and to my mind outweighed by the risk to the innocent who have a right to be protected but it would set a dangerous precedent.
I think the original proposition was that by virtue of your name being on a watchlist, you would be prohibited from buying a firearm, without any evidence as to why your name was on the list in the first place. If the process were subject to some process whereby the authorities had to justify this to an independent body, that is a very different matter.
As to firearms, I have no objection to them in principle. If people want to own pistols for target shooting, as I used to, I see no problem with that. Equally those who hunt, whether it be with a rifle or shotgun. In all cases it seems only sensible that suitable measures are taken to ensure that these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, either by way of completely unsuitable people being licenced to own them, or through lax security. I for example never took my pistol home, it was stored at the club. Most of not all mass shootings in the UK, Dunblane, Hungerford etc, have been committed by licenced holders using licenced weapons. The outcome of subsequent enquiries has tended to be that there were clear signs before the event that these individuals were unstable, and there would have been ample justification to rescind their licences. So any form.of licensing needs to be much more robust, and the considerable cost should fall on those seeking a licence.
My objection is to the general public being allowed to own military type weapons, or full automatics. I can see no justification for this, and in my view it should not be allowed. I think the government are perfectly justified in imposing such a restriction for the greater good, just as we say people should not drive their car whilst drunk, and deprive them of their licence if they do so.
In the UK the government has decided to impose what amounts to a ban on pistol ownership, and restrictions on many other types of weapons. The argument seemed to be that removing weapons from circulation would improve matters, and if some leisure shooters were inconvenienced then so be it. I don't object to the sentiment, but believe the logic was flawed, particularly in relation to pistols. Historically very few crimes were committed using handguns stolen from legitimate owners. This is still the case. The vast majority of gun crime involves handguns, pretty much all of which have been brought into the country by criminals. Gun crime is higher now than ever before in our history, although still at very low levels compared to.many other countries..