> no types of firearms are outright banned, and in principle a person can apply for a licence for any type of gun
(Though some weapons like machine guns and rocket launchers are 'specially dangerous' and 'can only be granted on a very limited basis and are essentially for recognized collectors and filming purposes only'.)
> A license is always needed for possession of a firearm and all firearms are registered. Firearms may only be carried while they are being used for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting, shooting at the range). When transporting a firearm to or from such activity, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a case or pouch. The owner of a firearm is responsible for making sure that firearms and ammunition do not end up in unauthorized hands.
> The application process includes a check of criminal records, the police interviewing the applicant and in some cases a computer-based personality test or a medical health certificate. Any significant history with violence or other crime, substance abuse or mental health issues will cause the application to be rejected.
> Carrying a firearm licensed for hunting or sporting use outside of that specific activity is not allowed.
Those are all differences from, I believe, anywhere in the US. And for all of the ones I listed I say, "yes, please!"
However, most of what you said was appropriate for a large gun manufacturer. They don't apply to a small one, which might start this sort of production for the 0.001% of the market interested in such weapons.
I am a gun control advocate. I do not want to ban all guns. I want to have gun control laws similar to what's present in Finland, which is one of the countries with the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. (#10 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... .) I think the large majority of gun control advocates in the US also do not want to ban all guns, and would be just fine with similar gun laws.
BTW, you have just described another reason for making such guns. If someone is against all sorts of gun ownership, then there is a short-term justification for producing these sorts of weapons. By doing so they get the foot in the door for large scale bans.
Since that hasn't happened, and since anti-gun-ownership advocates have also had significantly more time thinking about it, your own logic suggests that it isn't tenable.