Increased ease of access leads to increased risk of incident.
Increased access alone does not lead to increased risk of incident. It is a multitude of things that lead to incidents with firearms or anything else that can cause harm. Lack of training, negligence, substance abuse while wielding a firearm, etc. It is not easy to access heroin by conventional means, but the rate of people dying from heroin OD increases every day.
By "incident" I mean any gun-related event, including accidents. We could also specify increased risk of assault; and with automatic weapons, the capacity for inflicting harm goes up.
Why does the capacity for inflicting harm go up? You are way more inaccurate with a fully automatic weapon than with a semi automatic weapon based on the ability to control it. The only thing increased is rate of fire and maybe bullet capacity depending on the magazine you use but that doesn't mean anything if you can't control the damn weapon. I would argue semi automatic weapons are more dangerous than fully automatic weapons because it is easier to be more accurate with them. With an increased degree of accuracy, you become deadlier with whatever you're wielding.
Automatic weapons are designed for nothing other than inflicting harm.
Not an argument for me not owning one if my intent is not to inflict harm. You cannot legislate things or disqualify ownership based on what people may or may not 'intend' to do. Does it happen? Yes. Is it right? No.
You could make this case for guns that aren't used for hunting or personal defense (i.e. people who have a collection of guns sitting in a safe that they take to the range once a year) and are not automatic. Why is there not an appeal that those could also 'inflict harm' and should be banned because they are deemed 'excessive' just as the rate of fire is deemed arbitrarily 'excessive' on something like a Browning M2?
They're not designed for hunting or for self-defense.
According to whom? Your emotions or some professor you saw lecture on it 6 months ago?
From a practical standpoint, I would agree that they are not suitable for hunting mainly due to the fact that the recoil from a machine gun makes it hard to control on full auto and because only certain ammunition is allowed and it varies by state. I don't know of any full auto .454 machine guns in existence. However, there are semi auto or 'burst fire' settings on some of these that would make it more suitable for hunting or personal defense. The only really 'concealable' machine gun type weapon I know of is the Glock 18 which is just a Glock 17 with an auto fire setting. That is hard to control without a stock attached to it and the stock makes it hard to conceal.
The advantage to having a machine gun for personal defense would be for someone with mobility issues. Some would say that should disqualify someone from owning a gun at all but the mobility issues make them more vulnerable to harm also so that argument could go on forever based on how each side thinks. I'm talking mobility issues in the hands here anyway. Being able to hold down the trigger to get multiple rounds to fire would be more advantageous for someone with hand issues vs. having to pull the trigger for each individual shot because it requires less muscle control.
I don't think a desire to collect justifies the right to purchase them.
Not an argument. I don't think a desire to quit smoking justifies someone vaping instead because it is just as harmful but it is allowed and legal to do and, arguably, more dangerous than owning a machine gun.
I personally dont give a shit what anyone else thinks looks good. I have my own set of eyes that make that decision for me. Btw most of my family consists of hunters and current and ex-military and lets not forget that i owned numerous firearms when you were still sucking your thumb and getting bullied in school.
