Pro-gun posters: What regulations do you want?

[tyr_13]

BStrong has basically a version of most everything I'd suggest, the the knowledge that I probably wouldn't get all of them (I'd settle for Canada like laws). I don't think banning military style rifles outright would work as well in the US* as simply having greater restrictions on them. I differ in that I would put restrictions on high-cap mags, restricting them to range use and storage.

The main thing I don't see here that I'd like is the ability to temporarily surrender weapons while a person or a loved one is going through mental-health or emotional issues. The public knowing that they could trust the local PD or sherif's office to take their guns, store them, and return them reliably would be a massively useful tool in reducing suicide and stolen-gun homicide.

*Some factors that have an affect on the efficacy of banning or defacto banning items are:
Current availability of the object.
Ease of production, transport, and concealment.
Public support for the measure.

It's not hard to see why banning alcohol in the US was so inneffective while 'banning' it in some Middle East countries works very well. That's also why some measures of gun control would be less effective in the US than they have been in other places (less effective != ineffective).

 

[LTC8K6]

I mean, I think it's odd not to be able to buy a Ruger 10/22, but I don't think your second clause follows from your first.

For example, it doesn't seem odd to me at all that a tank commander can come back from a combat assignment, and not be able to buy a main battle tank.

If you are old enough to be in combat and make it back alive, then I trust you with a rifle.

He could probably buy a tank if he wanted one.

Quite a few people own them.

Field artillery as well.

Anyway, if we don't trust people until they are 21, then let's run with that all the way, or let's not.

Let's decide when an American is an adult, and stick with that.

 

[Metullus]

BStrong has basically a version of most everything I'd suggest, the the knowledge that I probably wouldn't get all of them (I'd settle for Canada like laws). I don't think banning military style rifles outright would work as well in the US* as simply having greater restrictions on them. I differ in that I would put restrictions on high-cap mags, restricting them to range use and storage.

Assuming, of course, that everyone has access to a range. For those of us who do not have access to a range, and instead shoot on private land, this would be difficult.

The main thing I don't see here that I'd like is the ability to temporarily surrender weapons while a person or a loved one is going through mental-health or emotional issues. The public knowing that they could trust the local PD or sherif's office to take their guns, store them, and return them reliably would be a massively useful tool in reducing suicide and stolen-gun homicide.

In some jurisdictions, the Bay Area for example, gun owners have learned to be distrustful of local law enforcement. It can be difficult and sometimes impossible to get police agencies to return unlawfully confiscated weapons even with a court order.

 

[luchog]

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

I'd tend to agree with the majority of the post, with a few small changes.

The 6 month licensing/qualification is excessive, 1 year is typical for pretty much anything else, like driver licensing, and would be perfectly adequate here. (Mind you, I'd like to see driver licensing become a bit more stringent, with regular retests, not just a one-time thing.)

I'd also want a fairly comprehensive range of disqualifications: felony convictions for violent crimes would be permanently disqualifying, non-violent felonies or misdemeanors would be eligible after a reasonable time period and demonstration of law-abiding status; history of serious mental illness (especially involuntary commitment or violent episodes); no-contact orders due to domestic violence or similar conditions would be grounds for temporary disqualification, subject to subsequent behaviour, and may either be rescinded or become permanent; and any conviction on a firearm-related offense regardless of severity, which would include accidental discharges resulting from negligence (eg. a kid getting ahold of a parent's firearm).

 

[3point14]

If you are old enough to be in combat and make it back alive, then I trust you with a rifle.

I don't think that follows at all.

 

[theprestige]

If you are old enough to be in combat and make it back alive, then I trust you with a rifle.

That's pretty naive, actually.

The military is regimented, authoritarian organization, with a level of oversight and pressure to conform that is practically unheard of in civilian life. And yet there are still plenty of individuals who manage to stuff it up anyway. There are also plenty of individuals who do okay in the military, but fall to pieces when they return to civilian life and lose that structure and supervision.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you are old enough to be in combat and make it back alive, then I trust you with a rifle.

We lost a sniper who held that same belief.

 

[blutoski]

I think that in light of recent events, it is fair that the Pro-Gun side be allowed a platform to explain what their ideal regulation system would be for dealing with gun crime.

I guess it depends on what we mean by pro-gun. I own five handguns, but I'm not sure I'm considered pro-gun.

Just as background (not boasting), here are the five I own:

• My grandfather's WWI Webley
• My (other) grandfather's WWII 'trophy' Lugers (x 2, for some reason, maybe he went through a hoarding phase)
• 1950(ish) Walther PPK
• .25 Beretta 418, handlewood removed from the grip, but retained in case I sell it someday

As you can guess, I bought the last two because I'm a fan of Fleming's character. I write mystery novels.

All of these are stored at the shooting range. I would never want them in my house.

So, my ultimate regulations would be something along the lines of:

• home storage limited to hunting equipment (no pistols), to be stored in secure lockers, ammunition separated from the guns
• licensing and a central database registration
• licenses need to be renewed, or weapons need to be surrendered
• theft of weapons stored incorrectly results in jail sentence for the owner
• disqualifying criteria includes age, failure to pass safety testing, demonstration of recklessness (such as being caught shooting while using a substance), violent crime conviction, judgement of pychiatrist for persons with current or history of mental illness (some mental illness is transient and not expected to recur, and some mental illness is not dangerous anyway)

 

[blutoski]

That's pretty naive, actually.

The military is regimented, authoritarian organization, with a level of oversight and pressure to conform that is practically unheard of in civilian life. And yet there are still plenty of individuals who manage to stuff it up anyway. There are also plenty of individuals who do okay in the military, but fall to pieces when they return to civilian life and lose that structure and supervision.

Vets have a very high successful suicide via firearm rate. Restrictions are just as much for the owner's safety as for random bystanders like you and me.

 

[smartcooky]

I am a gun owner, and also someone who advocates strict gun control,and firearm licensing.

I pretty much agree with all of BStrong's ideas except the parts relating to automatic and semi-automatic rifles.

There is NO valid reason for any member of the public to own or use any kind of weapon capable of automatically reloading and recocking with a rate of fire up in the hundreds of rounds per minute.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am a gun owner, and also someone who advocates strict gun control,and firearm licensing.

I pretty much agree with all of BStrong's ideas except the parts relating to automatic and semi-automatic rifles.

There is NO valid reason for any member of the public to own or use any kind of weapon capable of automatically reloading and recocking with a rate of fire up in the hundreds of rounds per minute.

I have a great reason. To quickly kill a large number in a short period of time in self defense.

 

[Venom]

If you are old enough to be in combat and make it back alive, then I trust you with a rifle.

Anyway, if we don't trust people until they are 21, then let's run with that all the way, or let's not.

Let's decide when an American is an adult, and stick with that.

But adulthood is not a line you draw, but a gray area with activities with different boundaries, like the military being well regimented, for one. Sure, legally you can draw any line you want, but reality won't conform well to that.

Let's declare 18 is adulthood with a tolerance of (+/-) 2 years, with various actions allowed at diff ages within that range. At the lower end, you can drive heavy machinery that can potentially kill people. At the upper, you can finally buy a beer.

Or....we can mix those up a bit more if you want.

 

[theprestige]

Well. Alcohol attacks the brain. An 18 year old might be just mature enough to do a lot of things, but maybe should give their developing brain a few more years to ripen, before they start legally poisoning it.

Society letting an 18 year old operate heavy machinery is very different from letting an 18 year old embark on a flirtation with addictive substances while their brain is still developing.

I'd rather 18 year old brains get trained on heavy machinery than on alcohol. There'll be plenty of time for alcohol later on.

 

[Thermal]

I have a great reason. To quickly kill a large number in a short period of time in self defense.

If your intent is to kill them it is not self-defense.

 

[paulhutch]

Massachusetts has the lowest per capita gun death rate in the USA while being middle of the pack for violent crime. So I believe using the Massachusetts gun laws as a template would reduce gun injuries and deaths for the whole country (especially accidents and suicides, the largest % of gun injuries/deaths).

Massachusetts allows most gun activities and to me the inconveniences for owners seem minimal compared to many of the regulation changes that have been proposed in this thread. I enjoyed shooting when I was a boy scout and if I didn't have too many hobbies already I'd probably take up shooting again 45 years later since there is a range on the street where I now live.

FYI - I have had my fill of personal gun tragedies, I never met my maternal grandfather because he, a machinist for Smith & Wesson, died in a gun accident when my Mom was 6. One of my older cousins lost his leg from the knee down in a gun accident at his house. Then a friend in school committed suicide with his dad's home protection handgun that was not secured. Since those times the Massachusetts laws have been changed so under our current laws it's nearly certain all three of those tragedies would not have happened.

 

[Venom]

Well. Alcohol attacks the brain. An 18 year old might be just mature enough to do a lot of things, but maybe should give their developing brain a few more years to ripen, before they start legally poisoning it.

Society letting an 18 year old operate heavy machinery is very different from letting an 18 year old embark on a flirtation with addictive substances while their brain is still developing.

I'd rather 18 year old brains get trained on heavy machinery than on alcohol. There'll be plenty of time for alcohol later on.

well yeah my idea being 18 is the average for-all-intents-and-purposes adult, while the upper end of the "adult range" will include alcohol. Sorry if my post looked weird, half joking at the end.

I don't think the age issue in this discussion is much of an issue at all, despite the media frenzy and people hopping on that wagon. The vengeful mass killers are often too old to go to school anyway (What will be an issue is people who aren't law enforcement being able to bring guns into schools, if Trump and his enablers get their way). People are talking like the shooter was a student. Other factors are involved and attempts to raise the age of firearms purchases misses the point, I think.

Rampage killers target any public place, not just schools.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If your intent is to kill them it is not self-defense.

You are allowed to shoot someone in self defense. If you intend that bullet to kill them when it hits them, it is still self defense.

 

[Thermal]

You are allowed to shoot someone in self defense. If you intend that bullet to kill them when it hits them, it is still self defense.

I don't think so. They may die as a result of your defensive action, but you cannot intend to kill, only to stop. Intending to kill means you have assumed the role of executioner.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't think so. They may die as a result of your defensive action, but you cannot intend to kill, only to stop. Intending to kill means you have assumed the role of executioner.

Trying to stop with deadly force is knowingly using "force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person." You are intending to kill or injure them.

 

[Darat]

I have a great reason. To quickly kill a large number in a short period of time in self defense.

He didn't ask for a great reason, he asked for a valid reason. You have not supplied one.