Gun Control Suggestions.

To begin with, just so you’ll understand, I grew up a hunter and a bit of a gun enthusiast, not a big one, just a bit of one - probably because I was a natural shot with my open-sight, 30-30 Marlin. I started hunting on the day I turned 12, the legal age, but before that I had been going "into the woods" with my dad for several years. That was one of the rules, you had to pass the license exam as far as the state was concerned, but my dad had a whole different series of rules.

  1. If you ever picked up a weapon and didn't check to see if it was loaded, you went home or stayed home.
  2. If you ever pointed a weapon at someone, even accidentally, even if it was unloaded, you went home.
  3. You had to prove your proficiency in firing the weapon.
  4. You had to go through a real-life "drill" with an unloaded weapon which included everything being very quiet, then my Dad screaming at you at the top of his lungs with excitement that there was a great big gall-dang dear!!!! What are you going to do!!!!! Then, after you "shot" he would be hopping up and down shouting it's just wounded, it's wounded, what are you going to do. Basically, he was trying to see how you would react with a huge adrenalin rush. If you didn't pass this test....well, I have no idea because we all passed it (none of the others ever warned me about this, it was a big, inside, family secret so you wouldn't be prepared).
  5. Finally, you had to take the two day hunter safety course and pass with flying colors (I missed one question about how far away from a house you had to be to hunt, I overestimated).

I haven't hunted in...eight, nine years? But, that is where I came from, I read hunting magazines, we subscribed to the Pennsylvania Game News and when I was a kid I wanted nothing more than to move to Alaska and live in a cabin deep in the woods. Okay, so that is my background.
Now, for the plan.

First, for the “basics”.


  • No limitation on the sale of rifles and/or shotguns in a state where they are legal for hunting purposes, saving instant ID checks for criminal background. If Montana wants to allow yahoos into the woods with AK-47s, then they are legal for sale in Montana. But, I can guarantee that such a thing won’t happen in many places, hunters won’t allow it. For instance, there are many areas that require you use something like a shotgun with a slug, because of the fear that a rifle bullet will travel too far and hurt someone or something.
  • Mandatory background check and waiting periods for handgun purchases. For revolvers, the waiting period could be 5 days, for “clip” guns the waiting period should be 15 days or more. This doesn’t solve the Virginia Tech type situations I know, but mental health access in this country might.
  • Mandatory trigger-locks on all weapons sold.
  • Limit on ammunition sales to those types that are legal for hunting (again, if hunters want “cop killer” bullets being flung around the woods, so be it).
  • A ban on all assault rifles, whether automatic, semi-automatic, “fakeys”, and any clip extenders – basically anything that can be used to mow down a lot of people quickly. In short, anything not legal for hunting. ****(See below)

  • So, at this point what we have available are basically those weapons and ammunition that are legal for hunting. And, if you want to buy such a weapon that is easily concealable (handgun) you need to not have a criminal record and you have to wait. The more destruction the gun can offer, the longer you wait.
    Now, for this ****.

    I think that many countries with restrictive guns laws DO allow certain people to have guns, they just have to jump through many hoops. This is sort of along that line of thinking.


  • There are those who collect weapons for non-threatening, non-criminal, reasons. They are gun enthusiasts, not gun nuts. I have known some of these people in my time. They are law-abiding citizens who like to search for rare guns, like to collect guns – sort of like baseball cards. They know all the stats of how they were made, where they were made, why they were made, muzzle velocity, blah blah blah.
  • You don’t have to have these people on your side, but if you do, the plan is more likely to work.
  • These people would have to be “licensed” in some way to purchase or own these guns, not any Tom, Dick, or David Koresh could have them.
  • Part of the process would be proving that the licensee had an appropriate gun safe, and for those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, I mean a gun SAFE, or that the guns would be held at a shooting range or gun club with appropriate gun safes.
  • Game commission or some other law enforcement officers would be charged with checking these houses/clubs at random to insure that the gun safes were still present, that guns were secured in the safe, and that trigger locks were present on all the weapons.
  • Guns could only be transported in an appropriate locked gun case from one licensed place to another.
  • Here’s a biggee. The licensee would be civilly (sp?) responsible for any crimes committed with those weapons should they be stolen while not properly stored. If someone blows up the safe and takes the gun, no problem. But, if they keep an AK-47 under their bed, someone steals it and mows down 30 students, then they can’t go to jail, but they can be sued by the spouses, children, or parents of those students.
  • What you’re left with in this case, is a small population of dedicated gun enthusiasts that understand the danger of the weapons they possess, and are willing to trade total freedom of possession for the right to possess these arms. This doesn’t explain every aspect, like what about when one person wants to go out back on their 40 acres and pop off rounds with friends into an “appropriate” target? Well, okay. But, what if someone else lives closer to the city limits, builds an “appropriate” target and wants to do the same thing?
    I’m also sure there would be those who would fight this tooth and nail, don’t get me wrong, it does LIMIT the total freedom of possession. But, I think the general population could be made to understand that those are GUN NUTS, not GUN ENTHUSIASTS. They are exactly the people you don’t want to trust with automatic weapons. Meanwhile, there would be an added status to those who acquire these licenses.
    So, that is the outline of my plan, have at it. Let me start.

    Side A – I don’t see why we don’t just ban all weapons.
    Side B – I can’t believe you want to take away my Constitutional right to bear arms.

    Now that those positions are out of the way, go ahead.

    Comments

    Again, it's the hypocrite bell that rings in my head.

    I have trouble being pro-some-individual freedoms. At the same time, I am a strong believer in government regulation (when it makes sense). So, this is where I come down on guns, somewhere in the middle.
    On other issues, I'm more one way or the other. Like the death penalty and stem cells. On other issues I support the most liberal position, say single-payer health care, as the bst option - but understand that it won't happen all at once.

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
    -me

    Mostly reasonable except

    Limit on ammunition sales to those types that are legal for hunting (again, if hunters want “cop killer” bullets being flung around the woods, so be it).

    "Cop Killer" bullets (armor piercing- dense core) are already illegal. If you're referring to "Teflon Coated" cop killers, that's a movie myth too as least as far as they're supposed to slice through armor because of the coating.

    A ban on all assault rifles, whether automatic, semi-automatic, “fakeys”, and any clip extenders – basically anything that can be used to mow down a lot of people quickly. In short, anything not legal for hunting. ****(See below)

    The only logic that makes this make sense is that which says it helps a bad, crazy, drugged etc. person be more destructive or lethal. Youre telling me why that person shouldn't be allowed ot have it. How does it make me, a law-abiding, sane person dangerous? Many times, those in favor of banning things ask why one "needs" a gun like that. I'm sorry, but that is not how our system works. you could say the exact same thing for almost every item we own. Why do I "need" a car that can go over 70mph? Why do I "need" a 2,000 sq ft house when I could get away with half that much easily? Now tell me how I am actively or even just "highly likely" to hurt someone else by merely owning any of these things and operating them lawfully and I'll agree with you.

    Sure, there should be reasonable limits. Opponents usually say, "what about a bazooka or a mortar or an atomic bomb?" At the very least, we have a right to self defense. These types of items far exceed any reasonable or even liberal definition of self defense weapons. Additionally, they are impractical for that use. Even if used for recreation, they would be very likely to cause harm to others even when used with great care. I suppose it might be compared to the "reasonableness" of abortion. Most who support choice agree that it's OK at 5 weeks, but there is reasonable stopping point between there and delivery where a line is crossed. The argument is "where"s that line. For firearms, I'd be fine with banning or limiting anything more than.50 BMG or any explosive or rocket-propelled rounds.

    Point is.

    AK-47s are illegal too, but there are people such as yourself it seems, that want to make them legal. So, that is why I mentioned it.

    I don't get your point about assault rifles. I think they should be illegal, unless you prove that you are a sane, legitimate, collector. Who else wants an assault rifle? People who intend to use it for illegal purposes. If you aren't willing to keep it under lock and key, and safe, then why have it?

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
    -me

    Just to clarify.

    This plan would put a lot of the specifics into the hands of the states. Are big caliber magnum rifles legal for hunting? That wouldn't be a national decision, it would be a state one. The handgun law would probably be more federal.

    And, I was saying that those talon bullets (I seem to recall they were called Talons) could be made legal if some state wanted, but they probably wouldn't. We could out and out ban them if the police unions push for it I guess.

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
    -me

    Good points, but...

    Many times, those in favor of banning things ask why one "needs" a gun like that. I'm sorry, but that is not how our system works. you could say the exact same thing for almost every item we own. Why do I "need" a car that can go over 70mph? Why do I "need" a 2,000 sq ft house when I could get away with half that much easily? Now tell me how I am actively or even just "highly likely" to hurt someone else by merely owning any of these things and operating them lawfully and I'll agree with you.

    There are a lot of dangerous things that people want to have that are illegal. Absinthe, for example. Heroin.

    As for fast cars, yes, you can have cars that go faster than 70 mph, but your car still has to meet certain specifications to be street-legal. The purpose for that is, ostensibly, public safety. I have always assumed that the ban on assault weapons is the same thing.

    Houses bigger than 2000 sq ft? I don't see a safety issue there - but then again, there's no ban on it. In an earlier post, I said I didn't think someone needed to have enough ammo to take out their entire neighborhood - and I still think that. Should there be limits? Well, I think so, but perhaps a compromise would be a registry that would list who bought how much ammo, and where. Large amounts could be flagged for the sheriff's department (or ATF, or whoever had jurisdiction). That could help prevent large scale terrorist style stockpiles, but shouldn't affect collectors, or people who want to practice at a range. (I didn't know anything about what it would take to practice at a range until you posted your response on that thread, SPLib)

    "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

    There are a lot of dangerous

    There are a lot of dangerous things that people want to have that are illegal. Absinthe, for example. Heroin.

    As I have a strong libertarian streak, I'd say we'd be better redirecting some of our efforts away from prosecuting people for posessing drugs.

    Houses bigger than 2000 sq ft? I don't see a safety issue there - but then again, there's no ban on it.

    Back to my original point. Our society is not based on forcing someone who desires ownership or behavior to justify it. The burden is on those who would want to keep them from owning or doing something. If they can show how others' rights are being denied, then they make a law against it. That's how it works.

    So I ask again how my legal ownership and operation of a Glock or AR-15 infringes or is likely to infringe upon the rights of others. If you can't do that, leave me alone and fight the bad guys instead.

    I like your plan, Robert.

    I admit to not understanding some of the technical jargon in your post and in SPLib's response, but this is exactly the kind of plan that I think 95% of the people in the country can get behind. If thinking it's ok to own a gun for protection is not "liberal", then there's one instance where I'm not liberal. I have some concerns about collectors, but as long as their collection is locked in a safe, then I don't suppose I have too much to complain about.

    In particular, I like the civil accountability. If a bartender can be sued by the family of someone killed by a drunk driver that the bartender served, then by all means, if your guns are not kept adequately stored, wind up stolen, and some one is hurt, you should be held liable as well.

    "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

    Very Canadian in your thinking, actually

    The only difference, really, is that it would be easier in the United States of Robert to get a handgun. My only proposed amendment would be to increase the hoops to handgun ownership. Don't make it impossible, but damn near. I think in Canada you have to prove that your life is really threatened to be able to have one. There are just a handful of people who have them, and everybody else does with their huntin' guns. But then again, I'm against hunting, too, but I know that makes me a freak, and I won't try to legislate my freakishness.

    War is over if you want it.

    Not a freak at all.

    But, we do protect the rights in this country, even when we don't agree with them. When I grew up we hunted for one reason - meat. We were not that well off and a deer gave you steak, chops, roasts, and burgers for the winter. Two or three, and you could have meat almost every day and not have to pay for it.

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
    -me

    I firmly belief that a person

    should have access to any number of guns he can safely control. If he wants one that can spray 100 rounds a sec, fine with me if he can safely control this weopon.

    I live out in the sticks and I do not have a weopon in my house, not because I think they are bad or that I should not have access to one, it is because I dont want one.

    My neighbor (he is now deseased) was older then the hills and he had a shotgun. The first time I saw him carrying that gun, I was mildly alarmed until I saw how he worked with that gun. Then I was not even alarmed. I thought it was interesting that someone in his 90s would blow away a snake in his yard. My county has many folks with many guns.

    I firmly belief and like the idea that my neighbors have weopons if they so chose as this ability goes all the way back to the founding of our country. I also trust my neighbors to properly use those weopons safely and with my safety in mind. They have not let me down on that score.

    It is the responsibility and DUTY of every gun owner to protect that weopon from getting into the hands of anyone that the gun was not intended for in a reasonable fashion. This means kids, crooks, etc. I do not expect peoples houses to become armories.

    I do not and will not accept any legislation that enables or allows monitoring me or my neighbors in the "proper" use of weopons.

    I do belief that every weopon must be sold with a trigger locking system and the purchaser of that weopon must be trained in the use of that trigger locking system.

    I do belief that every weopon must be registered just like your car and other recreational items are.

    With all this in place, nothing mentioned here takes guns out of the hands of crooks, thugs and those that do not wish to safely operate a weopon and show concerns for the safety of others.

    How will any gun control law protect against that? Gun control laws only work on the law abiding person who is living in a sane frame of mind. Gun control is actually not needed for the law abiding person who is living in a sane frame of mind because they inhearently handle their weopons in a manor that is inline with gun control laws anyways.

    Without gun control....

    every person, no matter what their state of mind, no matter their criminal background, can get any gun they want.
    By taking the ease of gun purchase out of the equation, you begin to take the access to guns out of the equation for criminals as well. There are still other things to do, such as extreme sentences for weapons charges.
    I'm not sure what this means...

    I do not and will not accept any legislation that enables or allows monitoring me or my neighbors in the "proper" use of weopons.

    where I grew up, you actually had to fire weapons at your hunting & trapping license exam, it was a part of the course. I can't remember whether you could fail because of it, but you had to. what are you saying?

    It is the responsibility and DUTY of every gun owner to protect that weopon from getting into the hands of anyone that the gun was not intended for in a reasonable fashion.

    So, if they fail in that DUTY, what do you do then? Is it a law? Should their neighbors deal with them? Or, should the legislature have a law that if you do not do your DUTY, you will be punished?

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
    -me

    It was vague when I was writing it also, sorry

    I do not and will not accept any legislation that enables or allows monitoring me or my neighbors in the "proper" use of weopons.

    Was in response to the original post about having the local sherriff or other policing body come to my house and inspect my gun control and how I make my guns safe. I will not accept the government checking up on me in that fashion. Only if there is a reason to check up on me because of an action I did should I be checked. But not as a routine check. The fact that I had the gun registered is enough and have to reregister or prove where the weopon is if I no longer register it for some reason.

    It is the responsibility and DUTY of every gun owner to protect that weopon from getting into the hands of anyone that the gun was not intended for in a reasonable fashion.

    So, if they fail in that DUTY, what do you do then? Is it a law? Should their neighbors deal with them? Or, should the legislature have a law that if you do not do your DUTY, you will be punished?

    Yes, if they fail in that duty they should be punished. There should be a law that will allow the removal of the weopons and also making that person unable to legally get another weopon or to have any weopon on any property that person owns. If the person who owns a gun fails in that duty then they are just as culprable for the actions of person who used that gun. If that gun ends up killing someone then the owner is just as quilty and should be put on trial for the same offense as an accomplice. However, just like the original poster stated, If you have done everything reasonable to protect your gun and someone still takes it, then you are no longer culprable.

    Will people still get hurt and or killed because of this? sadly yes. Can we protect inocent people from finding these weopons and playing with them and getting hurt or killed? We can try, but it is back to the individual to protect their kids and others from their stupidity (the adults stupidity, not the kids). Can we make laws to fix the stupidity of others? We can try, but they will just find another way to allow people to get hurt because of their stupidity.

    I am not for removing restrictions on guns. I am for restrictions on how you get guns. Yes, run checks with local and state police on the person. Have LONG lead times, 15 days to a month for granting the sale of that weopon. Make laws that make it difficult for you to get weopons. I am all for that.

    Make a national or state gun data base that must be checked before the sale of any weopon.

    Not every person who owns a gun is going to turn into a killer. Just because you dont own a gun does not mean you wont kill. Guns are a tool, just like any other tool, the improper use will cause harm or death depending on the degree of improper use and lethality of the tool in question.

    I go back to my original sentance, you can have as many guns as you can SAFELY control. If you cannot safely control one gun, dont get one. As an adult, I know what I can safely control and I would take the responsibility and duty to protect that gun from others to the best of my ability. And most people who have guns do the same thing.

    What about mandatory classes?

    A mandatory gun safety course, with laws and the like, before granting a permit. It could be like driver's ed, only not a complete joke. Include some hours at the target range for practical application.

    How many people in the US say they bought a gun to keep in their home to protect it from burglars? How many of them would know how to use it if it came down to that?

    Tennessee

    requires a pretty significant course like that to get your concealed carry permit. it includes everything you mention and more.

    but its only for concealed carry. other states used to, and might still, require only for you to go to the sheriff and pay like 10 bucks. I think Alabama used to be like that.

    Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Liddy 44 Brad 33

    "Keep the Faith"

    Marshall.

    I found this on your web site. I'd be interested in your take of the above ideas.

    With the exception of certain automatic weapons and other specific weapons of war, the Federal Government should refrain from legislating gun control in America.

    I believe it is the constitutional right of any law abiding U.S. citizen to own and privately hold personal weapons in his/her home, property and, in some cases, on his/her person.

    Any gun control legislation, excepting afore mentioned, should be the sole domain of the individual States, and then, within the limitations and restrictions as provided in the US Constitution which guarantees the individual right to bear arms.

    One man with courage makes a majority.
    - Andrew Jackson

    Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
    -me

    I can understand why guns

    have a useful appeal for some people. I don't know why the awesome destructive power of an automatic weapon does though.

    Is it some kind of glorified macho trophy? A fear of being attacked?

    I just can't fathom why and would honestly like to try to understand if some of you who do would say.

    Your father's rules

    ring true to me. They're exactly the rules I was taught to hunt under here in NC. Exactly.

    I'm all out of land to hunt on and guns to hunt with, but I'll always have my NC Lifetime hunting/fishing license (still use the fishing part). Maybe some day I'll be able to use the hunting part again, but for now I just go into the woods to sit and watch. It's different though. Forcing yourself out the door in camo drag (smelling a little like your dog) at 3am and sitting against a tree near a rubbing and watching and hearing the night woods go to sleep and the day woods wake up is like no other experience in the world. Nobody but hunters do that. I love to sit in the woods and I love to fish but I do not do that morning hunt routine anymore. And that is what I really miss about hunting.

    But back to the subject at hand ...

    Your suggestions around gun laws sound very reasonable to me.

    One thing I'm wondering ... I've always thought that handguns should be regulated differently than long guns, but whenever that discussion gets started I hear/see people argue that long barreled revolvers can be used for hunting. Sure ... and give sufficient speed and thrust, pigs fly just fine. (read that in a funny internet RFC once.) The fact is, no hunter who actually wants to bring home something to eat after a day in the woods or fields or brambles or swamps is ever going to use a handgun to hunt. Handguns are meant for one thing and one thing only ... shooting people. It's been years since I kept up with this stuff, but here in NC I know that to buy a handgun you have to have a pistol permit that you have to get from your local Sheriff's dept. Don't other states currently have that requirement? Could a Federal law be passed that would require such permitting? Do states share 'pistol-permit' information? Why couldn't that permitting system be made a Federal database that gun dealers and law enforcement in any state could access? Or has it been?

    "They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

    Recently

    I was threatened by an ex-employee. I considered purchasing a gun. My brother, who already has a permit, offered to go to the gun store and get a handgun for me. Sort of defeats the purpose of the permit, yes?

    I decided against the gun because I'm still not sure I could point it at someone and aim to kill.

    As for the 3 am in the woods thing Leslie, I hate to burst your bubble, but around Dec. 21st every year, I do that same thing, to watch the world wake up. There are other times I try to do it, too, but I never miss that one.

    "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

    That is why I have never hunted

    I can really walk or see at 3 am. I sure as hell dont need to be given a loaded weapon capable of killing someone at that hour.

    Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Liddy 44 Brad 33

    "Keep the Faith"

    First time I went quail hunting

    I was so scared I was going to shoot the dog. Turns out, I'm a better shot than Dick Cheney. :) I didn't bag any old men, just birds.



    ***************************
    Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

    SSSHHHHHUUUUUSSSSSHHHH

    Dont bring up dick cheney, he kills all my arguements on responsible gun control!

    hee!

    He kills arguments on responsible anything, really.

    "Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

    Yeah

    ...being a piss-poor shot is apparently no reason to discontinue owning a gun. :)

    Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



    ***************************
    Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.