"Real" firearms control

[Romulus]

After wading through the crap thrown around the Dungeon, I have distilled the arguments on both sides down to two core issues (as I have seen them):

1) firearms should be available for self-defense, for a host of moral and ethical reasons, with reasonable restrictions. Hunting is not important enough to be a "core reason" for firearms ownership.

2) firearms should be kept out the hands of those who misuse them, especially handguns, which are the true "firearm of choice" for criminals. Criminal threats to law enforcement should be abated.

I looked at various state and national laws discussed here in the dungeon, and have come up with what I consider a workable set of laws to address these two core issues. I am probably going to send these to my fed senators (Mikulski & Sarbanes) and rep (Wynn) after seeing the feedback I get here.

Yes, illegally owned firearms are used to cause much misery in the U.S. But the answer is not to impose further restrictions on the legally owned firearms when those restrictions do not address how and why illegally owned firearms are misused.

Instead of posturing about "assault weapons," concrete things should be suggested to ensure firearms safety above the current federal laws (minus the "AWB"):

- Require all firearms transfers to go through at least a state-level background check. You should show proof of ID and state residence. MD has a good system where the state police, instead of a licensed gun dealer, can do the background check for private sales. Failure to show proof of sale or report of theft means that the last owner is on the hook when a crime gun is recovered. Right now, the first person to purchase a brand-new gun is on file with ATF. My system will allow the chain of custody to be traced to the last owner, without the danger of a "Gestapo round up list" of registered firearms owners.

- Handguns transfers should have a minimum 3-day waiting period. This could help with suicides, some "rage" crimes, and maybe gun-running to some extent. If you need a gun NOW, and you don't have one, well that's piss poor planning on your part, now isn't it?

- Keep a state registry of all handgun sales (like MD does). This is not a "gun registry," where you have to keep a registration certificate with you at all times, like you do your car. This system merely keeps track of the last purchaser once, and only once, and until that purchaser transfers that handgun to someone else. This will address the handgun-running and straw-purchaser problem we have in this country, which is the real "gun problem." At the same time, this does not go overboard and keep Joe's shotgun or target rifle info in some 1984-style database.

- Mandatory safety training for all firearms purchasers. This addresses the need for safety training for all firearms owners, without the formation of a "Gestapo roundup list" of those firearms owners (aka "licensed owner registry.") MD again has a good system where the local police have to offer a free course (for handguns and certain rifles) once a week. Once you attend the class you get a "diploma" that you have to show before you can purchase a firearm.

- A concealed handgun permit system that allows any citizen, who meets the screening standards for armed security guards in their state (background check + training), to receive a permit allowing them to carry a concealed firearm for their personal protection. If a person can hire an armed security guard for their protection, it makes no sense to bar the person from passing the same standards as the guard and doing the job themself. Society gets (1) better trained firearms owners, and (2) more citizens actively protecting their ability to keep contributing to society, which ensures that more contributing citizens remain breathing and contributing to society. This permit would be valid in all 50 states, national parks and forests, and U.S. territories (i.e., DC); if you can hire armed security guards there, you can do the job there yourself.

- Handgun safety standards: all new commercial semi-auto handguns should have an integrated safety lock (so the gun itself can be locked), a magazine disconnect that prevents the gun from firing once the magazine is out, and a loaded chamber indicator so anyone can see that it is loaded. These features are both old-art and state-of-the art right now (HK, Steyr, Walther, S&W, even Taurus) in handgun design, meant to cut down on "oh sh**" accidents, suffered by even well-trained firearms owners as well as novices. 9lb minimum DA or DA/SA trigger pull could be added to this list to cut down on negligent discharges or weak little kids shooting themselves.

- Handgun safe storage: all handgun owners should be required to buy a gun safe of some sort to store their handguns when they are not at home actively supervising them. A quick-open fingerpad gun safe can be purchased online for $77. Too many stolen handguns are fed into the black market, which leads to the "handgun problem" I talked about earlier.

All of these things can be tied to the federal grant money given to the states for law enforcement (like the "over 21" laws were tied to federal highway money). That way, there is no federalism problem like when the feds impose something on states.

This is no joke - I'm going to send this out.

[jody]

1. Does "Keep a state registry of all handgun sales" mean register by

serial number? If so, how do you guarantee 100% that a future government will not use that data to confiscate handguns?

I don't know what the "screening standards for armed security guards" means but they may be more rigorous than necessary.

The requirement for gun safes might be overkill. Would an alternative be a law that clearly spells out criminal negligence if an owner's guns are used in certain ways? Of course the same rationale should be used for for automobiles, swiming pools, and other things which may be associated with crimes, accidents, or suicides. I'm not sure how one can write a law to achieve this goal.

Thanks for allowing us to comment on your draft.

[Romulus]

3. thanks

1) Yeah, that's a sale registry that includes the serial numbers. I am willing to allow this partial registration the same way I can tolerate the NFA registration of machine guns: it's only a subclass of firearms that is being registered, mainly because of the increased potential of harm facilitated by that subclass. Since 45 states have CCW laws, I am gambling that handgun confiscation isn't a realistic possibility in the future (DC & Chicago notwithstanding, since they don't have CCW laws - well, then again, DC does for the wealthy/politicos since the Chief of Police can still grant "special permits" on a case-by-case basis(!!)).

2) The armed security-guards thing is just a matter of ensuring training to the level of skill that one class of apparantly "benign" handgun-possessors (according the Brady Campaign) are held to. The major complaint in the Brady website against CCW is the fear of the "untrained yahoo." Armed security guards were mentioned as being one of the "proper class" of CCW people, due to their training. If a "regular" private citizen can meet those same standards, by passing the same background check and firearms proficiency tests as any other armed security guard, then the argument against those people CCW'ing collapses. It also ensures that people really do get trained in the use of deadly force, bystander awareness, etc. (concerns also raised in the Brady website).

3) California apparantly requires you to purchase a gun lock, or show ownership of a gun safe, with each handgun purchase. Posters here have also mentioned CAN having a gun safe law for handgun owners. The purpose of those laws is to cut down on handgun thefts. I think that's a great idea - cut down on the source of black market handguns. I don't think "after-the-fact" laws would address the problem; once the cat is out of the bag, it's out. I don't think trigger-locks deter theft, that's why I went whole-hog and required a gun safe. It doesn't have to be a $1000 monster; any steel locking box that can mount to a wall, etc., will do. I guess I should clarify that.

Thanks for the comments. :hi:

[Wild Bill]

2. A few questions

- Handguns transfers should have a minimum 3-day waiting period. This could help with suicides, some "rage" crimes, and maybe gun-running to some extent. If you need a gun NOW, and you don't have one, well that's piss poor planning on your part, now isn't it?

I don't see how a 3 day wait would help with suicides. Couldn't someone that's suicidal buy a shotgun?

Also should people that allready have a handgun have to wait?

- Require all firearms transfers to go through at least a state-level background check. You should show proof of ID and state residence. MD has a good system where the state police, instead of a licensed gun dealer, can do the background check for private sales. Failure to show proof of sale or report of theft means that the last owner is on the hook when a crime gun is recovered. Right now, the first person to purchase a brand-new gun is on file with ATF. My system will allow the chain of custody to be traced to the last owner, without the danger of a "Gestapo round up list" of registered firearms owners.

I don't see how you can do this without creating a database of registed guns and their owners.


- Handgun safety standards: all new commercial semi-auto handguns should have an integrated safety lock (so the gun itself can be locked), a magazine disconnect that prevents the gun from firing once the magazine is out, and a loaded chamber indicator so anyone can see that it is loaded. These features are both old-art and state-of-the art right now (HK, Steyr, Walther, S&W, even Taurus) in handgun design, meant to cut down on "oh sh**" accidents, suffered by even well-trained firearms owners as well as novices. 9lb minimum DA or DA/SA trigger pull could be added to this list to cut down on negligent discharges or weak little kids shooting themselves.

Why do we need these standards? Is it not eaiser to assume all guns are loaded? Would an gun owner safety class not cover these issues?

Ok if we go with these standards why limit it to handguns? Why couldn't all guns have then standards?

[Romulus]

13. thanks

1)I don't see how a 3 day wait would help with suicides. Couldn't someone that's suicidal buy a shotgun?

Also should people that allready have a handgun have to wait?

I read in some link down here that handguns were the most often used suicude firearm, but you raise a good point about other firearms. The waiting period would remain even if you proved you bought a firearm in the past, so as to deal with the whole straw-purchaser thing.

2)I don't see how you can do this without creating a database of registed guns and their owners.

The state-level background check would be whatever Dean was talking about with the NICS-type check on all sales. Just like NICS records, the transaction record would need to be destroyed for non-handguns. I see your point here. I don't know how this would be different than requiring all transactions to go through an FFL. Maybe the FFL route would preclude a centralised database from being formed, since they retain the paper records, not the state?:shrug:

3) Why do we need these standards? Is it not easier to assume all guns are loaded? Would an gun owner safety class not cover these issues?

Ok if we go with these standards why limit it to handguns? Why couldn't all guns have then standards?

Yes, it would be easier, but even the best-trained firearms owner makes mistakes *despite* their training. That's were the term "negligent discharge" comes from. These recommendations help cut down on that "oh sh*t" factor. You shouldn't have to die/get crippled from the *one* slip-up. All firearms don't really need these standards because they're not the ones as involved in the accidental shootings as handguns. But they could easily benefit from them, as well. I just don't see a need for those other firearms as much as I see a need for handguns. I guarantee you, if the US market demanded those feature, handgun makers will miracle a way to crank them out.

Thanks. :hi:

[CarinKaryn]

4. A good start, but needs revision

- ...9lb minimum DA or DA/SA trigger pull could be added ....

- ...A quick-open fingerpad gun safe can be purchased online for $77.

Instead of a tigger pull that will not protect stronger childen, and provides no protection from other unauthorized users, "smart gun" technology, like that now being required by certain states, is necessary.

A cheap safe costing only $77 will not protect anything and can easily be broken into or stolen whole. This is not adequate protection for a deadly weapon.

Good effort!
:toast:

[Stilgar]

5. Smart guns do not work

There is no reliable working smart gun. And those states that require them have excluded the police, the very people the smart guns were made for. Why would you want something that the police don't want?

If by safe you mean doesnt fire even when you need it to, yeah its really safe.

[CarinKaryn]

16. Yeah, sure.

We can build a space shuttle, Hoover dam, supercomputers that sit on your desk, cars that go 150mph and we can't develop a gun that locks out unauthorized users. Strange, I can go to Walmarts and buy a $4 padlock that keeps people out of places they shouldn't be, my car comes with a key and my computer needs a password, but gun have to remain open and available for use to anyone who stumbles on them.

Maybe the gun industry insn't trying hard enough to develop a smart gun.

Calif will now start requiring magazine discounects and loaded chamber indicators -- its a good start.

[Spoonman]

27. Hmmmm

I find it hard to believe that your opinion seems to venture beyond my comprehension with a lack of concern for "cars that go 150mph".
I asure you that you are several time more likely to be killed in a car wreck, and even more likely to kill someone if your DOING 150 MPH!!!!

[Stilgar]

45. Sorry

None of the things you mentioned works 100% of the time.
I can break a $4 padlock, much less putting it on a weapon that has explosive, corrosive material flying about each time it is fired. Also needed is one that can be used that can withstand the jaring, firing the gun causes.

Keys can be bent, lost, stolen, and hard to use in the split second time that cops need when pulling a gun in a lethal situation

I work on computers, passwords can be bypassed, passwords can be misstyped, and sometimes the computer just does not recognize that it is valid. The energy release by the gun can jar electronics. Also great if you go into a high charged/ electric or magnetic area and erase all in info in the gun...dead gun/dead person.

Cars are stolen constantly in the US. They have keys. Houses are broken into and they are locked. Yet most people do not see an unlocked car as "finders keepers." They have been taught not to by their parents. Same as dont take candy/talk to strangers, needs to add don't pick up guns.

[demsrule4life]

6. A 9lb trigger pull is not conductive to accuracy

but I guess it is ok to hit everything but the target.

[Romulus]

9. "not even close to true"

(just kidding Dems!!)

I put a NY1 (8-9lb) trigger in my Glock-27 and didn't really notice the difference after 100 rounds. My Sig P239 has a 9lb-ish DA trigger pull, and it's way more accurate than the Glock. Many LEO agencies use the heavier trigger pull and have their officers qualify with them on the react range. NYSP even uses a 12lb NY2 trigger. :o

I guess I should clarify this part more: the 9lb thing is for retail firearms. After you buy one, you can do whatever you want to the trigger pull, including tuning the weight for your IDPA matches, etc.

[demsrule4life]

11. Maybe it has to be 12LB

sure have been enough stories about NYPD shoots with cops shooting 40 plus rounds and never hit the bad guy or misidentifed good guys. :)

[Lefty48197]

35. Does anybody know what the trigger pull was for that gun

that the six year old used to kill another six year old near Flint, MI. Certainly we could ban weak pulls like that.

[Stilgar]

44. It depends on if it was modified

I have my target gun down to 1.5 lbs. I did the work on it myself with aftermarket trigger and sear.

The owner should be the responsable party for the gun. If you lock the cabinet, the kid will just get the key and open it. As has happened many times.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

8. "Smart Guns" are stupid.

There is a reason why the police refuse to be included in the whole 'smart gun' thing.

They do not work.

They will not work for the foreseeable future.

When a police officer reaches for his/her firearm they need it to go 'bang' everytime, 100% of the time, smart guns are no where near that reliable, officers dont want to have to rely upon a battery to save their life. The same reason a Police officer needs a firearm to 'bang' 100% of the time is the reason why I want my firearm to go 'bang' 100% of the time.

[Romulus]

10. well

A cheap safe costing only $77 will not protect anything and can easily be broken into or stolen whole. This is not adequate protection for a deadly weapon.

That's why it had to be bolted to something. The safe I'm talking about is the GunVault, which California approved as meeting its safe-storage-from-theft requirements after extensive testing. If it' good enough for California's anti-gun-owner standards, it must be OK.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

7. I couldnt go long with a single thing.

Other than the background check.

The rest I will take on in the order they appear:

1- As to your 'on the hook' business, sure punish somebody that fails to report something to 'big brother'.

2- A right delayed is the same as a right denied.

3- Make is a Federal Militia roster, make it free, and make it immediate.

4- More paperwork. More chances for 'the man' to deny somebody their rights based on some unreasonable circumstance.

5- A right is a right, taking a test and having to be 'certified' is an unreasonable infringment of the right.

6- Ahh make the guns either more expensive and so deny people their rights based on economic status (in a round about way) or add on useless and silly 'safety' measures. There is a reason why the military and the police do not like handguns with 'magazine safeties'. Increasing the trigger pull simply decreases the accuracy, which increases the chances of a miss, more misses means more innocent bystanders will be hit.

7- More using pricing to remove rights from the economically disavantaged, no thanks. More guns get into the hands of criminals by friends/families/black market (of legally purchased firearms) than by theft, if you really want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get the ATF to really start enfocing the 'straw purchase' laws.

Want to truly lower 'firearm crime', then LOWER CRIME, and attack the root causes of CRIME, not the symptoms. Fix the socio-economic disparities that afflict large segments of the population, instead of infringing upon the RIGHTS of EVERYONE.

[CarinKaryn]

12. Typical

Your idea of "compromise" is do your way or else.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

14. I am an absolutist in regards to rights, any right.

In order to infringe upon someone's right, there had better be a VERY pressing need.

I do not believe in compromising with people that wish to limit my, or anyone else's, rights for no reason.

BTW, 'reasonable gun control' usually isnt.

[CarinKaryn]

18. Sorry, my right not to be shot by some kid who takes your gun

trumps your "right" to have deadly weapons.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

21. I dont think you have a 'right' to deadly weapons

I think you have a duty and a responsibility to have them.

To create a short answer I think that every person in the US that is capable of contributing to the Common Defense has not only the right to Arms, but also the duty and responsibility to have them.

I am even of the belief that we should all have an M-16 (or equivilent) and that if someone cannot afford one, that the government should supply them with one, and ammunition to train with it.

If you really care about your safety then ban alcohol, or cars, or malpractice, any of which has a greater chance to kill/injure you than firearms.

[CarinKaryn]

23. Thanks for making your position clear!

Free machine guns for everyone! And all the ammo you need!

Let's see, there are 12 people in my office, that means I need 12 bullets, but then one more for the suicide that always takes place at the end of office massacures, but if I decide to go to the NEXT office, or maybe the office I USED to work at, not really sure how many people are there now, so better take an even 100.

No Thanks. :puke:

[Man_in_the_Moon]

25. Why do you want to shoot up your office, or your previous one?

Maybe we should address the cause of THAT problem, instead of trying to the impossible and treating the symptoms of the problem and hoping that cures the problem.

[demsrule4life]

33. With 24 years in the military

I have more experiance then most on this board when it comes to shooting m-16, M-60 machine gun, 50 Cal browning machine gun the uzi and H&K MP-5. If I was going to take out an office full of people the last weapon I would use is a machine gun since you will always miss more then you hit. If I'am ever in a situation you describe I would hope the bad guy brings in a full auto weapon since my chances of surviving would be better. I have told you this before but since that thread was locked I don't know if you saw it. There has only been one shooting with a legal federally registered full auto weapon and that was by a police officer doing part time work as a hitman for some drug gang.

[FormerMarine6055]

50. Wrong.

You DO have a right to not be shot, but not at the cost of MY right to KBA.

If your right to not be shot is violated, you have legal recourse against the shooter in both criminal and civil court.

If guns are banned, then my RKBA has been violated, and I no longer have legal recousre to remedy the situation.

A gun owner has no right to indiscriminatly shoot at people. So your rights are NOT infringed upon.

[DoNotRefill]

52. In that case....

does my right to be born and lead a happy, productive life (remember "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?) override my mother's right to control her own body?

Sorry, it doesn't.

You don't like my rights (btw, they're your rights too...if you choose to exercise them), so you feel ZERO remorse for attempting to take my rights away. Seeing how I'm male and you're female, why shouldn't I return the favor, and take away YOUR rights on the very slim chance that it might infringe on my rights? Because that's EXACTLY what you're arguing.

I'd think we could all agree that MORE rights are a good thing. Apparently not.

[demsrule4life]

17. You have made it clear that you believe that only the govt

and police should have guns. So why are you even posting on this thread?

[CarinKaryn]

19. Because I'm trying to improve the existing situation

The govt is also a racist institution that has oppressed millions of people over the last 200 years. By your standards I can never take any action to improve the govt because doing so would be support of their racism.

[DoNotRefill]

53. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

"The govt is also a racist institution that has oppressed millions of people over the last 200 years. By your standards I can never take any action to improve the govt because doing so would be support of their racism."

Oh, MAN!!! That's TOO FREAKING FUNNY!!! "The Government is a racist institution that has oppressed millions of people over the last 200 years." SO LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WITH GUNS!!!!!!!!

Yeah!!! That'll help!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!

Don't you see the absurdity of those two concepts in the same mind?

[Romulus]

20. hey, umm, uh

She seems to have gone along with the CCW part. That's a good thing that I hoped would happen. I think my suggestions are a good compromise to get each sides' core issues addressed.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

22. 'Compromise'

Is not acceptable.

I hope no one would accept a 'compromise' in regards to speach, or religion, or voting.

[Liberal Classic]

37. Well, a bit of devil's advocate here

We already compromise on voting. Though our system is called universal sufferage it is not truly universal. For example, we still discriminate on the basis of age and criminal record.

[CarinKaryn]

29. I don;t support CCW

Smart guns and trigger locks will do more to end crime than everyone packing heat so that is where I will put my efforts.

[1a2b3c]

31. Do you agree with people being able to hire armed security guards?

Or armed bodyguards?

[CarinKaryn]

57. Of course not.

So don't even try to call me some kind of elitist.

Passive defenses are the best. As all the gun nuts say, "situational awareness." If you get to the point where you have to defend yourself with a gun you have done something seriously wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

58. Yup...that's why cops rely on passive defenses...

heh...

[CarinKaryn]

59. Oh pleeze.

The question was about security guards. Have someone explain to you what we are discussing before you post any random thought that enters your mind.

[Withergyld]

24. We compromised with the AWB, now it is your turn to compromise...

and quit restricting my right to keep and bear arms
:hi:

[Hammie]

15. Ummm, no.

None of these with the possible exception of the federal concealed carry permit, will solve any actual problems.

Accidental firearms injuries have been declining for decades. There is no reason for any of the safety nonsense. As it stands now, firearms makers compete partially on their safety innovations. The market has rewarded the good ideas with sales. A customer now has the ability to choose the right balance of safety and utility for his intended application. Target guns that are only loaded and used at a firing range can have 1# trigger pulls with out causing any hazard, whereas a carry gun with that same trigger would be dangerous. Mandating a govt. solution will mean the kind of innovation that competition provide (including the elimination of features that prove to be of little benefit) would be lost.

Conditioning federal grant money on a state passing particular laws is a chicken shit dodge around the letter and spirit of the constitution. State laws are supposed to be the exclusive province of the individual states, to the extent that they don't conflict with the federal powers, nor the rights of individuals.

Registration is worthless for solving crimes. It only serves to compile a list of law abiding owners. You also postulate some type of magical list that would enable the punishing of any gun owner who doesn't report his gun stolen, but yet couldn't possibly be used to organize a confiscation. I call bravo sierra on this.

Waiting periods have been shown to be of no use in the prevention of violent crime. The only reduction was in the suicide by firearms of one demographic (I believe it was senior citizens). There is no evidence that the actual suicide rate of this segment declined, just those related to firearms. This lack of response could, possibly, be related to the fact that violent criminals are criminals, a criminal being someone who habitually breaks laws.

[Romulus]

26. "market failure"

As it stands now, firearms makers compete partially on their safety innovations. The market has rewarded the good ideas with sales. A customer now has the ability to choose the right balance of safety and utility for his intended application.

I wanted a Sig with all these suggested features because I like exposed hammer firearms over the striker-fired types. I couldn't find on because Sig doesn't make them. My only choice was a Taurus.:(

Good point about the "intended uses" thing. After hearing Dems, I am going to re-work this so that only initial retail handguns above .22lr have the 9lb DA/DAO pull. Owners can adjust that however they want.

Conditioning federal grant money on a state passing particular laws is a chicken shit dodge around the letter and spirit of the constitution.

Federal grant money strings are how things get done. Yeah, it's not clean as the driven snow, but it works. You could also do the interstate commerce thing on all firearms in IS commerce. Either way, it's the same result.

Registration is worthless for solving crimes. It only serves to compile a list of law abiding owners. You also postulate some type of magical list that would enable the punishing of any gun owner who doesn't report his gun stolen, but yet couldn't possibly be used to organize a confiscation. I call bravo sierra on this.

Handgun sale registration could help cut down on the straw-purchases and gun-running of handguns that is fueling the anti-gun-owner hysteria. It is possible to organize confiscation of handguns with this list, but according to Dave Kopel (no friend to the gun-grabbers), that would still be legal under the 2d Amendment's "reasonable restrictions." Plus, only handguns recently transferred would be recorded; NOT your pre-existing handgun, or your Saiga, Bushmaster, Rem700, Moss590, etc.

Waiting periods have been shown to be of no use in the prevention of violent crime. The only reduction was in the suicide by firearms of one demographic (I believe it was senior citizens). There is no evidence that the actual suicide rate of this segment declined, just those related to firearms. This lack of response could, possibly, be related to the fact that violent criminals are criminals, a criminal being someone who habitually breaks laws.

Waiting periods are to cut down on snap-suicides and snap rage killings, like that guy recently did in Indiana(?) an hour after walking out of the gun store. Handguns are the #1 crime and suicide firearm for a reason - they're easy to use by someone who knows dick about guns. The waiting period will also hassle straw purchasers.

[1a2b3c]

28. This is the best thread starter ive read in months.

My reply:

Hunting is not important enough to be a "core reason" for firearms ownership. I think food is as important as defense, esp. if your life depends on it.


Instead of posturing about "assault weapons," concrete things should be suggested to ensure firearms safety above the current federal laws (minus the "AWB"): This whole sentence goes along with this statement; Yes, illegally owned firearms are used to cause much misery in the U.S. But the answer is not to impose further restrictions on the legally owned firearms when those restrictions do not address how and why illegally owned firearms are misused.

Your first suggestion was right on.


Although i dont agree with waiting periods i would agree with them because of what you said in the last sentence; If you need a gun NOW, and you don't have one, well that's piss poor planning on your part, now isn't it? That statement is so true.

I can agree with the registry statewide although i still fear a registry thanks to California.

I had a Taurus with an integrated safety lock. It was alright but i got rid of it when i was low on cash. If you dont want it locked, dont lock it. It seemed to add weight though. I still think this should be an optional safety. I wouldnt want to buy a new 1911 colt and have to deal with an extra lock when feild stripping. 9lb minimum DA or DA/SA trigger pull could be added to this list to cut down on negligent discharges or weak little kids shooting themselves. This idea isnt bad but i would have to spend even more money getting a new trigger. I say leave this one up to the manufacture.

All in all not a bad plan. I cant wait to read what Benchley thought of it. :-)

[Romulus]

30. thanks!

I thought more about the hunting thing on the subway home, and agree with your point. I'll fine tune that one in the final letter.

I'll have to update you guys on the response I get. I wrote Sarbanes asking him to support the DC Personal Protection Act, and he sent me back a form letter about his support of the Brady Bill and the AWB. :crazy: :shrug:

[RoeBear]

32. Fat Chance!

" I cant wait to read what Benchley thought of it."

[Lefty48197]

34. I thought gun control meant using two hands

silly me

[highlonesome]

36. I may be crazy, but....

I have to agree with Chris Rock, and I'm really NOT kidding about this. What really should be controlled more stringently is the AMMUNITION. Here are my reasons:

1. It is the cheapness and availability of ammunition that causes such great damage when guns are used. I mean, you can shoot ten people for only about $5! I'm not joking here. Criminals will shoot more discriminately if bullets are not so available.

2. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but I don't think it says anything about ammunition. This grants much more free reign for regulation. The way I see it, ammo could be regulated like dynamite or hazardous materials with special licensing and accountability for each unit.

[slackmaster]

38. A few problems with that idea

You're talking about controlling billions of small objects produced and consumed per year in the US alone. That's a lot of paperwork, i.e. expense; money that might bring better benefit to the public if spent on something more useful like education.

Also unintended consequences - If you raise the price of commercial ammunition more people will start loading their own. It's not difficult at all. Bullets can be simply cast from lead, and even the propellant and primers can be improvised.

Ammunition taxes are proposed at the federal level and in many states every year. And they are soundly defeated every time.

BTW welcome to DU.

[highlonesome]

39. but...

The price of the regulation is rolled into the cost of the ammo and passed on to the consumer. This makes the cost per unit from 49 cents to say $5. It also slows the flow of ammo and according to supply and demand, this will increase cost as well. Also, when retail value goes up so does net taxation -- 8% of $5 is much more that 8% of 49 cents.

If it costs more they shoot less. This won't hurt legal owners much though, since they only need say a magazine to protect their homes.

As far as loading your own....well.....sure you can do that. But if propellants and primers are regulated like explosives and fireworks or hazardous chemicals it's not as easy to do anymore. And as far as criminals improvising their own -- my personal belief is that if they were smart enough to do that they wouldn't have turned to crime. Criminals are usually people who lack a robust capacity to plan for the future. At least the small timers.

[highlonesome]

40. one more thing....

You could also just plain ban reloading and regulate the amount of ammo in the market similar to the way currency is regulated. If there's been a lot of gun crime, restrict the availability of ammo which in turns raises demand which in turn raises cost which in turn lowers the gross amount of firings.

[DoNotRefill]

55. Yuppers...

just like regulating the hell out of marijuana has made it harder to get...

Prohibition NEVER works.

[Romulus]

42. sorry, no can do

The price of the regulation is rolled into the cost of the ammo and passed on to the consumer. This makes the cost per unit from 49 cents to say $5. It also slows the flow of ammo and according to supply and demand, this will increase cost as well. Also, when retail value goes up so does net taxation -- 8% of $5 is much more that 8% of 49 cents.

That is not attractive for my proposal for several reasons:

This won't hurt legal owners much though, since they only need say a magazine to protect their homes.

1) I disagree. The ammo cost goes up = practicing costs go up. Increase costs = less practice = more crappy shooters. A net decrease in public safety. You keep a magazine of ~$1/round hollow-points at home, while using $.20/round practice ammo at the range. For example, I (usually) go to the range at least twice a month and fire 150 rounds each time. That's just to maintain my level of proficiency.

2) I don't believe in "sin taxes," because government should not tax something just for the sake of restricting its attractiveness. Plus, legally owning a firearm is not a "sin."

3) Banning/heavily regulating reloading will piss off a good 100% of competitive shooters and ~50% of hunters - you know, the "sportsmen" that gun banners keep trying to persuade aren't targets of their bans? Say goodbye to any gun-control candidate after that when the other 76 million non-NRA firearms owners get up and vote en masse. Result = less Dems in office.

4) Would the tax apply to law enforcement purchasers? Even if it those purchases weren't directly taxed, the overall regulatory cost creep would affect them, too, by raising the costs for LEO's to practice over what they are now. The result is either less LEO practice (decreasing public safety) or an increase in costs to the agency, which may mean either higher overall taxes on the public or a reshuffling of LE resources.

But I thank you for your suggestions. :hi:

[highlonesome]

43. I see your point

...but to my mind the most effective weapons for home defense are not handguns.

1. A real good dog. It's a deterrent from the get go.

2. 12 guage shotgun. Just point it in the general direction!

[Withergyld]

46. The pattern from a shotgun at typical distances in a house

is very small. Most likely less then 6". If you don't aim you will miss.

[highlonesome]

47. true

It was somewhat of a joke, but still I think a shotgun is probably the most effective means of home defense.

I hope you understand that I'm not by any means a proponent of excessive gun control. Personally, I think they should be primaril treated as any other dangerous material or equipment.

I've only gone shooting on a handfull of occasions -- all with my brother or brother in law. I think people who don't shoot would be very surprised at the amount of power of a basic hunting rifle. You can just feel the air around you compress when it's fired. It amazes me that anyone can survive being shot.

[DoNotRefill]

56. the most effective means of home defense...

is whatever loaded firearm you can lay your hands on when you need it.

[DoNotRefill]

54. Yup...

just like the cost of gun registration in Canada was passed on to the consumer...remember?

Oh, BTW, if you're willing to price people out of the market to exercise their Second Amendment rights, are you willing to do the same for other rights, like voting? Why not bring back the Poll Tax to weed out the non-serious voters? That's a ridiculous idea, isn't it? So how are the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms different from each other?

[jody]

41. I oppose registration of firearms because of the real threat that a rogue

government will use such data and an executive order to attempt to confiscate firearms.

Those who claim to be for gun-control and against gun-bans would probably sit on the sidelines while a rogue government used gun registration data to confiscate firearms.

Granted the attempt to confiscate would be violently opposed in some areas, but the attempt to confiscate should make registration of firearms anathema to the pro-RKBA community.

[jhfenton]

51. I agree completely, jody.

Gun registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation, so I will not accept it, ever. If a state where I live passes a registration requirement I will move. If the federal government passes a registration requirement, I'm not sure what I'll do. I'll probably do what many Canadians have done and ignore the law. Who is to say how many guns I have.

No gun that I own -- assuming that I own any ;) -- is registered, and no gun that I own will ever be registered. No one in the world except me knows how many guns that I own -- assuming that I own any. I have purchased firearms both from dealers and in private party transactions. Of those I bought from dealers, who is to say which of those guns I still have? There is no record anywhere of the private party transactions.

Also, the proposed requirement for a magazine disconnect is unacceptable for a self-defense firearm. In a defensive situation, that would render a firearm useless during a magazine change. That goes against all the current tactical training. The whole point of a "tactical reload" is to reload during a "lull in the action" before your firearm "runs dry." Try selling such a gun to the police. I would certainly never buy a self-defense firearm with such a feature. It might be a desirable feature in a target pistol, such as the Ruger Mark II .22LR pistol that I might or might not own.

[thetoolshed]

48. Nice try...

Nice try, but I think it goes way too far. You can't compromise much on this issue, IMO..

[Romulus]

49. thanks

I appreciate your considerate comment. I know many of these ideas would be a tough sell for some people, but I think these ideas will be the least restrictive way of addressing the genuine concerns of people who think they have no choice but to support the gun-banning and anti-gun-owner crowds if they want those concerns addressed.

I came up with this idea because I fear that the tidal wave of public opinion is gaining against all firearms owners, as evidenced by what I see in various internet boards, press releases & related news articles, editorial pages, letters to the editor, and conversations with people. Too many "penis size," "neo-Nazis," and "killing Bambi" comments, with not enough countervailing arguments being made. Too many elected officials calling for outright gun bans, in a path evidently sure to lead to DC-style gun control. I figure we gun owners can either surf this tidal wave and still come out OK, or get trashed when it breaks.

Maybe it won't make a difference, but I have to do something; sending a letter may help, or maybe won't do squat. But too many people don't bother taking that first step of contacting their elected officials. If the gun grabbers can do it, so can I.