Gun Proponents: What's Your End Game?

[DanBlather]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?
Would people carry guns openly or concealed?
Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?
Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?
Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?

And please, gun control proponents lets not turn this into a debate on guns. We've had plenty of those.

[Todderbob]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?We shall explore this interesting society!

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?As many as wanted to, and were safe in doing so.
Would people carry guns openly or concealed?That would be their option. A Carry permit would permit either.
Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?Courthouses: unsure. Possibly.
Schools: No - I would encourage teachers (who are entrusted with protecting their pupils) to carry weapons.
Bars: Permits would have an Alcoholic Consumption clause. If you drink - any - you don't carry.
Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?Violent Criminals, no matter the severity of the crime. Certain, less serious, violent crimes would be treated with more leniency. A felony conviction, in itself, would not bar you from owning a firearm - plenty of people get felony convictions for embezzlement or insider trading and show no propensity towards violence.
Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?No, no and no.



My world would be relatively simple: You have a right to own a firearm in much the same way you have the right to own an automobile. You do not, however, have a right to expose others to your automobile without first being properly licensed; you do not have a right to carry your weapon in public without first being properly licensed.

Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue, and in my world, Carry Licenses are Shall Issue. Basic tests are still required, proficiency and prudence, of course.

I don't believe it's necessary, or prudent, to license each firearm individually. Nor do I think it's necessary or prudent to register them / take ballistic imprints of them (for practicality and expense).

[Mosier]

I think an important question missing in the original post is "what, if any, licensing requirements would you like to see for a person to carry a firearm?" Todderbob was kind enough to answer it without being asked, but I'm curious to see how others answer it.

[Todderbob]

Todderbob was kind enough to answer it without being asked, but I'm curious to see how others answer it.Two things I'm almost always happy to talk about; Firearms, and my opinions. :p

[Cyberhwk]

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis? Whomever qualified and wanted to. Permits would be "Shall Issue."
Would people carry guns openly or concealed? Concealed Only
Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars? Yes
Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children? Yes
Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones? None (You'd even be allowed "the thing that goes up" :D )

[E-Sabbath]

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?

Don't actually care. More interested in the fact that people would be able to carry guns from place A to place B without harassment.

Would people carry guns openly or concealed?

I wouldn't mind both options. If only because of the fact that sometimes things get a bit hinky about open carry and, say, wearing a coat that may or may not cover said gun.

Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?

Probably a really good idea. Note that having one in the trunk of your car in said location, not restricted.

Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?

Children is iffy. Owning, yes, strictly speaking, the parent would own the gun, but I see no reason someone as young as 8 couldn't go hunting.

Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?

No, don't see why, offhand. Heck, I'd join a private militia if I could. It'd be good exercise. And patriotic. Without having to worry about Uncle Sugar activating me.

[Mangetout]

(You'd even be allowed "the thing that goes up" :D )

Where is that expression from? It sounds like Seuss...

[Odesio]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?


Personally I don't think society would be radically changed from what it is now. Yes, I'm a proponent of the people's right to bear arms, but I don't see firearms as a cure all for societies crime problems. Having more liberal gun laws isn't going to make bad neighborhoods safe. At least not alone. So I'll go out on a limb and say that there won't be any big changes to society if gun laws were more to my liking.

Though I have to say that for the most part gun laws are to my liking. At least they were in Arkansas and Texas.

Odesio

[Bricker]

This seems like a poll, especially in view of the fact that the OP has specifically asked for no debate on some of the core items here.

[kidchameleon]

How would you even disguise a decent gun as a cell phone these days?

[E-Sabbath]

Where is that expression from? It sounds like Seuss...

Actually, it's a quote from a congresscritter, attempting to explain what a... I think Barrel Shroud is, while actually describing... uhm. A collapsible stock, maybe?

You can't disguise a decent gun as a cell phone, but maybe a .22 or .177 could be crammed in.

[Mr. Moto]

I don't want to broaden the debate - but I will observe that the phrase "end game" is far more closely associated with those that oppose firearms than those that favor them.

I don't oppose reasonable restrictions on firearms use - barring them from courthouses and their possession from felons and the mentally ill. I think children should use them only under close supervision. Regarding schools I think the current system is too strict - in my youth schools still had shooting clubs and teams on site. I see no reason why this should be banned everywhere, but I'd let individual communities decide this.

I would force no law abiding citizen to own a gun, but for those that wished to do so, there should be few restrictions on this right.

[Enderw24]

We shall explore this interesting society!
Bars: Permits would have an Alcoholic Consumption clause. If you drink - any - you don't carry.
This sounds emminently reasonable. Alcohol and guns don't mix.
But in that world, knowing that you were free to carry guns everywhere EXCEPT in a bar, wouldn't it make criminals, who don't care about the law to begin with, more likely to carry there? Wouldn't it mean that if there was a barfight and one side had an illegal gun and the other was unarmed, the one with the gun was at a distinct advantage? The criminal knows this. Wouldn't it make sense to carry a gun yourself so as to remain on par with the criminal?

[Mr. Moto]

This sounds emminently reasonable. Alcohol and guns don't mix.
But in that world, knowing that you were free to carry guns everywhere EXCEPT in a bar, wouldn't it make criminals, who don't care about the law to begin with, more likely to carry there? Wouldn't it mean that if there was a barfight and one side had an illegal gun and the other was unarmed, the one with the gun was at a distinct advantage? The criminal knows this. Wouldn't it make sense to carry a gun yourself so as to remain on par with the criminal?

That's at least two Lynyrd Skynyrd songs right there.

[XT]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?

It would look much like it looks today (though hopefully more economically prosperous). There would be less stupid and knee jerk regulation of firearms and more thoughtful and worthwhile regulation. The left wingers would finally have given up on this crusade to save us from the evils of guns (and perhaps gone on to save us from the evils of meat or something else) and would no longer be looking for every chance or sneaky ploy to chip away at gun owners rights with the ultimate goal of banning everything they can.

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?

Everyone. It would be mandatory for every citizen, especially those who are pre-disposed to fear and hate guns, to carry one on their person at all times. In fact....perhaps they would have to carry two.

Would people carry guns openly or concealed?

As a compromise the would carry semi-concealed. But since everyone would, by law, have to carry a gun, it wouldn't really matter so much anymore.

Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?

They would carry them everywhere...courthouses, schools, bars, sporting events, tea parties, to the bathroom. There would be a clause in the law that would require them to be worn to bed and during sex as well.

It would make Presidential speeches much more exciting events in the future, to say the least. Too bad Bush won't be president when this happy day arrives.

Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?

As a concession to the left, mentally ill children who are felons would only be required to carry a single small caliber gun, and they would be exempt from carrying it during shock treatments or while wearing straight jackets.

No one can accuse us gun proponents of not being willing to bend over backwards to work with the other side.

Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?

I think that the guns would be restricted to whatever the citizen can handle (except in the above case of a restriction on mentally ill children who are felons). A 100 year old granny will probably not be able to handle a mini-gun, for instance, and must limit her two guns to much smaller calibers. As yet a further concession to the left I would have no problem keeping nukes out of the hands of private citizens as well.

And please, gun control proponents lets not turn this into a debate on guns. We've had plenty of those.

You probably put this in the wrong forum then.

-XT

[BarnOwl]

I haven't read every post, but I did read the one in which Todderbob felt it was OK for certain teachers to carry.

How easy it would be for high school (even juniot high school) thugs to disarm
a teacher and do what they want with the weapon.

And at least one of you thinks carrying in court houses is fine and dandy. This is a swell idea, so long as you're not the judge, or in any way associated with the proceedings, who would/could be targets in the mind of the pistol packing person.

Then again, you could be an innocent bystander in that courthouse who ends up taking a shot to the heart from a disgruntled gun toter, who, exercising his constitutional right to bear arms, first packed, then pulled out his weapon and began firing it about.

[E-Sabbath]

There's a good point. The term 'end game' really has no meaning here. There's nothing to be working towards. Stuff to be working against, like further restrictions on a Constitutional right for insufficient reasons, for example.

It's not that I'm against gun control. I'm certainly against _symbolic_ gun control, like the AWB, and I'm against gun control that isn't enforced, and I'm against gun control that is a grevious restriction on a constitutional right.
Enforcing and eliminating loopholes on one law would have made it much harder for the VT shooter to get his guns, for example. The laws were in place, just not functional.

I can live just fine with how things are right now, more or less. I wouldn't mind if the severe restrictions in NY were scaled back a bit. (NY, not NYC), and I wouldn't mind having a full-auto gun, either. Don't need it, but, you know, every life needs awesome.

I'd probably use it for nothing more than shooting old computer equipment that really, really ticked me off before I decommissioned it, mind you.

... I wonder if I can write off ammo as a business expense if I use it to wipe hard drives with. We _are_ mandated to protect client data.

[DrCube]

How easy it would be for high school (even juniot high school) thugs to disarm
a teacher and do what they want with the weapon.How is this any different from anyone carrying a gun? Why is it more likely to happen to a teacher than anyone else?

And at least one of you thinks carrying in court houses is fine and dandy. This is a swell idea, so long as you're not the judge, or in any way associated with the proceedings, who would/could be targets in the mind of the pistol packing person.

Then again, you could be an innocent bystander in that courthouse who ends up taking a shot to the heart from a disgruntled gun toter, who, exercising his constitutional right to bear arms, first packed, then pulled out his weapon and began firing it about.

Again, why is this scenario more likely (or more terrible) in a courthouse than anywhere else?

[5-HT]

And at least one of you thinks carrying in court houses is fine and dandy. This is a swell idea, so long as you're not the judge, or in any way associated with the proceedings, who would/could be targets in the mind of the pistol packing person.



you mean the same person that also said in the same paragraph that guns should be carried by everyone even whilst having sex? Are you sure they were being serious about that?


It sort of seems like your just taking the most extreme example, and one that in this case may very well have been sarcasm, and arguing against that as if it were the majority opinion.

I'll give you points for adding a nice layer of subtlety to your strawmanning, but it doesn't make it any more valid.

[yoyodyne]

Where is that expression from? It sounds like Seuss...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[DrCube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Hijack!

Man, those Youtube comments are hilarious! Like these choice words of wisdom, from a poster called RetardedAdult: "the first time i saw this vid i pissed my pants laughing. what a dumb old bitch! just ban everything, right? how about we ban your ugly baggy face?"

Reading the comments on ANY Youtube video should make everyone mighty appreciative of the civilized discourse we enjoy on this message board.

End Hijack!

[DanBlather]

Very interesting posts so far. I am surprised that there is no desire to prohibit ownership of fully automatic weapons.

[Icarus]

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?
*Unrestricted, as many as want to.

Would people carry guns openly or concealed?
*Either is OK.

Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?
*Yes, this is the flipside of the unrestricted carry principle. I would allow any business owner or government office to set rules on or prohibit entry to armed individuals.

Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?
*I would separate owning from carrying. I would probably restrict small children carrying. However, felons and the mentally ill have just as much right to protect themselves in normal situations as the un-convicted and sane. Also, I am unconvinced of the authorities ability to define mentally ill sufficiently and to decide which felonies qualify and which don't.


Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?
*No

For me the "end-game" is that guns become a non-issue, that their mystique and magical power would be eliminated. This would be achieved through ubiquity. I am not denying that they could indeed cause great bodily harm and death, so can an automobile.

[BarnOwl]

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?
*Unrestricted, as many as want to.

Would people carry guns openly or concealed?
*Either is OK.

Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?
*Yes, this is the flipside of the unrestricted carry principle. I would allow any business owner or government office to set rules on or prohibit entry to armed individuals.

Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?
*I would separate owning from carrying. I would probably restrict small children carrying. However, felons and the mentally ill have just as much right to protect themselves in normal situations as the un-convicted and sane. Also, I am unconvinced of the authorities ability to define mentally ill sufficiently and to decide which felonies qualify and which don't.


Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?
*No

For me the "end-game" is that guns become a non-issue, that their mystique and magical power would be eliminated. This would be achieved through ubiquity. I am not denying that they could indeed cause great bodily harm and death, so can an automobile.

And you wonder why some people laugh at you gun nuts, others maybe even fear for your sanity.

I find no point in discussing the matter further. You're out of touch with reality.

[toadspittle]

Can we explore which buildings/grounds would be permitted to ban firearms?

Private Homes: I think pretty much 100% that you can tell a visitor that they can't bring in a gun.

Businesses: Ditto. But as a practical matter, in a heavily gun-toting society, business owners might want to have gun checks at the entrance so that people carrying on the street (but without, say, a car in which to store the gun ... some of us DO still walk places ...) won't be discouraged from patronizing your business. Of course, this immediately "outs" anyone practicing concealed carry. [Side question: What's the rule on concealed carry now? Do restaurants and stores have to post signs that say, "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" in order to restrict CCW permit holders? Are they NOT allowed to restrict permitted concealed weapons?]

Churches, nonprofits: Same as other businesses.

Hospitals, Malls, Public Stadiums, Universities: We're getting into quasi-public facilities now. Can you ban guns from university buildings? What about the whole campus? Only private colleges, maybe? Stadium security already frisks people. Does that continue? What about Malls: different policies for stores vs. main Mall hallways? What about parking garages for any of these facilities? Can you leave your gun in the trunk without harassment, or is even bringing it onto the property in your car (say, a garage at a college campus) bannable?

Courthouses, Police Stations: I think we can safely ban things here.

DMV, unemployment office, other government service-facilities: ??? Not sure about this one. Govt. bldgs. that serve public patrons, but the employees are less targeted than judicial/law enforcement personnel and those under their care.

Post office: Jokes about angry postal workers aside, seems that there's a definite theft risk here, and banning would be acceptable.

Non-public govt. offices (IRS, etc.): For places where the public is not served (i.e., it's just an office building, but the employees happen to be working for the govt.), seems no particular need to uphold a ban.

Public Transportation: This is a real fuzzy area. The subway and public buses seem a prime place to NEED a concealed weapon. What about Amtrak? (Quasi-public) What about Greyhound? (Private business) I think airlines are clearly private and ban-worthy. Taxi cabs? Does it matter if these are totally private companies (like here in Portland) or are tightly regulated by the city (like in NYC)?

[Icarus]

And you wonder why some people laugh at you gun nuts, others maybe even fear for your sanity.

I find no point in discussing the matter further. You're out of touch with reality.

The OP asked a series of questions, which I answered to the original poster. You are definitely welcome to leave the thread.

[JXJohns]

Very interesting posts so far. I am surprised that there is no desire to prohibit ownership of fully automatic weapons.

Which speaks volumes of your own prejudices, no offense intended. In your OP, you addressed gun proponents, most of whom realize that a full auto rifle is no more or less dangerous than its semi-auto cousin. I don't understand why you would be surprised that no one has yet to agree with that position.

My endgame in fact would the the removal of the 1986 MG ban, and the removal of the individual states rights to restrict full auto and other "class three" firearms from private ownership.

[JXJohns]

I would also scrap most/all of 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA as well. Keep the 4473 forms, and allow restrictions upon cannons, RPGs, and hand grenades, and such, but remove the tax stamps required for each cannon round and other such nonsense.

[Todderbob]

This sounds emminently reasonable. Alcohol and guns don't mix.
But in that world, knowing that you were free to carry guns everywhere EXCEPT in a bar, wouldn't it make criminals, who don't care about the law to begin with, more likely to carry there? Wouldn't it mean that if there was a barfight and one side had an illegal gun and the other was unarmed, the one with the gun was at a distinct advantage? The criminal knows this. Wouldn't it make sense to carry a gun yourself so as to remain on par with the criminal?You can carry a gun in a bar, or to a BBQ at your neighbors house.

But if you drink a beer, you need to put the gun away.

[Todderbob]

[Side question: What's the rule on concealed carry now? Do restaurants and stores have to post signs that say, "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" in order to restrict CCW permit holders? Are they NOT allowed to restrict permitted concealed weapons?]It varies from state to state. I like the way Texas has it.

A business needs to post, clearly at every entrance, "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" in contrasting colors (I believe it also has to do be a certain height), anything other than contrasting colors, or the approved signage acts as a sort legal doublespeak. Or, a member of the faculty can ask you to put your gun in your car, and you're required to do so.

[Todderbob]

I haven't read every post, but I did read the one in which Todderbob felt it was OK for certain teachers to carry.

How easy it would be for high school (even juniot high school) thugs to disarm
a teacher and do what they want with the weapon.
IIRC, there are rifles in the front of every classroom in Israel, and I don't recall there ever being an incident there.

And at least one of you thinks carrying in court houses is fine and dandy. This is a swell idea, so long as you're not the judge, or in any way associated with the proceedings, who would/could be targets in the mind of the pistol packing person.

Then again, you could be an innocent bystander in that courthouse who ends up taking a shot to the heart from a disgruntled gun toter, who, exercising his constitutional right to bear arms, first packed, then pulled out his weapon and began firing it about.Then again, perhaps he pulls out his pistol to shoot someone, and because it's legal, and not smuggled, the criminal isn't the only one with a firearm, he's shot before he has a chance to shoot anyone, or after he gets a single shot off.


Keep in mind, criminals tend not to pay attention to firearm laws, therefore, firearm restrictive laws are typically ineffective. You remember Virginia Tech? How that was a Gun Free Zone? Didn't stop the shooting, did it?

Very interesting posts so far. I am surprised that there is no desire to prohibit ownership of fully automatic weapons.Legal Fully Automatic firearms haven't been used in the commission of a crime in... well, a very long time, if I recall correctly.

As best I could find, only two murders have been committed with fully automatic firearms, one of them by a police officer with a police .380 Mac10 to a police informant, the other was a tragic case of negligence (http://www.newser.com/archive-us-news/1P2-19380167/full-auto-senseless-gun-death.html).

Fully Automatic weapons are not more dangerous than semiautomatic weapons rifles, in my experience, they're far less dangerous, because they're far more difficult to control.


I would expand on my OP and state that the only way one could be barred the right to carry or own a firearm (two separate things) would be through Judicial order. In the case of mental competency, a mental healthcare professional would consult a judge, who would then tell him to get 3 or 4 other opinions, and review them. This would likely bar the person from owning a gun at all. In the case of someone who is simply unable to carry safely (multiple infractions), it would bar them the right to carry a gun. If they continued to carry a gun, they would be barred the right to own a gun.

[tomndebb]

And you wonder why some people laugh at you gun nuts, others maybe even fear for your sanity.

I find no point in discussing the matter further. You're out of touch with reality.I concur with your decicsion to step back from this discussion since you appear unable to participate without being personally insulting.

[ /Modding ]

[tomndebb]

ENOUGH!!

We just went through one vitriol-laced thread on gun ownership.
We will not repeat that hostility here.

Any slurs directed toward those, (in or out of this thread), who are proponents or opponents of gun use or possession (e.g., "gun nuts," "Bambi lovers)", will receive Warnings.

Do Not talk about the personalites or the mindests of your opponents. Stick to a discussion of the issues or go play in the BBQ Pit.


[ /Moderating ]

[XT]

I always rather liked Bambi...

-XT

[Blaster Master]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?

I agree with the general notion in the thread that there's no ideal percentage, just that as many as wanted to could.

Would people carry guns openly or concealed?

However they chose. In Virginia, no permit is required to open carry, but one is required for concealed carry. Ideally, I'd have no additional restrictions for concealed carry.

Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?

I wouldn't place any restrictions on where guns could be carried. I would say businesses would have a right to restrict guns in their store, if they so chose, but that would be about it.

I would especially be fond of seeing citizens carrying guns in schools because some of the most tragic occurences of gun violence have been in schools (think Columbine and VT) where the gunmen knew they'd have no resistance; I believe an armed teacher or student in those cases probably could have saved lives or, had the gunmen known there'd likely be resistance, possibly even prevented them altogether.

As far as bars, no problem. I wouldn't resist any attempts to make carrying illegal while drinking similar to DUI, but I'm not really sure how necessary it would be either.

Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?

Felons, I think they should be restricted. Part of the punishment of crimes is a loss of rights, like voting, so anyone convicted of a violent crime should likely have that right revoked as well.

Mentally ill is a little iffy. Perhaps in some cases where someone has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness that could make them dangerous, but I honestly don't know enough about what diseases may make someone sufficiently dangerous to warrant removing that right. So I'd say, generally, no restriction, but I'd leave room for consideration when making a law if there's any mental illnesses that may require it. Then again, chances are anyone that is that nuts is probably commited anyway and not a problem.

Can children even legally own anything? I'd have no problem with a child carrying a weapon under adult supervision for training, hunting, or target practice, but I'm fine with setting a limit on when they can own or carry without adult supervision, say 18 to own, and 16 to carry or something like that.

Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?

No. I think the need for covert weapons like cell phones would pretty much disappear since you wouldn't have a need to pretend you wouldn't have a gun. I don't really see a reason in limiting automatic or larger caliber either since you can kill someone just about as easily with a semi-automatic and smaller caliber. I do believe there's probably an upper limit on what constitutes arms, I'd probably say anything that can be classified as small arms should be completely unrestricted. For light weapons and higher, I'd still prefer to err on the side of individual rights since demand for and availability of light weapons would be extraordinarily low anyway (do to expense and a complete lack of usefulness for anything 99.9% of people outside the military would run into in their lifetime), but I'd be fine with requiring licensing and restrictions on these weapons.

[kaylasdad99]

You're kidding, right?What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?Everyone. It would be mandatory for every citizen, especially those who are pre-disposed to fear and hate guns, to carry one on their person at all times. In fact....perhaps they would have to carry two.They'll force ME to carry a gun when they place it in my COLD, DEAD FINGERS.

[XT]

No, not kidding at all. They will staple the gun to your forehead if you won't carry it...

-XT

[DanBlather]

Which speaks volumes of your own prejudices, no offense intended. In your OP, you addressed gun proponents, most of whom realize that a full auto rifle is no more or less dangerous than its semi-auto cousin. I don't understand why you would be surprised that no one has yet to agree with that position.I'm asking this to be informed, not in an argumentative way. If fully automatic weapons are not more dangerous (i.e., effective in killing) then why are they used in the military?

Also, is there any concern that large caliber weapons would be useful for sniping, but otherwise not effective for personal defense?

Thanks to posters for keeping this discussion on track (for the most part).

[begbert2]

No, not kidding at all. They will staple the gun to your forehead if you won't carry it...

-XTActually, I'm still not convinced you're serious in any way about this.

But in case you are, I am a weak, fearful, anger-prone man who specifically doesn't touch guns because if I did, if I owned or carried a gun, sooner or later I'd probably kill someone with it with no cause or justification at all. And you would force me to carry one?

[XT]

I'm asking this to be informed, not in an argumentative way. If fully automatic weapons are not more dangerous (i.e., effective in killing) then why are they used in the military?

Because in the military small arms are used more for suppression (too allow maneuver) than to directly kill someone. It generally takes hundreds (or thousands in earlier wars) of bullets to actually kill someone.

The big killers on the battle field are artillery and various types of bombs.

Also, is there any concern that large caliber weapons would be useful for sniping, but otherwise not effective for personal defense?

Large caliber weapons are very effective for personal defense. That doesn't necessarily mean they should all be available to everyone, but their very lethality makes them, by definition, effective for personal defense.

-XT

[XT]

Actually, I'm still not convinced you're serious in any way about this.

Well, you are too keen an observer for me...I wasn't serious, no.

But in case you are, I am a weak, fearful, anger-prone man who specifically doesn't touch guns because if I did, if I owned or carried a gun, sooner or later I'd probably kill someone with it with no cause or justification at all. And you would force me to carry one?

It would be hard for you to kill someone with the gun stapled to your forehead...so, that is going to limit it's lethality by some non-zero degree. I think society will cope...

-XT

[Todderbob]

I'm asking this to be informed, not in an argumentative way. If fully automatic weapons are not more dangerous (i.e., effective in killing) then why are they used in the military?Because (IIRC) studies have shown that when the .223 was adopted, 10% of people in a battle fired their weapon, and 10% of those actually aimed their weapon. In armed conflicts, it's more important for your group to put more lead down range as quickly as possible for cover than it is to actually hit a target - Cover fire.

However, when you actually want to hit the target, you toggle the gun to Single Shot. Military rifles typically have 3 settings - Safe / Single Shot / (Full Auto or 3Shot burst)

Also, is there any concern that large caliber weapons would be useful for sniping, but otherwise not effective for personal defense?No, why would you have that concern? They're not used in this manner, now.

In fact, a .223 rifle is not, by any means, a large caliber. The projectile is as small as you can effectively make a projectile and still effective out to 550 yards.

What you would ban because it's for snipping, others would use for hunting. Banning them is ineffective and unreasonable.

Thanks to posters for keeping this discussion on track (for the most part).Not a problem. ;)

[kaylasdad99]

No, not kidding at all. They will staple the gun to your forehead if you won't carry it...

-XTOuch. My poor cold, dead forehead.

At this point, we're talking about an entirely different United States of America from the one I'm used to discussing. They going to force me to own a printing press, too? How about a home that I can keep soldiers from sleeping in?

The second Amendment permits me the right to arm myself; it feels strange that anyone would interpret that as denying me the right to arm myself with my wits, my sense of prudence, and my preference for blind spots and lead pipes.

[JXJohns]

I'm asking this to be informed, not in an argumentative way. If fully automatic weapons are not more dangerous (i.e., effective in killing) then why are they used in the military?

Also, is there any concern that large caliber weapons would be useful for sniping, but otherwise not effective for personal defense?

Thanks to posters for keeping this discussion on track (for the most part).

Like I said, no offense. The military, for the most part does not issue full auto guns to infantry. They issue select fire weapons instead. Select fire will typically shoot 2-3 rounds per trigger pull rather than spray an entire mag until it is empty. Studies have overwhelmingly shown that full auto guns are hard to control and are thereby extremely inaccurate and a waste of ammo. As such, other than some crew served weapons or light machine guns, select fire is about as good as it gets.

Regarding large calibers, the smallest bullet, if aimed with sniper-like precision will kill someone. It will just make a smaller hole. A larger caliber round is not automatically a more dangerous, nor more accurate. Sniper-like rifles would most likely be the last thing one would use for personal defense BTW.

Most hunting rifles also make for a decent sniper rifle.

[Alessan]

IIRC, there are rifles in the front of every classroom in Israel, and I don't recall there ever being an incident there.


Huh!?

[Todderbob]

Huh!?I was informed by an Israeli school teacher that all of the classrooms in his school had a rifle in them.

I believe he moved out of Israel about a decade ago, so he could be incorrect, but I'm sure that's what he said.

[Alessan]

Maybe it was in one of the more high-risk West Bank settlements? I've never heard of such a thing - the only guns in my Haifa high schools were pistols carried by the guard and by a couple of the male teachers (who were deputized as "security coordinators").

Israeli gun control laws are actually fairly draconic, by American standards.

[ExTank]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?

What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?
Would people carry guns openly or concealed?
Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?
Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?
Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?

And please, gun control proponents lets not turn this into a debate on guns. We've had plenty of those.[/QUOTE]


What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?

Police for certain (municipal, county state and federal), officers of the court if their duties make it necessary, corrections officers, perhaps other enforcement (say, Fish & Wildlife) agents as well.

As for ordinary citizens: anyone who meets the licensing and training requirements may carry openly or concealed, at their discretion.


Would people carry guns openly or concealed?

Anyone who meets the licensing and training requirements may carry openly or concealed, at their discretion.


Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?

I would restrict carry in courthouses and police stations. Individual bar/restaurant owners should have discretions as to whether they allow carry on their premises.

"Carrying While Intoxicated" can certainly be added to the law. Anyone licensed for concealed carry can legally carry on school premises. Individual school districts can set policy on teachers carrying.


Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?

Felons convicted of non-violent crimes, who have served their complete time, and are "clean" for, say, 10 years, can petition to have their rights restored. Felons convicted of violent crimes are SOL.

Anyone accused of any crime of domestic violence shall have any/all firearms taken, cataloged, and held by the court free of charge to the accused pending resolution of the case. If found guilty (even of misdemeanors) of any crime of domestic violence, then all firearms will be confiscated, destroyed, and the cost of destruction will be billed to the spouse/child abusing asshole former owner, who shall also henceforth be barred possession of firearms.

If found innocent/not guilty, all firearms will be returned in the same condition they were in when taken by the court, at no charge to the owner.

Anyone adjudicated as mentally ill/incompetent shall not possess firearms.

Anyone under the age of 18 shall not possess firearms. They may, under adult supervision, handle firearms for such purposes as recreational shooting or education.


Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?

Fully automatic weapons may be possessed by anyone legally capable of possessing any other class of weapons, with the following restrictions: the owner shall be licensed, and the weapon registered by make, model, caliber and serial number. The owner shall be subject to periodic inspection to insure accuracy of records and inventory.

Any firearm altered in appearance so as to appear as anything other than a firearm shall be illegal. This obviously doesn't apply to the CIA; even if it did, they'd ignore it.

Define "large caliber."

[Todderbob]

Maybe it was in one of the more high-risk West Bank settlements? I've never heard of such a thing - the only guns in my Haifa high schools were pistols carried by the guard and by a couple of the male teachers (who were deputized as "security coordinators").

Israeli gun control laws are actually fairly draconic, by American standards.Yes, you've got to be a member of a gun club, and whatnot, IIRC.

It's been a while since I talked to him, and I wouldn't even know how to get in contact with him or I'd ask for the specifics. But it's possible, if not probable, that it was one of the higher risk areas.

[BrotherCadfael]

My "endgame"? Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon.

[Unregistered Bull]

Removal of all laws concerning suppressors and short barreled rifles and shotguns (revisions of state game laws, NFA 1934, Gun Owners' Protection Act of 1986).

1968 GCA import ban of small pistols gone.

1989 Bush Import Ban gone.

Clinton's executive orders banning import of Chinese semi-auto rifles and pistols gone.

Prohibited Posessors should regain the right to own firearms after 5 years without felony convictions. Misdemeanor Domestic Violence should not cause one to become a Prohibited Posessor (Lautenberg Ammendment gone).

No mandated safety features for firearms such as chamber loaded indicators or built-in locks.

Open the "Gunshow Loophole" to include the entire US instead of just same state residents.

Allow the purchase of handguns in every state instead of just one's state of residence.

New Mexico style gun control: open carry legal, carrying in a vehicle legal (concealed or unconcealed), a concealed carry permit system.

[Lumpy]

Gun rights proponents: what would society look like if the laws surrounding guns were to your liking?Generally speaking, the right to keep and bear arms would be limited only as rarely and by as great a need as the rights to free speech and public assembly are limited.What percent of people would carry guns on a regular basis?Anyone who wants to; I would expect that people who might need to defend others or a locale would routinely be armed: teacher, shop owners, bus drivers, etc.Would people carry guns openly or concealed?Either, depending on convenience.Would you restrict carrying guns in courthouses, schools, bars?Courtrooms, appearances by the President, and other rare special occasions, yes. Schools no, in fact I would prefer at least some of the teachers be armed. Bars, I would accept banning carry there as a special circumstance, provided it's understood that the proprietor had assumed responsibility for defending safety and order.Who, if anyone, would you prevent from owning a gun: felons, the mentally ill, children?Felons who had served their full time could petition for restoration of gun rights; granted on an individual basis. Mentally ill, only people who were full-blown declared incompetent; restraining orders concerning their gun use could be issued in lesser cases. Children could not legally own guns, but could use them under proper adult supervision.Would you place any restrictions on guns: fully auto, large caliber, guns disguised as cell phones?Explosive ordinance would require the same licensing as owning dynamite or C-4. Disguising a gun would be a crime, but technically not the gun itself.

I would also like a clear linkage between civilian and military gun bearing: if you can't own a gun in civilian life, you can't be drafted.

[Isamu]

What's the deal with not allowing guns in bars? Is it because intoxicated people are more likely to pull their gun on someone?

[Todderbob]

What's the deal with not allowing guns in bars? Is it because intoxicated people are more likely to pull their gun on someone?Because the increased likelyhood of an individual going into a bar with the sole intent of consuming alcohol beverages.

I agree, except for the fact that I know a few individuals (myself included) who frequent establishments that call themselves sports bars, but never actually consume alcohol (I get fries and tea, thank you) while watching the gaming, and we shouldn't be barred the right to watch the game, armed, in a public establishment simply because some, or even the majority, of patrons are consuming alcohol.

1 drink = no guns. Simple enough solution.

[Isamu]

Thanks for the answer Todderbob. I'll bow out of this debate.

[Fear Itself]

1 drink = no guns. Simple enough solution.So who gets to disarm the drunks?

[Todderbob]

So who gets to disarm the drunks?It would be a stipulation of the Carry Permit, just as it is of a drivers license. Violate it, and you're arrested and lose your permit.

Your question could just as easily be phrased, "Who gets to stop the drunk( driver)s?"

If you carry a weapon while drinking, not drunk, while drinking, you get an infraction on your Carry Permit. Whether or not that results in the immediate revocation of your license would have to be hashed out as a specific of the law itself.

[Fear Itself]

Your question could just as easily be phrased, "Who gets to stop the drunk( driver)s?"We already have an answer for that; the highway patrol/police.

But are you anticipating checking guns at the door at bars, or waiting until somebody takes a drink, then calling the cops? Or would bar owners do the disarming when someone violates their permit?

We have a well organized system for apprehending drunk drivers. Gun owners in bars, not so much. Does your carry permit imply consent like a driver's license? How do you suppose gun owners would take to mandatory check-points, searches and sobriety tests?

[Todderbob]

We already have an answer for that; the highway patrol/police.

But are you anticipating checking guns at the door at bars, or waiting until somebody takes a drink, then calling the cops? Or would bar owners do the disarming when someone violates their permit?

We have a well organized system for apprehending drunk drivers. Gun owners in bars, not so much. Does your carry permit imply consent like a driver's license? How do you suppose gun owners would take to mandatory check-points, searches and sobriety tests?All of them are unnecessary.

You're fabricating a problem which doesn't exist. If you simply ban carry in a bar, the same problem presents itself, the logical solution, as to not infringe on the rights of those who aren't consuming alcohol, is to make the consumption of alcohol the factor.

If you don't like the system, that's fine. Start another thread for that (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=7), otherwise, we're venturing off topic. This thread isn't about you attacking, and me defending my system. This thread was a question as to what my (or anyone's) ideal system would look like.

[XT]

So who gets to disarm the drunks?

While I'm a big fan of 'thems who see a problem should be the ones to deal with it', I suppose we COULD prohibit alcohol instead....

-XT