There are other things that can be done beyond fully stopping the shootings.
I am unclear why semi-automatic rifles are necessary and should be allowed. Sell lever or bolt action rifles. Our ancestors manged with worse and were able to hunt and target shoot just fine. In short, this slows the shooter down allowing people more time to get away. Instead of 49 dead and 50 (or whatever it was) injured the numbers could have been a lot lower as people ran.
Carry on this notion to pistols and make ban semi-auto pistols for the public. Six shot revolver should do fine.
I think the government was both shockingly inept / incompetent at Waco and Ruby Ridge (to give just two examples), and yet they also managed to be deadly. What’s the problem with seeing them as both? The one word that I don’t think describes the government is ‘efficient’. I don’t think mass confiscation would be efficient, or even effective, but it’d probably be deadly for lots of people.
This is where the argument about what police carry comes into play. Why do you think most no longer carry 6 shot revolvers? You are focusing only on a small subset of criminal activity. Sure some criminal activity may be reduced. On balance do you think this will be a net benefit? What about defensive situations where more round are necessary?
Typically it takes a few hits in vital areas to stop a threat. Add to the fact that people often miss in stressful situations, and you can see that 6 rounds is simply inadequate. if the hit rate is about 30%, and it takes 3 shots to stop a threat, how many rounds are sufficient for adequate self defense? Multiple that by however multiple threats there are.
You must be “Gun Qualified” to own a firearm. When you are Gun Qualified, you receive a badge that can be worn or placed in a wallet (just like Sargent Friday!), but which is a distinct color from police badges. You must poses your badge whenever you poses your weapon.
All people who are active duty or reserve military, or who possess a valid and active concealed carry permit of as July 1, 2016, are automatically Gun Qualified.
As a condition for federal education funding, states must make Gun Use & Safety a mandatory class for high school graduation. To pass, a student must demonstrate that they know how to safely take a part and clean a gun. There might be marksmanship competitions, but students are not required to fire a gun to pass.
A United State citizen ( yes, I went there, but there is an exception for people honorably discharged from the military) is eligible to become Gun Qualified at 18.
To become Gun Qualified, an eligible person must receive certification from a doctor that they have better than correctable 20/40 vision, and that they can speak and understand English (:eek: yes, I went there, too), so that they can understand and obey legal law enforcement orders.
In addition to medical clearance, an eligible person must also pass a background screen by the government, which will certify that they:
a) are a citizen OR have an honorable discharge
b) do not have a conviction for a violent crime.
c) are not on any “watch lists”
d) the government agency reviewing this (FBI? I don’t know) will also contact the doctor to verify the results of the medical clearance and give the doctor an opportunity to voice any opposition.
If a person is deemed to have failed any of the criteria in 7, they will be denied, but are entitled to an In Camera (i.e. legal jargon for “in private”, so only the judge and the accused see the evidence) inspection of the evidence, which they are then allowed to challenge in an open court bench trial.
Concealed carry of firearms is illegal nationally.
Open Carry is legal nationally, excepted in limited areas (places that serve alcohol or other drugs, government buildings, and hospitals)
Military weapons are illegal to be owned by civilians. Military weapons are defined as explosive or incendiary devices and items that “Look” like rifles used by one of the branches of the military. A firearm Looks like a military weapon if it has the same shape OR has the same color as a military rifle. All Military Weapons are now to be made in black, grey, metallic, and silver.
Military Weapons expressly do not include handguns.
…
How’d I do? I don’t take away anybody’s gun. In fact, Pro-Gun people can have their automatic weapons. And I gave grist to the crazy right wingers, on the off chance that limiting gun owners to English speaking Americans might be helpful…maybe…a little? No??
I think I’ve concluded that America needs to embrace its gun culture. Get it out in the open! Let’s make that the thing that makes it weird to come to America. Everybody (at least in some places) has a gun that is just hanging from their belt! And, in a generation, we’ve all touched one when we were in school, so some of the mystique would be gone.
At the very least, maybe it would move the discussion forward if America started seeing all of its guns out there (with the high capacity rifles in bright colors, so we can really see them). We shall see for ourselves if violent crime goes down. Or if suicidal mass murderers are deterred (or stopped). We are at critical mass when it comes to these weapons, so ridding ourselves of them is not an option.
Ok, here are the ones I have issue with, maybe you could explain your reasoning a little better:
This seems to be a breach of due process, even with part 8.
Why? Is legal concealed carry an issue?
What is the purpose of this? Is it largely just about color? In order to make it harder to hide these weapons? I suppose it could cut down on accidental deaths, but someone with ill intent will just use some paint. It reminds me of some of the NFA restrictions on length: What would a criminal care about getting a tax stamp? If they are going to go shoot someone they can just cut down the barrel or stock with a hacksaw. At least restricted machinegun parts makes some sense because it takes a fair amount of skill to make a full-auto gun.
I think that the opportunity to appeal the decision would save the law against a due process challenge.
Your final sentence is correct. We can’t rid our society of guns, and many don’t want to, so I want them easily visible and out in the open. Are guns a deterrent? Let’s find out.
What about number 11? You just outlawed civilian ownership of any gun that looks like something the military uses. That would include most semi auto or automatic rifles, any bolt action rifle, pump or semi auto shotgun, and any other rifle that is black, brown, or green. Would it be just the US military or any military?
Sounds like you just took tens of millions of rifles and shotguns and made them illegal to own?
My goal here was to offer solutions that are not an total ban of all guns.
I realize a revolver can shoot very fast. The idea here is to minimize ammo capacity and force the shooter to reload buying time for potential victims to get away. Better that the attacker only gets six shots and has to pause than 10-20 (or whatever). Further, reloading a revolver is slower than a semi-auto pistol.
Don’t bother showing me quick-reloads for revolvers or how fast some quick-draw artist on YouTube can reload a revolver. I know with practice what-not they can be quite fast. But that stuff takes practice which most gang-bangers and the like are unwilling to do. There is a reason they choose semi-autos and not revolvers (I have been told by my friend who knows guns that revolvers are more reliable so there must be a reason to choose semi-autos over revolvers).
This will not stop shootings but it should minimize casualties by slowing things down a bit.
I believe I said for public use. Police and military can still use whatever is best for them. I would say those weapons should be registered seven way to Sunday to the officer and “losing” more than one weapon in a given timeframe should have repercussions to the officer. That is open to debate of course.
Who do you think you will be defending yourself against? How many people want you dead? What kind of gun fight do you suppose you are likely to be in? Seriously…
You’ve been watching too many movies. As we noted upthread Australians were not suddenly overwhelmed by bad guys after they turned in their weapons. Here you still have a revolver.
If you need several shotguns and pistols and rifles to “protect” yourself you are probably a drug kingpin or the head of the mafia in which case all bets are off. For the rest of us I submit that is overkill and frankly won’t protect you much better than a six shot revolver.
:smack: You know what, I did. And I didn’t mean to. Maybe I should have written AND and not OR (my legislation needs to go through committee!).
My intention was to make civilian rifles like the AR-15 a distinctive color, for the purpose of making them noticeable. If you have an older one, you have to change the color from what is currently typical (which is now reserved for military versions). As noted, my goal is to make gun possession a very public thing.
I think you missed the point of this. It wasn’t about police losing their weapons. Let’s try again - under your proposal, police and military can still use whatever is best for them, but other folks are limited to 6 shot revolvers, correct? Ok - why do you think police should be able to use whatever is best for them?
If I’m lucky, I wouldn’t be defending myself against anyone. That I know of, no one wants me dead. Statistically, I’m not likely to be in any gun fight. Of course, there are many things that are unlikely to happen that I prepare for, even with the expectation that that preparation will go unused.
Australia is sufficiently different than the US that any comparisons are fraught with unreliability. The only thing that’s worth mentioning regarding Australia is that they confiscated weapons, and Clinton and Obama have praised Australian gun control - so when folks say they don’t want to confiscate weapons, I don’t put much stock in those statements.
Well, I only have two hands you know, so it’s difficult to wield more than 2 shotguns at a time. But I do have a large enough house that simply having one weapon isn’t sufficient. So perhaps one for each floor, wing, or room. And of course there are multiple residents, so they have theirs as well. I assure you I’m not a drug kingpin or the head of the mafia. But really, this statement turns the question on its head. It’s not about what I need. No person in this country must justify their need. That’s what a right is. Exercising my rights is sufficient reason.
Now I have a question for you - in crafting your proposal, what value did you attribute to the defensive aspect of firearms for ordinary civilians?
I could crash my car into a crowd. I could make a bomb. I don’t because I’m not a homicidal maniac. How do we identify and treat those with destructive tendencies?
This is where your sticking point will be. As noted up-thread, some people firmly believe that civilians should have access to the same guns that police and military personnel have access to.
yes, I went there, but there is an exception for people honorably discharged from the military) is eligible to become Gun Qualified at 18.