A proposal for gun control

In My Humble Opinion
1

Yes, this is another gun thread. My apologies. Feel free to click away now…

So here’s my proposal for controlling guns in America:

[ol]
[li]No semi-autos. Period.[/li][li]No handguns. Period.[/li][li]No detachable magazines - integral magazines only.[/li][li]Integral magazines for any NEWLY-produced guns to be limited to a capacity of 6 rounds maximum.[/li][li]No silencers/suppressors - I can’t think of a single legitimate reason anyone needs these outside the military. Get caught making a homemade version and you do jail time.[/li][/ol]

The only allowable guns for private ownership would therefore be bolt-action, lever-action or pump-action rifles or shotguns. If you hunt, you can still use your rifle or shotgun. If you enjoy plinking, you can still use a bolt-action or lever-action .22. If you need something for home defense, you can still use a 12-gauge Mossberg. Competition target-shooters don’t need semi-autos, and they don’t need 30-round magazines.

So please explain to me why this wouldn’t work. I realise some people would sooner give up a vital internal organ than give up their handgun, but wouldn’t this approach drastically reduce gun crime while still allowing legitimate gun owners to enjoy their firearms responsibly? It wouldn’t impinge on hobby-shooters (or at least, only minimally), and it seems far more straightforward to go with these restrictions than to try and ban guns based on pointless cosmetic distinctions like pistol grips. Put as many bipods, flash-suppressors and scopes on the damn thing as you please. Handguns seem to account for the most deaths by shooting, so ban them.

2

Right now there are around 3,300,000 AR-15s in the hands of private citizens. That doesn’t include all of the other types of semi-auto rifles – ***just ***AR-15s. And you don’t understand why it wouldn’t work? :dubious:

3

I would disagree with 1 and 2 because I think it would prohibit fire-arms that have legitimate self-protection uses.

4

It won’t work because there are already tens of millions of handguns and semi-automatic long guns already in circulation (many of which have no serial number, and most of which are recorded in no database), and plenty of gun owners who won’t give them up. So even if you could pass your “no semi autos or habdguns” ban (which is a political impossibility), they’d still be out there in great numbers.

5

You’ll probably need an additional “buyback” period during which you can turn in prohibited weapons for a cash payment and/or voucher toward the purchase of a legal weapon. Say, two years or so.

After that, we’d want mandatory prison terms for gun possession, along with substantial rewards for dropping a dime on violators. Maybe a no-fault amnesty (sans payments) if you turn them in on your own after the grace period.

I think I could get behind it. It’d probably take a decade or more to have a substantial effect, but I can’t think of any proposal that would show immediate results.

6

Create an amnesty where people turn them in in exchange for cash. After the amnesty expires, all remaining guns not fitting these restrictions are deemed illegal. Anyone found in possession of one faces stiff penalties and jail time. All guns turned in during the amnesty are destroyed.

7

Why do you need a handgun or a detachable magazine for home defense? Wouldn’t a pump-action shotgun with 6,7 or 8 shells be more than adequate?

8

Let’s set aside the question of political feasibility for a moment and focus on the question. If these restrictions were effectively and consistently enforced, would they significantly reduce gun crime or not? With a buyback scheme or amnesty in place and then a concerted effort to go after the remaining illegal guns, couldn’t this work? Am I wrong in assuming that most shootings are caused by handguns?

Why do private citizens need handguns at all? If you believe the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, then fine, bear arms - own as many long guns as you want. But did the Framers say that anyone has the unassailable right to a handgun?

9

Require all firing pins to have an RFID chip in them. Make it a really huge fine to be in possession of a gun without them.

This would allow for better security any place that wanted it.

10

I suspect you’re being sarcastic, but if you’re not, then this wouldn’t work. RFID chips need sensors to let people know they’re there, and you can’t put sensors in every school, hospital or public building in the US.

11

By all means, let’s put more folks in prison for non-violent crimes. That’s worked out so nicely in the past.

12

That’s an entirely separate issue and it doesn’t answer the question. Would these measures reduce gun crime or not? Hunters can still hunt, plinkers can still plink, law-abiding homeowners can still defend their homes. What’s wrong with that?

13

Why couldn’t you? I’m seeing some RFID proximity sensor kits available for home use for $350. I know very little about the technology, but would it be unrealistic to have at least one gun-RFID sensor available at the major entrances to major institutions? Especially given the way that technology costs are constantly diminishing.

14

So even if you put an RFID sensor at the front door of every public building, what happens when an attacker walks through the back door?

And cost aside, RFID sensors have a very limited range - what happens when someone takes potshots from across the street?

15

There were 4 million slaves in the US in 1860. Ten years later there were none. Slavery was constitutionally protected. Then we got the will to change it. Guns, too, can change.

16

So people can protect themselves at home with a rifle or shotgun, Ok. How about those who sometimes go out of the house?

Yes, you are wrong.

17

Exactly. It seems clear to me that there are no insurmountable *technical *difficulties here - the only obstacle is people’s determination to cling onto their 1911s like grim death, no matter what the cost.

There isn’t enough *desire *to change.

18

Ok, I’m wrong. Show me the figures. If it’s not handguns, then what kind of guns cause the most deaths in the US? And how many times do people need to defend themselves with guns on the street? Again, please provide figures.

19

First of all, #1 and #2 are semi-autos and handguns, not handguns and detachable magazines.

In home defense, a long gun can be awkward to maneuver. Houses have hallways, doorways, corners, etc. There are situations where a handgun can be used much more effectively than a rifle or shotgun.

In any defense situation, rate of fire can be sometimes be a significant issue. Often a first shot won’t resolve the problem, and getting in more shots is necessary to avoid being hurt or killed. In home defense, typically the intruder/assailant is very close, and there may not be time to operate a lever, bolt, or pump before being overtaken. A semi-automatic weapon could make a critical difference.

20

My philosophy isn’t that we must make massacres impossible. I don’t think we can. What we can do is make them less convenient.

Front doors to public buildings tend to be unlocked. Other doors, less so. Put sensors at each unlocked door, wired to alarm if there’s a gun within range, and that might give an extra 30 seconds of awareness of an armed intruder. That 30 seconds might be enough for teachers to get kids into locked rooms, which might give the police an extra minute or two to show up before the shooting starts.

Pot shots from across the street are possible, but they’re probably not as deadly as shots taken within a classroom.

Measure by measure, you can make these massacres harder to pull off. You’ll never make them impossible, but the harder they are to accomplish, the rarer they’ll become, and the less deadly they’ll become.