Are there any gun owners out there that support some form of gun ban (handgun, semi-automatic, etc?)
My feeling is that a lot of people that seek to ban guns do not understand them.
I own several guns…both rifles and a few hand guns (though I don’t keep any of them at my house) and I support a ban on, say, machine guns and heavy caliber artillery pieces. I also support the ban on, say, 1920’s style death-rays in the hands of the public.
Other than those exceptions though I think adult citizens should be able to decide for themselves if they want or don’t want to own guns. But then, I think adult citizens should be able to decide a lot of things for themselves that the government and various other groups think they are better able to determine…for the good of the people of course.
-XT
Would you say that that’s because you “do not understand them”? 
LilShieste
(The 1920’s style death-rays, that is…)
I own a rifle and two handguns. I believe there’s a need for some gun laws. I don’t see a need for more restrictions than we already have. Some places have gone too far, in my opinion. I don’t favor a total handgun ban in any city. In my neighborhood, grey-haired ladies take brisk walks in the morning, often before dawn. If one of them packs heat to feel safer, she shouldn’t have to carry a heavy long gun to get around a handgun ban.
Sure. I own a handgun, and I’ll give you the "If Acid Lamp Was King version of what I believe ought to be a fair balance.
No one needs a fully automatic weapon.
No one needs a semi automatic weapon.
No one needs a rifle stronger than a normal hunting gun.
No one needs anything bigger than that, period.
So I would support a ban on those weapons.
Under an Acid Lamp administration, every person above the age of 18 would be entitled to purchase, and possess a handgun, hunting rifle, and shotgun/additional handgun or hunting rifle.
If you would like more, then you may purchase them, but you will pay for both a yearly permit, and insurance policy on each additional firearm.
Any criminal conviction will result in the revocation of those rights. They may be reinstated after a period of 7 years, in which the offender may not have ANY questionable activity (criminal or civil brought against them).
A second offense will result in the permanent revocation of that right.
I own guns, and I live in the rural West. I have no problem with a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I mean, why do you need to go full automatic when looking for a deer? OK, OK, when those suckers start throwing grenades with their antlers, it gets dicey, but I still think I can bring them down with a bolt action.
I am also OK with a numbers ban. maybe two guns per adult in a household. Maybe three in rural areas where bigfoot might threaten. The community I live nearest to has a law on the books that you can’t have more than three cats per house, but you can have hundreds of guns. Apparently the Russian hoards are massing just across the boarder in Wyoming and none of hoards are alergic to cat hair.
I can also see a large caliber ban. One of my secretaries, a nice sweet woman, has a .50 caliber machine gun among other things. If her family ever needs to take her to a nursing home, I feel sorry for them if she doesn’t want to go.
I would like gun ownership tied to some sort of IQ test, but I know that is unconstitutional.
Why’s that?
What does this mean? Military rifles are much less powerful than most of my hunting rifles. An M16 delivers something in the neighborhood of 700 foot pounds of energy at 200 yards, while my ol’ single shot Ruger hits with 2700 foot pounds at that range.
Bigger than what? .300 Win Mag? .416 Remington? 44-40? 45-70?
People who would like a ban on semi-automatic weapons: Why not just ban all guns and go back to crossbows? It amounts to the same thing. There is not a single thing fundamentally different between a bolt-action weapon and a semi-automatic one other than using the weapon’s energy to your advantage. Rate of fire is a total strawman.
I own lots and lots of guns, and I wouldn’t support a ban under any circumstance. Individual restrictions, maybe. But a blanket banning? I doubt it.
What makes you think the only reason for owning a firearm is for shooting deer?
First, what’s with all this killing? Have you ever tried not shooting a living creature? Maybe spend some time at the range and try competitive shooting. At least as much fun, and far less gooey stuff splattered about.
Second, since apparently the only reason to own a firearm is to kill something, a single fellow that enjoys pheasant, rabbit, antelope and elk hunting needs more than 2 guns. That’s without considering bigfoot or Russians.
Trust me on this, it’s really really hard to accurately shoot more than one gun at a time. What difference does it make how many firearms a person owns?
If this is true, your secretary is holding what may well be a $30,000 collectors item. Either that or is committing a felony.
Also, would you ban historic muzzleloaders? Hawken and others were frequently .50 and larger.
I don’t think artillery or explosives should be cheaply and easily available, but based on the number of crimes committed with machine guns I think we’re doing just fine without a ban on them. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any gun ban that I’d support.
Absolutely not. As it is, we have way too much gun control legislation, and it needs to be scaled back considerably. I own several guns, but the only reason I don’t have several dozen is because they’re expensive. 
Some regulation is tolerable, and maybe inevitable. Prohibiting possession by people convicted of violent crimes I can understand (though I still have to ask: if they’re that much of a threat, why are they out of prison?), and background checks for purchasing handguns are not entirely unreasonable, so long as they are not made restrictive and do not prevent a law-abiding person from acquiring firearms quickly.
But I certainly I do not support bans of any particular type of weapon, whether it’s based on cosmetic appearance (the laughable “assault weapon” ban of '94), rate of fire (bans on automatic weapons) or the size of the projectile (like California’s .50BMG ban). Registration and a tax stamp for fully-automatic weapons? I think that’s silly and unnecessary, but at least it’s not prohibitive. What’s really annoying is the ban on civilian transfers of any automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. I would definitely support repealing that.
I don’t support the idea that someone needs to have permission from the government to carry a firearm on their person, either; Vermont and Alaska are the only two states that seem to have their heads screwed on right in this case. Before getting my concealed pistol license, I took full advantage of the fact that unlicensed open carry is legal in my state. (I still open carry sometimes, but now I have the option of wearing a jacket if it’s cold. ;))
Right, and since nobody needs a toaster with more than two slots, “high capacity” toasters should be banned as well. :dubious:
But even if it was justifiable to ban things just because they aren’t “needed,” this would be a completely fallacious argument. There is a clearly established need for the citizenry to be armed in a manner consistent with maintaining an effective modern militia. If you think otherwise, I would encourage you to read the thoughts of the nation’s founders, the words they enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and our highest court’s interpretation of same.
If you disagree with that “need,” then I think that would show you that an argument based on what people “need” is invalid, because need is subjective. When you start talking about “need,” people say things like “why would you need a semiautomatic to shoot deer?” which is an absurdly irrelevant question.
The Right to Bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting, for crying out loud. Hunting is the last thing I’ll do - I’m a vegetarian, so I wouldn’t eat anything I shot, and I’m ethically opposed to shooting defenseless animals for fun. But I still am an ardent supporter of every law-abiding citizen’s right to have as many guns (and as many kinds of guns) as they damn well please, whether they are interested in self-defense, sport shooting, preparing for catastrophe, or just going out in the woods and nuking Bambi.
The way I see it, the Right to Bear arms follows naturally from the right of an individual to defend his life, and from the right of a people to defend their liberty. Any ban of firearms that are suitable for self-defense or for military use infringes that right.
Seconded. I’ve tried this (for Science, I assure you), and I can report that it is indeed very difficult to accurately fire two guns at once.
I own pistols, revolvers, shotguns and rifles. That and a couple of bows as well.
First, in an attempt to stamp out a bit of thread ignorance:
Full-automatic machine guns are already very tightly controlled, requiring a separate license. Talking about banning them is nonsensical, since they are already effectively banned for most everybody.
Semi-Automatic simple means that the weapon loads the next round for you. It does increase rate of fire, but not that significantly.
Bolt-action is one shot per movement of the bolt, and is popular for those who like degrees of accuracy.
Military vs. hunting - nonsensical. The military uses smaller caliber weapons than most hunters would use. Hunters like big booms, the military likes lots of little booms.
Military vs. hunting round two: the same rifles that snipers use are very popular among hunters for deer (aside from the 50 cal). Again, the distinction just is not there in capability.
Now, Algher’s world of effective gun control:
A proper Federal DB that holds all criminal and mental convictions that is easy for gun sellers to access and get instant approval for gun sales. A police force and Attorney General that actually prosecutes when those banned from owning weapons attempt to purchase them.
A gun permit that lists the person, that is as easy to get as a driver’s license. Once you have that license, you can buy any gun you want to. No controls on carry, types, etc. Fire 5 rounds downrange with a weapon, pass a simple written test, and get your ID badge. Flash said badge anywhere to buy guns, ammo, carry open or concealed, etc. Lose said badge for misuse of firearms in a way that threatens public safety.
No actual weapons registration unless the government is willing to put up a $1 million bond for every weapon of mine that they want on the list. That bond will be held offshore, and I get the cash as soon as ANY control on my weapon is ever passed.
I own a shotgun and a rifle, and I’m generally in favour of my country’s laws concerning handguns, though I’m not particularly doctrinare about it.
The reason as I see it is that shotguns and handguns are less useful for committing crimes with, as they are generally not concealable unless sawed off (which is also illegal). Most “gun violence” from what I can see is really “handgun violence”. Our society has less of it than is found south of the border, which seems to me to be a good thing - long guns are more useful than handguns for legitimate purposes while being less useful for illegitimate purposes, so it makes sense to allow the one and not the other.
Algher, I do like your proposal so far as eliminating the hassle for legitimate gun owners goes. 
I still can’t support requiring licensing to own a gun, though, any more than I can support requiring licensing to own a book or publish a journal. Maybe in a better world, something like that would work, but as it is I just cannot trust the government to so closely regulate a civil right.
And yet handguns are very useful for legitimate self-defense in public - who wants to carry a rifle with them everywhere? 
I agree with you, but I was trying to think about what my compromise would be if I HAD to have some controls in place (and since my list was far easier to hit than the nonsense we have in California - I considered it an improvement!)
I grew up around guns. I don’t own any now, but I’ve learned about them and fired them. My parents have two handguns and a display case full of rifles (most of them are collectible vintage stuff, including a black powder muzzle-loader that obviously wouldn’t fire any ammunition available today).
I wouldn’t support a ban on rifles and shotguns, but I would support a ban on handguns. They’re more dangerous than the assault weapons everyone is so worried about.
I should point out that a ban on semi-automatic weapons would eliminate almost all non-revolver pistols, and many to most hunting rifles and shotguns. Most of these guns have semi-automatic actions. It has nothing to do with automatic fire at all. Why are people talking about banning it?
Acid Lamp, do you even know what it means?
This is rather silly. No “effective modern militia” is going to be armed with this kind of gear. Nor are they going to be effective. To put it bluntly, modern warfare has advanced to such a state that firearms in the hands of citizens isn’t going to stop a real war machine.
That is, unless citizens start storing RPGs, Stingers, and IEDs in their closets.
I’m aware of the terminology, And I’ve never been comfortable with clip loaded weapons. I think that they jam up way to often for safety, and I dislike not being able to tell at a glance the status of the chamber as well as remaining ammunition. I own a revolver, and it is dependable and I can fire just as fast as the next round chambers up. My rationale is that if someone is going to use such a gun for a crime then at least they’ll have to stop an re load manually, rather than just slamming clip after clip home and keep on firing at police. As for self defense, I feel that if you can’t hit your attacker within 5-6 shots then you don’t need to have a firearm at all. For sport shooting, a bolt action rifle is just as good for target and game as a clip loaded counter part. Crocodiles stated my position on the effectiveness on any modern militia as well as I could.
A bolt action rifle is not as good for target and game as a clip loaded counterpart. Simply said, cycling the bolt makes you lose your focus. At least, it makes me do so.
I also feel that revolvers are more hazardous in daily practice than clip fed and sealed pistols, and more prone to foreign object jamming.
That said, given that you dislike them, can you explain why you feel it would be good that they were banned? And, say, pump, lever, and bolt action not be banned?