Well, you are too keen an observer for me…I wasn’t serious, no.
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
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)
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.
Not a problem. 
Ouch. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
Anyone who meets the licensing and training requirements may carry openly or concealed, at their discretion.
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.
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 [del]spouse/child abusing asshole[/del] 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.
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.”
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.
My “endgame”? Heinlein’s Beyond This Horizon.
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.
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.
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.
Either, depending on convenience.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the answer Todderbob. I’ll bow out of this debate.
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.
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, 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.
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