Price for gun rights is paid in PA.

[Todderbob]

@Boyo_Jim

I’ve heard from many sources that a shotgun is far more effective a home defenst weapon than a pistol. I’l go you one better – you can have a double barrel shotgun with two triggers and two pulls.

A shotgun is a better home defense weapon in certain situations. It’s a bad idea to use one in multi-dwelling buildings (Apartments, Townhouses, etc) because the faster projectile penetrates further than that of a pistol.

@Boyo_Jim

You can also have a revolver, which can fore multiple times but more slowly. Hey, and I’ll up the bullet number to 6, which should make most existing revolvers stay legal.

But Revolvers themselves, under your system, would be illegal, because you can pull the trigger, fire, pull the trigger again, and fire again, without doing anything intermediately.

That doesn’t address the fact that there are instances of people being shot more than six times, and still going on to attack people.

And it doesn’t address the fact that you’re now wiggling for explanation – why have we banned semiautomatic firearms, but left revolvers intact?

@Boyo_Jim

Cops can have whatever they want – on duty.

Why?

Why do cops get special rights when it comes to this? What about their job gives them the right to protect themselves differently than you or I?

@Boyo_Jim

And I’ll throw the question back at you as well – is there anything, anything at all, that YOU would find acceptable as a restriction on the posession or manufacture of firearms?

I would have to see evidence that such bans do multiple things, first.

1. Are effective & enforceable.
2. Reduce the total homicide/violent crime rate.
3. Do not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

@Boyo_Jim

Is there anything at all beyond current law that you would find acceptable as a restriction on either gun posession or manufacture? Anything at all?

No, because this presupposed that gun control is a good thing.

I haven’t seen evidence that it is, to begin with. In fact, I’d repeal the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA. That is a perfect example of gun control at work.

“Gun Group A is owned by few people, heavily regulated, hasn’t been used in a crime since 1936, but we can pass a law banning it entirely, so lets do it!”

[Boyo_Jim]

@Todderbob

A shotgun is a better home defense weapon in certain situations. It’s a bad idea to use one in multi-dwelling buildings (Apartments, Townhouses, etc) because the faster projectile penetrates further than that of a pistol.

But Revolvers themselves, under your system, would be illegal, because you can pull the trigger, fire, pull the trigger again, and fire again, without doing anything intermediately.

That doesn’t address the fact that there are instances of people being shot more than six times, and still going on to attack people.

And it doesn’t address the fact that you’re now wiggling for explanation – why have we banned semiautomatic firearms, but left revolvers intact?

Why?

Why do cops get special rights when it comes to this? What about their job gives them the right to protect themselves differently than you or I?

I would have to see evidence that such bans do multiple things, first.

1. Are effective & enforceable.
2. Reduce the total homicide/violent crime rate.
3. Do not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

No, because this presupposed that gun control is a good thing.

I haven’t seen evidence that it is, to begin with. In fact, I’d repeal the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA. That is a perfect example of gun control at work.

“Gun Group A is owned by few people, heavily regulated, hasn’t been used in a crime since 1936, but we can pass a law banning it entirely, so lets do it!”

Frankly, if there is absolutely nothing you would find acceptable in the way of restrcting gun availability or design, there is no point to continuing a discussion with you. You have zero willingness to compromise on anything whatsoever.

So, 5 year olds in possession of guns is okay? Even restricting parents from taking steps to prevent children from access to their guns is off the table – no trigger guards, no gun safes, nothing at all like that?

If that’s the case, you are the very definition of “gun nut”.

[Todderbob]

@Boyo_Jim

Frankly, if there is absolutely nothing you would find acceptable in the way of restrcting gun availability or design, there is no point to continuing a discussion with you. You have zero willingness to compromise on anything whatsoever.

Because the evidence hasn’t been shown to me that there’s something to compromise for.

Before you ask whether or not I’m willing to compromise, you’ve got to show me evidence that we should compromise.

@Boyo_Jim

So, 5 year olds in possession of guns is okay?

I was shooting, with adult supervision, at the age of 6, on a regular basis. I had fired a firearm before that age, though.

@Boyo_Jim

Even restricting parents from taking steps to prevent children from access to their guns is off the table – no trigger guards, no gun safes, nothing at all like that?

Restricting parents from taking steps?

That’s not at all what I said, you’re forcing words into my mouth, and poorly at that. I believe it’s the responsibility of the Gun owner to take proper precautions for his firearms, just the same way it’s the responsibility of the ATV/Quad/Four-Wheeler owner to take proper precautions for his ATV.

That said, I think it’s a good idea that all guns come with safety locks (like this or this one), and I believe it should be a requirement.

However, mandating that people must have them on their firearms, when their in their homes, isn’t on my list of things I think should happen. The Government doesn’t have a right to say what I can or cannot do in the bedroom, and they don’t have a right to say what I can or cannot do… in the bedroom. This applies to sex and storage.

If, however, something bad happens (like with an ATV) and someone gets hurt due to my negligence, I think I should be held responsible.

@Boyo_Jim

If that’s the case, you are the very definition of “gun nut”.

I prefer Gun Enthusiast.

[E-Sabbath]

@Boyo_Jim

What if there was a fairly straightforward law that outlawed the manufacture of all semi-automatic weapons? I understand this to mean guns that can be fired by simply pulling the trigger again and agin with no intervening steps needed to fire. If I am wrong about this, please correct my misstatements.

A: Unconstitutional: Bans entire classes of weapons. As in, pretty much every rifle in existence made in the last 100 years that is not a replica of a 1800s rifle.

B: Insufficient. Does not cover revolver style weapons. Which are not semiautomatic, and can be fired again and again by simply pulling the trigger.

C: Really Unconstitutional. Seriously. Oh, god. It would “amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense”, from Heller. Actually more than an entire class. It also falls in the ‘in common use at the time’ and ‘sufficient for military use’ flaws of Miller.

D: Seriously. You’re talking about confiscating all but one in maybe a hundred guns.

E: Won’t cover either of my shotguns, both of which are horribly dangerous weapons perfectly good for shooting many, many people, extremely dead.
Edit note: One shotgun is a pump action. Technically, lever action rifles exist, though they are rare. Both have large capacities. And I did forget bolt action rifles, which are fairly common. All of these can fire… not as fast as a semi-automatic pistol, but not significantly slower in practiced hands.

[Boyo_Jim]

@E-Sabbath

A: Unconstitutional: Bans entire classes of weapons. As in, pretty much every rifle in existence made in the last 100 years that is not a replica of a 1800s rifle.

B: Insufficient. Does not cover revolver style weapons. Which are not semiautomatic, and can be fired again and again by simply pulling the trigger.

C: Really Unconstitutional. Seriously. Oh, god. It would “amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense”, from Heller. Actually more than an entire class. It also falls in the ‘in common use at the time’ and ‘sufficient for military use’ flaws of Miller.

D: Seriously. You’re talking about confiscating all but one in maybe a hundred guns.

E: Won’t cover either of my shotguns, both of which are horribly dangerous weapons perfectly good for shooting many, many people, extremely dead.
Edit note: One shotgun is a pump action. Technically, lever action rifles exist, though they are rare. Both have large capacities. And I did forget bolt action rifles, which are fairly common. All of these can fire… not as fast as a semi-automatic pistol, but not significantly slower in practiced hands.

Is there any actual case law about banning “classes” of weapons? Machine guns are not available except to collectors – unless I am mistaken.

There are many bolt-action rifles. There are many pump shotguns. I don’t know the right terminology to apply to what would be popularly called “Winchester” style rifles that have that have that particular form of loading/cocking action.

[Boyo_Jim]

And my actual point in proposing my list is not to insist that my list is perfect or the only acceptable changes, it’s to suggest a starting point for a discussion. Perhaps you have some kind of restriction you would be willing to live with – I don’t know, as you have not suggested any. I invite you to do so.

But so far, no respondees have listed even a single, minor restriction that they could live with. Including gun ownership by 5 year olds in one case. I have concluded that someone who would oppose a law restricting ownership of firearms to 5 year olds as not just a gun nut, but nutty as a fruitcake.

I do think it’s interesting that Todderbob is willing to require that a gun buyer purchase something in addition to a gun - some form of gun lock. But no law mandating it it be used in any particular circumstances, and I would bet that the support for gun locks would not extend to a requirment to somehow build them into guns.

I believe what Todderbob means about “responsibility” of gun owners for the safety of their weapons is some from of civil or perhaps even criminal liability in the case of gross negligence. Well, that’s something, though it is not in any way a compromise on the idea of there being any any legitimate form of gun control at all.

Oh, yeah, IIRC, Winchester cocking was called “lever action”.

[kidchameleon]

@Boyo_Jim

Is there any actual case law about banning “classes” of weapons? Machine guns are not available except to collectors – unless I am mistaken.

There are many bolt-action rifles. There are many pump shotguns. I don’t know the right terminology to apply to what would be popularly called “Winchester” style rifles that have that have that particular form of loading/cocking action.

Why don’t you do a bit more research about your topic before proposing ideas that are incomplete?

[Zeriel]

@Boyo_Jim

Let me put the question back to you. Is there anything at all beyond current law that you would find acceptable as a restriction on either gun posession or manufacture? Anything at all? And please don’t resort to the slippery-slope argument that we can’t do this one thing now, because someone will make it worse later. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend it won’t.

I find that most gun enthusiasts hate this, but I’d be happy with a automotive metaphor–“shall-issue” permits and firearm registration based on yearly renewals of the firearm’s serial number, no sales allowed without re-registering the thing (like a car registration/VIN), nominal skills test required for firearm licensing with a photo card certifying you have passed said test. I have, on advice, dropped the concept of even a registration fee as firearms ownership is a right you have not a privilege you pay for.

I’ve said in the past that I would expect, in return for this licensing scheme, that guns would be licensed in tiers based on the amount and speed of frightfulness they can throw downrange, concealability, etc., which in my mind eventually tops out with private ownership of military-grade weaponry, with a permit system similar to a commercial drivers’ license, in exchange.

I’d also support mandatory life with no parole sentencing for anyone possessing a firearm illegally and anyone possession or using a firearm, legally owned or not, in the commission of a violent crime of any type. I’d also extend this to knives and anything that is specifically both deadly and primarily a weapon.

So my take is summed up by “I think citizens should be able to acquire any single-person operable firearm they want, up to and including machine guns, but I think it’s not out of the question for society to ask for proof of owner’s skills as well as knowing where those weapons are”.

[Zeriel]

@Todderbob

That said, I think it’s a good idea that all guns come with safety locks (like this or this one), and I believe it should be a requirement.

When anyone who has not personally demonstrated to me they are firearms-safe is in my house, my shotgun has BOTH of those on it even if it never leaves the safe.

[Zeriel]

@Boyo_Jim

I do think it’s interesting that Todderbob is willing to require that a gun buyer purchase something in addition to a gun - some form of gun lock. But no law mandating it it be used in any particular circumstances, and I would bet that the support for gun locks would not extend to a requirment to somehow build them into guns.

Due to the nature of effective gun locks, it’s not really feasible to build them into the weapon–both the locks Todderbob suggests, which are pretty much unbreakable without a heavy drill press or saw, require them to be threaded through otherwise moving parts of the gun, physically blocking either the chamber or the trigger.

Me personally, I’d also support a law that all guns must be stored in combination-lock safes when not attended by the owner. I don’t think something like a GunVault is going to seriously impair your ability to get a loaded gun out when you need it any more than any other reasonable measure–it’s certainly a better idea than the ridiculous can’t store guns and ammo in the same place guideline.

[JXJohns]

@Boyo_Jim

And my actual point in proposing my list is not to insist that my list is perfect or the only acceptable changes, it’s to suggest a starting point for a discussion. Perhaps you have some kind of restriction you would be willing to live with – I don’t know, as you have not suggested any. I invite you to do so.

The problem with the compromise that you are looking for is that many gun enthusiasts feel that we have compromised far too much over the last 75 years or so with only dwindling rights to show for it. The attacks never stop… ever.

But so far, no respondees have listed even a single, minor restriction that they could live with. Including gun ownership by 5 year olds in one case. I have concluded that someone who would oppose a law restricting ownership of firearms to 5 year olds as not just a gun nut, but nutty as a fruitcake.

Because you are being silly. You want a restriction that I can live with? I could live with mandatory training and licensing in order to have a nationwide concealed carry permit that was recognized by the Federal Government and each state.

I believe what Todderbob means about “responsibility” of gun owners for the safety of their weapons is some from of civil or perhaps even criminal liability in the case of gross negligence. Well, that’s something, though it is not in any way a compromise on the idea of there being any any legitimate form of gun control at all.

No, it is taking responsibility for one’s actions, rather than blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person. If I fuck up and my kid gets my gun and shoots someone/something, it is, or should be my problem. It should not be the fault of the manufacturer, the NRA, Glen Beck or anyone else.

[PatriotGrrrl]

This isn’t exactly a restriction, but New Hampshire carry permits are flimsy little scraps of paper that look more like a receipt than a license. I’d prefer a laminated photo ID, and I’d be willing to pay for the difference in price.

[buttonjockey308]

@Todderbob

But you’re asking me to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy, and which is a realistic improbability. I’d literally have to pull out **every single court case in Maryland, **since the enactment of the ban, in order to prove my point.

That, however, is unnecessary. If you dispute my statement, and I would encourage you to do so, find me a cite that says I’m incorrect. Where a criminal case has been resolved, where it otherwise wouldn’t have (I’ll even err on your side, on this one), without the registration. One, or maybe we should make it two – to be fair.

On the other hand, the economic & social cost of this law has likely been at least one death, due to the mandatory seven day wait that it has imposed (So the police can do their background check, but even if it’s done before, they still can’t release the firearm).

It’s a very real possibility that someone who was a victim of domestic abuse (or someone who gets a restraining order) attempted to purchase a firearm, and in the intervening seven days was murder, when they could’ve had their lives saved by said firearm.

That, before you say it, is speculation. Did I tug anyones heart strings?

More than that, you’d have to analyze every police report that didn’t result in an arrest or court action. You can’t prove registration hasn’t saved a life and I can’t prove it has. Every program has its’ unintended consequences, no different than private gun ownership itself.

I’m not arguing for the same things that don’t work to be put in place to continue not to work, always do what you always did and all that. I’ve never bought into the 7 day wait. 24 hours in these times is MORE than enough to get the information one might need to determine if an individual should be permitted to own a firearm.

The bottom line is that the system as it stands doesn’t work, and we’ve got to do something. I personally am not satisfied with the firearm death rate and I’m not sure how any thinking person could be. The problem is, as long as we’re talking facts, changing the law today won’t make an impact for at least 5 years, if not longer…

[Boyo_Jim]

@JXJohns

The problem with the compromise that you are looking for is that many gun enthusiasts feel that we have compromised far too much over the last 75 years or so with only dwindling rights to show for it. The attacks never stop… ever.

Honestly, I am curious. Which could you do 75 years ago that you can’t do today? I can think of a few… buying guns through the mail, significant restriction on machine guns, and waiting period for … is it hand guns, or all guns? I know there are numerous states and cities that have further restrictions. I would imagine those are probably too numerous to mention, but they are not, at least, universally applied.

@JXJohns

Because you are being silly. You want a restriction that I can live with? I could live with mandatory training and licensing in order to have a nationwide concealed carry permit that was recognized by the Federal Government and each state.

Why am I being silly by asking gun enthusiasts what restrictions they could live with? As far as the suggestion above, I think that is reasonable. Would you also be willing to live with some restrictions on where you could carry, such as your workplace or maybe a hospital?

@JXJohns

No, it is taking responsibility for one’s actions, rather than blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person. If I fuck up and my kid gets my gun and shoots someone/something, it is, or should be my problem. It should not be the fault of the manufacturer, the NRA, Glen Beck or anyone else.

I’ll buy the 2nd part. I don;t believe a gun manufacturer should be liable unless the gun malfunctions. If these massacres prove anything, it’s that the guns generally work very well.

But it’s not just YOUR problem. It’s also a problem for the families of the dead and society in general. If your kid shoots up his school, bankrupting you is not going to go very far in paying the medical and funeral costs of the wounded, let alone the liability costs.

[Boyo_Jim]

@PatriotGrrrl

This isn’t exactly a restriction, but New Hampshire carry permits are flimsy little scraps of paper that look more like a receipt than a license. I’d prefer a laminated photo ID, and I’d be willing to pay for the difference in price.

But a carry permit is in itself a restriction, and you are ok with that? I would assume getting one of these would involve some kind of criminal background check, correct? Are there specified circumstances under which the permit can be denied? Do you have a problem with any of those specifications?

[Boyo_Jim]

@kidchameleon

Why don’t you do a bit more research about your topic before proposing ideas that are incomplete?

No, it’s not my place. There was a claim made that my suggestions would be unconstitutional because they would affect an ‘entire class’ of weapons. It is up to the claimant to back up the claim.

I suggest some things that I personally think are reasonable, and I also said they have virtually no chance of being actually made into law.

I’m glad that I’m getting some responses from gun supporters actually accepting the concept that there may be some justification for some restrictions on gun ownership or possession. I think folks who say that absolutely no restrictions are acceptable are living in some kind of paranoid dream world. I also think those who would outright ban all weapons from all citizens are equally deluded.

[Zeriel]

Part of the objection of banning classes of weapons is specifically the concept of banning semi-automatic rifles, as those are potentially required to be available to citizens depending on how one reads Miller and/or the Militia Act.

[JXJohns]

@Boyo_Jim

Honestly, I am curious. Which could you do 75 years ago that you can’t do today? I can think of a few… buying guns through the mail, significant restriction on machine guns, and waiting period for … is it hand guns, or all guns? I know there are numerous states and cities that have further restrictions. I would imagine those are probably too numerous to mention, but they are not, at least, universally applied.

You touched on the major things. Several import bans have limited what can be brought into the country, the whole NFA, AOW, and DD range of firearms (short barreled rifles and shotguns, stupid rules about grips on pistols, etc) is ridiculous. I could go on if you’d like…

Why am I being silly by asking gun enthusiasts what restrictions they could live with? As far as the suggestion above, I think that is reasonable. Would you also be willing to live with some restrictions on where you could carry, such as your workplace or maybe a hospital?

The 5yo bit was a bit extreme don’t you think? That is the part that was silly. Regarding restrictions on carry, I have to live with some with my state permit. I could live with the same at the national level. Essentially, no guns in courthouses, federal buildings, etc. I see no reason to limit carrying at one’s place of business or at a hospital, nor do I see problem with carrying in a bar or restaurant. In my state, one can carry in a bar or a place that sells alcohol. However, if they are under the influence, their permit is no good until they are no longer. In Iowa, any alcohol in one’s system is considered “under the influence”

That is the type of compromise you can expect gun owners to get on board with. Quid pro quo and all that. Don’t offer a ban with the promise of not touching something else. One thing history has shown us is that someone always wants to get that something else later…

… But it’s not just YOUR problem. It’s also a problem for the families of the dead and society in general. If your kid shoots up his school, bankrupting you is not going to go very far in paying the medical and funeral costs of the wounded, let alone the liability costs.

Change my word problem to fault.

[JXJohns]

@Boyo_Jim

But a carry permit is in itself a restriction, and you are ok with that? I would assume getting one of these would involve some kind of criminal background check, correct? Are there specified circumstances under which the permit can be denied? Do you have a problem with any of those specifications?

Yep
Yep
Yep
Nope, except in my state those restrictions vary from county to county and are enforced at the whim of the county sheriff rather than having statewide standards. I have a major problem with that. But that is an Iowa thing.

I personally feel that concealed carry is a privilege, not a right affirmed by the Constitution. As such, I am willing to put up with some restrictions on same.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Zeriel

Part of the objection of banning classes of weapons is specifically the concept of banning semi-automatic rifles, as those are potentially required to be available to citizens depending on how one reads Miller and/or the Militia Act.

Pardon my ignorance, but can you offer any links to explain what you mean by Miller and the Militia Act. Does the latter refer to citizen-organized militia, or a state-organized Guard of some kind?

Gun control debates are not items I participate in as a rule, so I’m pretty much a newbie in this area.