Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

[Thaluikhain]

Going out shooting is fun, its something I feel sad for Brits and Aussies that they likely wont ever experience.

Not actually true, at least not for Australians. Anyone can go join a gun club or have a weapon for recreational shooting or hunting (assuming no criminal convictions or so on). Getting a pistol licence is rather difficult, but not for bolt action rifles or shotguns.

It's more that firearms aren't part of day to day life or culture in Australia so most people don't.

 

[exp. 99]

-snip-

Because the same day as Sandy Hook there totally wasn't that Chinese guy that killed almost as many kids with a knife.

I'm going to leave this here to illustrate my point:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

The link to the study itself is in the article, but for the lazy, here it is:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The point I'm trying to get at is that massacres and murders are a people problem. If they can't get one means of killing someone, they'll get another.

Regarding OP's question, I'm pretty much inclined to say what we've got already works. People can own the firearms of their choice, cost depending; this lets shooting enthusiasts enjoy their range time freely. Anything automatic requires a tax stamp and puts you on the ATF's radar, and explosives are hard to legally get and you will be heavily scrutinized for your effort. Gun shows aren't as big a loophole as people seem to think; you can't just walk out with a weapon at a gun show, it has to go through a licensed supplier, who still has to go through the steps and checks before giving it to you.

Of course, none of this helps stop people from *illegally* getting a gun, but then again, the fact that they're doing it illegally means gun control in general doesn't apply anyways.

 

[DugMachine]

Explosives, heavy duty military grade weapons like .50 caliber sniper rifles, fully automatic machine guns etc. Nobody needs those things, no matter how fun they are to shoot.

 

[Something Amyss]

(Obviously excepting people with a history of violent behavior, mentally ill people, etcetera.

If it's so obvious, why is this where most of the opposition is stalling out?

 

[Thaluikhain]

The point I'm trying to get at is that massacres and murders are a people problem. If they can't get one means of killing someone, they'll get another.

OTOH, the US has a firearms homicide rate much higher than most western nations.

Of course, none of this helps stop people from *illegally* getting a gun, but then again, the fact that they're doing it illegally means gun control in general doesn't apply anyways.

Well, depends on the source of the illegal weapon. If it was a legal weapon that was stolen, say, then gun controls could have stopped that.

 

[AnarchistFish]

No limit, but they'd be all communally held anyway, especially the heavy stuff.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because the same day as Sandy Hook there totally wasn't that Chinese guy that killed almost as many kids with a knife.

No, he (edit: pretty sure it was more than one guy, so "they") harmed 22 children. None of them died.

I understand that the actual events harm your stance, but it would be best to not bring it up, rather than bring up a fictional version to help you (which can be readily dismissed).

 

[Something Amyss]

--Please ignore, folks, this was supposed to be an edit, not a post--

 

[OneCatch]

Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.

So you don't mind if a few billionaires stock up on nuclear warheads?

TEXTBOOK strawman fallacy. We're clearly talking about firearms here, not nuclear warheads. And seriously, if you're going to suggest that one person with an automatic weapon can cause anywhere near as much damage as a nuclear weapon, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.

Actually it isn't a strawman because you specifically placed no limits on your original assertion of ("I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires"), making this one of the few cases where a no-limits response isn't a fallacy. A nuclear warhead comes clearly under the definition 'any weapon'.

If you'd said "I think that people should be allowed any firearm", the response would have been fallacy, or if Lilani had made such a retort to DirtyHipster after he'd clarified that he was excluding crew served weapons, it would be strawman.
But in response to your statement it isn't.

---------

OT: I'd probably say non-concealable, non-military weapons are where to draw the line. Limited capacity, bolt or semi-automatic rifles, non-automatic shotguns. Perhaps allow handguns as well, but only open carry, and only allowed where you can demonstrate a legitimate need (professional bodyguards, low encumbrance hiking where there are dangerous animals, that kind of thing).

Maybe allow military weapons (crew served, fully automatic, etc) on licensed ranges for novelty shooting, but not for personal use.

That's idealised though - you wouldn't have a hope of legislating such a thing in America because other weapons are in such high circulation, not to mention the cultural element of firearm ownership there.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Explosives, heavy duty military grade weapons like .50 caliber sniper rifles, fully automatic machine guns etc. Nobody needs those things, no matter how fun they are to shoot.

Explosives are vital for the mining industry (amongst others) mind.

OT: I'd probably say non-concealable, non-military weapons are where to draw the line. Limited capacity, bolt or semi-automatic rifles, non-automatic shotguns. Perhaps allow handguns as well, but only open carry, and only allowed where you can demonstrate a legitimate need (professional bodyguards, low encumbrance hiking where there are dangerous animals, that kind of thing).

Maybe allow military weapons (crew served, fully automatic, etc) on licensed ranges for novelty shooting, but not for personal use.

That's idealised though - you wouldn't have a hope of legislating such a thing in America because other weapons are in such high circulation, not to mention the cultural element of firearm ownership there.

Well...high capacity is the magazine, not the weapon (assuming the weapon uses detachable magazines). Non-military semi-automatic rifles would include most assault weapons, such as AR-15s and civilian variants of AK variants and other weapons.

 

[Something Amyss]

OTOH, the US has a firearms homicide rate much higher than most western nations.

With 2/3 being firearm deaths.

Well, depends on the source of the illegal weapon. If it was a legal weapon that was stolen, say, then gun controls could have stopped that.

Often we find the guns were purchased legally, so there is relevance here.

 

[Blunderboy]

Well I'm not American but I'd draw the line at anything beyond bolt action or semi automatic.
No home owner needs to own a weapon that can fire 300 rounds a minute.
I mean just look at the guns they had at the time of the Constitution.

That's an India pattern 'Brown Bess' Musket. Even in the hands of the best trained military force of the day (the British Army) it's firing rate was at best four shots a minute. As for range and accuracy, well there's a reason it was best used in massed volleys at close range.

This law was not written with the extreme rates of fire and ranges that a vast majority of modern firearms can achieve.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well I'm not American but I'd draw the line at anything beyond bolt action or semi automatic.
No home owner needs to own a weapon that can fire 300 rounds a second.

Firstly, does anyone have a 300 round a second gun?

Secondly, no civilian legally owned automatic weapon has been used in a crime in the US, IIRC. Any number of semi-automatics or illegal automatics, of course.

 

[Blunderboy]

Well I'm not American but I'd draw the line at anything beyond bolt action or semi automatic.
No home owner needs to own a weapon that can fire 300 rounds a second.

Firstly, does anyone have a 300 round a second gun?

Secondly, no civilian legally owned automatic weapon has been used in a crime in the US, IIRC. Any number of semi-automatics or illegal automatics, of course.

My mistake. I meant 300 rounds per minute.

Can you provide a source for that second statement?
As I said I'm not American so really don't follow it that closely.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can you provide a source for that second statement?
As I said I'm not American so really don't follow it that closely.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

It should be remembered, though, that the media will use the term "assault rifle" to mean "assault weapon"...or anything else black and scary. If one were to go by the reports of people using "assault rifle" in the media, there'd be zillions of crimes committed by them.

 

[Blunderboy]

Can you provide a source for that second statement?
As I said I'm not American so really don't follow it that closely.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

It should be remembered, though, that the media will use the term "assault rifle" to mean "assault weapon"...or anything else black and scary. If one were to go by the reports of people using "assault rifle" in the media, there'd be zillions of crimes committed by them.

Interesting. Thank you.

I still can't see how a home owner would need anything beyond semi automatic, but it's still interesting reading.
I'd also like to thank you for being civil. Discussions like this seem to blow up all too often.

 

[Scott Rothman]

I mostly prefer the system the U.S. uses now. you can pretty much own anything that isn't automatic without any special licensing. Fully automatic weapons require extensive wait periods, background checks and licensees, and getting them pretty much puts you on every FBI and ATF watch list for the rest of your life. Grenades and rocket launchers in the U.S. need even more stringent licensing and are registered by the round rather than by the weapon. The only civilians with legal military explosives and machine guns in the U.S. are seriously loaded collectors or businesses that rent out the weapons for training or entertainment purposes.

That said, I would like to see longer wait periods on basic weapons to discourage suicide plans and crimes of passion. U.S. gunshow loopholes that allow the sale of weapons without significant background checks should also be closed (I realize this will basically kill the gun show industry as it currently exists, but modern technology should allow purchased weapons during the show to be shipped at a later date). Silencers are really the only accessory I would see being regulated and requiring extensive paperwork to purchase (which is mostly how it is here now, but previously mentioned gunshow loopholes make it really easy to get one with little effort).

Training would be another issue I would like to see increased, not necessarily mandatory but at least heavily encouraged especially in getting licensed for a concealed carry permit that allows you to hide a handgun on your person legally. I just got my CCW license a year or two ago and it required only a single eight hour class and a target test so easy the World War II vet in the class with us managed to pass it despite being mostly blind and half deaf. That one 8 hour class certified me to carry a hidden weapon on my person or in my car in every state west of the Mississippi except California. They really should at least make the test a little more comprehensive than that.

Of course I accept that different states have different standards and am happy to comply with them when crossing the interstate border, I may be a little loose in my beliefs on gun control, but if the American people decide they want stronger gun laws then I'm ok with that, I tend not to take the second amendment as some sort of iron clad rule that can never be challenged or changed.

I have no personal purpose for a gun. I don't really want one or people around me to have them. But, as many have and many do argue it is their right. I think the stipulations and enforcement you put forth is actually pretty reasonable. The only disagreement I have is about the training. I do think it should be mandatory. I don't see why being legally able to operate a gun should be infinitely easier than being able to legally operate a car.

 

[Karthenak]

While I readily identify myself as pro-gun, I really think that the line should be drawn at semi-automatic weapons to the public. Every shot requires a thought out pull of the trigger. For example if you were to shoot a deer and miss you could make a quick second attempt, or if you found that first shot left it crippled but still moving, you could quickly get that kill shot in to lessen the suffering. If you go out hunting with a fully automatic, you might come home with a story like... "I pulled the trigger, made the deer I was aiming at so full of lead we'd be poisoned if we ate any of it, accidentally killed 7 squirrels, a pheasant, and our hunting dog." Fully automatic was honestly not intended for personal survival via defense or hunting. Its purpose is to kill everything in front of it quickly. And to be honest the reason I can't say I'd like a full on ban of guns to the public is because sometimes when times are rough a hunting license and some bullets are cheaper than groceries. Lucky enough for that never to have been a problem for me, but I know people who have survived on what they hunted.


Oh and training and discipline before ever picking one up.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Interesting. Thank you.

I still can't see how a home owner would need anything beyond semi automatic, but it's still interesting reading.
I'd also like to thank you for being civil. Discussions like this seem to blow up all too often.

Well, personally I strongly favour gun controls. I think the ones we have in Australia are about right, though they should be done at a Federal, rather than State level...they are all mostly the same since then PM Howard sat down with all the state leaders to work out new and more or less identical systems, but things have shifted a bit since there.

OTOH, pop culture and the media tend to spread all sorts of misinformation about guns and gun politics, and I find that endlessly annoying.