Anti-Gunners: What is your vision of a "gun safe" future?

[TomHansley]

I hear folks with anti-gun views say that even they don't want a total ban on guns, just "resonable restrictions"

What are these?


Would you ban "assault" weapons (semi-autos with pistol grips and detachable mag)?

Would you ban all semi-autos, even hunting configurations?

Would there be a magazine round limit?

Would there be a ban on handguns? Restrictions in size and magazine capacity?

Would you want ammunition serialized or guns to imprint serial numbers on the bullet casing?

Would you want all firearms to be unloaded and locked in a safe when not at a range?

Would you want to ban all private face-to-face firearm sales?

Would existing firearms be grandfathered in or confiscated?

What type of background check / training / mental health check / waiting period / number of firearms limit would you want?


In essence, where do you want to go with gun laws?

[elocs]

1. I don't want gun laws. I want strict ammunition laws.

Guns are very safe without bullets. No Constitutional anything about bullets.

[slackmaster]

2. Ammunition is even easier to make than guns are

:shrug:

[spin]

29. Making ammo is NO problem...

You just reload the empty cartridge cases. You might call it recycling.

It's a straight forward simple process but it does require reasonable care. Make a careless mistake and you can blow a gun up.

I estimate that I produced somewhere near 100,000 reloads over the years. And no, I never damaged a weapon with my ammo.

I used a "single stage press" to accomplish this. If I worked real hard I could crank out about 100 rounds per hour.

If you buy a piece of equipment like the Dillon Square Deal B press you can crank out handgun ammo at an amazing rate. (The basic Square Deal B costs only $339.95)

Q. How many rounds can I make with Square Deal?
A. The Square Deal is rated up to 400-500 rounds per hour but this will vary upon from user to user. The rating is just an approximation advised from Dillon USA.
http://www.dillonprecision.com.au/FAQ-About-Dillon-Reloaders/

[M24PS90]

48. I use a Dillon 650

and I crank out between 600 and 700 rounds per hour. I also use a single stage for my match .308.

[bossy22]

4. ahh...you must be a fan of scalia

and originalism- if it is not mentioned in the constitution- it is not protected by the constitution

I dont see anywhere that abortion is protected- i dont see a right to privacy- i dont see TV media being protected under free speech

beware of the laws of unintended consequences

[DrDan]

34. and ammo is as safe without the gun

[M24PS90]

49. Do you know

that there are several laws that state a police officer can perform his job with you on the side of the highway but it does not sell out that they can pull you over?

This is referred to as "Implied Authority" what this means is that the law does not have to spell out that an officer can, in fact, pull you over because it is implied that he would have to do so in order to accomplish his duties.

The same goes for the BOR. If that right shall not be infringed, and If the people have the right to bare arms for the purposes of defense then is Implied that there be ammunition for said arms.

Even if you could stop all ammo from production you could not stop the mining of saltpeter, sulfur, coal and lead. Just wrap that up in a nice brass package and BOOM! Viola! A bullet is born.

Oh wait..... Gun owners are not supposed to be versed in Law or Chemistry. My bad. I will go back to dragging my knuckles on the floor I guess.

TTFN

[DrDan]

3. this is what I would like to see - not what I would expect, however

Would you ban "assault" weapons (semi-autos with pistol grips and detachable mag)? - yes

Would you ban all semi-autos, even hunting configurations? - yes

Would there be a magazine round limit? - yes

Would there be a ban on handguns? Restrictions in size and magazine capacity? - yes

Would you want ammunition serialized or guns to imprint serial numbers on the bullet casing? - yes

Would you want all firearms to be unloaded and locked in a safe when not at a range? - yes

Would you want to ban all private face-to-face firearm sales? - yes

Would existing firearms be grandfathered in or confiscated? - confiscated

What type of background check / training / mental health check / waiting period / number of firearms limit would you want? - as extensive as possible, a extensive as possible, as extensive as possible, at least 7 days, not sure about firearm limit. I can see collectors having a collection as long as long as the firearm is disabled.

[bossy22]

5. would that also

apply to off duty police officers?

btw who would do the confiscation?- i think the local police force might find itself outgunned- so i guess the army is the only ones capable of doing the job- yes...lets turn the army against its own citizens- its the democratic way!!!!

[DrDan]

6. "lets turn the army against . . . " - now that is based on your assumptions

gun-owners - being the law-abiding citizens that they are - would voluntarily turn the weapons in once they know possession is against the law. They are all law-abiding, right? At least I continue to hear that the majority are.

Off-duty police? hmmmm - no - I guess a necessity to their work. So I guess the law should not apply.

[bossy22]

7. hmm

so we are all second class citizens compared to off-duty officers? an off duty officer is a civilian like you and me, he/she has no powers of arrest that are different from either you and me?

off-duty officers arent at work- they are OFF-DUTY

thats one thing i can't understand about gun control proponents- why off duty police officers are always exempt from the laws- they are off duty- if we cant own handguns in our homes- neither should they

gun-owners - being the law-abiding citizens that they are - would voluntarily turn the weapons in once they know possession is against the law. They are all law-abiding, right? At least I continue to hear that the majority are.
im a law abiding a jew- if they made a law saying you can't be jewish anymore- would i convert because im law abiding- NO

neither would some gun owners turn in their weapons- i think about half would, the majority of the other half would just hide them- then you get the crazy 500,000 of them who decide to take up arms against the govt- then the streets of america would look like war zones- think about WACOx 1,000- is that what you want?

[1620rock]

8. Pipe dream. A war on guns in Amerika would be the "war on drugs"..how has that worked out?

[DrDan]

12. is that because of the approach taken, however

in going after the users, instead of the suppliers?

[SteveM]

44. Nope, complete failure either way. That should be obvious (nt)

[DrDan]

11. "if we cant own handguns in our homes- neither should they"

I can live with that. I am open to some concessions. I agree my response was perhaps not given adequate thought. Is the power of arrest while off duty the same in all states? I am just ignorant in this regard. I based my previous answer believing they still had that power - even though off-duty. I have certainly seen off-duty officers take control of traffic situations - so I assumed they also had some legal authority to do so.

"if they made a law saying you can't be jewish anymore" - following that law would be a bit out-of-your control, wouldn't it? Turning in a firearm is a conscious decision that can be followed or ignored.

on edit:

"then the streets of america would look like war zones- think about WACOx 1,000- is that what you want?"

of course that is not what I want. I was only providing a "wish list" - not what might be practical.

[bossy22]

14. no

a law saying i couldnt be jewish anymore isnt out of my control- i could get baptized, and become catholic....religion can be changed

[DrDan]

36. I was thinking Jewish in the ethnic sense

if this did become law (in a religious context), you would certainly have to consider the consequences in determining your course of action - not unlike a gun owner who may choose to not obey the law and simply hide the gun. Admittedly, there would be millions that would do this. I concede that.

[bossy22]

37. true

just like there would be ones that wouldnt-

the problem is with the 500,000 doomsday nuts who will decide to take up arms against the govt- 500,000 armed individuals is a huge problem- probably too large for the police to battle

but all we are doing is speculating- it will never come to this

I still believe taht the American Public will not stand for firearm confiscation on large scale- and i believe many police agencies will refuse to do this as well

[DrDan]

38. I agree with you - I don't think they would either

I would just like to see us reach the point where a rational discussion of the issues could take place - and some meaningful legislation be passed. In my view, the biggest barrier to that has been the NRA.

[bossy22]

39. i think a rational discussion

may lead to little legislation- im all for a rational discussion- it would finally get rid of Assault weapons bans once and for all

and maybe a rational discussion will get people to realize the 2nd amendment is here, and it is here to stay...so you can't legislate like it doesnt exist

[old mark]

41. If that is the case...

...I will certainly join and support the NRA to keep your sick dream from becoming reality.

mark

[TomHansley]

13. Can you explain what "as extensive as possible" means?

What type of background check / training / mental health check / waiting period / number of firearms limit would you want? - as extensive as possible, a extensive as possible, as extensive as possible, at least 7 days, not sure about firearm limit. I can see collectors having a collection as long as long as the firearm is disabled.

How extensive?

Background check: Currently a felony or domestic violence conviction means you can't own firearms, what would be the new level? Would being arrested for misdomeaners disqualify you? What if you were arrested for a joint on you 10 years ago?

Identification: Should gun owners get a mug shot? fingerprinted? DNA sampled? Drug tested before each gun purchase?

Training: 8-hour safety course? 40-hour? 160-hour?

Mental Health Check: What type of mental problems would disqualify someone from gun ownership? What about depression? What if you took anti-depressents 20 years ago, would that still disqualify you today? What if you were depressed 2 years ago for a short time because of a family member dying?

[MercutioATC]

18. Are you aware of what a "semi-automatic weapon" is?

Since you want to ban them, I thought I'd ask.

Yes, the name sounds all spooky, but it's just a gun that holds a number of rounds (be it 3 or 30) that fires one of them each time one pulls the trigger. It's like a revolver without the cylinder. What, in your opinion, makes this so dangerous that it needs to be banned?

[DrDan]

23. actually I did know that - although I know little about guns never

having owned one.

But I do not understand the need to rapidly fire multiple rounds. Is there a legitimate need for that?

[spin]

32. A revolver can fire rapidly...

And it's not semi-automatic.

For those who doubt this watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y

Effective self defense shooting with a handgun is a combination of accuracy, speed and the power of the round.

Another video with a a semi-auto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud7ML1bPi6g&NR=1

[SteveM]

43. The voice of prohibition -- as long as you're not doing it...

You wish to confiscate. How?

Background, mental health "extensive as possible." Ever heard of pre-1965 literacy tests in the South?

De jure racism really got started with gun-control. SEE: www.georgiacarry.org and scroll down to Heller brief for an excellent summary of how to rig laws. Also, review the effectiveness of the War on Drugs, Inc, for ancillary failures.

[littlecryinggirl]

9. Confiscation

Confiscate and destroy them.

[bossy22]

10. again

who is goin to do the confiscation-

do you really want to set the precedent that confiscating lawful property is a-ok....remember once you break down the dam you cannot control the flood

our first amendment is sacred- but the 2nd amendment we can do away with

[MercutioATC]

19. They'd have to find'em first.

Confiscation would be both unmanageable (many would resist) and impossible (many would hide their guns).

...and it has nothing to do with not being law-abiding...to many gun owners gun confiscation is an actual violation of the Constitution. If the government tried to eliminate all free speech protection, wouldn't you resist? Wouldn't you view your resistance as following the greater good even though it broke some recently-passed law?

Confiscation will never happen.

[spin]

33. I guess you could bring all the troops back home...

to accomplish this.

A lot of good people would die unnecessarily. Confiscation would at the best disarm only the honest citizens. At the worst it could lead to civil insurrection. The United States might end up resembling Iraq.

[slackmaster]

35. Too late - I lost mine in a tragic ocean kayak accident

Funny how so many people fancy themselves open-minded, fair, progressive people favor authoritarian measures like seizing private property without compensation.

[Ian David]

15. I'm in favor of legalizing any kind of gun, so long as they remove the metal detectors from Congress

Any gun that can be carried into my workplace should also be allowed in the workplace of the people who legalize those guns.

Only fair.

And for the record, my gun has killed one less person than Laura Bush's car.

However, I am in favor of mandatory trigger locks, firearms registries, waiting periods, and limits on magazine size.

I'm also in favor of ending the ban in Massachusetts against slingshots and blowguns (while black powder firearms and crossbows are available to ANYONE).

[Callisto32]

24. "...and limits on magazine size."

This one has always given me trouble. What is intended to be accomplished by limiting the capacity of magazines? The logic seems to be that if somebody goes off the deep end and shoots up a place, this will require said nutter to reload. However, in the end I don't suspect that much is really accomplished. This is why:

For this example, I will use a sidearm with which I am personally familiar, the CZ-75B. The standard capacity magazine for this sidearm holds 16 rounds of 9x19mm ammunition. The reduced capacity magazines hold 10 rounds. A standard practice is to load the chamber of the weapon and then insert a fully loaded magazine this leads to capacities expressed as 16+1 and 10+1 in this case. So, lets say that one begins with a fully loaded weapon. With the reduced capacity mags, you have 11 rounds initially, and 10 more in a spare magazine. Totally capacity is 21 rounds. With standard (yes, the 16 round ones are standard, as they are the magazines the weapon was initially designed to use) you begin with 17 and have 16 in the spare, giving you 33 rounds at your disposal. This is a difference of 12 rounds. However, it is very easy for the person using 10 round magazines to simply add an additional loaded magazine to the works, giving them a total of 31 rounds, and a difference of only 2 rounds.

I concede that two people using an equal number of magazines leads to one easily carrying much more ammunition using standard capacity magazines, but the one with reduced capacity magazines is not significantly hobbled. Simply, reloading is easy and fast. If you want to see just how fast just search for Jerry Miculek or fallow this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI . This is a man shooting a revolver, which are among the slower of modern weapons to reload. He is one of the best of the best, but the reload is the easy part of what he is doing.

If my assumption as to the intended effect of such restrictions is incorrect, please correct me.

[Ian David]

26. Or, you could also carry two or more identical fully-loaded weapons.

Many laws-- and not just gun laws-- are imperfect and flawed.

[Callisto32]

27. No agrument here.

But if they are utterly ineffective, as magazine capacity restrictions, would it not be better to simply repeal them and not waste space in the criminal code with additional laws that do nothing?

[Ian David]

40. If you had a magic wand you could wave and make it work... n/t

[iverglas]

16. My paternal grandfather was a gunner

in the Royal Field Artillery in WWI.

I've never been anti-my grandfather.

Anybody who is will have me to answer to.

[bossy22]

17. LOL

clever.....yuse a clever one

[Hidey]

20. Guns, guns, guns.. and prisons.

There sure have been allot of posts about guns lately.

Since you asked though, I don't mind guns and I don't want restrictions on them. They can be used for good or bad.

It's people that scare me. The problem is, if you let dangerous people loose they'll find a way to hurt you, no matter if there's guns or not.

I think the question should be: Why are we letting people loose who will hurt us?

If we as a society determine that someone can never, ever be trusted to be set free, then we should either separate them or kill them. Not out of any sense of punishment, but but to protect other criminals who can be rehabilitated.

I have to wonder how many check forgers, recreational drug users and small time thieves enter our prisons and leave as hardened criminals. Even more sad, no one seems to care about this. I've even heard right wingers joke to the effect of: "He-he, you KNOW what will be happening to him in prison!" Like it's funny for people to be raped and beaten. They talk as if these people were sentenced to rape. That's as "cruel and unusual" as punishment gets! Should a check forger have to join a gang for protection? Is it justice for career criminals to use our tax dollars to continue to beat and abuse their fellow man from behind bars?

Is it really any wonder that when these people are released that they're dangerous? Would it be any wonder if they were more dangerous then when they went in?

Most of these people will be released at some point. Perhaps we should focus on what happens while they're in the system, and we'll have less crime when they leave it? Be it gun crime, property crime, sexual crime or what have you.

[bossy22]

21. you summed

up the republican mindset on the "war on crime"- they look it as a war- not as a social problem (which it is) Our prison system in this country needs to be fixed, its time we get rid of the death penalty (i have a problem with government taking life when there is no percieved threat from that life- which there is none if he is locked in prison)

the problem is our system is based on retribution and revenge- no one cares about the facts of the case

[Hidey]

22. Prisions

My concern revolves around basically tossing someone into the middle of a dog fight for 5 or 10 solid years, then opening the gate and expecting a human being to walk out.

I know it's not supposed to be a picnic, but no one was sentenced to rape, beatings or other abuse for years on end.

Then they joke about it. It makes me sick.

I bet they're not telling rape jokes when that petty thief turned hardened criminal mugs them..

[Callisto32]

25. And burdens of proof....

that many on juries apparently either do not understand or care about.

[SteveM]

45. Hear, hear. (nt)

[sui generis]

28. all right, bait, meet fish

In a perfect world - we wouldn't have guns, spears, slingshots, or even spitwads.

We wouldn't punish people for murder by murdering them. And we wouldn't be dumbass enough to think we can stop a missile by shooting it with a missile. In an even more perfect world we would make it illegal to be all OCD about guns.

But all that would just be crazy, apparently.

:popcorn:

[SteveM]

46. Is it "crazy" because of your imperfections or those with whom you disagree?

[iverglas]

30. is there some practical distinction

between this thread and this thread? --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607

Is there some purpose served by addressing a thread to something called "Anti-Gunners"?


But hmm.

My vision of a "gun safe" future. Quite likely someone has already said it, but:



Looks good to me.

[iverglas]

31. since you express an interest

Perhaps you will pick up the conversation where certain others rather notably abandoned it in that other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170803

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Let me save them the reading.

A summary of whats in the link.

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

and a total ban on handguns.

That sums it up.

David

[Tejas]

47. unpossibilties

;)

[krispos42]

50. I think it would look something like this:

I made this reply here, and I liked it so I thought I would re-post it here.

• All civilian ownership of handguns is a major felony. No new handguns can be bought by any citizen. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing handguns cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.
  
  
• Concealed or open carry of handguns is a felony.
  
  
• All civilian ownership of semi-automatic and repeating long guns is a major felony. No new semi-automatic or repeating long guns can be bought by any citizen. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing semi-automatic and repeating cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.
  
  
• No more transfers of Title III fully-automatic weapons or destructive devices will be issued. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing fully-automatic weapons and destructive devices cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.
  
  
• All remaining firearms (single-and double-barreled rifles and shotguns) are registered with the federal and state governments.
  
  
• All new firearms must have a microprinting system that etches the gun's serial number on every fired cartridge.
  
  
• They are required to be stored in an unloaded and disassembled state in a locked safe. Ammunition is stored in a separate locked safe.
  
  
• Periodic surprise inspections of firearms and ammunition are made by the police. This must happen at least once a year. Ownership of a firearm or ammunition means you are required to allow the inspections. Failure to allow inspections results in immediate arrest and confiscation of all firearms.
  
  
• Anybody wishing to buy or inherit a firearm must go through a background check of criminal and mental-health records. If those are passed, the person must be screened for mental-health issues. There is no obligation to process these checks in a timely manner. The prospective gun owner will pay a hefty fee for those checks.
  
  
• A person must also have a firearm owner ID card to buy or inherit a firearm. The ID card is issued only after the above criminal and mental screenings are complete. The ID card has all of the calibers and serial numbers of the guns the owner possesses and must be used to purchase ammunition. Only ammunition for the calibers listed on the card will be allowed to be bought.
  
  
• A person must have their firearm ownership ID card on them at all times when carrying or transporting firearms. They are only allowed to transport or poses their own firearms, as listed on the ID card.
  
  
• Every rifle sold, new or used, must be test-fired and the bullet given to the police forensics lab. During the periodic surprise inspections, the police will also test-fire the gun and take a new fired bullet to the forensics lab. The police will have a portable bullet-capture unit in a vehicle and will publicly perform such a test.
  
  
• A person may only buy one firearm a year, for a maximum of 5 owned.
  
  
• All person-to-person sales of firearms are prohibited. Firearms can only be sold to and bought from federally licensed dealers.
  
  
• All ammunition sales will be recorded forever in a government database. All of the ammunition in the box will have a unique serial number, which is also registered. Posession of unregistered ammunition, even if it is of the proper caliber, is a felony. No secondary transfer of ammunition is allowed.
  
  
• Reloading components are no longer allowed to be sold.
  
  
• There will be a $1-a-round sin tax on all ammunition sold.
  
  
• All firearms must carry $500,000 dollars worth of personal-injury insurance and $10,000 of property-damage insurance.