Updated from the original TTAG post
1. Prohibition of sound suppressors.
In some states, I understand it is illegal to own a sound suppressor
for a gun. To me this makes no sense. I’d be happy to eliminate these
laws. People who qualify to own guns should be able to own and use sound
suppressors if they like.
On the other hand, isn’t it possible that some people might misuse
them to better commit their crimes? Aside from the Hollywood stereotype
of mafia hit men and James-Bond type killers, isn’t it possible that
your run-of-the-mill bad guys might benefit from such an accessory? Yes
indeed, however, just like your run-of-the-mill bad guys can misuse
guns, and total prohibition is not the answer to that, outright bans on
sound suppressors is not the answer to this either.
Here are gun control laws that I do support, the
explanations for which I’ve written frequently and will forego here
since I wanted to focus on any gun control laws I might be comfortable
doing away with.
2. Waiting periods for gun purchases.
With a slight modification I would be willing to fore go this one too. New, first time purchasers have to wait, all others can collect their weapons immediately after paying for them
3. Prohibition of extended magazines for pistols.
I was on the
fence about this one but the convincer for me was the Jared Loughner
shooting. No need to rehash it here, but it proved to me that
high-capacity magazines help to kill people who otherwise might not be
killed. The only argument for them that makes any sense to me is that
the Jared Loughner-type shootings are extremely rare. Nevertheless, a
law prohibiting this particular accessory works for me, as do the following:
4. Gun free zones.
5. Requiring permits for concealed carry.
6. Licensing of gun owners.
7. Registration of guns.
8. Background check requirement for private sales.
9. Loss of gun rights for every negligent gun offense.
10. Assault Weapons Ban.
I realize there are problems with describing
the proscribed weapons, but I can’t quite bring myself to oppose it.
Perhaps the California version would work.
Again, there are two gun control laws I could live without: the
ban on suppressors and the waiting period for those who already own guns. Does that make me a fanatic or an extremist? I don’t
think so. What do you think?
I’d especially be interested if you can
come up with any other gun control laws I might agree are not needed. I
can’t think of any.
"I realize there are problems with describing the proscribed weapons, but I can’t quite bring myself to oppose it. Perhaps the California version would work."
ReplyDeleteWell you've really thought this through, haven't you Mikey? Just say you'd allow people to have Fudd guns but no scary-looking guns. Be honest.
So Master declares what crumbs he will allow to fall from his table? I note that the two items that you're willing to give up are minor. You keep all the bans on the kinds of equipment that scares you, and you specifically keep things that we will never accept. Of course, none of your desired laws would hinder criminals from getting what they want.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteCan we seriously chat about regulating weapons used the various police and military organizations around the world? If arms reduction of the civilian population is your aim, then getting guns out of the hands of government goes along ways as many of the guns owned by individuals are military models. Many more are sporterized versions of military hardware that would not exist if their government issued forerunners had not made them financially viable products.
That's an interesting idea.
DeleteIf this was titled "two free speach laws I could live without" how would you feel about it? Why not get rid of all gun control laws and hold all individuals accountable for their actions?
ReplyDeleteWe already have laws that restrict the rights of felons to own firearms. When you advocate further restricting people's rights remember that they are all linked. Are you trying to go back to the Jim Crow laws? Remember that it was the Democrats who put those in place in the first place, it seems fishy that they claim to have changed their racist ways yet want the same laws they did when they were openly racists. Why is it that the areas with the largest black populations are controlled by Democrats and have the strictest gun laws? I realize the Democratic party was against the Civil Rights movement, but someone needs to inform them that our inner cities aren't their plantations.
ReplyDeleteThey are not all linked, that's just a line you guys like to use. Jim Crowe and the so-called racist beginnings of gun control also have nothing to do with it.
DeleteThe gun control laws I like would disqualify many borderline unfit people who now qualify as lawful gun owners. It would also cut down on the gun flow to criminals.
May I insert my opinion here?
ReplyDeleteOn subject:
1 Silencers, or suppressors. They dont work like the movies portray. In fact simple home made ones are quieter. But I still dont see the need for them myself except in a indoor range, but I am mostly deaf anyway.
2 I thought a waiting period was still in effect except for permit holders. If not I guess I am behind the times. I figure if you can pass the background check your good to go. I dont see how any waiting time will change any outcome. If someone was that desperate to commit a crime with a gun, they will commit a crime by illegaly aquiring one anyway. So would a waiting period just cause more crime?
3 Again, no difference here either. If you limit magazines to say 6 shots, it only take 2 seconds to load another. Someone wanting to commit mass murder would just simply carry a lot of mags. Seems they do anyway from the news I have heard.
4 There is no such thing, never have been.
5 Conlealed carry, yes. Open carry, no. States have the power to determine whats best for their people.
6 ? Refer to 5
7 No. Big waste of time, solves nothing. Costs a fortune.
8 I have no problem with this one. You have to have the state involved with the transfer of cars, why not guns?
9 Completely depends on the offense.
10 There are ready is. An assault weapon is defined as a FULL AUTO. Semi autos can look military but they are not. Just because a car can look like a race car doesnt make it one. Just because I look like the cool-est, most interesting man in the world doesnt make me one either. As far as full autos go, a full waste of bullets. No practicle use for them in my opinion and very little use in the military when used for precise fire.
11 Any criminal action with firearms needs to be taken at least 2 levels up. Those that result in death is an instant murder/manslaughter charge. Even without the gun fired, used in robbery, rape, terroist activity and so on. Exempt lawful defense.
12 Stock piling of weapons except for dealers. Why in the world would anyone need 15 AR15s for example. Owners of lots of weapons but one or two of each kind I can see and are not stock pilers, but if you have quite a bit of one kind,,,,,,,,well. Even collectors may have sets, but mostly all kinds that are unusual or limited editions are not stock pilers either.
13 Reasonable carry, true defense carry should not exceed what the police depts carry. I dont know of any LEO agency that carries larger than a .45. Brands should not be limited. Also defense carry should be loaded soley with defense rounds to prevent innocent harm. Thats always hollow points.
14 National carry, any state that issue permits in any manor must honor any permit. To avoid entanglements of laws from state and the weapons owners must know and abide by all state laws they would be in.
15 States MUST ISSUE changes in gun laws in that state in a public forum immediatly upon those changes. TV, newspaper and by mail to license holders. Changes are made all the time, most of the time without any real public notification. Public awareness.
16 LEOs MUST BE AWARE OF ALL CURRENT FIRE ARMS LAWS! No exception. If they are going to enforce laws, they must know them.
17 No firearm owners and permit holders can be discriminated against for any reason. Just because you own gun or hold a permit does not mean employers, insurance companys, health providers and such can make other than normal decisions about them.
Mikeb, you're going to have to learn to live without your proposed laws. They won't fly here.
ReplyDeleteYou'll surely see some of them in Obama's second term. Get ready, stock up now.
DeleteSo you believe that not only will Obama have a second term, but also the Democrats will take both the House and the Senate? And you say that we have delusions. . .
DeleteI never said anything about the House and the Senate.
DeleteBut, I think you should stock up just in case.
Mikeb, how can you say the same thing that Wayne LaPierre says while mocking LaPierre for saying it?
Delete