Gun Control

[noonereal]

I think it is about time to start a thread in concerns to gun control.

Let me start by saying I don't know a damn thing about it. A blank slate as it might be. I do sadly realize what a problem guns are but I have never considered guns or gun control a significant issue.

Ok, so my though is fairly simple as one would expect given my admitted lack of understand. Why not simply ban all automatic or semi automatic weapons?
I mean you don't need a machine gun to kill a deer.

Further, why not limit all clips to 3 shots? Does anyone need more than a shot or two?

As to who cannot buy a gun, I think we will all agree that felons and mentally ill folks should not be allowed but what does mentally ill mean? How would it be defined. You can't look out your window and not see a neighbor on antidepressants, Xanax or the kids on Ritalin. Are all these folks excluded.

I'd like to have a philosophical discussion first on this.
Forget for now what could actually pass or what the NRA may sign off on. What is reasonable?

I'd really like to hear from Chas and JJ on this as my impression is that they are reasonable, gun enthusiasts and understand the culture that embarrasses guns.

Also do we have an exception to the general rules of gun ownership for responsible folks who have major collections as any hobbyist might have ?(like Sandy?) Are rules different for these folks?

Can we realistically distinguish?

[finnbow]

I personally think autoloading (i.e., semi-automatic) pistols and long arms should be prohibited, and pistols of all sorts should be strictly regulated. Shotguns are unquestionably the best form of home defense, yet are hard to conceal outside of the home - a good thing. Blasting away at targets with semi-automatic (or automatic) firearms is lots of fun, but not essential to "freedom."

As for hunting, many states limit shotgun capacity to three rounds. If you're limited to 3 rounds for shooting at a running deer, running squirrels and flying birds, it should be enough to protect yourself against an intruder. Just the sound of racking a round into a pump shotgun is enough to make an intruder shit himself.

FWIW, I have about a dozen firearms. None are autoloading. My pistol is a revolver, my shotguns are pumps or over/under double barrels, and all of my rifles are bolt action. I value accuracy and dependability over rate of fire. Maybe that's why I hunt mostly with a bow or a muzzleloader as I like the challenge of placing one clean shot and not "spray and pray."

[noonereal]

Thanks Pat

That seems reasonable

How many guns do you need?

Or is this of less importance? or irrelevant and not necessary to control?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Thanks Pat

That seems reasonable

How many guns do you need?

Or is this of less importance? or irrelevant and not necessary to control?

Depends what you do with them. I have two sons and we hunt a variety of critters. So I have 3 each (roughly) of .22 rifles, small caliber centerfire rifles, 3 larger caliber centerfire rifles, and 3 shotguns along with an inherited .38 Special pistol. I also have 3 muzzleloading blackpowder rifles (although I didn't count them in the total as they are not considered "firearms" in the eyes of the law) and a couple of modern spring piston air guns.

BTW, I don't think of these guns in terms of personal protection. I shoot them at my club's range for practice/recreation and while hunting. Other than that, they under lock and key at all times. Even if I lived in a state with lax concealed carry laws (I don't), I would never even consider carrying a loaded firearm around with me in public. I often don't load my gun in the field until I get to my final hunting location (stand or blind) out of safety concerns.

As far as what the right number is, I don't care how many shotguns or non-autoloading rifles people chose to own. As for pistols, with some exceptions, their use/ownership should be limited to the police and military.

Were I to support the need for firearms to protect from a tyrannical government (I don't), a pistol would be my absolutely last choice in this regard. I would be shot dead in my tracks at 20 times the effective range of the pistol.

[Charles]

Since you asked.

Fully automatic weapons are available, although extremely expensive, and highly regulated. You have to get a Class III license, pay a $200 fee, and get the local sheriff to sign off on your permit. I think I'm basically correct on this, but since I don't own one I've never been through the process.

Semi automatics are readily available and in all forms. Most all of the shotguns have 5 or 6 round magazines, and have been that way every since they were first manufactured, which goes back almost 100 yrs. .22 rifles and pistols generally have a 10 round magazine, some of the tube feeds more. They've also been like that for almost 100 yrs. Centerfire rifles (hi powered) generally have a 5 round magazine, and they're nothing new as well. Banning semi autos is simply out of the question unless you want to ban all firearms, as there are just too many of them.

Even the AK47, with the 47 indicating the year it was adopted for service, has been around for 64 years. The Colt M1911 .45 for 100 yrs even, these weapons are nothing new.

Centerfire pistols generally hold from 7 to 13 rounds, the Mauser Broomhandle held 10 I believe, Colt 1911 held 7, and the Browning Hi Power held 13 even back in 1935.

By the way Noon, since you're a novice, let me touch on the difference between magazines and clips. A magazine is a device which holds the ammunition and a clip is a device which holds the ammunition so that it may be inserted into the magazine quickly, and then removed. Otherwise known as stripper clips. They are used for fixed magazines, such as the Broomhandle or the SKS. The magazine feeds the ammunition into the firing mechanism, the clip loads the magazine. Then you have the M1 Garand which uses a En-Bloc clip, which is a clip which is loaded into the magazine while containing the ammunition and is ejected after the last round is fired. Kind of a unique device, I can think of no other firearm which uses one. One of the disadvantages of the clip, besides being slower, is if you do it wrong the bolt will close on your thumb like a snapping turtle with steel jaws. The removable magazine is far preferable, the clips are going the way of the dodo bird.

When you get into magazines, other than fixed or removable, you have the standard, high capacity, or extended magazine. Standard is the one which comes with the firearm, in pistols generally from 7 to 13 rounds. High capacity, while standard on the likes of an AK or an M16, are generally considered to be magazines which hold from 15 to as much as 100 rounds, like the drum on a Thompson. An extended magazine would be like the one used by Loughner, a high capacity magazine which can be inserted in place of the standard magazine as to allow for more ammunition.

Speaking of Loughner. I know of no experienced pistol shooter who has any use for an extended magazine of the type he used. Shooting a handgun well is difficult at best, and having a 30 round magazine will not only prohibit the proper grip while using the firearm, it will also change the balance, and quite possibly effect the functioning leading to jambs. You couldn't give me one.

As far as hi capacity magazines go, I have five. Three for the AK and two for the H&K 91. Do I need them, hopefully not. Will banning them make them go away? Does banning meth make it go away?

At this point the only reasonable control to put on firearms is to lock up the one's who use them in an illegal fashion, and even the NRA advocates that.

If we want to disarm the mentally unstable we need to define what being mentally unstable is. If you're determined to be a threat to yourself and others would be a good definition. Taking a sleeping pill would not.

When you get right down to it, other than the hoods in the hood shooting hoods, we have remarkably little gunplay here in the streets of Dodge, considering how many firearms are available. The Loughners of the world are aberrations, and fortunately exceedingly rare.

No doubt many will disagree with me on this point.

And while I'm being disagreeable, I'll take on Finn. Some semi autos are very accurate. I know for a fact my Ruger 10-22 custom will outshoot my Browning A-Bolt .22. And a lot of black rifles will outshoot my .243 varmint rifle.

And while I have semi autos in all categories, I seldom shoot them, then again I seldom shoot at all these days. I still prefer a pump or single shot shotgun, bolt action rifles, and revolvers. For one thing I don't like chasing my brass.

Chas

[mossbacked]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I personally think autoloading (i.e., semi-automatic) pistols and long arms should be prohibited, and pistols of all sorts should be strictly regulated. Shotguns are unquestionably the best form of home defense, yet are hard to conceal outside of the home - a good thing. Blasting away at targets with semi-automatic (or automatic) firearms is lots of fun, but not essential to "freedom."

As for hunting, many states limit shotgun capacity to three rounds. If you're limited to 3 rounds for shooting at a running deer, running squirrels and flying birds, it should be enough to protect yourself against an intruder. Just the sound of racking a round into a pump shotgun is enough to make an intruder shit himself.

FWIW, I have about a dozen firearms. None are autoloading. My pistol is a revolver, my shotguns are pumps or over/under double barrels, and all of my rifles are bolt action. I value accuracy and dependability over rate of fire. Maybe that's why I hunt mostly with a bow or a muzzleloader as I like the challenge of placing one clean shot and not "spray and pray."

These are great points, and the way noonereal laid it out to start the thread is very good.

I can see right away how legislators must struggle over the issues.

One problem would automatically arise when trying to determine the number of shots per loading (and 3 is a good stab at it for shotguns).

Clips would probably have to be limited to 6 as there are might be millions of revolvers out there legally that are 6-shooters

The problem is that clipped guns can be easily modded to hold more and shoot automatically, but banning further production would be unfair to companies with patents who are currently legally producing and current owners.

And I still keep remembering that the bad guys alway seem to get guns no matter what. I think Loughner's actions probably spurred this discussion, so maybe eliminating potential Loughner's should be the crux of what we create.

We might do better concentrating our efforts on controlling people instead of guns by requiring intensive training, a basic psych. evaluation, an age limit, and longer waiting periods. That probably would have screened Loughner out.

This would also allow for even higher levels of training wherein certain individuals who need it could qualify for more firepower.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by mossbacked

We might do better concentrating our efforts on controlling people instead of guns by requiring intensive training, a basic psych. evaluation, an age limit, and longer waiting periods. That probably would have screened Loughner out.

Maybe so, but the state of mental health care in the US is even more ridiculous than our gun laws. Privacy laws (generally a good thing) make it even worse.

I heard a major figure in the field of mental health say on TV today that the only way you can be sure that someone is involuntarily committed is if he shoots his psychiatrist or himself in the presence of his psychiatrist.

[mossbacked]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Maybe so, but the state of mental health care in the US is even more ridiculous than our gun laws. Privacy laws (generally a good thing) make it even worse.

I heard a major figure in the field of mental health say on TV today that the only way you can be sure that someone is involuntarily committed is if he shoots his psychiatrist or himself in the presence of his psychiatrist.

My thoughts were the psych eval would occur within the framework of the local training course which would probably be in the same building as local law enforcement. I would also want it to be self-sufficient based upon fees paid by those buying the gun permit.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by mossbacked

My thoughts were the psych eval would occur within the framework of the local training course which would probably be in the same building as local law enforcement. I would also want it to be self-sufficient based upon fees paid by those buying the gun permit.

In theory, it sounds fine. However, as I've heard from some doctor friends, modern medicine understands most things from the neck down and almost nothing from the neck up. Also, some mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia (what Loughner appeared to have had)) don't show up until you're in your early twenties. You could already be a gun owner before any symptoms show up and there are over 2 million schizophrenics in the US.



Also, mental illness is the only type of illness where the symptoms themselves define the disease. Accordingly, diagnoses can be all over the map from different doctors. Also, illnesses such as depression can come and go over the years or be unnoticeable between episodes (bipolar illness).

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by mossbacked

These are great points, and the way noonereal laid it out to start the thread is very good.

I can see right away how legislators must struggle over the issues.

One problem would automatically arise when trying to determine the number of shots per loading (and 3 is a good stab at it for shotguns).

Clips would probably have to be limited to 6 as there are might be millions of revolvers out there legally that are 6-shooters

The problem is that clipped guns can be easily modded to hold more and shoot automatically, but banning further production would be unfair to companies with patents who are currently legally producing and current owners.

And I still keep remembering that the bad guys alway seem to get guns no matter what. I think Loughner's actions probably spurred this discussion, so maybe eliminating potential Loughner's should be the crux of what we create.

We might do better concentrating our efforts on controlling people instead of guns by requiring intensive training, a basic psych. evaluation, an age limit, and longer waiting periods. That probably would have screened Loughner out.

This would also allow for even higher levels of training wherein certain individuals who need it could qualify for more firepower.

It's hard for me to find anything to take issue with in your post. Believe it or not, I support protection of intellectual property and other property rights. You make a particularly good point about the training. I hadn't thought about that being a good way to identify the nut cases.

Regards,

D-Ray