A workable solution amid a split political environment?

[Metsfanmax]

I would support any law that permitted concealed-carry crossbows.

Anyway, I've said my bit on what it would take to get me to agree to compromise. I will let other people chime in now.

[Night Strike]

So what happens if your single-shot gun misses or doesn't stop an attacker?

If you aren't good enough to stop an attacker with a single-shot pistol, I don't see what good it will to do arm you with a gun that will allow you to spray bullets wildly, possibly into the crowd. But like I said, this isn't something to be settled by emotional debate or by people who aren't experts in self-defense; it's something that should be informed by law enforcement and weapons experts, who can make the best determination on what weapons are necessary for self-defense in such situations. If they say that semi-automatic weapons like the Glock pistols that law enforcement officers carry are the best choice when considering the effectiveness of safely stopping a dangerous situation, I will accept that.

One of the fundamental teachings in using firearms for self-defense and for concealed carry is to find a gun that you are comfortable using and train with that gun in a way that you would have to use it if such a situation ever arose. There is no one-size-fits all because there are so many variables in size, comfort, recoil, caliber, etc. In concealed carry training, people are taught to practice pulling the gun out of their holster, turning off the safety, and firing accurately all so they can do it as second nature if the time ever came to use it. People who use a gun in self-defense aren't just "spraying bullets wildly", but misses do happen when a person is forced to shoot at another person no matter what their level of training is. The risk of a person missing their target is not a justification to limit the options available to them for self-defense. And the WORST option for self-defense (besides no weapon or awareness) is to allow a person to only carry one bullet in their gun because if they miss or the bullet doesn't stop the target or there is more than one assailant, they will immediately return to being a potential victim.

[Lootifer]

So what happens if your single-shot gun misses or doesn't stop an attacker?

If you aren't good enough to stop an attacker with a single-shot pistol, I don't see what good it will to do arm you with a gun that will allow you to spray bullets wildly, possibly into the crowd. But like I said, this isn't something to be settled by emotional debate or by people who aren't experts in self-defense; it's something that should be informed by law enforcement and weapons experts, who can make the best determination on what weapons are necessary for self-defense in such situations. If they say that semi-automatic weapons like the Glock pistols that law enforcement officers carry are the best choice when considering the effectiveness of safely stopping a dangerous situation, I will accept that.

One of the fundamental teachings in using firearms for self-defense and for concealed carry is to find a gun that you are comfortable using and train with that gun in a way that you would have to use it if such a situation ever arose. There is no one-size-fits all because there are so many variables in size, comfort, recoil, caliber, etc. In concealed carry training, people are taught to practice pulling the gun out of their holster, turning off the safety, and firing accurately all so they can do it as second nature if the time ever came to use it. People who use a gun in self-defense aren't just "spraying bullets wildly", but misses do happen when a person is forced to shoot at another person no matter what their level of training is. The risk of a person missing their target is not a justification to limit the options available to them for self-defense. And the WORST option for self-defense (besides no weapon or awareness) is to allow a person to only carry one bullet in their gun because if they miss or the bullet doesn't stop the target or there is more than one assailant, they will immediately return to being a potential victim.

Hence my suggestions are fairly lenient on handguns, as they are specifically designed for personal protection, and not hunting human beings. A magazine of 6-8 bullets should be suffice and any more than this should be heavily restricted.

Likewise for hunting rifles; I know a few game hunters and you never need more than a couple of bullets while hunting before you will have a chance to reload. A magazine over 7-10 is unneccessary, nor do they need pistol grips.

Now this isnt really to do with the recent shooting, since the failing wasnt in gun laws; the main culprit was mental health. This is more of a "oh its a good time to talk about this" (since its already been kicked off) and my despair at modern democracy.

Would you be ok with the fairly heavy handed (while still leaving you with appropriate 2nd amendment rights) restrictions I have suggested above? that is anything that falls outside of personal protection (which standard issue handguns are more than adequate as far as I know) and sport/hunting (small magazine specialist shotguns and rifles) is essentially banned or heavily regulated.

[saxitoxin]

In Austria IIRC you can buy a break-action shotgun like a pack of cigarettes. You just need to show an ID that says you're over 18 at the Point-of-Purchase. No records are kept, there's no background check, no registration, no license, no waiting period ... you just show your drivers license, hand over the cash, and you get a shotgun!



This also leaves open the possibility that an innovative entrepreneur could develop Shotgun Vending Machines.

[HapSmo19]

Anyway, I've taken the position of a retard from another planet. I will let other people chime in now.

Can you even grasp the concept of what the second amendment is about in the first place? Defense against foreign invasion or tyrannical goverment(who will fucking bring it, by the way)doesn't start with single shot pistols, idiot.

[Metsfanmax]

Anyway, I've taken the position of a retard from another planet. I will let other people chime in now.

Can you even grasp the concept of what the second amendment is about in the first place? Defense against foreign invasion or tyrannical goverment(who will fucking bring it, by the way)doesn't start with single shot pistols, idiot.

The world has nuclear weapons, high explosives, chemical and biological weapons now. If anyone wanted to kill Americans on a large scale, you can bet that they're not going to be marching into your town with an army like in 1789.

[saxitoxin]

Anyway, I've taken the position of a retard from another planet. I will let other people chime in now.

Can you even grasp the concept of what the second amendment is about in the first place? Defense against foreign invasion or tyrannical goverment(who will fucking bring it, by the way)doesn't start with single shot pistols, idiot.

As I've read more of the Federalist Papers and so forth in the last year or so, my opinion of the Second Amendment has changed in that I now do not believe the US constitutional framers intended a totally libertine regime of firearms access. For instance, the Anti-Federalists had proposed a more sweeping text for the 2nd amendment that was defeated by the Federalists. This suggests the latter thought the former proposal was too inclusive.

• Defeated Text: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.
  
  Final Text: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, that point aside, I have to remark that HapSmo seems to have a correct position. Apparently Mexican decision not to invade the US in 1917 was based on a three-point strategic assessment, one of those points was that an occupation of Arizona and New Mexico would become too bloody due to the high-level of civilian firearms ownership. (I recommend - http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-War-Me ... 0226425894) In fact, more recently, we saw the U.S. retreated from Iraq for the exact same reason (a well-armed, organized resistance).

[HapSmo19]

Anyway, I've taken the position of a retard from another planet. I will let other people chime in now.

Can you even grasp the concept of what the second amendment is about in the first place? Defense against foreign invasion or tyrannical goverment(who will fucking bring it, by the way)doesn't start with single shot pistols, idiot.

The world has nuclear weapons, high explosives, chemical and biological weapons now. If anyone wanted to kill Americans on a large scale, you can bet that they're not going to be marching into your town with an army like in 1789.

Certainly not when they'd be staring down 100 million barrels, Tool.

[Metsfanmax]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

[HapSmo19]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

[Lootifer]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

Id agree to that on the condition that you also ban guns that fall outside of personal protection (low magazine handguns) and sport/hunting activities (low magazine rifles and shotguns).

If you are going to use the tyranical government argument, can you please supply a straw man with how this kind of thing would be even remotely possible?

[saxitoxin]

If you are going to use the tyranical government argument, can you please supply a straw man with how this kind of thing would be even remotely possible?

Dorr Rebellion
McMinn County War
Harper's Ferry Raid
Kirk-Holden War

[Lootifer]

If you are going to use the tyranical government argument, can you please supply a straw man with how this kind of thing would be even remotely possible?

Dorr Rebellion
McMinn County War

Both of those tyranical civil authorities could be overthrown easily without the use of force in modern America.

I'm looking for a modern replication of those tyranical civil entities that would require force; as my premise is that the tyranical government argument pertaining to the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant in a functioning democracy.

(argh why in the hell have i picked a fight with Saxi; inb4 ass-whopping).

[Night Strike]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

What about guns that are stolen?

[saxitoxin]

If you are going to use the tyranical government argument, can you please supply a straw man with how this kind of thing would be even remotely possible?

Dorr Rebellion
McMinn County War

Both of those tyranical civil authorities could be overthrown easily without the use of force in modern America.

oh, okay

[HapSmo19]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

Id agree to that on the condition that you also ban guns that fall outside of personal protection (low magazine handguns) and sport/hunting activities (low magazine rifles and shotguns).

If you are going to use the tyranical government argument, can you please supply a straw man with how this kind of thing would be even remotely possible?

What is a "low magazine"?

[HapSmo19]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

What about guns that are stolen?

Well, they're stolen. I guess the idea is they wont be stolen(or not very easily anyway) because it will be in the owners best interest to keep them locked up and the combo secret.

[Night Strike]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

What about guns that are stolen?

Well, they're stolen. I guess the idea is they wont be stolen(or not very easily anyway) because it will be in the owners best interest to keep them locked up and the combo secret.

If someone steals my car and then commits kills people in a wreck while drunk, I shouldn't be held responsible for it.

[Symmetry]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

What about guns that are stolen?

Well, they're stolen. I guess the idea is they wont be stolen(or not very easily anyway) because it will be in the owners best interest to keep them locked up and the combo secret.

If someone steals my car and then commits kills people in a wreck while drunk, I shouldn't be held responsible for it.

Sure, I leave my semi-automatics out on the street and feel confused when people think I'm being irresponsible.

[macbone]

Anyway, I've taken the position of a retard from another planet. I will let other people chime in now.

Can you even grasp the concept of what the second amendment is about in the first place? Defense against foreign invasion or tyrannical goverment(who will fucking bring it, by the way)doesn't start with single shot pistols, idiot.

As I've read more of the Federalist Papers and so forth in the last year or so, my opinion of the Second Amendment has changed in that I now do not believe the US constitutional framers intended a totally libertine regime of firearms access. For instance, the Anti-Federalists had proposed a more sweeping text for the 2nd amendment that was defeated by the Federalists. This suggests the latter thought the former proposal was too inclusive.

• Defeated Text: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.
  
  Final Text: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, that point aside, I have to remark that HapSmo seems to have a correct position. Apparently Mexican decision not to invade the US in 1917 was based on a three-point strategic assessment, one of those points was that an occupation of Arizona and New Mexico would become too bloody due to the high-level of civilian firearms ownership. (I recommend - http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-War-Me ... 0226425894) In fact, more recently, we saw the U.S. retreated from Iraq for the exact same reason (a well-armed, organized resistance).

Saxi, very interesting post. I'd give this one a high five if I could.

[thegreekdog]

Anyway, I've taken the position of a retard from another planet. I will let other people chime in now.

Can you even grasp the concept of what the second amendment is about in the first place? Defense against foreign invasion or tyrannical goverment(who will fucking bring it, by the way)doesn't start with single shot pistols, idiot.

As I've read more of the Federalist Papers and so forth in the last year or so, my opinion of the Second Amendment has changed in that I now do not believe the US constitutional framers intended a totally libertine regime of firearms access. For instance, the Anti-Federalists had proposed a more sweeping text for the 2nd amendment that was defeated by the Federalists. This suggests the latter thought the former proposal was too inclusive.

• Defeated Text: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.
  
  Final Text: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, that point aside, I have to remark that HapSmo seems to have a correct position. Apparently Mexican decision not to invade the US in 1917 was based on a three-point strategic assessment, one of those points was that an occupation of Arizona and New Mexico would become too bloody due to the high-level of civilian firearms ownership. (I recommend - http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-War-Me ... 0226425894) In fact, more recently, we saw the U.S. retreated from Iraq for the exact same reason (a well-armed, organized resistance).

Saxi, very interesting post. I'd give this one a high five if I could.

If one thinks about the context in which the Bill of Rights was written, the second amenmdent makes a whole lot of sense (both the proposed version and the final version).

As to some of the other questions, I'm fairly sure military grade weapons are already illegal. Gun manufacturers build bodies around semi-automatic weapons to make them look like M-16s or AK-47s or whatever, but they aren't actually automatic weapons. No one has actually legally obtained a bazooka or M-16 or mounted machine gun.

The question therefore becomes whether to ban semi-automatic weapons, which, as NS noted, are weapons where a bullet can be loaded without any pumping action. Think of one of those rifles (M-1 Garand?) that the US used in WWII and that's what a semi-automatic is. These tend to be used for hunting, not home defense.

I am contemplating whether to place a limit on the amount of guns one person or family can own, but I'm not sure (a) how that is feasible without government record-keeping and (b) whether they will actually solve any of these killing spree problems (it definitely won't solve murders generally).

[Lootifer]

You are welcome to go down shooting if you like. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I think that's been pretty obvious in your case as well as the majority of congress.
Anyway, seeing as how these last two shootings could have most likely been prevented by gun safes(and not giving the combination to crazy people), how bout the mandater in chief put up some legislation that gun owners keep their guns locked up in safes(that meet some standard) unless they are carrying them on their person. This could be enforced by making the gun owner responsible for any act committed with a firearm registered to them. In exchange for this concession, we make open-carry legal, everywhere, for ALL legal owners of firearms.
You wanna fix this problem? There it is.

Id agree to that on the condition that you also ban guns that fall outside of personal protection (low magazine handguns) and sport/hunting activities (low magazine rifles and shotguns).

If you are going to use the tyranical government argument, can you please supply a straw man with how this kind of thing would be even remotely possible?

What is a "low magazine"?

In NZ you need a very hard to get licence for magazines that can hold more than 7 .308 bullets or 15 .22 bullets. Seems like an ok definition to me (dont know about handguns, they are effectively banned here).