Pragmatic Gun Control: These 7 Simple Changes Could be the Answer to Slashing the Death Toll Without Banning Firearms

[DonRomeo]

Seems to me the reason that firearms are still a problem, is because

1. the Police refuse to reduce their own usage
2. No-one seems to be trying to compromise, with raw pragmatism

I love smallarms in an aesthetic and tactile sense, but I realise they are basically 'a machine to make someone dead'. So I can sacrifice my infatuation if they are made safer and less efficient at killing random people.

Im a fan of the ammendment that permits firearms being available and legal to the people - it is only permitted as a revolutionary defence mechanism against oppressive governments, and as such, is surprisingly progressive.

I also think that people are infinitely retarded, and the firepower they are permitted to buy is ridiculous. And that making a start to reduce unplanned shootings relative to planned shootings is a big step in reducing murders. But, I don't hear many people trying to compromise with an actual, detail-orientated, pragmatic solution. And that includes the Police.

The details have been ignored, in favour of the dogma - from both sides. My question is about whether there are people who think that the weapons themselves should be the target of change, and not the right to have one.

At this level of publicity, where there's a will there's a way. And instead of outright banning or outright permitting them, they should be outright made less efficient.

The following are the main ways I see of making firearms less lethal:

1. Calibre. A massive overhaul so that current weapons are traded in for .22 calibre, and the sale of anything above that is illegalised. Eventually their use is also given higher punnishment. The same models are then made in .22.

2. Action. Single-action means that you need to cock the weapon manually when you want to chamber a new round. This means that if someone is shot, they have more chance to get away/the shooter has more chance of being delayed, because they dont have a double-action drawing the next round under the hammer instantaneously after the first is discharged.

3. Safety Mechanism. Either extra catches could be mandated, or something like the reverse of the Glock 17/18 and so on, wherein a safety mechanism is Engaged, rather than disengaged, when the trigger is pulled. Therefor the shooter needs to remember in the heat of the moment to disengage 2 or more mechanisms in order for the weapon to fire. And most of the stupid murders happen in the heat of the moment.

4. Magazine capacity. This basically speaks for itself, but could be optional. 12-15 round magazines and clips could be denied entry by features in the aperture or the follower, so that only 5-8 rounds could be held - alternatively, they could make them entirely manual bolt-action.

5. Recoil anti-calibrator. Original idea - once the first round is fired, the mechanism throws off the backsight (or foresight), so that to accurately shoot again, the sights have to be zeroed each time. This could reduce further shots being fired, as they risk missing the target while expending a round and their time. It could also reduce shootings in public, due to the risk of collateral damage - and thus additional murder/attempted murder charges for hitting multiple people.

6. While all this is going on, 'exotic ammunition' must be absolutely shut down. Then, 9s, .357s, .38s, .40s, .44s, .45s and .50s should be added to the 'exotic' list and banned outright. This leaves (still potentially lethal) .22s, which are less lethal than the other calibres.

7. Make them cumbersome. Finally: instead of making firearms easier to conceal and manouver (such as carbines and 'saturday-night specials'), legal firearms could eventually be limited to long, heavy rifles (chambering the 22 and with single-action etc as described above). Their muzzle velocity could still be low, and the grooving and fixed-suppression could be made to reduce this. At the end of the day, people are not going to go out on the street with a firearm the length of a bicycle.

8. Teach people what actually happens when you're shot, what it feels like, and what it does to your body. Because the realities of guns are not in pulling the trigger, but the human body being getting shot. If they learn that when people are shot, they usually shit themselves automatically, and watch videos of bullets melting flesh and fragmenting into failing bodily organs, they might start realising that firearms aren't glamourous buttons that you pull like a movie star or a rapper's persona, but are about pain, like getting hit with a sledgehammer, and mess, failing organs, and last-moment life regrets and bereavement.

The goal of much of this is to delay the second shot, preferably also the first, and for that delay to bring the shooter to reconsider shooting for as long as possible.

Are there challenges to these propositions? Probably. Is it doable? If we stopped fucking about with blanket-ban campaigns and morality, and instead used pragmatism and compromise, then there is plenty of desire and people to actually make a genuine change to how many people get shot and killed. And of course the Police need to do the exact same.

[taleswapper]

Let's see here. What you're saying is you want to make ALL guns less effective, less efficient, and slower firing; have I got that right?
Tell me; what do you think the driving force was behind making guns MORE effective, efficient, and quick-firing? Do you think that's somehow changed? No? how do you propose to limit a criminal's ability to upgrade his firepower to heavier caliber, reduced cycling times, and larger clips? Because that's what needs to be done, to achieve your plan. you must find a way (other than regulation, which criminals routinely ignore) to PREVENT such upgrades. Indeed, you'd have to find a way to destroy ALL knowledge of how to do so, since the means already exist. And that knowledge is ridiculously easy to reacquire.
Further, the implementation of your proposed solution would have to be world-wide, to prevent smuggling of arms across borders. We can't effectively stop it now, and the demand for better weapons would go up if you managed it.
Evey police and military unit in the world would resist such a plan. There's no way to enforce it, even if you could pass implementing regulations worldwide. Technology NEVER goes back in the box; it's only ever superseded.

[DonRomeo]

The vast majority of firearms are not owned by criminals. They are owned by gun nuts, who think they are under threat by criminals.

Even in the US, being shot at by a career criminal is very rare. And violent criminals themselves dont tend to carry arms. Footsoldiers/made men in the Mafia dont generally carry weapons. Because, due to their job, they risk being stop-searched. And if you're one of the rare people who gets a gun pulled on them on civi street, then you do what any sane person does. What all special forces are trained to do: comply with their demands. Your money or property is not worth a gunfight. Ask any special force and they'll tell you the same. Criminals do not want to shoot strangers. Its kinda frowned upon in the courts.

And if they do target you, then its much more likely that they will benefit from the weapon's stopping power. The stopping power that you are endorsing remaining legal.

The law CAN change gun usage. How many automatic rifles do you see around?

[taleswapper]

Don, the fact that you consider everyone, not a criminal who owns a firearm a "gun nut" says you're irrational on this topic. I myself have over a score of defensive gun uses in my lifetime. Most of them involving no more than displaying the weapon. Case in point; back in, let me think, 2006, I was coming out of my church after services and found two guys with baseball bats ready to hurt folks. I pulled my carry revolver, held it pointed to the sky, and said four words. "Gun. I win. Sit!" And that was it. A call to 911, and the two yahoos were hauled away. Problem solved.
That's pretty much a typical example of a defensive gun use. On average, there are more than two million of these, every year. No muss, no paperwork, no one got hurt. Didn't make the papers. I don't even think most of the congregation was aware of it.
The rest of your post is just more of the same idle speculation and wishful thinking. Bad guys have guns. That's why cops have guns, and why I do.

[DonRomeo]

And yes, precisely - I want to make all guns less effective, less efficient, and slower-firing.
DO you know what a less effective gun is? Its a murder that doesn't happen. Call me crazy, but thats a pretty compelling argument.

[Benedek38]

@DonRomeo
You lost me at: "Even in the US, being shot at by a career criminal is very rare."
Literally 92-95% of gun homicides are the results of gang violence. Gang members are BY DEFINITION career criminals. And that also means the vast majority of that 90something percent are ALSO career criminals.

Do you ever get your head out of your backside?

"How many automatic rifles do you see around?"
Plenty, because they are legal to the military.
But sure, try me. Do you know what the difference is between an automatic and a semi-auto M16/AR15?
THIS:

Anyone with a bit of free time can go to a CNC mill, and mass produce the required parts for the M16, and insert them into the AR15. The reason you don't see people doing it is because there is practically no need for automatic rifles. The regulations proposed by the myTake owner on the other hand WOULD result in major backlash, like the proverbial alcohol ban.

[Benedek38]

@DonRomeo
Oh, and plenty of gang members actually run around with full auto Mac10s and UZIs, because their action is so simple, you can convert it to full auto with a metal file.

[taleswapper]

"The vast majority of firearms are not owned by criminals. They are owned by gun nuts, who think they are under threat by criminals. "

And right there is why no one will take your proposal seriously. You just declared the vast number of law-abiding firearms owners are "gun nuts".

[Knighted2170]

@taleswapper, @Benedek38 wonder if DonRomeo has ever heard of a ghost gun. Not owned by the criminal, just in his (it's always a him) possession.
Gun made overseas and smuggled in through the southern border. No serial number, no manufacturer, no way of tracking it if it is discovered. Once it's used it's sold back across the border. Once it has cooled off over the border, it's then again sold back into the country at a heavy discounted rate. Can be bought sometimes for less than $100.
We are not talking small caliber. Most popular ghost gun is a.45 1911 copy.
Get even semi-close to anything like what is mentioned here. Ghost gun production and smuggling will go through the roof. Where there is a demand, supply will find a way.

[taleswapper]

@Knighted2170 Actually, many "ghost guns" are made right here in the US. It's not even very difficult.

[Knighted2170]

That is true.

[taleswapper]

"Call me crazy, but thats a pretty compelling argument." No, it's a bit of self-serving nonsense. Ask a cop if they want to trade in their semi-autos for.22 revolvers... THAT would be a murder waiting to happen...

[Knighted2170]

I’m a cop. I’ll answer that.
Nope. Not down trading.

[demonics]

You need training. Professional training in firearms, tactics, criminal psychology, biomechanics, terminal ballistics, and a brief history lesson. Training would do three things for you.

1. Hollywood sucks at depicting gun battles.
2. You'd realize these are all stupid and impossible carry out without martial law.
3. Bad guys don't care about laws. And neither do people like me. You would then quickly find out martial law won't work either.

I'll keep my.50 Beowulfs and.338 Lapua's too.

MIght I recommend:
The GIft of Fear
Student of the Gun
Left of Bang
On Killing.

[demonics]

Quintessential Dunning-Kruger Effect here.

[Anpu23]

Yet another case of someone who has no idea how something works, trying to dictate reality. Just think, you could make a more effective weapon from parts in Home Depot.

[DonRomeo]

Wow. ha, ok. It is precisely this pretentiousness and self-agrandisement that keeps people 'thinking' this way. This isn't relativistic physics. Its very simple:

Psycho makes gun go bang, a person Dies. Dont flatter yourself by thinking there is much to know. Those who know the most, are those who have
1. Got shot
2. Died from it
3. Had someone they care about, die from it.

THAT, is what it means to be qualified on the subject. I very much doubt that you are any of these.

[DonRomeo]

@Anpu23 That is the whole frikking Point! The Effectiveness is reduced! The goal, among other things, is to reduce the stopping power put into the human body. Therefor making survival more likely.

[demonics]

Be happy to compare resumes with any of you people on the subject matter at hand.

[demonics]

I'm sure the guy beating you to death, running people over, and stabbing people would LOVE for you to be relegated to a.22 for self defense. Fired from a handgun no less. Whats that 80ft/lbs of energy with that barrel length? Thats the equivalent to punching someone. >_> Hope he's not wearing a Carhartt jacket.

Remember kids, they're votes are just as good as ours.

[Anpu23]

Ah, my resume certainly wouldn't stand up to yours on firearms, blades I probably have you beat (I've studied swordsmanship for over 35 years, and I have been smithing for almost as long.) but firearms, you've got me beat.

[DublinRollerGirl]

A.22 caliber gun can kill as easily as a bigger caliber. Just depends on where they got hit. Also I have heard of a treed camper killing a bear with a.22 And just think, a.22 magnum is not a pop gun cartridge.

[Anonymous]

Interesting approach.

[Benedek38]

"Oh we don't want to ban guns, we just want sensible gun laws" Fuck off!
I have been through with guys like you a thousand times.
What you say is like this:
"Cars are dangerous. They kill 3-4 times more people annually than guns, and cause more injuries. But we shouldn't ban cars. We just have to:
-limit their speed to 14 mph. That speed is rarely enough to kill anyone.
-make driver's licenses incredibly expensive.
-ban any car that's stronger than 15 kW. The Ford Model T had similar power, so why should anyone need anymore?
-limit gas tank to 1 gallon, so that you can't escape from the police too long if you ran someone over.
-handcuffs around the steering wheel that lock the driver in place so they can't test and drive.
-built-in electroshock devide that punishes the driver if he (it's always a he!) falls asleep - and of course it automatically transfers their violation to the police database.
-coat the car in 5 inch thick soft rubber, so that if it hits anything, it will just bouce off. "
etc...
See how ridiculous this is?

But let's go point by point:
1) .22 has shitty ballistics, has no stopping power, and isn't really effective past 150 meters. Lethality is even worse. For hobby shooters it is too inaccurate, for hunting, it lacks power to kill anything the size of a small deer or larger (unless you aim exceptionally well), and for home defense, it is practically useless - the attacker could run circles around you before he (it's always a he!) bleeds out - IF he bleeds out!
If you wanted a good caliber for this, at least you should have picked the FN 5.7x28mm round - better ballistics, better penetration, better everything, minimal overpenetration, less tissue damage. It's a better round by far.
2) Nonsense. The constitution rightfully says that firearms should be legal in order for the people to be able to overthrow an oppressive regime. They can't overthrow shit if they use inferior tools.
3) Oh yeah, because the LAST person we want to render is a contract killer who has perfect aim. Let those people suffer who miss their one shot in the heat of the moment in a home defense scenario, and get whacked over the head with a tire iron, kidnapped and raped. GREAT IDEA!
4) Same as 2)
5) Long guns don't need sighting to shoot accurately in short ranges. If someone wants to massacre people with a rifle, they might as well saw off the sights, and just look down the barrel.
6) This is 1) all over again.
(continued)

[Benedek38]

7) same as 2)
8) The only point I agree with so far. Educate people about guns. But if a right wing person said this, he'd be (IT'S ALWAYS A HE!) called a fascist for wanting to militarize kids! And where else do you start the education than in school? You can't force adults to learn about firearms unless you violate basic human rights.
"but are about pain, like getting hit with a sledgehammer"
It's nothing like getting hit with a sledgehammer. Most bullets don't even kick the air out of the person, and rifle rounds in particular often don't even register in the heat of the moment.

I abhore and despise people like you, who think they are smart and can limit people's liberty for your own political gains.

The thing you don't want to understand is that creating guns is not hard. Anyone with half a brain and a CNC machine can create an AR15. Hell, you can import guns from abroad. What you suggest would actually be good for the black market, leading to MORE violence.

[Benedek38]

*the emoji was supposed to be Nr.8.

And do you want to know how you can ACTUALLY minimize gun deaths in the US without making guns useless and demonising gun owners?
CUT DOWN ON GANG CRIME! 92-95% of US gun homicides are the results of gang violence. There, I solved it for you. Gun crime is the sympthom, not the disease. What do you think happens if you take away the guns from gang members? You don't have to think too hard, just look at London - knife crime and knife homicides are at a record high. Gang members are slaughtering each other, and innocent civilians, with machetes. Is THAT any better?

[Outofthegrey]

1. Caliber. Usage of a.22lr is inadvisable as it does not posses the penetrative properties to make it through a large jacket. This would see only defendants being injured as attackers can protect themselves with layers of clothing. Additionally, .22lr absolutely will kill you. Tomorrow. The leading issue with the.22lr is that the bullet is very small and will travel from its original location of impact, eventually causing a problem as it clogs an artery somewhere else in the body.
If anything, this would kill more people. Larger calibers are chosen as a single round takedown is less damaging than a 3 round takedown, or in the case of a.22lr magdumping 16 rounds into an attacker.

2. Action. The advance of technology isn't something that can be halted. We don't require stickshifts to be driven in order to reduce driving fatalities. Further, there are revolvers that are double action these days, the fact that you do not have to manually cock the firearm each time isn't important. My semi-automatic USP can be fired single action and I am still able to put the same number of rounds per minute downrange because time to aim is the thing that takes time, but cycling speed.

3. Safety. Safeties are useless and you cannot force people to use them. The very first thing they teach you about safeties is that machines fail and you never treat a safety as being on. You are your own safety. If you intend to shoot someone you aren't leaving it on anyways. This accomplishes nothing.

4. Magazine Capacity. Again, technology doesn't stop evolving. I'm starting to think people don't understand that a magazine is reusable. I have several 30 round magazines, but prefer to shoot with a smaller one as it weighs less. That said I can still put the same number of rounds downrange in the same time because reloading is not very hard. Whether I have 2 30 round mags or 4 15 round mags, I still have 60 cartridges.

5. Recoil? Many, many, many firearms do not have a recoil reduction system. Most don't in fact. The weight of the weapon acts as better recoil dampening than a spring system to reduce felt recoil. All this does is make weapons cost more and be less useful. Which being that there are already 360 million guns in the US without this no one would buy it or have incentive to adapt it. Grandfather laws would keep this from being anything more than a waste of time.

6. I don't actually have anything more to say about this than that it's retarded. I reload my own ammunition.

[Outofthegrey]

6. Cont.
Wildcat ammunition, which is what I'm assuming you mean, isn't any more dangerous at the distance its most frequently used at anyways. The fact that you think smaller bullet=less damage leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

7. My Springfield M1A weights 12lbs with the scope. You can't irritate me into not having a gun. Look at CA, they've turned AR's into abominable monstrosities and yet many people still own them because preventative measures are useless when it comes to stopping crime by punishing those who follow your new laws. And again, there are 360 million firearms already in circulation, and grandfather laws protect them from ridiculous modification laws.

8. Yeah... That's what a conceal carry course is for. You shoot someone because you aim to kill them. If you don't understand that then you aren't smart enough to drive, let alone own a gun.

[Outofthegrey]

The proposed actions are useless and asinine, at best they are a massive waste of taxpayer money, and at worse they are fuel on the fire of further political backlash against those who are naive enough to believe that you solve violent assailants by disarming the person who has to defend themselves.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Actually the overwhelming majority of gun fatalities are found within the black community (out of the 11,000 a year in the US (statistically insignificant considering we have a nation of 325 million (but obviously quite significant on the personal level (not trying to diminish the impact) almost 10,000 of them are due to black on black violence) and they overwhelmingly (I believe its some where around 80%) use pistols and the overwhelming majority of those are illegally acquired. As for why its found within the black community its actually due to fatherlessness (as this was not an issue in the 50s yet after the 60s we saw a sky rocketing increase in fatherlessness and as it become more common so to did the violence and gangs (which is what most of the gun violence stems from). Currently they have 72% of their population being born out of wedlock vs. the 20% of whites and 30% of Hispanics.). So if you wish to reduce gun violence within our country stricter gun laws are not the answer, based upon the statistical data, its fathers. Stop fatherlessness and you will decrease the gun violence by 90%(and increase prosperity, health and well being as well).

[DonRomeo]

Interesting stats put forward. 10,000 of 11, 000 though? Thats a lot... All for promoting family and economic stability before ever considering childbirth.

In my experience it is Hip Hop that is the biggest influence in this case.

[hellionthesagereborn]

It is a lot, but that's within a nation of 325 million people so that averages to about.003% which is a tiny percentage of the population. A lot of people don't realize just how massive the US is. For example Germany is 137,846 square miles while just the state of Texas is 268,820 square miles and that's just one of our fifty states. We are a big country with a lot of people (third largest population in the world behind only China and India) so when people hear those numbers they forget its attached to a nation with a huge population and land area too.

[WalterRadio]

What universe do you live in?

How exactly are.22's supposed to take down a deer, a moose, or a burglar?

What exactly are you going to do about the 300,000,000 firearms currently owned and the tens (hundreds?) of billions of rounds of ammunition?

How about this instead:
1. Mandatory death sentence for drug dealers (50% of murders are drug related, and 70,000 people a year are dying from drug overdose, so the positive impact is far greater)
2. Requiring the reporting and public registration of mental patients, and for those who are not cleared as "not a threat", mandatory GPS tracking tied in to a phone ap so people get a warning when they are nearby.
3. Build a wall along the border with Mexico.
4. Increase minimum sentences for theft, burglary, and robbery and prohibit plea bargains below these minimums.
5. Ban "gun free zones" in any public place that does not have 100% security checks, backed up with armed security officers.
6. Require schools to allow teachers and staff to carry guns.
7. Pass National Reciprocity so that citizens may exercise their right to defend themselves regardless of lines on a map.

[AynonOMouse]

But, that wouldn't help the liberal agenda. lol
Seriously though, much of what you wrote is the same stuff I've been telling people for years.

The people that want more gun control think taking them away from law abiding citizens would somehow help when in reality it emboldens criminals.

[Knighted2170]

I understand where you are coming from but, no.

If you want to end endless deaths, stop the drugs. More people were killed by drug deaths than guns. It's been that way since 2006. More people die of suicide than guns. Been that way since 2001.
More people die in motor vehicle crashes than by firearms. Been that way since before 1999. Report does not go back further.
Death by firearms according to last compiled numbers in 2015 - 36.252.
Deaths by vehicle crashes by last compiled numbers in 2015 - 37.757
Deaths by Suicide by last compiled numbers in 2015 - 44,193
Deaths by drug poisoning by last compiled numbers in 2015 - 42,404

The only thing that comes from limiting anything that is currently in the free market does is drive it underground.
The worst thing you can do place a limit on caliber size. A small, slow moving bullet is a doctor's worst nightmare. The bullet enters and does not have enough power to pass through. So it slows and bounces around, causing massive internal bleeding that may not be caught because of the small sized wound.

The only thing could possibly be added that could possibly curtail accidental deaths, and use of a stolen firearm would be a fingerprint safety. We use them on computers, doors, and cell phones. Even then that would have limited feasibility.

And, speaking as a police officer - I take high offense to the #1 bullet point. "1. the Police refuse to reduce their own usage"
That is totally false. We only use the firearm as a last resort. We do not even draw the weapon unless we suspect innocent lives, or our life is in danger. If we fire our weapon we can be held legally liable for killing someone. Yes, even the bad guy. We can be sentenced and sent to prison for shooting someone without justification.
Please, do your homework before posting that we "refuse" to reduce the usage of out firearms.

[rjroy3]

Or how of the gun deaths, the vast majority are by suicide and gang violence

[Knighted2170]

@rjroy3 Suicide by firearm has statisics scewed. That number of 51% that is thrown around can be off by as much 30% because of how individiual states report suicude deaths. But, the I see ASFP, All Hope Lost. com, and even Harvard. edu did not divulge that information when they posted their charts. The CDC is where you can get all of those numbers, and make your own charts. The CDC uses highcharts. com to make all the charts.

As far as gang violence. It's about to get a lot worse. So are drug deaths. New drug is on streets and it's in high demand because it's cheap. It can also kill on contact. There is also no way to stop it. Have you ever seen a shooting, stabbing, or beating death done by gang members? Then found out what the reason behind it was? Most of it isn't over what you think. It's over stupid stuff they call "disrespect."
"That moth**f*****r doesn't come here and not say hi. This is our turf..." Yeah, true story. 3 boys beat another because he didn't say "hi" as expected.

[Anpu23]

To me the idea of arms in general is the right to defend yourself against an aggressor.
The idea being if someone, anyone came into your home to kill you, you could, at minimum take some of them with you. To give your wife and children a chance at escape or to hide. To do your best to meet violence with violence. The idea of greater force becomes paramount here, to me the best civilian home defense is a 12 Guage shotgun. It's a big hole, hits hard and even a military entry team would consider it a viable threat.
I suppose the question is what is your target? Who is the most likely person or group of people that you would need to meet with deadly force, of that list local police is the LEAST likely aggressor. The most likely is a set of home invaders intent on theft and possibly rape. It would be a far stretch to think that your weapon could be used effectively against a group of thugs forcing their way intp your house, probably armed and if so certainly in your world with illegal weapons. One shot one kill is not the reality of gun combat, it's much more likely to have many rounds fired with few actually hitting. So no, I wouldn't support that.

[DonRomeo]

But that simply doesn't work does it. Because the vast majority of the world dont own firearms. And they seem to get along ok.

This is not Afghanistan, or Iraq, or the Wild Wild West. Gangs of people simply do not tend to 'break into your house' when you're there and steal your possessions and rape your wife. This is paranoia.

More importantly, that is NOT why we have the right to bear arms in the US. The only reason we have the right to bear arms, is to empower people against an oppressive government. That is not the reason you, nor many other unrestricted arms-ownership advocates, put forward. And if a criminal breaks into your house, in a place of such high gun ownership, will they themselves not be armed with the same weapons?

The reason the police were enterprising enough to give us their number, is so that we can call them if a criminal breaks into our house. Your job with an armed robber is to comply. Possessions are not enough to start a gun fight.

[Anpu23]

So your proposal is to defend against the GOVERNMENT with your weapon? Not going to happen. As for home invasions, they do happen, and as far as weapon disparity if you can buold a better weapon in your garage then is commercially available your hope of gun control dies. There are lots of examples of street gangs making and deploying hand made firearms.

[Anpu23]

Here's the reality, you in vision one opponent, and a single shot being effective. That is not the reality of most situations. Much more likely is multiple opponents, and each trying to harm you. Also the majority of shots fired in actual combat miss, and if they do hit even very large bullets do not necessarily stop yoir opponent. There is a reason why in the age of black powder most combatants carried two firearms and a sword. Because once you got your shots off you then still had to deal with a violent aggressor. And your weapon has roughly the same rate of fire as a black powder firearm.

[Anpu23]

Further supreme court ruling, it is not the job of the police to protect an individual in their home... the police may respond quickly or not depending on how busy they are, and if they do come they may or may not be able to help you.

[Anpu23]

According to the U. S. Department of Justice, 1.03 million home invasions occur each year. This isn't a far fetched scenario. I live in a relatively high crime area, and as one of the more affluent people in the neighborhood this is a very strong possibility. I keep two aggressive dogs, and as a weapon maker, my house is full of combat capable knives and swords. It's not fear, it's simply logical to assume an aggressor.

[NearlyNapping]

I disagree with every bit of this. I'm not going to go over it point by point, but most of this is absurd.

But just one point.
"No-one seems to be trying to compromise, with raw pragmatism"

You gotta be kidding? No one is compromising? It's been ALL compromising. Compromising with the left ALWAYS means the left gets it's way. The anti gun side has been chipping away at guns for decades. A little compromise here, and it moves a little toward the anti-gun side. A little compromise there, and it moves a little more toward the anti-gun side. This is the very reason what the pro 2nd amendment supporters take a no compromise stance, because it ALWAYS moves toward the anti-gunner side.

This is one reason why gun supporters are against proposals that appear to be reasonable on the surface. It's because they know the tactic of the anti-gunners. They know the anti-gunners will continue to chip away little bits at a time until they have it all. It's not just that one little thing. It's a bigger picture than the gun supporters intend to win.

[DonRomeo]

The attitude 'against proposals that seem reasonable' and 'take a no-compromise stance', is basically the definition of how wars start.

You genuinely DISAGREE with lowering the calibre of firearms? Of illegalising double-action weapons if single-action is stil permitted? Making guns less lethal? Im not saying it would be easy, but its goddamned worth it, and you disagree with that?

[NearlyNapping]

Yes, I disagree with ALL of it. You don't even seem to know enough about it to be addressing this issue. I've been listening to the gun debate for a good 50 years or more. This stuff you are saying is some of the most uninformed ignorant ideas I've heard in all that time.

"The attitude 'against proposals that seem reasonable' and 'take a no-compromise stance', is basically the definition of how wars start."

No. YOU, and those like you, are the no compromise types. YOU insist on how it's going to be. What you propose is not compromise at all. It's entirely one sided, and BARELY short of an outright full ban on guns. THAT is not a compromise. That is dictating to others how it's going to be, and dictated by someone who knows virtually nothing about the subject.

If you really wanted compromise, then you'd leave it be. Because it has already been compromised. Compromise that always moves in one direction is no compromise at all.

[DonRomeo]

... Do you people say " you dont know anything about 'the subject' " to bolstr your ego? Info: the unrestricted sale of handguns is not a 'subject'. Physics is a subject, and it takes brains to understand. 'Me want gun, it go bang like movies and make me feel big' is not a subject that needs the appreciation of any intricacies. We are not talking about the quantum superposition of eigenstates. People shoot eachother. Can killing eachother be made more difficult, without banning weapons outright? If you haven't heard that idea in 50 years of debate, you're probably listening to some very weak debates.

[NearlyNapping]

A fine example of a quality argument. Oh wait. That's not an argument at all.

I say you don't know enough about the topic to discuss this issue because you don't. The things you suggest says that loud and clear. You really seriously don't know what you are talking about.

[rjroy3]

Number 8 is pretty much the only one I'm on board with along with teaching gun safety. The people who are taught proper gun safety are the ones who are most likely to never have an issue with guns in their lifetime. The people most likely to have an issue are the ones who use guns, whom never had gun safety training.

#1 rule of handling firearms is treating it as if it were loaded, with the safety off at all times.

That one rule is the biggest protection. Public shaming people who handle guns like idiots is an additional method. I remember the brother of a girl I dated pulled out a gun in the room on time, with all his friends around. Just playing with it as if it wouldn't go off. I recited the number 1 rule to him of gun safety and all of his friends laughed at him as he put the gun away. Because I was right and they all knew he was acting like a fucking idiot, who would get someone hurt eventually if someone didn't say something. If people saw the damage guns could do on top of being taught gun safety that would be a big deterrent.

All the additional methods you recommend takes away from the original principle of the Second Amendment which is protection from a Tyrannical Government + Self Defense. The biggest reason this became a political issues across party lines is because as Black people became free in America we gained legal access to guns as well and the then party of slavery ( Democrats) were scared that the Black Man would turn their guns on the former slave owners. Which was a justifiable fear if you think about it. If I were a slave and my family were all slaves I'd want to kill the slave owners too. The thing is... Democratic Party has held that position ever since and they've only changed the arguments against it overtime. But It all began with black people owning guns.

Freedom of Speech is first line of defense. Right to Bare Arms is the last line of defense.

[MrOracle]

As long as the government (at all levels) adopts these first.

The point of the people having the right to own, carry, and use firearms is to be able to defend themselves - including (in extreme circumstances) against their own government.

Let's say that I find a magic wand tomorrow, and I "disappear" every firearm off the planet. What happens next? The same people who shoot up schools blow them up instead - and explosives are even easier to obtain or make. Or they drive cars through bus stops and schoolyards.

The real problem is that we have a major criminal problem (that in a number of ways is made worse by making certain things illegal) and we are lax on violent crimes - especially at younger ages - which teaches contempt for the law.

We also have a huge number of people on mental health drugs which are known to have major side effects, we don't require regular and frequent doctor check-ins to assess the effects. The overwhelming majority of mass shooters have been taking depression or anxiety meds.

No one wants to do anything about that, though - it's far more convenient to infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Notice too that nearly every mass shooting has occurred in places (such as schools and churches) where the law-abiding are legally disarmed (aka Gun-Free Zones).

If someone is willing to die to carry out such a horror, gun laws aren't going to stop them, and the world is full of guns. Criminals have plenty and are always getting more.

[feelinrandy14]

Agree with this 100%.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that people with intent to do harm will stop at no means to kill someone or commit whatever they want to commit. My family member was recently attacked not once but 2 times from an ex boyfriend that had full intent to kill her. Mind you he had a tracking bracelet on him and not even that helped protect her. Anyways.. his weapon of choice was a hatchet hammer and lighter fluid. Why didn't he pick a handgun? My take: he couldn't purchase a gun because he already had misdemeanor charges, a record of mental illness, no connections to illegal weapons. Or he just straight up had intent and picked whatever he wanted.. Gun laws already make it a pain to purchase. Did you know to legally purchase a handgun you have to be 21 and it has to be purchased from your state of origin? Did you know you have to show ID to purchase ammo? Did you know if you have a mental illness record you are pretty much barred from purchasing ammo and guns? The checks are in place and people that can't legally buy guns because of background checks failing do get caught and punished. What else to do? People problem? My background checks pass! Do yours?

[Celtero]

Nah man, part of being able to own a gun is being able to defend yourself and more than one of your rules makes it easier to defend yourself with a knife, or even fists. Like... nobody would even want a gun if your rules were implemented, you couldn't even use them for hunting. You could literally make more effective guns and ammo in your home workshop.

There are many things that claim far more lives than guns in the US, and the energy spent trying to take away people's guns could better be used.

And just wondering... how many guns have you shot?

[Brady]

1. This guy said anything lower than a.38 isn't useful for protection & that you need at least a.38 for crazy people.
2 & 4. In New York there was opposition because pistols could only hold up to 10 bullets by law. A police was one. He had a few people target shoot and said out of this many shots you only hit a target this many times. This reminds me of a TV program that said a policeman at close range will miss a person three out of five times.
7. What about concealed weapon permits where people can carry their pistols in places so they don't scare others?
8. How do you know they care? They don't care.

[Brady]

1. The guy said for one shot to stop you need at least a.38.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

Your idiot ideas are a de facto ban.

Go ahead and try. I want to see how well that works out for anyone trying to enforce those laws, as well as those that write the legislation, AND whoever is public with their support.

Do you know the chorus of the song "Bobby McGee"?

[DonRomeo]

Not a de facto ban, because it still permits non-glamourised weapons with, in this proposal, .22 cal, and non-automatic.

Im not a lawmaker, but Im pretty damned sure that the more than half of people (that you're clearly not in) who at least give a bit of thought before they point a barrel at someone, would be persuaded to scrap their.45 with a.22. Why? Simple.

The law changes. If you discharge a weapon with anything above.22 calibre, you go straight to the execution chamber. If they find that the bullit used was a.22, you go to jail, maybe get parole, and so on. There are a Lot of incentives that the law can offer to change peoples behaviour.

It is when one presents compromises that one can see who the psychos are. Thats you all day long.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

You're a moron, all day every day. You don't know your asshole from your elbow on ANY day.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

You may want to check the meaning of de facto, dipshit.

[Anonymous]

Don't make me laugh
Those aren't good points of contention.
The U. S. is only one of two countries in the world where we have it written into the constitution to the right to keep and bear arms and such rights will not be infringed upon, ever. The second country I can't recall offhand which one but they limit their control and closely monitor it.
I am a firm supporter of the second amendment and nothing will change that , ever. It would take an act of God to change the constitution and Bill of rights.
No matter how much people try and change things criminals will always find a way around the law , it's been like that for eons.

[jacquesvol]

The AR15 and the M16 are.22 calibre. So is the AK-74.
Concerning the 22 rimfire, they are only allowed for competition shooting in some EU countries. Why? If someone is wounded with a.22 rimfire, surgeons have much more work to find the bullet in the body without radiography, to stop internal bleeding.

[6942Dom]

No of those will work. Criminals are just that criminals. 1,500,000 guns are smuggled into the USA yearly. Non of those "ideas" will work against that.

The only true method that works is to loosen gun restrictions on law abiding people. And yes crime goes down. Facts prove it over and over.

[esotericstory]

Gun crime is not even the problem as evidenced by the UK. Ban guns and you get knife crime, ban knives and you get acid crime etc. Stop avoiding the elephant in the room. Japan has banned guns and little crime hint, hint.

[DonRomeo]

The whole point Im getting at here, is that it is retarded, on either side of the debate, to generalise and stick to one or the other position. 'Ban guns and you get knife crime'. Firstly, Im not saying we should ban guns. Secondly, if we get more knife crime then gun crime, then lets research which results in more fatalities. If it's knives, then strategies need to be devised for that. But Im pretty sure firearms are both much easier to use, and perceived as leaving less forensics and allowing more distance from the target. If making guns safer results in 50 fewer deaths, its worth it, no? And the actual effect would be thousands.

[NerdInDenial]

They try to do the same thing with DUIs and speeding and not wearing seat belts; yet, people continue to do these things.

By the way, do you know anything about guns and have you fired a weapon?

[Kiran04]

Constitutional rights are not compromises, so no, no, no, and fuck no. Not one inch. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory. This is the worst take I've read this year.

[Redstang88]

I'm not opposed to realistic approaches to gun control, but honestly these are just absurd

[DonRomeo]

Whats absurd? That it would take a bit of intelligence and work to make it happen? Yknow what I think is absurd? That any retard or psycho can buy a semi-automatic, double-action, concealable, large. calibre, 15-round capacity military killing device. And then murder people with it. That, is absurd.

[Redstang88]

Restricting firearms is not the issue. The issue is who has them. Large caliber semi autos are still legal in Canada, always have been. Yet our crime rates are no worse than countries like Australia and the UK.

Your.22 limit is simply stupid. What about hunters? .30 caliber rounds are the norm for hunting. What about long range/target shooters? The effective range on a rim fire.22 is 200yds at best.

[Redstang88]

Reading this in detail, you are suggesting ban anything other than bolt action 22s with moving sights? 😒
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

You’ve never even seen a gun before, have you?