Gun Control Proposal

[DarthFishy]

I have a proposal for a gun control law that might just satisfy enough people to make it viable.

Firstly I don't want to ban or limit ownership of guns. You can own as many guns of whatever type you can afford, BUT, these guns must be securely locked away at all times you are not using it (you can display them if the display case is sufficiently secure).

The limits come in when it comes to carrying or transporting a gun. Carrying a gun has only one purpose: self-defense (for transporting a gun you will require a permit and it needs to be transported in a secure manner).

Now as we know a gun is a force multiplier, which is especially useful for those members of society who are weaker than average. So for this reason the only people who will be allowed to carry a weapon will be: females, the elderly (65+) and the disabled.

The majority of mass shootings are at the hands of able-bodied males under the age of 65, so it will remove the guns from the hands of those most likely to commit those kinds of crimes. The majority of criminals are also in this category so it will make it easier to arrest if they are illegally carrying.

And if someone does get their hands on a gun illegally all the good girls with a gun will be able to stop them.

You're welcome america.

 

[The Don]

I have a proposal for a gun control law that might just satisfy enough people to make it viable.

Firstly I don't want to ban or limit ownership of guns. You can own as many guns of whatever type you can afford, BUT, these guns must be securely locked away at all times you are not using it (you can display them if the display case is sufficiently secure).

It's not going to work for people like my brother in law who are convinced that they need handguns for personal safety both at home and when he's out and about. His sporting rifles are kept securely under lock and key in a gun safe but for them to be any use at all, the handguns have to be immediately accessible to himself and his family.

Insisting that guns are securely stored renders them useless as a means of personal protection.

The limits come in when it comes to carrying or transporting a gun. Carrying a gun has only one purpose: self-defense (for transporting a gun you will require a permit and it needs to be transported in a secure manner).

Likewise transporting guns. My brother in law needs to have at least one handgun immediately accessible for his personal protection. He and my sister in law have concealed carry permits so they are usually wearing a gun each and there will typically also be a gun in the glove box in case one of their children (or I suppose any passenger) needs to defend themselves.

So far they've never had to but is point of view is why take the chance ?

Now as we know a gun is a force multiplier, which is especially useful for those members of society who are weaker than average. So for this reason the only people who will be allowed to carry a weapon will be: females, the elderly (65+) and the disabled.

If young and vital males aren't allowed to carry, how will they come to the rescue of the old, infirm and feeble in the prescribed fashion ?

The majority of mass shootings are at the hands of able-bodied males under the age of 65, so it will remove the guns from the hands of those most likely to commit those kinds of crimes. The majority of criminals are also in this category so it will make it easier to arrest if they are illegally carrying.

And if someone does get their hands on a gun illegally all the good girls with a gun will be able to stop them.

You're welcome america.

Nice try - but no

 

[DarthFishy]

Well your brother's wife could always carry. Surely he trusts her enough to be able to defend him if necessary?

 

[HansMustermann]

My proposal for gun control is: use both hands and never try that movie dual-wielding stuff

 

[The Don]

Well your brother's wife could always carry. Surely he trusts her enough to be able to defend him if necessary?

Doesn't really help if they're not together. It also doesn't address one of their concerns which is a "multiple shooter" scenario. For some unknown reason despite living in an upscale area where such crimes are unknown they have real concerns about (and family drills relating to) multiple home invaders coming through multiple doors.

To put all of this in context AFAIK they are just ordinary folks, he's a civilian working for a local police department, she teaches special-ed so it's not like they're militia members or are running a meth lab in their house or anything but they and their friends seem genuinely concerned about this kind of think. Prior to a junior varsity football game a number of the dads with concealed carry permits did a sweep of the ground. They weren't clear about whether they were looking for terrorists who might disrupt a high school football game or just local ne'er do wells - each equally unlikely - but they felt it vital for the safety of their families.

I cannot imagine having to be that alert all the time, it must be exhausting.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Q: Do mass murderers feel at all constrained by laws?

 

[DarthFishy]

Q: Do mass murderers feel at all constrained by laws?

I suppose the question is not if they feel constrained but if they are constrained.

My proposal is also not just about mass shooters. It's also about "normal" gun crime.

 

[catsmate]

Q: Do mass murderers feel at all constrained by laws?

In the twenty years proceeding the Port Arthur massacre Australia had nine other mass shootings; Hope Forest [10 dead], Boundary Street [2 dead], Milperra massacre [7 dead], Joseph Schwab/Kimberley [5 dead], Hoddle Street [7 dead], Queen Street [8 dead], Surry Hills [5 dead], Strathfield [7 dead] and Central Coast [6 dead].
Since the tightening of firearm laws after Port Arthur there have been three (Monash University [2 dead], Hectorville [3 dead] and the Hunt family [3 dead]) in the following nineteen years.
92 dead versus 8.

Maybe the USA should try this?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I suppose the question is not if they feel constrained but if they are constrained.

My proposal is also not just about mass shooters. It's also about "normal" gun crime.

Gun owners frequently admit that they're right on the verge of lawlessness, "pry it from my cold dead fingers" mode, so the law would have to have teeth. Otherwise they'll disregard the law the way they disregard public safety.

 

[Cylinder]

Well, that's just stupid.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Q: Do mass murderers feel at all constrained by laws?

Well very few mass murderers made their own guns. Most simply buy them in legal markets.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, that's just stupid.

They wrap themselves in the Constitution and then show clearly they'd wipe their ass on it if it didn't go their way. There's a phrase that covers that kind of ****.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I have a proposal for a gun control law that might just satisfy enough people to make it viable.

Firstly I don't want to ban or limit ownership of guns. You can own as many guns of whatever type you can afford, BUT, these guns must be securely locked away at all times you are not using it (you can display them if the display case is sufficiently secure).

The limits come in when it comes to carrying or transporting a gun. Carrying a gun has only one purpose: self-defense (for transporting a gun you will require a permit and it needs to be transported in a secure manner).

Now as we know a gun is a force multiplier, which is especially useful for those members of society who are weaker than average. So for this reason the only people who will be allowed to carry a weapon will be: females, the elderly (65+) and the disabled.

The majority of mass shootings are at the hands of able-bodied males under the age of 65, so it will remove the guns from the hands of those most likely to commit those kinds of crimes. The majority of criminals are also in this category so it will make it easier to arrest if they are illegally carrying.

And if someone does get their hands on a gun illegally all the good girls with a gun will be able to stop them.

You're welcome america.

Like most naive gun control proposals this:
-lacks a control point for enforcement
-prevents nothing
-fails to meet the needs of reality on the ground
-is incompatible with existing laws, regulations and constitutional amendments
-ignores the difference between State and Federal layers of government.

I have my own proposal but I won't clutter your thread with it.

 

[Bikewer]

Those with criminal intent, or the insane, or the politically-radicalized, or individuals who have "snapped" for one reason or another... Are notoriously not concerned with legalities.
All, with the exception of the criminal, are likely suicidal as well. Very few mass-murderers plan to escape and live on, most fully intend to be killed during the commission of their violence, or to take their own lives as authorities close in.

Concealed carry has had little or no effect on street crime. There have been instances where armed individuals have defended themselves against carjackers or armed robbers, but these are statistically rare.
Criminals are quite clever at picking individuals who are vulnerable and unlikely to resist.
The students at our university fall into this category....They are distracted, listening to their headphones, texting, reading a book... Or late at night, staggering back to their apartment from the local entertainment area.
Robberies are quick and businesslike... Flash gun, demand goodies (wallet, cell phone, computer...) and boogie. Often the kid hardly registers what's happened for a couple of minutes.

The gun violence we have in this area tends to be almost exclusively gang and drug-involved retaliation shootings. It goes on and on, night after night. These people are not concerned with laws, they are not concerned with anything.....They are on a war footing and it is constantly reinforced.
Again, these people have no concernt for the law or consequences or the rules of society. Just last night, a fellow chased down a woman on the highway and shot up her car because she had argued with his girlfriend.
She's in the hospital with gunshot wounds and he's in jail, awaiting prison.

 

[DarthFishy]

Like most naive gun control proposals this:
-lacks a control point for enforcement
-prevents nothing
-fails to meet the needs of reality on the ground
-is incompatible with existing laws, regulations and constitutional amendments
-ignores the difference between State and Federal layers of government.

I have my own proposal but I won't clutter your thread with it.

I'm willing to try and address these concerns where possible:

- I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but I would suggest that this would be controlled in the same way any other object that one is not allowed to carry on ones person is handled.

- I think it neatly covers the actual reality on the ground. Gun owners wanting to have guns (which I honestly believe they should be able to have), and guns being in the possession of those who would need them the most for personal protection.

- I admit that this one my proposal fails horribly as I'm sure denying a right based on gender is a big no-no.

- Ok I did not take this into consideration at all, but I would imagine this proposal would be for a federal law.

My main aim with the proposal was to come up with something that would balance the right to own guns with the danger of having guns readily available, which I attempted to do by allowing as much ownership as possible while limiting the availability as much as possible (using a logical, if impractical metric).

 

[DarthFishy]

Those with criminal intent, or the insane, or the politically-radicalized, or individuals who have "snapped" for one reason or another... Are notoriously not concerned with legalities.
All, with the exception of the criminal, are likely suicidal as well. Very few mass-murderers plan to escape and live on, most fully intend to be killed during the commission of their violence, or to take their own lives as authorities close in.

Concealed carry has had little or no effect on street crime. There have been instances where armed individuals have defended themselves against carjackers or armed robbers, but these are statistically rare.
Criminals are quite clever at picking individuals who are vulnerable and unlikely to resist.
The students at our university fall into this category....They are distracted, listening to their headphones, texting, reading a book... Or late at night, staggering back to their apartment from the local entertainment area.
Robberies are quick and businesslike... Flash gun, demand goodies (wallet, cell phone, computer...) and boogie. Often the kid hardly registers what's happened for a couple of minutes.

The gun violence we have in this area tends to be almost exclusively gang and drug-involved retaliation shootings. It goes on and on, night after night. These people are not concerned with laws, they are not concerned with anything.....They are on a war footing and it is constantly reinforced.
Again, these people have no concernt for the law or consequences or the rules of society. Just last night, a fellow chased down a woman on the highway and shot up her car because she had argued with his girlfriend.
She's in the hospital with gunshot wounds and he's in jail, awaiting prison.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Essentially it seems to be all about enforcement. There needs to be a way of making it as difficult as possible for someone to illegally obtaining a gun. With my proposal if a police office sees someone who is not within the allowed categories with a gun on the street, then they know they are carrying illegally and can assess the situation from there.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The control point issue is first on my list because it's the most important part.

The control point for enforcing car insurance is the license plate renewal office. The control point for keeping felons from buying a gun is the background check requirement at legal gun dealers. The control point for limiting magazine size is total prevention of retail sale for larger than (arbitrary number) capacity.

The control point for Concealed Carry is legal action after the fact. The control point for Colorado mandatory universal background check is legal action after the fact. The control point for higher-than-limit capacity magazines already in ownership is enforcement after the fact.

Control points are where naive gun control proposals (some of which become law) fall down.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Those with criminal intent, or the insane, or the politically-radicalized, or individuals who have "snapped" for one reason or another... Are notoriously not concerned with legalities.

The thing is that guns move from the legal markets to the illegal in some fashion, so why wouldn't restrictions make that harder when those who move the guns from the legal to the illegal market have so little to fear.

Illegal gun manufacturing is not really a major issue after all so at some point the guns need to move from the legal to the illegal market.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think this is the crux of the matter. Essentially it seems to be all about enforcement. There needs to be a way of making it as difficult as possible for someone to illegally obtaining a gun.

And the right of people to sell their guns to strangers on the internet is a constitutional right. So clearly trying to restrict that is crazy.

 

[Ladewig]

In the twenty years proceeding the Port Arthur massacre Australia had nine other mass shootings; Hope Forest [10 dead], Boundary Street [2 dead], Milperra massacre [7 dead], Joseph Schwab/Kimberley [5 dead], Hoddle Street [7 dead], Queen Street [8 dead], Surry Hills [5 dead], Strathfield [7 dead] and Central Coast [6 dead].
Since the tightening of firearm laws after Port Arthur there have been three (Monash University [2 dead], Hectorville [3 dead] and the Hunt family [3 dead]) in the following nineteen years.
92 dead versus 8.

Maybe the USA should try this?

The way the law is set up in the United States, it would be impossible pass such laws and difficult to enforce such laws. The number of people who would rather kill law enforcement officers coming to take their guns than surrender those guns peacefully is not negligiable.