Gun Control and Regulations

And doing so would be illegal, and you can put into the law that if someone circumvents the gun control laws, the gun permit is revoked altogether.

You've just said it would be illegal to be good at firing a gun.

Integrate an electronic mechanism with half the firing system so it can't fire faster and attempts to remove it would require replacing basically the whole thing anyway? Bit impractical and you'd need to get rid of every old gun in existence.

Edited by RainehDaze on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:18:55 PM

I said/meant that it would be illegal to enhance a gun to ensure that it does more than legally allowed.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:21:48 AM

That gets back to my original point, which is why even bother when things like extensive permitting and training would be much easier to implement and have the same ultimate effect of reducing gun crime and accidents.

I'm sure I've said already that limiting fire rate isn't a useful approach, I just disagree that it's impossible.

Mostly because the more guns with the higher fire rates are on sale, the more of them you'll find on the illegal market, too.

I was meaning more impossible in the legal sense. More than a few countries have contemplated fire rate restrictions, there are just so many issues with it that it may as well be impossible. It’s all but a non-starter.

I would strongly suggest doing some research on the mechanisms of firearms.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:30:57 AM

I know that there are ways to enhance a weapon...but just because it is possible it doesn't mean that you have to make it easier for those who are for some reason obsessed with this level of fire power.

Okay, you’re still kind of missing the point.

Here’s a video of a world record for speed shooting: [1]

That guy is using an unmodified manual action rifle, the kind that’s totally legal almost everywhere. Forget about any talk of modifications, you can simply just shoot a gun faster. Would that fall foul of a fire rate restriction?

There are easier ways to ban semi-autos, which I think is what you’re trying to propose. But again, I’d really suggest doing some research because this is a fairly technical topic and you need to know specifics to debate specifics.

And how much training and preparation would you need to reach that speed?

You are missing my point. This is about limiting the damage people can do with guns, not about finding a way to eliminate mass shootings altogether. You will never be able to do that, there will always someone who is dedicated enough to circumvent every regulation you put out. That doesn't mean, though, that we should make it easy. Every hurdle you put on the way is one more which might serve as a deterrent or at least slow down the shooter enough that more people will survive.

Obviously that’s a dramatic example, but really anyone could operate a manual rifle at speeds approximating a semi-automatic one. It’s not hard. More modern slide and pump rifles are still manual and even easier to operate quickly.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point here, and I don’t mean this in a rude way but I don’t think you know enough about guns to understand why.

Well, as a general rule, I am very mistrustful if someone tells me that something can't be legislated, especially since people who claim this tend to be part of the gun industry or gun enthusiasts (and yes, I am aware how hard it is to find an expert who is neither). I simply don't see how, for example, "you can't have more than 8 shots in the magazine" is in any way complicated. And yes, I know that trained people can change magazines pretty fast, but a school shooter, totally pumped up on adrenaline and without any military training most likely won't be able to do it.

I’m in support of magazine restrictions, but I’ll point out that’s an entirely different subject than fire rate restrictions and not really relevant to that discussion.

Swan: The vast majority of mass shooters are quite familiar with firearms. It isn't exactly a hard thing to acquire. It is like pretty much any physically oriented skill, you just practice. You don't need world-class skill to be proficient or to even be fast. I wouldn't have shown a world record setter I would have found some average Joe demonstrating just how quick you can be with practice. You can become reasonably skilled in a couple of months. The US military regularly takes average people from the general population with no prior experience and turns them into reasonably skilled shooters in a month or less and have been doing it for over a century. It really isn't difficult. You don't need a trainer to do it and is a skill anyone can practice and develop on their own. You can practice firearms handling, aiming, and action operation, including reloading drills without having to fire a single shot. That is all it takes to become proficient and even fast. It takes very little skill to fire on a crowd at point-blank range which describes the vast majority of mass shootings.

If we were talking about distance shooting such as sniping that is another matter. Long distance shooting becomes increasingly technical the further out you go and the more accurate you want to be. Mass shootings at ranges over 100m or more are very rare.

Contrary to Jovian's statement the US law restricting automatic firearms was not targeting features. It was targeting the core of the firearm. The stock is a feature the mechanism is what makes it that particular variety of firearm in the first place.

Here a very simple demonstration. We restricted automatic firearms. What defines an automatic firearm? Any select fire weapon which is any mechanism or device that causes the weapon to fire more than one round in a single trigger pull either continuously or in bursts. It requires minimal interpretation and has almost no loophole abuse. It doesn't matter if it fires 10 rounds a minute or a 1000 rounds per minute. It doesn't matter if it holds only 5 rounds or a million. Its length, stock type, sights, or any other features are ultimately meaningless because you restricted the mechanism, the core of what makes a firearm a firearm. You restrict semi-automatic firearms based on their mechanism you get the same result. The mechanism is what defines a firearm and makes it a firearm and even overall categorizes it and to a limited extent defines its capabilities.

While limiting firearm capacity will help to a certain degree again it can't stop an individual simply bypassing the limitation with practice. Pairing it with control of the mechanisms and who can own what is far more effective.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Nov 9th 2018 at 8:12:48 AM

I’ll just mention that one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history was done with a bolt action rifle.

Yeah, but attacks with bolt actions are rare these days. They were more common roughly until the 60's and 70's. The firearm of choice is semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

Here's the regulations for the most common gun permit in Massachusetts, if we want to start here:

There are others, but this is far and away the most common. In order to get one, you must do a gun safety class and a background check. It also addresses the issue of round capacity.

Edited by megaeliz on Nov 9th 2018 at 11:46:27 AM

That is a pretty solid law. I know some countries require you to be a member of a shooting or hunting club or participant in competitive shooting before you can purchase a firearm. That is another way to help control who gets firearms. Carefully word the law in such a way that they should report any suspicious activity exhibited by any members or they could be disbanded. The majority of firearms owners would rather report the crazy weirdo than lose their group and guns.

For the purpose of argument, I would exclude the NRA as they are a political entity, not a gun club and bill themselves as such.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Nov 9th 2018 at 10:26:48 AM

I feel like the safe storage should be a requirement.

The number of accidental shootings and suicides is higher than the number of robberies dissuaded by the threat of being shot.

Depends on safe storage. I would not require the bolt down kind of safe for example because not everyone has the privilege of living in a place they could modify to take advantage of the heavier protection. But lockable gun cases and trigger locks are common and affordable.

Masschuetts has a storage law that seems to work reasonably well. X

Edited by megaeliz on Nov 9th 2018 at 11:54:04 AM

All you really want out of safe storage is to introduce a restriction to prevent acts of passion and so you can't have children accidentally getting hold of the things and firing them.

Any obstacle reduces the chance of the former (especially suicide), whilst the second is fairly obvious. Children are generally not going to be able to acquire a key, open a container, and then shoot themselves.

Though this requires something that takes a bit more effort to get through than a lock on a trigger. Not having the gun there and visible is a help.

Edited by RainehDaze on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:54:07 PM

I can get behind the MA storage law.

I feel like the mechanical lock part should be removed because of the benefits of not having a gun in sight. And if you have an actual use for it, a box isn't more disadvantageous than a lock.

The purpose of the mechanical lock is to make it children safe. Children can get into all kind of things, if they figure our where the gun is and it is just in a box, they might start to play around with it. Just a mechanical lock which requires of the strength of an adult is helpful.

So, let's summon up what we can agree on...

1. Some sort of test people have to take before being allowed to purchase a gun. I guess that translates into a gun licence which would involve a background check. The advantage would be that the shops don't have to do this anymore, they just have to check if the licence (which should have a picture, btw) is in order. And the same check has to happen for private sales.

2. A one week waiting time, to avoid impulse purchases in a questionable state of mind.

3. Storage rules to keep the guns out of the hand of children and out of sight in emotional situations.

4. I am not sure if the US already has this, but there should be a national gun registry. Let's assume someone purchases a gun in one state and then moves into another state and then dies. The state has to know what happened to the gun. After all, the heirs might not have gun licence.

5. Different carrying permits, depending on the purpose for which you need the gun.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 10th 2018 at 3:50:54 AM

Though to be fair, thats because unless your going for some kind of accuracy competition, bolt actions themselfs are pretty rare these days, you have vintage ones from that era, but few new ones, and not many being bought outside of some one with specialist interest for them.

Also its handguns specifically, semi-automatic rifles make up make up less then 1/3rd of what they do. They are much easier to conceal, and get into places, and there poor accuracy doesn't mater at close ranges.

If any fire arm type should be banned, its handguns they pose very little utility outside of killing other people, the low range making them poor for hunting and poor for target shooting.

Any way to contribute, one thing I think the US should do is copy the system we had back home where after you get a fire arm liscence, you are only allowed to own a shotgun (hunting), .22 (hunting/target) or, air rifle (target) for a year or two until you have proven you are a responsible firearm owner.... And then you can own more dangerous weapons.

Could even do a tiered approach, where you work your way from small caliber rifles, to semi-automatic intermediate caliber, to large caliber.

If you want to make it more palatable to the 2nd amendment crowd, maybe make it easier to get automatic weapons again, but only after something like 20-30 years of no issues. Makes them feel like there getting something, but still keeps them quite restricted.

Edited by Imca on Nov 10th 2018 at 4:59:06 AM