Gun control laws. Reasonable or stupid?

[Excalibur]

Indiana has no waiting period to get a gun. You buy it and get it on the same day.

People would ask why do you need a full auto weapon? And some would say why not?

[Nyles]

Things about our gun laws I agree with:

-Liscense to own a firearm - I don't think anyone should be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun, and I think in the long term liscensing is less onerous than a background check every time.

-3 classes of gun liscense - Non-restricted = long guns; restricted = handguns; prohibited = full auto & other "scary" guns. This is an oversimplification, but it'll do for discussion. I don't think that a handgun is the same thing as a deer rifle, or that a submachine gun is the same thing as a handgun and it makes sense to have different levels on control on them.

-Storage requirements - I'm sorry, but I don't agree with storing a loaded gun in an unlocked area.

-Antique firearms - Our antique laws aren't perfect, but they're pretty rational. An antique firearm isn't treated as a firearm, but still has to be stored properly and when used in a crime it becomes one.


Things about our gun laws I'm indifferent to:

-Registration of firearms - the program is mismanaged and a huge waste of money, but it's not particularly onerous and done right it could be cost effective. I don't think it's necessary, but it doesn't bother me.

-Authorization to transport restricted firearms - same deal, it's not onerous so I don't really mind. I have a standing ATT for the range, anywhere else I need to take them I phone it in and they fax it to me. Takes 10 minutes.

-Lack of handgun carry - done responsibly I think concealed carry is a good thing, but working in a gun shop you deal with WAY too many people who should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun. And most of them would.


Things about our gun laws I dislike:

-Prohibition of certain firearms - if you owned one before they were prohibited you still can, but otherwise you're SOL. I can kinda see the rationale behind prohibiting full autos, but when they can be purchased by properly-liscensed individuals they become so expensive that criminals don't use them. I'd rather see prohibs just become a more-regulated class of restricted.

-Barrel length / caliber requirements on handguns - Unless you owned one before 1995, you can't own a handgun with a barrel under 4.1" or in .25 or .32 caliber. That's just stupid. Even if you're worried about concealability, make it based on overall length, not barrel length. I own guns a hell of a lot more concealable that a P.08 Luger or Bolo Mauser, but those are both prohibited. At the very least, I'd like to see a full exemption for pre-1945 pistols - we already have a partial in that they can be passed directly along the bloodline.

-Wilderness carry only for liscensed trappers - The average person cannot carry a handgun in the woods, and that I actually disagree with. I like to hike in grizzly country, my mom likes to pick blueberries in grizzly country. I don't want to carry a shotgun hiking and she definately wouldn't. I'd like to carry a pistol in that case, but because I'm not a "wilderness professional" I can't. I don't consider this the same thing as carrying in a city.

-Magazine capacity limits - this bothers me more as a collector than a shooter. I like that there are exemptions for rare and historically significant magazines, but its a very short list (off the top of my head, Luger trommel mag, Bren anti-aircraft drum, Huot automatic rifle spool mag, and maybe a Lewis pan mag) and I hate putting a pin through ANY collectible. Of course, once you start allowing vintage, why not modern, and so on until to be rational everything has to be legal.

[MT2008]

In general, my attitude is that any gun law that actually bans something is not even worth contemplating.

If it's a law that's intended to weed out the criminals and mentally ill from the responsible, law-abiding citizens, then I am willing to consider the law objectively (it doesn't mean I'll endorse said law, necessarily, just that I'm willing to discuss it in terms of its merits).

Originally Posted by Nyles

-3 classes of gun liscense - Non-restricted = long guns; restricted = handguns; prohibited = full auto & other "scary" guns. This is an oversimplification, but it'll do for discussion. I don't think that a handgun is the same thing as a deer rifle, or that a submachine gun is the same thing as a handgun and it makes sense to have different levels on control on them.

I agree with this. For years, I used to get into fights with other pro-gunners who swore up and down that there was no difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. I think it's the most embarrassingly inept argument that comes from our side, and I hate it when people try to make it.

Speaking of which...

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Like the Full auto restriction to civilians. In America, you can get full auto weapons in some states bear in mind with a class 3 license, background check, stamps, etc.

But do you think it's a reasonable gun law?

Yes. The FOPA is the only thing I disagree with.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What about states or countries like Canada that have magazine capacity limits to no more than 10 round magazines despite how in a lot of crime, suspects with illegal possessions of guns have them anyway or uses guns that are below 10 rounds.

Do you think it is a reasonable law for magazine limits?

There should be no magazine capacity limits. That being said, I hate it when pro-gunners argue, "There's no 'practical' difference between a 30-round magazine and three 10-round magazines", which is a retarded argument to make. There's a huge difference, and I should know.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What about flash hiders? Telescoptic, retractable, or folding stocks?

Barrel length restrictions?

What do you think about these restrictions?

I disagree with them all. Well, maybe the barrel length restrictions, except that I'd ditch the arbitrary 16" minimum limit.