There's another thread with a running argument about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what rights Americans have viz firearms and why. Very interesting.

Now presumably two could differ regarding the history and the interpretation of the 2nd yet still agree that we'd be better off without so many guns. Alternatively, two people might see the history etc. exactly the same way yet disagree about what an ideal policy would be if we were starting with a clean slate in 2011. Furthermore, one might see the history the same way the NRA does yet wish guns could be removed from the general populace, or see things as Ricky does but support easy access.

Hypothesis: those who interpret the Constitution like the NRA will tend to also want guns to be freely available to a much greater degree than those who interpret the Constitution like Ricky. When you think about it, current ideal-world policy preferences should have little or no influence on how one views historical data. But the fact is that our ways of interpreting data (in this case looking at history and divining the intent behind the 2nd) can be skewed horribly by our policy stances. (And perhaps the reverse is also true.) Put another way: tell me how you'd vote on a legal but strict local gun control law and I'll guess what views you hold regarding the 2nd. I won't always be right, but I suspect I'd do better than 2/3rds.

I mention all that just as prelude. Let's discuss what ideal gun laws for the USA would look like as if we had no Constitution and no body of constitutional jurisprudential precedent. In other words, if you were all three branches and also able to rewrite the Constitution at will, what sorts of gun laws would you seek to implement?

If you buy into the insurrectionist theory of the 2nd, must you also support easy access to guns because you think the need for the 2nd in that regard was real in 1789 and still is? Even if you think the 2nd conferred no individual right, would you grant one if it were in your power to do so?

The hypothetical does not extend to current facts on the ground regarding ownership, manufacture, distribution, crime, and so on. What is, other than the law, is. You can't legislate "no more guns" and snap your fingers and get them all to disappear. If you want to require registration of all guns you've got to describe how you'd enforce that for the one my neighbor informally inherited from his uncle and keeps loaded in his house unbeknownst to another soul. If you want to outlaw manufacture of certain weapons you must face the fact that you're going to cost some people their jobs.

So:
1) right or privilege, or no way no how?
2) any restrictions or can I own an M1 Abrams tank? Draw a line.
3) what penalties for breaking your laws?
...and so on.

I subscribe in large (but not total) part to the insurrectionist point of view as far as the history goes. I even sorta' wish that the threat of citizen insurrection still had some sort of restraining power on a government that never gives up any power and now and then grabs a bit more. But we have more effective and civilized means of making government work for the people, and while I hate to deny anything to a citizen that might enhance his happiness, in this case the negative consequences of the legal commercial gun trade outweigh all positive benefits I've ever seen forwarded. I've not considered in any great depth the virtues of various approaches to gun control - I'd like to hear some creative or imaginative but practical ideas.

How about you?

Foreigners are invited to fully participate.

So let's get this started... (since nobody else will stick their neck out!)

I would allow no restriction on type of gun ownership, but would require a test for qualification similar to a drivers license. This could be revoked if a crime was committed or serious safety violation were noted. Military is responsible for ensuring military grade weapons are not released to the public.

As for a crime committed with a weapon:
Punish to the fullest extent of the law.
Each prison must be self sufficient with food and manufacturing paying for guards, facilities, food and utilities.
Add 10 years for crimes committed with a gun.
No parole

Have a nice day

I would outlaw private ownership of any and all firearms except shotguns and hunting rifles. I realise that these can still be used to kill people of course, but my rationale is that their primary purpose is something different, whereas pretty much every other type of firearm was invented specifically to kill other human beings. I might theoretically be willing to bend a little on ownership of other types of guns but I'd stipulate that they could only be owned if they were kept at all times under lock and key in licensed gun clubs and used only for target shooting purposes.

Somehow I rather doubt many people here at Redscape will agree with me....

Sassenach wrote:I would outlaw private ownership of any and all firearms except shotguns and hunting rifles. I realise that these can still be used to kill people of course, but my rationale is that their primary purpose is something different, whereas pretty much every other type of firearm was invented specifically to kill other human beings.

So where whould my model 1858 Enfield .58 Cal Rifled Musket or my 1768 Brown Bess .71 Cal smoothbore musket Fall?

Those US Civil War era rifles were designed to kill people. Sorry...

Yup, fraid so.

My ideal is obviously unrealistic of course, and I never said otherwise. But MinX did ask us to name a hypothetical.

The hypothetical does not extend to current facts on the ground regarding ownership, manufacture, distribution, crime, and so on. What is, other than the law, is. You can't legislate "no more guns" and snap your fingers and get them all to disappear. If you want to require registration of all guns you've got to describe how you'd enforce that for the one my neighbor informally inherited from his uncle and keeps loaded in his house unbeknownst to another soul. If you want to outlaw manufacture of certain weapons you must face the fact that you're going to cost some people their jobs

How do you evaluate the hypotheticals?
I'm thinking here of the usual counter arguement to gun restrictions as being imperfect and therefore not worth having.

Enforcement of any law usually has to find a convenient choke point of enforcemnt.
It seems to me that means enforcement of restrictions has to come at the sales point of guns and ammo.
It shoud be incumbent upon gun sales and ammo sales that each purchaser needs to provide proof of
- license to own a firearm
- registration of a firearm for which the ammo is being purchased
- proof of liability insurance

Guns for sale would be limited to hunting rifles and shotguns in a perfect world. But even where hand guns were allowed the system would still generate positive results. Gun sellers would need to use a central ATF computer registration system and sales to persons who are "restricted" would be eliminated.

Licenses would be granted at licensing offices where the applicant has provided
-a certificate from a gunsafety school
- evidence of liability insurance for gun use.

It would take many years for all guns to be found. However I beleive over a short period of time
- gun deaths per capita would decrease.
- crime would decrease (specifically homicide category)

Sassenach wrote:Somehow I rather doubt many people here at Redscape will agree with me....

Well, you got one here! I think you are a bit harsh on gun clubs, but then again I remember Dunblane.

You could relent and allow decommissioned and replica weapons as well.

Sassenach wrote:MinX did ask us to name a hypothetical.

No, I didn't. I set the terms of the hypothetical: the 2nd and current laws won't restrict you - you may propose any laws you want and no one can say, "But that's unconstitutional." However, you will have to deal with L.A. street gangs as they are, guns already out there as they are, bureaucratic/technical resources at your disposal as they are, and so on.

Green Arrow: can you please define "military grade weapons"? How many cartridges per clip? Rate of fire? Dum-dum bullets? Or whatever - I'm no expert on gun technology.

Ricky: your asking for proof of liability insurance is interesting. Do you see a big unmet necessity for indemnification of damages arising out of negligence? That's all that will be covered (unless you want to change insurance law - and have at it!). Or are you hoping that the expense will be a deterrent to the purchase of guns and ammo? In either case you'll be significantly frustrated by the fact that it's quite easy to obtain proof of insurance and then either cancel the coverage and get premium returned or simply not renew. A few cases of ammo could last a lifetime based on three days of having some renter's insurance. What you want to do is have it set up where any cancellation of the policy or failure to renew generates notification to ATF, who would then send notice of impending confiscation unless coverage is reinstated toots sweet. This is exactly similar to, for instance, a commercial real estate loan, where the lender is named as an "Additional Insured" on the policy or via some other mechanism is ensured of being informed if coverage lapses.

And I assume you realize that damages causes during the commission of a crime will not be covered. To do so would violate a basic tenet of insurance. We don't want to encourage criminality by insuring someone for the penalties of getting caught.

You go on to say that while "in a perfect world" you'd allow only some types of guns, "where hand guns were allowed" your ideas would still have merit. Was my statement of the hypothetical so hard to follow? I NEVER seem to be able to get the point of one across. YOU get to say what's allowed where. If you want, you may legislate that the ATF shall by necessity inspect every cubic inch of this great land and confiscate any firearm not registered and locked up to your satisfaction. Only your own conscience can limit you, though if you were to suggest what I wrote I might question the practicality and feasibility of the plan on a purely physical and financial basis.

Why allow rifles? The LA gangbangers can't pull off a drive-by with a long gun? Unfaithful lovers can't be shot? Sure, the awkwardness of carrying something over a foot or two long would have an effect, but do you really see the benefits of allowing rifle ownership outweighing the costs? Remember that people adapt; denied one tool they will improvise.

Finally - for Ricky or anyone else who wants to limit to long guns - would you not make a pistol exception for certain classes of people outside of government? Possibilities include bounty hunters, private detectives, bodyguards, bank guards - all of them to be licensed and trained? And then how about someone like Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I'd make an exception for them with a minimum of fuss and bother; would you?

Why allow rifles? The LA gangbangers can't pull off a drive-by with a long gun? Unfaithful lovers can't be shot? Sure, the awkwardness of carrying something over a foot or two long would have an effect, but do you really see the benefits of allowing rifle ownership outweighing the costs? Remember that people adapt; denied one tool they will improvise.

Of course they will, but I'd wager that the number of fatalities would drop dramatically nevertheless. Rifles tend to be much harder to carry round, impossible to conceal on your person and hold much less ammunition. But in truth the reason I wouldn't outlaw them is simply that they have a useful function outside of violence between humans which it would it would probably be unjust to deny to people.

As for whether I'd make any exceptions for handgun ownership, absolutely not. To be honest I don't even think the police should carry them really, or not all police anyway.I tend to take a somewhat extremist line on this issue.

Sassenach wrote:Rifles ... hold much less ammunition.

I am curious to how you define Rifles. I have known "hunting rifles" that have a magazine capacity equal to pistols.

x

Ricky: your asking for proof of liability insurance is interesting. Do you see a big unmet necessity for indemnification of damages arising out of negligence? That's all that will be covered (unless you want to change insurance law - and have at it!).

Hyopothetically we get to change everything, right?
Hypothetically damages arising from negilgence or misuse would be covered. And I think Insurance companies would be pretty good at weeding out bad risks
As for hand guns, I think there is some legitimate use for them in a nation that already has so many guns. I'm thinking that some permit to carry may make sense for a period of transition, but I havn't quite figured out how to discriminate here fairly... Maybe thats where a requirement for insurance and the risk management of persons by insurance companies plays an appropriate role.
I take your point about "cancelling insurance". However insurance companies would have access to the same gun ownership database and when insuracne is cancelled that would be reported to the authorities. The same as if you get caught driving without insurance... (We have these massively powerful computer databases....In my hypotehtical world they'd be used as well for management of the gun owners universe as it is for medical insurance. So, not perfect - but fairly effective.)

Here's a shock to most...
I tend to agree with Ricky and sass in this situation!

This hypothetical is quite different from what the situation is in reality,
The US has the second amendment and it is a right to bear arms ...period.
I also take issue with the portion mentioning there could be two different views on the intent of this amendment, I see only one view and so far have seen ZERO evidence for any other understanding. Arguments ca be made on different 'angles" but the intent was and is still quite clear. And I defend our rights as they are, below suggests what I would like in a perfect world that does not exist! I am not waffling here in the least!!!!

Back to the hypo (silly because we already have so many guns floating around that can be obtained illegally with great ease) here's how I would like things in this magic world...

I must assume all handguns are available to the public, legally or illegally. They are restricted to police and those who have a very strict set of circumstances (such as a guard at certain facilities like a nuclear power plant or other "sensitive" place, not a shopping mall). I would allow long arms that do not have any sort of rapid fire mechanisms (no machine guns or assault weapons) This can allow for Archduke to own (most?) of his rifles. It may be designed to kill people but it's a long arm and is not rapidly fired. I have no problem with making this very easily obtained either, no license (though I do not greatly oppose that idea) and no tremendous restrictions on these "legal" guns.
Handguns again are very strictly controlled and can be owned but not easily and not without a lot of paperwork. (they are nearly non-existent)

That being said, I can not come down in favor of this ever happening due to our 2nd amendment, due to the easy availability of illegal guns, due to our long history of ownership and reasoning for them being allowed in the first place ...they were designed to keep the government "honest" and may very well have served that purpose (who can tell?) but now that reasoning may no longer exist? but now we are in a different place and can't go back.. This was only my perfect world situation that does not/can not exist.

When I say a military grade, I mean a weapon that is a military weapon. If they choose to not have that technology available to the public, then keep the technology secret. Atomic weapons are secure for a reason. If the military does not want Ruffhaus' neighbor having an Abrams, keep them secure.

Luckily I do happen to live in a country where most firearms are outlawed and private ownership of them is very rare. I'm a helluva lot safer as a result. I appreciate that it would be difficult to replicate this in America when you have so many guns in circulation already but it's important to understand that it isn't entirely hypothetical. Gun control does work and has been proven to work in a number of countries.