I own about a dozen guns from a couple of .22's, to a .223, a .270, three shotguns, 2 muzzleloaders, a older 38 Colt revolver, and some older relics. Not a single one is an autoloader. In fact, I've only owned one autoloader and it was a .22 Marlin and an unreliable, inaccurate POS that I quickly sold.

I think we could a long ways by prohibiting pistol ownership to all but those involved in the military and public safety. The general public, excluding criminals and the mentally ill, could own non-autoloading long arms with a maximum of 5 shot magazines (with mandatory background check and training). Everyone who wanted to could protect their home/property with a 12 gauge pump, the best home defense weapon there is, bar none.

Loaded weapons would only be allowed on one's private property, at licensed ranges, or in the field in the hands of licensed (and trained) hunters. Any violations would be severely punished.

This pretty much describes the gun laws in places like Canada, Australia and Western Europe and it works in reducing gun crime significantly. I have family in Canada and have lived 11 years in Germany. In neither place do people feel deprived of the right to bear arms under these restrictions. It still freaks me out a bit to see guns sold like bicycles at places like Walmart.

Marc, I find it interesting that you are not a hunter and do not keep the firearms in your possession. That leaves me with the question of what is your actual interest in the guns. Do you still enjoy shooting them? Do you appreciate them for their design? The analogy I might make - weak as it is - is that even though I don't sew, I bought an old sewing machine at a garage sale because I was fascinated by how well constructed it was and by the precision with which it ran.

I would also ask anyone where one might draw the line for the type of weapons which individuals might be allowed to own? Is there strong opposition to restrictions on private ownership of machine guns or bazookas? Would it be practical for there to be highly regulated repositories for automatic weapons, including machine guns, for those who would want to have the experience of shooting them?

Regards,

D-Ray

I'm pretty sure parts of Canada are like here in Alaska, and hunters are not the only ones packing heat. Anyone working or recreating in bear country is carrying, and lets just say many of you would not find some of these people "competent". Doesn't mean they should be denied the right to defend themselves, from bears or humans.

For the good of the rest of the nation and your own well-being, carry a slug-loaded 12 gauge pump or a .45-70 Guide Gun. It'll get a bear's attention, as opposed to that pop-gun you carry on your hip. A .44 Magnum to his center of mass will just make him more determined to kill you before he ultimately expires (with you in his belly). Plus, if you're out hunting, your rifle intended for moose will dispatch a bear far better than any pistol. Also, there are damn few people who are capable of accurately shooting a high caliber handgun, much less at a charging bear.

Ah, but they would be deprived of the right to drive into bear country until they demonstrated that they had the ability to operate a motor vehicle. Should the not also be deprived of the right to operate a firearm until they prove that they have the ability to safely do so?

Regards,

D-Ray

Sounds logical, and I don't have any problem with CC licensing, got a permit myself. It's not an Alaska permit, because we have no requirement. Anyone can carry concealed here, yet (check the stats) our murder rate with firearms is way, way down the list, so the numbers don't support the notion.

"In summation; You people are fucking whacked and you're beginning to frighten me.:p"

What, because of that? Note the smilie.(:p) This means the comment was little more than a friendly jab at people in general, not a personal insult.

Regards,
Dave

Other than static display of collectables, target and skeet shooting, what else are they used for?:confused:

And, our death rate from firearms is unacceptable, is it not?

Regards,
Dave

Right, and I concur. What is so wrong with limiting the capability of such weapons so that it simply becomes more difficult to commit the heinous types of mass murder that has escalated in recent years?

I agree that we have (and should have) the right to bear arms. But, why so many see it so necessary that private citizens should own unlimited amounts of military grade weapons is, to me,..........just plain nuts. I see no reasonable explanation for it.

Regards,
Dave

Uh guys, fired a 12 ga lately? It will knock small women on their fannies.