Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
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.
|
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