4 ms·

As someone who defends the right to own guns this still resonates with me. Somewhere in between "doing nothing" and trying to "ban all guns" there is a good so

As someone who defends the right to own guns this still resonates with me. Somewhere in between "doing nothing" and trying to "ban all guns" there is a good solution waiting to be found. Meanwhile the discussion seems deadlocked and I guess many of us can understand both sides.

notacoward 9y ago
> the discussion seems deadlocked It doesn't help when people who have explicitly called for an in-between solution get called "gungrabbers". I also support the right to bear arms - some arms, some places, perhaps subject to some conditions or requirements. But because I don't toe the NRA line, I get called names. Maybe part of the solution would be people matching their rhetoric to their intentions, instead of saying one thing and doing another.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  If you refer to me then let me point out I am fairly certain I didn't call you a gungrabber only said others would do. Sorry if I came across that way.
cwkoss 9y ago
Unconventional gun law idea: To get a license to own a gun, you need to take a marksmanship test. You get 36 shots, and have to fire at a 12" circular target 25' away. Your personal maximum magazine size is the number of shots that hit the target minus 24 (36-24= max 12). If you have less than 66% accuracy (<24 hits), no license. If you only hit 25, your max size is 1. Must have gun license on you any time you're in possession of a gun outside your house (for verification of magazine limit). Shooting ranges can let you rent a gun for practice without a license, but must stay on premises. If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. Driving a car requires proof of competence, don't see any reason why guns shouldn't be the same: especially if its an objective test. Would be relatively politically defensible, because opposition would have to argue that people who cannot fire accurately should still be able to own higher-capacity magazines, which is pretty hard position to argue. The biggest counterpoint I can think of is that it might make it harder for victims of domestic violence to obtain weapons to protect themselves, but I think most of those situations are close enough range that there are other non lethal alternatives (taser, mace) that could be safer/more effective for someone without shooting experience.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. But, conversely, the number of bullets you need for protection in any specific situation goes down with accuracy, so inaccurate shooters legitimately need more bullets.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    For themselves, yes. But bystanders need the inaccurate shooters to have fewer bullets.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Around here it is simpler: You have too show up and be considered active to get permits for certain classes of guns (including handguns). This is a win-win: if you don’t show up on maintenance days you risk losing your license. Same goes if you don’t practice.
- socialist_coder 9y ago
  Let's face it, the lack of sensible gun laws is not why the US does not have sensible gun laws. They are easy to come up with. The problem is that there is a huge amount of people who are completely unwilling to compromise at all. For them, any amount of additional regulation is tantamount to a complete ban. We have to somehow figure out a way to talk to these people.

notacoward 9y ago

> the discussion seems deadlocked It doesn't help when people who have explicitly called for an in-between solution get called "gungrabbers". I also support the right to bear arms - some arms, some places, perhaps subject to some conditions or requirements. But because I don't toe the NRA line, I get called names. Maybe part of the solution would be people matching their rhetoric to their intentions, instead of saying one thing and doing another.

reitanqild 9y ago
If you refer to me then let me point out I am fairly certain I didn't call you a gungrabber only said others would do. Sorry if I came across that way.

cwkoss 9y ago

Unconventional gun law idea: To get a license to own a gun, you need to take a marksmanship test. You get 36 shots, and have to fire at a 12" circular target 25' away. Your personal maximum magazine size is the number of shots that hit the target minus 24 (36-24= max 12). If you have less than 66% accuracy (<24 hits), no license. If you only hit 25, your max size is 1. Must have gun license on you any time you're in possession of a gun outside your house (for verification of magazine limit). Shooting ranges can let you rent a gun for practice without a license, but must stay on premises. If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. Driving a car requires proof of competence, don't see any reason why guns shouldn't be the same: especially if its an objective test. Would be relatively politically defensible, because opposition would have to argue that people who cannot fire accurately should still be able to own higher-capacity magazines, which is pretty hard position to argue. The biggest counterpoint I can think of is that it might make it harder for victims of domestic violence to obtain weapons to protect themselves, but I think most of those situations are close enough range that there are other non lethal alternatives (taser, mace) that could be safer/more effective for someone without shooting experience.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. But, conversely, the number of bullets you need for protection in any specific situation goes down with accuracy, so inaccurate shooters legitimately need more bullets.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  For themselves, yes. But bystanders need the inaccurate shooters to have fewer bullets.
reitanqild 9y ago
Around here it is simpler: You have too show up and be considered active to get permits for certain classes of guns (including handguns). This is a win-win: if you don’t show up on maintenance days you risk losing your license. Same goes if you don’t practice.
socialist_coder 9y ago
Let's face it, the lack of sensible gun laws is not why the US does not have sensible gun laws. They are easy to come up with. The problem is that there is a huge amount of people who are completely unwilling to compromise at all. For them, any amount of additional regulation is tantamount to a complete ban. We have to somehow figure out a way to talk to these people.