This is a write up I did on a private mailing list I started. It's what I'd do for gun control. Be interested in seeing if anyone likes it (or if anyone can s

This is a write up I did on a private mailing list I started. It's what I'd do for gun control. Be interested in seeing if anyone likes it (or if anyone can see how to make it more viable). To me, someone who used to be a gun hating liberal but now owns quite a few guns (.22s, 30-30s, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .38 revolver) guns are a tool. Sort of like a chainsaw is a tool. I moved to the country, predators ate my chickens (and now my dog), guns became a necessary tool. And at this point they are fun too, I've shot some clays and enjoyed it, still do from time to time. Certain guns, in the hands of crazies, can do a lot of damage quickly. So I'd like to restrict access to those. I'm fine with the idea that you can own anything you want, 50mm machine gun, whatever, so long as it is stored at a range and you have to go play with it there. If some idiot made me king and I could make laws I would restrict home owner guns to: - revolvers (but speed loaders are range only) - maximum of 6 rounds in a rifle - maximum of 4 shells in a shotgun I'd actually relax some of the rules in California, I'd allow AR-15's and whatever other toys people want (no nukes, sorry :) if they are range only. Range only sort of sucks, you don't get to strip your weapon and oil it for hours at home, but if range only gets people AR-15's in California I can see that as a step forwards in the mind of some of the gun people. It's messy, transport between ranges would have to be worked out, as would initial transport to the range, but who am I kidding? I'm not king, this isn't gonna happen. My reasoning on all of this was to allow for tool usage of guns, there are lots and lots of places in this country where not having a revolver is just stupid (I go on guided fly fishing trips, they all carry revolvers in bear country; never seen a semi auto, their comment is revolvers just work). But restrict access to the guns that are clearly designed for, or allow for, killing of lots of people quickly. We make it way to easy for those to fall into the hands of mentally unstable people. What you'd get in return for these rules is my commitment (and I suspect a huge number of people would feel the same) if I'm ever in a situation where there is someone shooting people up, I'm going to tackle them when they go to reload. That was the divider for me, if some guy has a glock and a belt full of clips, it's just too fast to drop a clip and shove in another one, the window to tackle him is so small that you're probably gonna die. But a guy with a revolver? Yeah, he's going down. Same thing for a rifle or a shotgun. Is this a perfect answer? Hell no. Some people won't be happy until all guns are illegal just as some people won't be happy until they can have nukes. This was just the best compromise I could imagine. I posted these thoughts to a gun forum years ago, back when I was first researching guns. Holy moly, the crap that rained down on my head! Unamerica was by far the most polite thing, I got death threats, literal death threats. So clearly it's unlikely that everyone agrees with me on this topic, not expecting that, just saying this is how I'd try and balance all the issues. If someone can show me how to change it so that the gun rights people are happier and the "I just want to stay alive" people are happier, bring it on! --lm