If these ideas make sense to you, share them with your legislators.
VIOLENT GUN CONTROL
We need new definitions. And with new definitions we re-define the debate and open the door to redefining the culture of violence in America.
HERE THEY ARE
We need to make laws that are appropriate to each. We can do so. And this will change violence in America.
These guns do not need to kill. They only need to STOP someone. Let’s make long-distance tazor guns or rubber bullet guns available for self defense. Let these be legal and available to the public.
Sport and Farming Guns
Limit these guns to single shot rifles only. No hand guns. This will eliminate mass murder while still allowing farmers to cull a herd and hunters to bag a buck. Game Wardens and other law enforcement officers would still be allowed magazines etc. But sportsmen don’t need them. Let the hunt be a challenge.
These are automatic weapons and weapons with a magazine for many bullets. Their only real purpose is to kill many and to kill quickly. These are the guns we must ban immediately. I suspect we should also put hand guns with real bullets in this category as well. If folks want target practice, let them use rubber bullets, just as they would with their self-defense guns.
OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES
"There are already millions of guns out there. What do we do about those?"
Provide for some kind of exchange program to make it affordable for current gun owners to trade for legal guns. The cost of such a program will be offset by savings in gun-related deaths.
"But what about the criminals? They won’t turn in their guns."
They are already doing something illegal. Of course they won’t. That’s the point! They are breaking laws! With this ban in place, when a criminal carrying a gun is stopped for ANY reason, and they have a gun, there is an immediate justification to arrest them, thus increasing the likelihood of a conviction, and thusly, taking more guns off the street.
“It is an American right to bear arms.”
The right was granted, in part, to give citizens a means for protecting themselves from a tyrannical government that had run out of control. While small arms might have protected citizens from government in days gone by, that is no longer the case. Police forces and our military have such overwhelming force and such sophisticated weaponry that no single citizen or even a small citizen army would stand a chance defending themselves, even with military-grade automatic weapons. So this is an unrealistic argument merely used to support the desire to own massive fire-power.
"WE CAN’T BEAT THE GUN LOBBY"
The gun manufacturers can make wads of money developing and marketing an entirely new class of SELF-DEFENSE guns. They can develop greater range for stun guns, etc. We can provide them a financial incentive for transitioning away from violent guns, and thus redirect their resources towards transforming America into a safer place to live.
Many violent acts are performed without pre-meditation. They are acts of passion. They could not happen if a multi-shot gun were not easily available, because the angry person would have to spend some time and thought procuring a gun. In the meantime, they are likely to cool down and a tragedy may be averted. So reducing the availability of guns will lower those incidents.