Rational Gun Laws
In order to bring some objectivity to restrictions on weapons, I propose the following definitions.- A Military Weapon (a weapon of war) needs to fire repeatedly - the more bullets you can spit out, the better the battle's outcome. Rate-of-fire is the most important factor when choosing a weapon for the battlefield.
- A Civilian Weapon needs to be accurate. Accuracy is the most important factor for hunting or defending your home.
You can use a sledgehammer to pound a nail, but that's not what it was designed for. Military weapons can be used for hunting, but likewise they were not designed for that purpose. And conversely - Civilian weapons can be used on the battlefield, but they might put you at a disadvantage.
This Rate-of-fire has 2 aspects - fast firing and maximal ammo feed. Semi and full automatic "actions" were designed for fast firing (more so than bolt action/revolver actions). Clips and belts of ammo were designed for maximal ammo feed. The M-16 and AK-47 are examples of this high rate-of-fire (also called assault rifles) and are used in most armies around the world.
High rate-of-fire and battlefields are strongly connected. Soldiers use these weapons on the battlefield and battlefields most always have these weapons.
When you introduce these Military weapons into Civilian areas, what happens? You create battlefield "conditions" - where the "true nature" of these weapons can be unleashed (and has been).
Not all guns are equal - as I have defined above. High rate-of-fire weapons are extremely dangerous in Civilian areas as we have witnessed for many years (Aurora,Sandy Hook,Virginia Tech, etc.). But because there has been no explicit definitions of weapons, people equate all weapons as being the same - and the risk of having any weapon also being the same.
The new Gun Law
I propose that no Military weapon exist outside of the military. That essentially means that Civilians cannot own a Military weapon.This goes beyond restricting fully automatic weapons - it makes any high rate-of-fire weapon illegal.
Remember that high rate-of-fire weapons require 2 things - fast firing and maximal ammo feed. In order to determine what weapons can be Civilian, they must break that rate-of-fire paradigm - either they must be slow firing or restricted on ammo feed.
The first aspect - slow firing - could be achieved by making every gun single-action i.e. bolt action for rifles and single action revolvers. Single action revolvers existed over 100 years ago and are not well suited for today (Bolt action rifles are still a mainstay of hunters).
The second aspect - restricted/reduced ammo flow - can be achieved through elimination of clips. Guns would be reloaded one bullet at a time (you could use those revolver 6 bullet "fast reloaders" - which really aren't all that fast compared to slapping in a new banana clip).
How many bullets a gun holds or how to design the reloading process should be left to the gun manufacturers.
The "Armory" Law
The Revolutionary War started when the British tried to seize an Armory. Armories are stockpiles of weapons and they must be protected. A citizen has the Right To Bear Arms (without limits), but having many, many weapons creates a de-facto Armory. A law will be established that having more than x(3?) unsecured weapons in your possession is a violation of The Armory Law. Pistol locks and gun safes secure weapons - but keep them from your ready, so a (small) amount of unsecured weapons will be allowed.These 2 restrictions are the ONLY ONES to ever be established over weapons. This would be enforced by the "Hair Trigger" Rule - if any law is enacted that restricts citizens of their choice of (existing legal) weapons (not where they are carried); these 2 Laws will be considered null and void i.e. If a hostile government tries to restrict the citizens of their legal weapons (setting off this hair trigger), citizens are then allowed to "break" the law. This should allay the fears of gun manufacturers, NRA, etc. over "more and more" laws eroding the 2nd Amendment
Gun Crimes
There are many different definitions for gun crimes - murder, manslaughter, etc. There are also extenuating circumstances such as "self defense". In order to simplify the definitions, here is what I came up with.
If you shoot a weapon at another person, and the bullet either hits something other than clothing or the front of the target - you are guilty of a crime (not necessarily murder). Shooting someone in the back has always been the definition of coward - but shooting someone through an obstruction should also be considered as cowardly. Bullets travel a long distance and can hit other people - so it is your responsibility to aim (see) and hit your target. Therefore, shooting someone through a door, wall, window, etc. would be a crime.
I wanted to bring attention to this as there have been instances where (an example) A man was drunk, thought he was at his house, and pounded on the door to let him in. The woman inside shot him through the door and was not charged with a crime. Or a burglar trying to open a window was shot though it. You have a gun AND a mouth - warn the person to stop - DO NOT FIRE THOUGH THE WINDOW! Both of these examples were from Texas ....
