Gun violence and gun control. My solution.

To be called the You are your own protection law.

Laws and regulations on the use of firearms has come about to protect un-armed citizens. If all the old cowboy movies I have seen are correct, there were laws established even then to protect the town from errant gunslingers. So I guess that over the years these laws have increased as the effects of previous laws have proved ineffectual. More and more laws to restrict guns.

The problem? These laws have been established to protect us from the bad guys, not the good guys, and good guys do not want to be restricted just because of the bad guys.

From my reading on the gun control issue I find that gun owners do not want to give up their guns while advocates of gun control want to restrict them. The thing is is that we are trying to set ONE set of laws for everyone. My proposal is to establish two different sets of laws. One law for those who carry guns and one for everyone else. The established laws already in existence will apply to all who do not carry guns. The new set of laws will apply to all gun carriers and should in no way hamper the free exercise of the second amendment.

The new set of rules for gun carriers.

One----

Open carry only. No concealed carry. The argument is often made that everyone carrying a firearm will curtail those errant individuals who would shoot up the place. These errant folk most often conceal before an attack. This new law should eliminate this possibility of hidden agendas while in no way infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms. A pistol should be open carried in a holster on the hip or slung over the shoulders in full view of the public. A rifle likewise should be carried slung across the shoulder or just carried but in open view. Failure to do so would be considered a miss-demeanor and all rights of carry would be revoked.

Two…..

Any violence perpetrated on one gun carrier by another gun carrier would not be considered a crime. If Joe wears a gun and Bob wears a gun, the law would protect neither from the other. If Joe kills Bob and Bob is carrying, it is no foul no punishment. Not trial no nothing. Motives, and everything else aside. Carry a gun and you are your own protection and can not seek the protection of law or order. It is just what it is. Bob wore a gun and was killed by Joe. Over over and done.

Two A…. Likewise if Joe kills Bob with a gun and Bob's family comes after Joe who is still wearing a gun, they can shoot him dead for revenge with no foul. Motive matters not. Cause matters not. No trial is needed because they did not break the law. The law of the gunman. Clean up expenses at the site of the killing would would come from both the killers and the dead gunmen s estate, either through the direct efforts of his family or to reimburse the state for incurred services.

Three……

Any unlawful actions taken while carrying a gun that is instrumental to that crime, like robbing a bank would forfeit the perpetrators right to trial. No judge, no jury, no trial. Straight to prison forever. So this would put the onus on the bad guy and in no way infringes on the good guys right to bear arms. If Mary is in a bank and Lulu comes in to rob it with a gun, Mary can shoot her dead on the spot, save the day and then go home and have dinner with the family. No crime, no foul. Lulu's unlawful attempt to rob the bank would be cause to gather 'clean up' funds from her family or estate.

Gun ownership is guaranteed. No regulations, no signups no registrations. Nothing but the 'open carry ' rule. Guns in vehicles should be kept in plain sight. Rifles mounted on racks and a nice little dashboard holster to slip a pistol into when driving. Have as many as you want from little derringers to big huge assalut fifles, no matter. No registration, just open carry.

These rules cover all the complaints I have heard about the restrictions on gun owners. They do away with them all except that guns would be open carried only. Not bad at all as open carry is now hailed as a right by so many. Make it the law. Open carry only.

Four…..

Any harm to 'non-gun-carriers is straight up unforgivable. Non gun owners harmed by gun-totters is punishable by immediate imprisonment. No trial, no jury, no judge. Did the perp. Carry the gun that brought about the harm? No? No problem. Yes, off to the calaboose with ya.

Four A…… If someone who is not carrying a gun is harmed even accidentally as collateral damage, still is covered by rule four. Even accidental injury to a bystander is a felony with no recourse to the public courts other than to decide recompense from the gun wielders estate and or family. This holds gun bearers to the highest standard of personal responsibility.

So these were the thoughts coursing though my head this afternoon while mowing the lawn and I thought I would toss them out here for fantasies sake. Skunk works you know.

Edit. I will not reply to any additions or poo poos for a while as I now need to go back out to the yards and finish the mowing as it is getting grey outside, evening is nigh and rain is predicted for the next week.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I suppose we should apply these same rules to cars, baseballs and knives?

Your solution is an illogical response to a non-issue.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So, hypothetically, I could just put a gun in someone's hand, after I shoot them dead, and it's all done and fair.

Nice.. I see the murder rate skyrocketing exponentially in the event your laws are put in to action.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I could live with your set of rules. Basically I can rob any armored truck and legally get away with it in this new society of yours, because all the guards are armed. I kind of like it. See how I circumvented the whole robbery is a crime thing by picking an armed target transporting money.

Like literally me an six other ATS'ers can setup an ambush for these trucks and kill the guards and take the money, and according to you I can walk away a free man of guilty of no crime. I would only have to worry about revenge killings. When are you running, I will vote for you. Not because I am a criminal, but because since you are legalizing crime, I might as well take advantage.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
To be called the You are your own protection law.

Laws and regulations on the use of firearms has come about to protect un-armed citizens. If all the old cowboy movies I have seen are correct, there were laws established even then to protect the town from errant gunslingers. So I guess that over the years these laws have increased as the effects of previous laws have proved ineffectual. More and more laws to restrict guns.

The problem? These laws have been established to protect us from the bad guys, not the good guys, and good guys do not want to be restricted just because of the bad guys.

From my reading on the gun control issue I find that gun owners do not want to give up their guns while advocates of gun control want to restrict them. The thing is is that we are trying to set ONE set of laws for everyone. My proposal is to establish two different sets of laws. One law for those who carry guns and one for everyone else. The established laws already in existence will apply to all who do not carry guns. The new set of laws will apply to all gun carriers and should in no way hamper the free exercise of the second amendment.

The new set of rules for gun carriers.

One----

Open carry only. No concealed carry. The argument is often made that everyone carrying a firearm will curtail those errant individuals who would shoot up the place. These errant folk most often conceal before an attack. This new law should eliminate this possibility of hidden agendas while in no way infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms. A pistol should be open carried in a holster on the hip or slung over the shoulders in full view of the public. A rifle likewise should be carried slung across the shoulder or just carried but in open view. Failure to do so would be considered a miss-demeanor and all rights of carry would be revoked.

Two…..

Any violence perpetrated on one gun carrier by another gun carrier would not be considered a crime. If Joe wears a gun and Bob wears a gun, the law would protect neither from the other. If Joe kills Bob and Bob is carrying, it is no foul no punishment. Not trial no nothing. Motives, and everything else aside. Carry a gun and you are your own protection and can not seek the protection of law or order. It is just what it is. Bob wore a gun and was killed by Joe. Over over and done.

Two A…. Likewise if Joe kills Bob with a gun and Bob's family comes after Joe who is still wearing a gun, they can shoot him dead for revenge with no foul. Motive matters not. Cause matters not. No trial is needed because they did not break the law. The law of the gunman. Clean up expenses at the site of the killing would would come from both the killers and the dead gunmen s estate, either through the direct efforts of his family or to reimburse the state for incurred services.

Three……

Any unlawful actions taken while carrying a gun that is instrumental to that crime, like robbing a bank would forfeit the perpetrators right to trial. No judge, no jury, no trial. Straight to prison forever. So this would put the onus on the bad guy and in no way infringes on the good guys right to bear arms. If Mary is in a bank and Lulu comes in to rob it with a gun, Mary can shoot her dead on the spot, save the day and then go home and have dinner with the family. No crime, no foul. Lulu's unlawful attempt to rob the bank would be cause to gather 'clean up' funds from her family or estate.

Gun ownership is guaranteed. No regulations, no signups no registrations. Nothing but the 'open carry ' rule. Guns in vehicles should be kept in plain sight. Rifles mounted on racks and a nice little dashboard holster to slip a pistol into when driving. Have as many as you want from little derringers to big huge assalut fifles, no matter. No registration, just open carry.

These rules cover all the complaints I have heard about the restrictions on gun owners. They do away with them all except that guns would be open carried only. Not bad at all as open carry is now hailed as a right by so many. Make it the law. Open carry only.

Four…..

Any harm to 'non-gun-carriers is straight up unforgivable. Non gun owners harmed by gun-totters is punishable by immediate imprisonment. No trial, no jury, no judge. Did the perp. Carry the gun that brought about the harm? No? No problem. Yes, off to the calaboose with ya.

Four A…… If someone who is not carrying a gun is harmed even accidentally as collateral damage, still is covered by rule four. Even accidental injury to a bystander is a felony with no recourse to the public courts other than to decide recompense from the gun wielders estate and or family. This holds gun bearers to the highest standard of personal responsibility.

So these were the thoughts coursing though my head this afternoon while mowing the lawn and I thought I would toss them out here for fantasies sake. Skunk works you know.

Edit. I will not reply to any additions or poo poos for a while as I now need to go back out to the yards and finish the mowing as it is getting grey outside, evening is nigh and rain is predicted for the next week.

Hope the yard was all mowed...

Police officers, security guards and military personal carry. Open season, and no repercussions.

Lord knows no-one every attacks anyone with lets say a Phillips screw driver or knife. If I understand the new laws, I can't shoot them?

A number of rights and amendments to the constitution would have to be amended. I believe having a weapon in this case concealed is a huge deterrent. Don't know who is carrying so this will cut down on the %$#@ing around.

Laws don't work. If they did we would have no (zero) prisoners or people in jail. People will still kill each other. You can not stop things like the Florida slaughter from happening with words on paper. 2 things could have prevented this gross action.

1. What would stop it would have been a projectile fired from a concealed weapon or open carry weapon on target and on time. No law, even complete confiscation would have stopped this guy from his mission.

2. There is something broken inside this individual, fix that and fix him (if it is indeed possible to fix).

I would love a simple solution, but people are complicated. Just add hate, propaganda, drugs, poverty and that list can go on and on, see what you get.

I hate to see any life being wasted, we are all precious and a lot of people are hurting because of this terrible terrorist action.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I could live with your set of rules. Basically I can rob any armored truck and legally get away with it in this new society of yours, because all the guards are armed. I kind of like it. See how I circumvented the whole robbery is a crime thing by picking an armed target transporting money.

Like literally me an six other ATS'ers can setup an ambush for these trucks and kill the guards and take the money, and according to you I can walk away a free man of guilty of no crime. I would only have to worry about revenge killings. When are you running, I will vote for you. Not because I am a criminal, but because since you are legalizing crime, I might as well take advantage.

Oh, did I forget the part about armed crime? Armed villains could be shot on sight with no announcement of "Halt" Police. Guards could open fire with no fear of criminal investigation. Cops too. Wear a gun and it is open season on you by others wearing a gun. The law of the wild west prevails. Remember these rules apply to guys with bad intent and regular laws apply, These new laws are for the protection of the good guys, the we protect ourselves guys who are only exercising their right to bear arms and protect themselves.

originally posted by: Cygnis
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So, hypothetically, I could just put a gun in someone's hand, after I shoot them dead, and it's all done and fair.

Nice.. I see the murder rate skyrocketing exponentially in the event your laws are put in to action.

If you are in a situation where you can put a gun in the dead mans hand with no one seeing it you would not need to do it anyway as you could lamb out with out a witness. Remember these new laws are open to lawyers of gun advocacy to work out all the details. And gun control advocates too.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I suppose we should apply these same rules to cars, baseballs and knives?

Your solution is an illogical response to a non-issue.

No silly, only gun ownership. There is no hew and cry from big money baseball bat makers to defend the rights of criminals who wield baseball bats.

And even though these evolving solutions are as you say are illogical, to say that the issue of gun control and gun rights is a non-issue is incorrect. Ask any of the gun control people and it is. A BIG issue. Whether or not us gun owners think so, it still is. I'm just trying to appease all the good guy owners like you and me as well as all the regulation folks too. Just trying to strike a happy medium.

One---- Open carry only. No concealed carry. The argument is often made that everyone carrying a firearm will curtail those errant individuals who would shoot up the place. These errant folk most often conceal before an attack. This new law should eliminate this possibility of hidden agendas while in no way infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms. A pistol should be open carried in a holster on the hip or slung over the shoulders in full view of the public. A rifle likewise should be carried slung across the shoulder or just carried but in open view. Failure to do so would be considered a miss-demeanor and all rights of carry would be revoked.

Sigh. When are you people going to get it through your heads? CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAWS.
Can we make it any clearer or is there some kind language gap that the anti 2nd just can't understand those words? Make up all the new laws you like.....and the bad guys will ignore those too. The whole idea sounds like it's tailored to get rid of gun owners.

The company that the orlando shooter worked for if well known Wackenhut G4S.

This company is also known a WackenNUT are are will known for supplying armed security for companies during labor disputes.
Founded in 1954 by former FBI official George Wackenhut, the company has long enjoyed close ties to the US military and intelligence establishment. According to a 1997 article by Ken Silverstein, “America’s Private Gulag,” about the privatized prison business, over the years Wackenhut’s board and staff have included such veterans of the US national security state as former CIA deputy directors Frank Carlucci and Bobby Ray Inman, former CIA director William Casey, as well as Jorge Mas Canosa, leader of the fanatically anticommunist Cuban American National Foundation. “The company provided strikebreakers at the Pittston mine strike in Kentucky, hired unlicensed investigators to ferret out whistleblowers at Alyeska, the company that controls the Alaskan oil pipeline, and had beaten anti-nuclear demonstrators at facilities it guards for the Department of Energy,”

Wackenhut was one of the government contractors that supplied the cammo dude's at area 51

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Well i can live with it if you think you can. I promise you though, in that world there will not be much of a society left after a year.

originally posted by: DAVID64

One---- Open carry only. No concealed carry. The argument is often made that everyone carrying a firearm will curtail those errant individuals who would shoot up the place. These errant folk most often conceal before an attack. This new law should eliminate this possibility of hidden agendas while in no way infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms. A pistol should be open carried in a holster on the hip or slung over the shoulders in full view of the public. A rifle likewise should be carried slung across the shoulder or just carried but in open view. Failure to do so would be considered a miss-demeanor and all rights of carry would be revoked.

Sigh. When are you people going to get it through your heads? CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAWS.
Can we make it any clearer or is there some kind language gap that the anti 2nd just can't understand those words? Make up all the new laws you like.....and the bad guys will ignore those too. The whole idea sounds like it's tailored to get rid of gun owners.

The bad guys will not obey the laws. Right. And my idea here is not to add laws, but to remove all the present laws that all the good guy owners hate so much and replace them with LESS laws so that the good guys can stay the good guys. They can protect themselves all they want from the bad guys with guns. They do not have to tell the gov by regeresting them. They can own all they want. They can shoot the bad guys with guns all they want. And if the bad guys want to break these laws too, which they would, the good guys can kill em, no problem. Just like in the old west.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Well i can live with it if you think you can. I promise you though, in that world there will not be much of a society left after a year.

Careful there Am. My suggestion of cutting back on gun laws and registration limits and replacing them with a simpler and less authoritarian set of rules is to deliver to good guy owners more freedom to exercise the second. But by admitting that this loosening of the laws that restrict the good guys would lead to not much of a society left after a year only to my mind suggests that the restrictive laws already in place are all that are keeping society in tact. I'm in the skunk works here but still and playing the devils advocate. So AM, less gun restrictions and chaos or more restrictions and stability?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

no your wrong. Your laws actually legalize murder and robbery, as long as both victim and perp are armed by choice. I can gun down a pistol packing preacher in this scenario of yours solely for being christian and still be vindicated of any wrong doing. if you want anarchy, I will give it a shot. That is what you were stating there.

I mean, really. Who would not just go willy nilly in that world?? It would be the only choice. Murder is already illegal guns or no guns. But making one set of laws for a disarmed society, and then removing all laws for the armed portion, well lol there would be a lot of sitting ducks just saying.

Like you said, words on paper wont stop a person determined to create a victim. it also would not stop armed society from crossing into unarmed society for an easy payday.

I can live with the NFA, because if you are a law abiding citizen you can still own fully automatic weapons and explosives (with the right licensing of course). But, not anyone can just go out and make and or buy explosives. So I can life with NFA, but the barrel and overall length requirements need to be tossed out of it is all for SBS's and SBR's .

Anything beyond that though is too far. Some would have us kill the NFA entirely, and I can still live with that. In the spirit of compromise though, I feel the NFA does not go too far except with barrel and overall length requirements and compromise there. that is as far as it should go though.

a reply to: AmericanRealist
Right. Anarchy, but only for those who choose to arm themselves for all the right reasons as constantly contended by ardent gun owners. These laws were only sketchily drawn up in a lazy mind on an afternoon of lawn mowing. My thoughts were kind of along the lines of considering dramatic changes to the present system that has neither pro or con on the issue happy at all. One side says not enough and the other too much, yet we are somehow caught in the middle with the whole thing getting more and more contentious.

I own guns but am disappointed that the only people who seem to be concerned about the difference between firearms as considered at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the massive power of them today are people who do not want guns. Yet everytime this issue is addressed by them, it seems the constant rebuttal to their concerns is NO. Don't change anything. If anything arm the whole populace. Take them to the bar. Take them to church. Let us good guys protect ourselves.

It seems to me AM, that in our society just about all of our organizations and governments and churches and basically all of our social organizations become calcified when they reach a certain level on the national scale. How after time all they seem to do is regurgitate what they said and positions they took in the past. I think that this intractability also pertains to the NRA. I does not seem to demonstrate any flexibility at all. Just NO. I would like to hear from other gun owners who are concerned at how we never seem to offer up better ways to keep guns from the hands of villains and just let all the liberal anti gun crowd do all the yelling with us yelling back little besides no no no. You catch my sense of it here?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If more people would get guns, permits to carry concealed(as I do) or open carry...1 or 20... of them would have killed the Orlando gunman in the club after his 1st shot.

So if you have a gun and you see someone else that also has a gun, you can just walk up to them and shoot them in the but?

This makes absolutely zero sense.

More guns are not a solution. They are an absolute failure and a regression of society back to a time of lawlessness.

If you want abhorrent behaviors of society to disappear you need to foster an environment where they don't have a chance to develop. Guns would likely have no place in that environment.

It may sound utopian...even though it isn't ...but this would be the most reasonable approach to solving the REAL issues on our planet.

This is the right time to respond to EU pressure against Jeff Sessions, by abolishing the NFA law 1986 that prohibits machine guns sales to civilians.

The main reason the EU, especially Italy, is overwhelmed by thieves and burglars/assassins, is that citizen are not properly armed. I would tell to any of the Romanians or other invaders who's robbing houses in Italy:

"Dude, cross the border, go and do that in Switzerland or Austria!" Do you think he's gonna do that?