There's a lot of Anti-gunners who really don't like the idea of semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. (Just look at the recent legislation in California) However, from the point of view of a gun enthusiast it's just very convenient to have a plentiful supply of rounds to fire available at your finger tips. So this is what I propose. How about some designers think up some simple mechanical design mechanism that would limit the number of shots possible in a given timespan or only come into play after 4 shots were fired. That would still allow the rifle to be used for quick succession target practice, or for defense against multiple perpetrators, but would reasonably satisfy anti-gunner concerns that such a large capacity magazine might result in more deaths during a killing murder spree. To make it fair, the police would have to use this gun too. So basically 4 rounds could be fired in succession, just like a regular semi-automatic, but then after the next round there'd be a slight delay (maybe 2 seconds) where the trigger would not work. Or simply have some limiting in place so within a given time period. For example, only 5 shots within 6 seconds, and then only 8 shots within 20 seconds. (There could be two different types of limitations combined) I'm not exactly sure how the design mechanics would work, preferably no electronics. There could be some sort of pressurized gas reservoir, or Swiss watch work is notorious for having all sorts of intricate mechanisms that could do this. Assuming the practicality of the mechanics were not an issue, I think such built-in limitations would be very reasonable and would not interfere with the functionality of the gun, but would negate any of the alleged utility of an unlimited magazine storage in an attack trying to kill a large number of innocent people (however rare these attacks actually are). This is just an idea I'm throwing out there. Obviously the limiting mechanism couldn't be anything more simple without that interfering in the utility of the rifle for its intended purposes.
Ok,, you get an A+ for effort. But understand please, the Anti Gun folks want eventually to end all gun ownership in America, and that will never happen gladly...... With firearms, simpler is better, and complex fire control mechanisms just will not do..... My Glock 17, very simple, each magazine holds 17 rounds, is very light and easy to shoot and is a standard Police Service Arm, even in England, no reason for less capacity or complications of any kind.
that's just silly. criminals won't use those so why should honest people be handicapped? and what would keep a killer like the guy in Vegas not having several rifles so the stupid limitation would not apply.
And this reduces gun crime.... how? I’m not interested in appeasing gun restrictionists. There is no appeasing them. No capitulation will stop them for pushing for more restrictions.
You have obviously never had to defend yourself in a gun fight against the odds. The more intricate a gun mechanism, the more likely it will fail when needed, the major reason so called ‘smart weapons are opposed’. As for making things ‘fair’ with the police.... think about that for a bit... it’s not a game.
Pray tell where is the aspect of compromise in the above post? What are the supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions being forced to give up, that they already have? The above is not compromise, it is concession.
We really don't care what the anti-gun left likes - the restrictions they seek violate our rights; there can be no compromise in this as they offer nothing - and, indeed, cannot offer anything - in return for the restrictions they seek. Not. One. Inch.
When the Secret Service and the SEALs adopt these, I'll think about it. Sounds like a nightmare mechanically.
Your title suggests a compromise for anti-gunners. Your post suggests a compromise for me as a gun owner. No thanks. I don't want to limit the number of my shots! Rich
WoW! So far nearly every single response has been around the OPs strawman about what "anti-gunners" want. And this is the real problem stopping true debate. There are a group who have decided that they know every stance that the other side has and instead of debating honestly will twist every discussion until it fits THIER view of what the debate should be. I.e. You just want to take my guns
Are you the same poster who said "it worked in Australia" where the government did indeed take people's guns?
Really ? People like you indirectly and falsely accuse others without wanting to consider any facts, truth is, you hate guns and keep trotting out how many shootings there are here in the U.S. resulting in deaths, yet the break-down shows the what and wheres, like N.Y.C. teens that cannot legally have anything to do with firearms killing other teens for a stinky pair of footwear or a coat. Then you recommend Gun bans that will only affect peaceful law abiding citizens, and ignore Gangs and others dealing in illegal drugs that kill many children. No thank you.
No. The real problem stopping debate is the inability of anti-gun side to debate honestly and factually. Present company included.
Any gun not sold to the government as required by law was confiscated. Thus, Australia confiscated guns. Why do you not know this?
There is much truth in what you said. Maybe if you clearly explain what it is that the side in favor of gun control wants it would make for better debate. I will admit that many times I am not clear on what those in favor of gun control are asking for. At times I have jumped to the conclusion they "just want to take my guns". So, bottom line, what exactly is it that the gun control side wants?
They took guns, and any ability to personal defense from Scoundrels, Brigands and assorted Outlaws.....
To enact any number of unnecessary and ineffective regulations and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms to make it more difficulty for the law abiding to exercise said right.
Could you explain the Australian Government's gun buy-back program which was implemented after the Port Arthor shooting?
They claim to want to reduce so called "Gun Deaths" OK, this sounds reasonable until you study their demands and who and how they will affect. When you realize the vast majority of Gun owners are legitimate law abiding citizens with no criminal record, and those committing crimes have long serious criminal records and are prohibited from acquiring and possessing or using firearms for any reason. Again, prosecution of Gangs and related Criminal activities and incarceration of violent Criminals will go further in reducing violence and deaths than mere Gun control only affecting law abiding citizens.
