From: jdw@unislc.slc.unisys.com (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Reasonable (for criminals?) Civie Arms Limits
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Lines: 27

> In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would
>be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ...
>
>Caliber : Not greater than 32
>Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel
>Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers 
>          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating
>          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes.
>Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine.
>
>Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful
>allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be
>reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves
>and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the
>same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality
>of hits.

I suspect that you think that this is less lethal than the typical
"assault weapon".  You are wrong.  Compared to what most criminals use, a
9mm with military ammo (FMJs), or a military rifle (use is extremely
rare), .223 or 7.62mm with military ammo (FMJs), the .32 H&R magnum with
"civie" bullets is more lethal.  Most of the arms which criminals (and
the military) use are among the least lethal arms in existance.

What if we just punish the criminal and leave the law abiding citizen
alone?  It hasn't been tried in recient times, but it might work.
