# A gun control legislation thread! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276 "2016-06-13T18:50:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/201 "2016-06-15T15:12:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That being said, guns are, as far as machines go, relatively simple ones, and it wouldn’t take an individual of average skill and intelligence much effort to illegally turn a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic one Just to be clear, it is not easy to convert a semi automatic gun into a fully automatic gun as you understand it. When your sear is worn (or filed) down it no longer catches the hammer when it gets knocked back by the action so you empty out your magazine every time you pull the trigger. So people generally do not do this on purpose. AFAIK, you need a different type of sear to get the kind of autofire you want. This requires you to drill out holes in the receiver and dremel out some metal bars, file them smooth. Then you need to get your hands on a select fire sear that will catch the hammer when you release the trigger. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/202 "2016-06-15T15:25:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > [This guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho) managed to kill 32 people and wound 17 others with 10 round magazines. I highly doubt you are ever in your life going to be attacked by 49 people at once. His glock had 15 round magazines (standard for a glock 19) but that’s besides the point. The fact of the matter is that he did all this with 10 round and 15 round magazines. How much of a difference do you think it would have made if he had 10 round magazines for his glock 19? > [@](#): > > Is that the standard that people want? You asked for the standard that I wanted. > [@](#): > > I can think of a lot of weapons that the common ground soldier has that I wouldn’t want in the hands of every citizen. And why do you think you should have the same access to all weapons as law enforcement and the military? Not all weapons, just the same size magazine [/quote] > [@](#): > > So you can “fight them off” if the revolution comes? :rolleyes: When have I EVER said anything like that? > [@](#): > > Snark aside, I honestly don’t understand this point of view. The same access to weapons as Law Enforcement and the Military? If you really don’t EVER need more than 10 rounds for self defense, then why not impose that same restriction on guns carried by cops? What’s that, those incidents are really really rare? Yeah so are mass shootings where magazine size contributes to the death toll. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/203 "2016-06-15T15:30:36Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > As you suggest in your first paragraph standard and large are talking about two different concepts. Saying that it is ridiculous to call something that is a standardized size large is conflating these concepts. It is a poor argument when compared to taking other tacks. Your opponent may be, again as you anticipate, be speaking of the number of bullets a magazine can hold vs. how many are needed. Merely calling it a standard size does not mean that the magazine cannot hold a large number of bullets. You make no effort to determine what your interlocutor is comparing to when they say it is large and instead make the objectively wrong brush off that you can’t call a standardized size large. This makes it easier to brush off this aspect of your argument. > > Why not instead drill down to find how your opposite feels that smaller magazine sizes will cut back on this kind of tragedy? How many people would be saved if a gunman had to change magazines every 10 shots instead of every 17? Point out that while it may make a few seconds of difference in a mass shooting, in a self defense situation the extra 7 bullets may be the difference between life and death. > > Bah, I’m just a dumb Canuck with no real stake in this. It just bothered me that you said standard cannot be large. Standard almost by definition is not large. large is a relative term. We don’t call a call a 12 oz can of beer large no matter how anti-alcohol we are, we don’t call a pack of cigarettes with 20 cigarettes in it large no matter how much we dislike smoking and we don’t call an AR-15 magazine with 30 round capacity large. There are in fact large capacity magazines that can hold 50 or 100 or 150 rounds. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/204 "2016-06-15T15:37:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In another thread in IMHO titled “Repealing the 2nd Amendment”, **friedo** posted a list of possible gun control regulations that sounded reasonable: > How do these sound to you? The devil is in the details. If the liability insurance means that I am in effect paying for the bad acts of criminals, then I would oppose it If the liability for not reporting stolen weapons made you liable for the crime committed with the weapon, then I would oppose it (I would be OK with holding folks like straw purchasers liable for any crimes committed with a gun they supplied to a criminal). Otherwise, I don’t really have a problem with those proposals. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/205 "2016-06-15T15:39:21Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > For the gun owners in the thread, rather than just shooting down other people’s suggestions with “you obviously don’t know much about guns”, maybe you could suggest what rules around firearms actually _could_ reduce the prevalence of gun violence (even if it takes a decade). licensing and registration. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/206 "2016-06-15T15:45:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yup…that’s exactly what happened after Australia outlawed most firearms and people had to turn theirs in. > > It is like living a Mad Max movie in Australia now. Roaming bands of psychos with guns and nothing can be done to stop them because the good guys turned in their weapons! > > Oh wait…actually [gun deaths went down and so did overall homicide rates](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qi4vzkrEqwI/UbZ0dnkSjjI/AAAAAAAAGRo/0jt8-dOR0Jc/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-06-10+at++Monday,+June+10,+8.50+PM.png) (so people didn’t just grab a knife or club in lieu of a gun to go after all the helpless unarmed people). > > The horror of it all. :rolleyes: Gun deaths went down here too despite an increase in gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/207 "2016-06-15T16:02:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Your “reasonable common-sense” gun control measures are almost certainly different than mine and I have never seen your side ever push anything like a “reasonable common-sense” gun control measure of any sort. > > How about we start with if you are on the “no-fly” list then you cannot buy a gun and have to turn in the ones you already have. Surely if you are deemed too dangerous to fly on a plane then you should not be trusted with guns. That is a horrible idea. Do you know how your name ends up on the watch list? Neither do I, but I DO know that there is no due process involved. It is a pure exercise of executive authority. We face the prospect of Donald Trump as our next President and the notion that we should be using lists created by one branch of government with no accountability or oversight to start depriving people of rights is a bad horrible stupid retarded shitty idea. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/208 "2016-06-15T16:03:34Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > As you suggest in your first paragraph standard and large are talking about two different concepts. Saying that it is ridiculous to call something that is a standardized size large is conflating these concepts. It is a poor argument when compared to taking other tacks. I missed this earlier. It is ridiculous to call something that is standardized large. Standard cannot be large. This descriptive shorthand is with respect to magazine size - the comparison is between “standard capacity” and “large capacity” or “high capacity”. When people discuss this issue, they are of course talking about the number of bullets a magazine can hold. It’s not like there is some big outcry over 10/30 mags in CA. A 10/30 mag is a magazine that has the exact size and shape of a 30 round magazine, but that has been permanently modified to only accept 10 rounds or less. This satisfies the CA law that prohibits magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. We’re not talking about the dimensions of a magazine. > [@](#): > > Why not instead drill down to find how your opposite feels that smaller magazine sizes will cut back on this kind of tragedy? How many people would be saved if a gunman had to change magazines every 10 shots instead of every 17? Point out that while it may make a few seconds of difference in a mass shooting, in a self defense situation the extra 7 bullets may be the difference between life and death. > > Bah, I’m just a dumb Canuck with no real stake in this. It just bothered me that you said standard cannot be large. There can be a discussion about the relative efficacy of different sized magazines. But calling something “large” that is standard is an attack on the English language and independent of the efficacy of any given capacity. It’s an effort to frame the conversation by redefining words. It’s blackwhite newspeak. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/209 "2016-06-15T16:08:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I missed this earlier. > > It is ridiculous to call something that is standardized large. Standard cannot be large. This descriptive shorthand is with respect to magazine size - the comparison is between “standard capacity” and “large capacity” or “high capacity”. When people discuss this issue, they are of course talking about the number of bullets a magazine can hold. It’s not like there is some big outcry over 10/30 mags in CA. A 10/30 mag is a magazine that has the exact size and shape of a 30 round magazine, but that has been permanently modified to only accept 10 rounds or less. This satisfies the CA law that prohibits magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. We’re not talking about the dimensions of a magazine. I define “standard capacity” (at least in terms of handguns) as the number of rounds which fit entirely within the frame/handgrip. For my single stack 1911, that’s 7 rounds. For a Glock 17, that’s 17 rounds. “large capacity” magazines would be ones which have to extend past the end of the grip. It’d be silly to call a 10 round magazine “standard” for a Glock 17 when it requires blocking off nearly half of it to prevent it from accepting more than 10 rounds. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/210 "2016-06-15T16:10:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How about allowing the CDC to study gun violence? (I know someone will tell me they can but the reality is they are effectively stymied from doing it.) The reality is they are not. There has been a chilling effect because their prior activity has put a spotlight on them when it comes to guns but they are not prevented from conducting research as long as they are not advocating for gun control. Absent an advocacy posture, there is little the CDC can do that others are not already doing. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/211 "2016-06-15T16:59:17Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Just to be clear, it is not easy to convert a semi automatic gun into a fully automatic gun as you understand it. > > When your sear is worn (or filed) down it no longer catches the hammer when it gets knocked back by the action so you empty out your magazine every time you pull the trigger. So people generally do not do this on purpose. > > AFAIK, you need a different type of sear to get the kind of autofire you want. This requires you to drill out holes in the receiver and dremel out some metal bars, file them smooth. Then you need to get your hands on a select fire sear that will catch the hammer when you release the trigger. I was referring to filing down the sear. You are correct that it’s probably not what the average person really envisions when told that something fires full-auto, but it is the bare minimum to get someone in big trouble with the ATF for manufacturing a machine gun, and it’ll let that person blast off the whole magazine with a single trigger pull. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/212 "2016-06-15T17:01:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > His glock had 15 round magazines (standard for a glock 19) but that’s besides the point. The fact of the matter is that he did all this with 10 round and 15 round magazines. How much of a difference do you think it would have made if he had 10 round magazines for his glock 19? That guy was cited up thread as a reason why limiting magazines to 10 rounds wouldn’t do anything. So, when someone else says “Well, 10 rounds might not be enough” it was to show what a person with 10 round magazines could do. I don’t really have a fight either way WRT magazine size. > [@](#): > > Not all weapons, just the same size magazine So you would be alright with law enforcement and the military having access to better weapons than the civilian populace as long as the magazine size was the same? > [@](#): > > When have I EVER said anything like that? Not saying that you did say that. I doubt you speak for those who stockpile dozens of AR-15s and 30K rounds though. > [@](#): > > If you really don’t EVER need more than 10 rounds for self defense, then why not impose that same restriction on guns carried by cops? What’s that, those incidents are really really rare? Yeah so are mass shootings where magazine size contributes to the death toll. Because I don’t think the police should be held to the same weapons standards as the civilian populace, that’s why. Likelyhood of incidents, self-defense, whatever reason you want to give, my answer will be the same - “I don’t think the police should be held to the same weapons standards as the civilian populace” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/213 "2016-06-15T17:05:55Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I could crash my car into a crowd. I could make a bomb. I don’t because I’m not a homicidal maniac. How do we identify and treat those with destructive tendencies? Generally, we suck at it (which is one of the gripes that conservatives had with bringing Syrian refugees into the country: we can’t tell which ones are going to try to kill us). The FBI interviewed this last guy twice, but decided he wasn’t really a danger (or at least that they didn’t have any hard evidence he was a danger). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/214 "2016-06-15T17:10:41Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So you would be alright with law enforcement and the military having access to better weapons than the civilian populace as long as the magazine size was the same? I think it’s a mistake to lump the military and law enforcement in together. They are two separate entities with vastly different weapon needs. And generally I’m fine with the military having whatever helps them do their job most effectively, but I’d be significantly less comfortable with the police possessing most of those military weapons (just about anything explosive, combat aircraft, tanks, etc). I don’t even think there’s much of a use case for the police to have full-auto weapons. As for magazine capacity, I don’t think they need a limit, but I don’t think citizens should have a limit either. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/215 "2016-06-15T17:16:13Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > I define “standard capacity” (at least in terms of handguns) as the number of rounds which fit entirely within the frame/handgrip. For my single stack 1911, that’s 7 rounds. For a Glock 17, that’s 17 rounds. “large capacity” magazines would be ones which have to extend past the end of the grip. It’d be silly to call a 10 round magazine “standard” for a Glock 17 when it requires blocking off nearly half of it to prevent it from accepting more than 10 rounds. In CA, since magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are illegal to sell, manufacture, transfer, lend, receive, or purchase, the the CA standard Glock 17 magazine is 10 rounds. It’s not blocked off, but instead uses a single stack instead of the regular double stack. The 10/30 mags for rifles are blocked off. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/216 "2016-06-15T17:31:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In CA, since magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are illegal to sell, manufacture, transfer, lend, receive, or purchase, the the CA standard Glock 17 magazine is 10 rounds. It’s not blocked off, but instead uses a single stack instead of the regular double stack. > > The 10/30 mags for rifles are blocked off. That’s a good law 😃 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/217 "2016-06-15T17:37:25Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > That’s a good law 😃 Why do you say that? CA still has its share of mass shootings (San Bernardino jihadists, for a recent example). The law seems to have been a failure (assuming its goal was to prevent mass shootings). ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/218 "2016-06-15T17:38:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In CA, since magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are illegal to sell, manufacture, transfer, lend, receive, or purchase, the the CA standard Glock 17 magazine is 10 rounds. It’s not blocked off, but instead uses a single stack instead of the regular double stack. > > The 10/30 mags for rifles are blocked off. Is there any “gun news of the day” where the limitation of only 10 rounds in a magazine affected somebody negatively? Do all the criminals have greater than 10 round magazines, while lawful citizens only have the legal 10 round magazines? I’m asking because it seems like this could be good data during a debate about magazine size limits. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/219 "2016-06-15T17:50:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Standard almost by definition is not large. large is a relative term. We don’t call a call a 12 oz can of beer large no matter how anti-alcohol we are, we don’t call a pack of cigarettes with 20 cigarettes in it large no matter how much we dislike smoking and we don’t call an AR-15 magazine with 30 round capacity large. There are in fact large capacity magazines that can hold 50 or 100 or 150 rounds. > [@Bone](#): > > I missed this earlier. > > It is ridiculous to call something that is standardized large. Standard cannot be large. Sorry. I’m not buying this standard cannot be large garbage. The standard amount of french fries served in diners is a large amount of french fries. The standard package of screws I buy from Home Depot has a large number of screws. The standard package of straws that I by from the grocery store has a large number of straws. Go ahead and argue that 30 bullets isn’t a large number of bullets forcing your interlocutor to explain why they feel it is a large number but don’t shut down the discussion with the nonsensical claim that because something is a standard size it cannot contain, by definition, a large number of something. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/220 "2016-06-15T18:01:53Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That guy was cited up thread as a reason why limiting magazines to 10 rounds wouldn’t do anything. > > So, when someone else says “Well, 10 rounds might not be enough” it was to show what a person with 10 round magazines could do. > > I don’t really have a fight either way WRT magazine size. Sure, people can do horrible damage with a bolt action rifle from the top of a locked and barricade clock tower too. Doesn’t mean that is all we should have access to. > [@](#): > > So you would be alright with law enforcement and the military having access to better weapons than the civilian populace as long as the magazine size was the same? Yeah. The military has access to stinger Missiles and I don’t think that they are necessary for self defense nor are they protected under the second amendment. I can’t think of anything that cops have that I don’t think the general public shouldn’t have access to. > [@](#): > > Not saying that you did say that. I doubt you speak for those who stockpile dozens of AR-15s and 30K rounds though. OK, so when you said “you” you meant a more abstract “you” rather than me. If I wanted to revolt against tyranny I would probably want to at least see some state national guards and factions of the military on my side and I would not expect the militia to do much more than provide irregular support. > [@](#): > > Because I don’t think the police should be held to the same weapons standards as the civilian populace, that’s why. Likelyhood of incidents, self-defense, whatever reason you want to give, my answer will be the same - “I don’t think the police should be held to the same weapons standards as the civilian populace” But if there is no meaningful difference between 10 rounds and 15 rounds, why bother having a meaningless difference just to fuck with civilians who want to have 15 rounds? it seems a bit tautalogical [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=12)