# 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:** 14
**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 16, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/261 "2016-06-16T17:53:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Right. I guess I disagree with **Bone** here. If your baseline of comparison is a revolver with six shots, or a pump shotgun with five shots, then saying that a Glock 19 with a fifteen round magazine is “large capacity” is perfectly okay. (Although, I absolutely disagree with banning it). Which is what I said in my original comment on this idea: > [@Bone](#): > > No. Most firearms will come with a magazine when you purchase new. The magazine included is the standard for the type of firearm that is purchased. For some firearms, an 8 round magazine may be standard. For some, a 30 round magazine may be standard. Saying anything over 10 is large is an insult to the English language. For some firearms, 8 rounds may be standard so larger than that could be fairly considered large for that firearm. The original claim was that categorically, anything over 10 is large. That’s false. Because large is a relative term, it needs to reference what it is comparing to. The Glock 17 has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds. If I use a 25 round mag, that’s fair to say that’s large for the Glock 17. It would not be large for an AR-15 pattern rifle. Remember, defining magazines as large by some arbitrarily small number compared to their standard size is a strategy to ban them. It’s already been done in certain places. Don’t buy it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/262 "2016-06-16T18:00:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Which is what I said in my original comment on this idea: > > For some firearms, 8 rounds may be standard so larger than that could be fairly considered large for that firearm. The original claim was that categorically, anything over 10 is large. That’s false. Because large is a relative term, it needs to reference what it is comparing to. The Glock 17 has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds. If I use a 25 round mag, that’s fair to say that’s large for the Glock 17. It would not be large for an AR-15 pattern rifle. > > Remember, defining magazines as large by some arbitrarily small number compared to their standard size is a strategy to ban them. It’s already been done in certain places. Don’t buy it. Then what about my Super Ultravires SXS with its standard 1000 round magazine? Is it an insult to the English language to call that magazine “large capacity” since every single Super Ultravires SXS is equipped with that magazine? ---
**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 16, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/263 "2016-06-16T18:06:05Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Then what about my Super Ultravires SXS with its standard 1000 round magazine? Is it an insult to the English language to call that magazine “large capacity” since every single Super Ultravires SXS is equipped with that magazine? If you are comparing it only to other magazines of the same exact size and capacity, it would be wrong to describe it as large. Large is a relative term and only works as compared to something else. If you say that since the vast majority of magazines are smaller and have less capacity, your SXS is large, then that would be accurate. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/264 "2016-06-16T18:25:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If you are comparing it only to other magazines of the same exact size and capacity, it would be wrong to describe it as large. Large is a relative term and only works as compared to something else. If you say that since the vast majority of magazines are smaller and have less capacity, your SXS is large, then that would be accurate. Correct. But when the anti-gunners are saying that a 30 round AR-15 magazine is “large capacity” it is implicit that they are not comparing this magazine with other 30 round AR-15 magazines. That would be absurd. Nobody uses as a point of comparison the very thing they are describing. Nothing would ever be large or small. If I say that Shaq is a very tall man, and you replied that as compared with other 7’1" people he is actually standard size, and compared with Robert Wadlow (tallest man in history 8’11") he is actually very small, you would get an award for missing the point. By saying that Shaq is a very tall man, it is implicit that I am comparing him to the average height of a man, and I think that everyone understands that. When the left says that 30 rounds is large, they are comparing 30 with what they consider “normal” guns like a revolver, a lever action rifle, or a pump shotgun. It that context, 30 is large capacity. I’m sure that if we take the average capacity of all of the firearms legally owned in the United States, the average standard magazine capacity is less than 30, probably less than 10. In that sense, 30 rounds is indeed “large.” I’m not sure why we have to die on this particular hill in order to still say that 30 rounds should not be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/265 "2016-06-16T18:55:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not sure why we have to die on this particular hill in order to still say that 30 rounds should not be illegal. Trust me when I say that no amount of wrangling over this will make 30 rounds seem smaller. If someone said “No large magazines. Anything over 10 rounds is large” and the reply was “But almost all are over 10 rounds, so that can’t be large” the reaction would be “My god, the problem is worse than I thought!” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/266 "2016-06-16T18:57:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m sure that if we take the average capacity of all of the firearms legally owned in the United States, the average standard magazine capacity is less than 30, **probably less than 10**. Not that this is a big deal either, but I strongly suspect that if you could perform a magically-perfect “gun census” of all the magazines in the country and found the median capacity, it’d probably be between 15 and 20. There are a shit-load of 30-round mags in this country. My personal collection includes a few 7-round magazines, a bunch of 15-round magazines, and a number of 30-round magazines that would make your average gun-grabbing liberal very sad. For another reference point, [Brownells](http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-m16-30rd-223-5-56-usgi-cs-magazine-prod21225.aspx) offers the option to order individual magazines, 10-paks, 25-paks, or 100-paks with some price discount for volume. Of course we don’t have perfect counts of magazines in the US, so we can’t really know. I guess I’m just pointing out that, you think the median mag capacity is probably less than 10 and I think it’s probably in the teens. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/267 "2016-06-16T19:59:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > How do you put these phrases in the same post? > > . > . > . > > ETA: maybe you could expand on your thought that “it hasn’t really happened” is materially different from “it never happens”. What did you intend by “it hasn’t really happened”? Because, my pedantic friend, “hasn’t really” isn’t as assertively conclusive as “never”. If I had meant “never” I would have said “never”. You’re presumably not a space alien and have heard actual humans talk, right? They say things like “hasn’t really” or “not much” or “not enough to matter” or “most of the time”. Each one of these is a qualified statement meant to point to the rate of occurrence as not 0% or 100%, but something slightly more/less than that. Presumably, again, you’re aware that I’m aware of such humans using language like that, and have followed suit. Also at the same time knowing that one mighty tactic of gun advocates is to parse and poke at these statements and derail the topic. I’ve no interest in that. You can claim victory for all I care, it doesn’t matter. I’m much more interested in talking about the 4 instances where you, as a staunch opposer of such vague language, proceeded to respond to my “hasn’t really happened” with 5 iron-clad examples where a random citizen armed a firearm stopped a mass shooting. Given that only 1 of 5 examples actually fit that criteria, I have to wonder: do you consider 20% the same as 100%? Or is that language too vague for you? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/268 "2016-06-16T20:08:35Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Because, my pedantic friend, “hasn’t really” isn’t as assertively conclusive as “never”. For me, the connotation of “hasn’t really” is that “it doesn’t happen, though it may look like it does.” I think you are wrong to defend this assertion. What you’re doing now just makes you look like you can’t admit when you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/269 "2016-06-16T20:22:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not that this is a big deal either, but I strongly suspect that if you could perform a magically-perfect “gun census” of all the magazines in the country and found the median capacity, it’d probably be between 15 and 20. There are a shit-load of 30-round mags in this country. My personal collection includes a few 7-round magazines, a bunch of 15-round magazines, and a number of 30-round magazines that would make your average gun-grabbing liberal very sad. > > For another reference point, [Brownells](http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-m16-30rd-223-5-56-usgi-cs-magazine-prod21225.aspx) offers the option to order individual magazines, 10-paks, 25-paks, or 100-paks with some price discount for volume. > > Of course we don’t have perfect counts of magazines in the US, so we can’t really know. I guess I’m just pointing out that, you think the median mag capacity is probably less than 10 and I think it’s probably in the teens. That is different than what I proposed. I suggested taking a perfect census of all guns owned in the country and get an average of the standard magazine capacity of the particular gun. So, if I own an AR-15 and have 500 30-rd mags, 100 AWB-era 10-rnd mags, 5 100-rnd banana mags, and 40 20-rnd mags, it counts as one single 30 in my census because that is “standard” in an AR-15. Likewise my Glock 19 counts as a “15” no matter how many mags I own, my Winchester Model 1897 12 gauge counts as a “5”, and my .38 snubby also counts as a “5.” The NA 20 gauge I used as a kid and still own counts as a “1”. If you did that, then I think you would find that the “standard” capacity of an average gun is less than 10. By comparing an AR-15 with some of my other guns, 30 rounds is a “large” capacity of ammunition. Again, I don’t think we lose by admitting the obvious. ---
**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 16, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/270 "2016-06-16T20:23:27Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Jeanne Assam was not an example of a random citizen armed with a gun, she was a former cop and volunteer security guard who was licensed to carry a firearm. Not sure why you discount this example. Assam had not been a police officer for 10 years prior to that incident. [Here are a few more examples](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/), though I think 3 of the 9 listed examples overlap with Hurricane’s list. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/271 "2016-06-16T20:27:48Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Because, my pedantic friend, “hasn’t really” isn’t as assertively conclusive as “never”. If I had meant “never” I would have said “never”. You’re presumably not a space alien and have heard actual humans talk, right? They say things like “hasn’t really” or “not much” or “not enough to matter” or “most of the time”. Each one of these is a qualified statement meant to point to the rate of occurrence as not 0% or 100%, but something slightly more/less than that. > > Presumably, again, you’re aware that I’m aware of such humans using language like that, and have followed suit. Also at the same time knowing that one mighty tactic of gun advocates is to parse and poke at these statements and derail the topic. I’ve no interest in that. You can claim victory for all I care, it doesn’t matter. I’m much more interested in talking about the 4 instances where you, as a staunch opposer of such vague language, proceeded to respond to my “hasn’t really happened” with 5 iron-clad examples where a random citizen armed a firearm stopped a mass shooting. > > Given that only 1 of 5 examples actually fit that criteria, I have to wonder: do you consider 20% the same as 100%? Or is that language too vague for you? I had the same understanding of your “it hasn’t really happened” from post #235 as jsgoddess, and my point in post #237 was to show that it had happened. I succeeded. If you can’t see the clear difference between “it hasn’t really happened” and “not much” or “most of the time”, maybe you aren’t as aware of how humans use language as you think. I never claimed that all five of my examples were “iron-clad”, in fact I acknowledged the imperfections in some of them in my original post (i.e. “There is some dispute …” and “… he came out on the losing end of the gunfight.”). As far as I’m concerned, any single incident of a CCW holder stopping an active shooter proves that it HAS really happened. That’s all I was going for. It’s fairly obvious that CCW shooters don’t ALWAYS stop active shooters, so I don’t know why even mention 100%. I gave five examples for two reasons: 1. I figured you would probably “parse and poke at these statements” (which I was right about too) 2. I thought some of the actual incidents of CCW holders confronting or engaging active shooters might generate some interesting discussion. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/272 "2016-06-16T20:40:35Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Some of these doesn’t support your assertion, though some do. > > J > Of these 5 examples, only 1 was truly a scenario where a gunman was stopped by a random armed citizen. 1 was simply capturing the guy after the shooting stopped, 2 were stopped by trained personnel who were licensed and trained to use their firearms, and the last guy simply became an extra victim. > > I stand by my statement that it hasn’t really happened. You may have wanted to conflate that with “it never happens”, which is wrong, and exactly why I worded it the way I did. My personal belief is that I’m fine with law enforcement having access to weapons. At least I can be sure they are trained and licensed and their arms are registered. That’s the minimum I want for everyone. From these examples, you should trust them more than your average citizen to be armed [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/) Gives ten examples. I’ll give an 11th: > **[Texas shooting: Outgunned traffic officer stopped 2 attackers | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/)** > > An off-duty traffic officer working security in Garland, Texas, used a Glock .45 to shoot dead two men wearing body armor and armed with assault rifles. The first cite also includes: _Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). ._ ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/273 "2016-06-17T15:11:19Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Not saying that you did say that. I doubt you speak for those who stockpile dozens of AR-15s and 30K rounds though. It depends. I don’t know anyone with more than half a dozen AR-15s but, I know plenty of people with tens of thousands of rounds. Note that most of these rounds are .22 lr from back when you could get a bucket of a ten thousand rounds for like $300-$400. Now they cost like triple that. ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/274 "2016-06-17T15:19:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Again, that’s not my point. Criminals seem to abide by the “no automatic weapons” law, don’t they? A few things. A machine gun does not really provide a significant advantage in committing the crimes they commit. > [@](#): > > But that’s not my point either. My point is, once again - “Police should have access to better weaponry (however you define it) than citizens” If law enforcement required automatic weapons to fight crime, then they should have automatic weapons, regardless of whether or not it is legal for a citizen to own it. For me I think you would have to show why the police need a particular weapon that is forbidden to regular citizens. If the police need it, then the reason they need it can usually be applied to common citizens (albeit much less frequently). > [@](#): > > I don’t care if criminals abide by it or not, it doesn’t matter. Is it legal for a citizen to obtain a 30 round magazine? Then law enforcement should be able to obtain 45 round magazines. Why? Why would the police need a 45 round magazine and why wouldn’t that same rationale be applicable to the common citizen (even if the circumstances would arise less frequently)? > [@](#): > > Pass whatever laws the Constitution will allow, and then law enforcement should be exempt from those laws, that is my stance. No matter how many scenarios, what-ifs, gotchas, you can come up with, that will continue to be my stance. > > I don’t fight crime for my job, so i would give more access to the people who do. OK. I disagree but you are entitled to your deeply held unshakable beliefs. ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/275 "2016-06-17T15:23:07Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Of course they can be, if your ideal/envisioned/hoped for car is smaller. > > And casual conversation, remember? That is not the implication when we say “large capacity magazines” The implication is that the magazines are unnecessarily, abnormally or overly large. Some people just say they want to impose a cap on magazines and I can’t quibble with that but when people say large capacity magazines , they use those words for much the same reason we now refer to modern semiautomatic rifles as assault weapons, to create an impression in people’s minds that is favorable to my agenda. ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/276 "2016-06-17T15:28:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > For me I think you would have to show why the police need a particular weapon that is forbidden to regular citizens. If the police need it, then the reason they need it can usually be applied to common citizens (albeit much less frequently). I’m fairly certain some law enforcement personnel use explosives to breach doors. Should common citizens be able to use explosives to breach doors, say, if you forgot your key to your home or lost it? > [@](#): > > Why would the police need a 45 round magazine and why wouldn’t that same rationale be applicable to the common citizen (even if the circumstances would arise less frequently)? Because they are the police, they fight crime as part of their job. Common citizens don’t. > [@](#): > > OK. I disagree but you are entitled to your deeply held unshakable beliefs. Fair enough, I’m not looking for agreement anyway. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/277 "2016-06-17T15:44:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m fairly certain some law enforcement personnel use explosives to breach doors. I’m fairly certain the _military_ uses explosives to breach doors. I believe police typically use a [battering ram like this](https://turnerwatson.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/police-use-a-battering-ram-in-operation-kansas-to-hammer-down-a-suspect-s-door-698989679.jpg). ETA: I guess there was the MOVE incident in the '80’s, but I don’t think they were trying to breach doors. ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/278 "2016-06-17T15:53:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m fairly certain the _military_ uses explosives to breach doors. I believe police typically use a [battering ram like this](https://turnerwatson.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/police-use-a-battering-ram-in-operation-kansas-to-hammer-down-a-suspect-s-door-698989679.jpg). > > ETA: I guess there was the MOVE incident in the '80’s, but I don’t think they were trying to breach doors. Strange, according to the [City of Tuscan](https://www.tucsonaz.gov/police/swat) the police there have a “very active and progressive Explosive Breaching Program” ---
**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 17, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/279 "2016-06-17T16:58:23Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m fairly certain some law enforcement personnel use explosives to breach doors. Should common citizens be able to use explosives to breach doors, say, if you forgot your key to your home or lost it? In the case of explosives, I think you can demonstrate the lack of a civilian need. Can you do this with a particular type of firearm? > [@](#): > > Because they are the police, they fight crime as part of their job. Common citizens don’t. But when civilians are confronted by criminals, why do they need anything less than the police do in those situations? > [@](#): > > Fair enough, I’m not looking for agreement anyway. ok. ---
**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 17, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/280 "2016-06-17T17:33:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In the case of explosives, I think you can demonstrate the lack of a civilian need. Can you do this with a particular type of firearm? For every reason you can give for why a civilian doesn’t need explosives, I can probably make the same argument for guns. Give it a try, might be kind of fun. Police also have flashing lights on their cars, and sirens. Should civilians be allowed to have that on vehicles to? If you need, I can probably find lots of things that police do/have/can have/can do that regular civilians can’t do/not allowed to do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=15)