# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/61 "2016-06-14T01:30:34Z")
America needs a new constitution. ---
**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/62 "2016-06-14T01:33:39Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > America needs a new constitution. That may be true, but take a look at the two clowns that the major parties are putting up as candidates for the Presidency, then ask yourself: Who would be drafting this new document? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/63 "2016-06-14T01:35:56Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > That may be true, but take a look at the two clowns that the major parties are putting up as candidates for the Presidency, then ask yourself: Who would be drafting this new document? I can’t disagree with you. I can’t disagree with you at all. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/64 "2016-06-14T02:12:12Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > No, you can’t “just dismiss” it. The experience of the past decade in Iraq shows that a population equipped with small arms can stand their own quite well against the most powerful military in the world, despite all the tanks and attack helicopters we’ve sent over there. If by “small arms” you mean IEDs, and by “stand their own quite well against the most powerful military in the world” you mean retake neighborhoods after we sweep them and leave, then you’re 100% correct. I assume you’ll support the legalization of IEDs in the US? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/65 "2016-06-14T02:15:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If by “small arms” you mean IEDs, and by “stand their own quite well against the most powerful military in the world” you mean retake neighborhoods after we sweep them and leave, then you’re 100% correct. I assume you’ll support the legalization of IEDs in the US? I’m simply refuting the assertion that ordinary citizens stand no chance against a modern, professional military. No one is proposing legalizing IEDs. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/66 "2016-06-14T02:20:06Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I’m simply refuting the assertion that ordinary citizens stand no chance against a modern, professional military. Not really. You’re asserting that widespread, legal small arms substantially contribute to the success of ordinary citizens fighting a modern professional military. Your example of Iraq does nothing to establish that claim, for about a bajillion reasons, not the least of which is the relative lack of importance of small arms in that conflict. Another big one is that if all the Second Amendment secures is the ability to run a ragtag insurgency inflicting just enough casualties on civilians to keep things disorderly, then that’s probably not worth the cost. And I say all that as someone who thinks there’s not much point in enacting gun control legislation in the US. ---
**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 14, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/67 "2016-06-14T02:22:44Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why isn’t “So someone could only kill 10 people before they had to reload” a reason for a limit? What if I am a bad shot and I’m being attacked by more than one attacker. Like i said 10 is probably more than enough in 99% of situations but considering how rare mass shootings are and the other avenues available to mass shooter to commit mass murder (see Tsarnaev brothers), why isn’t it a greater harm to restrict me than to pass a law that tries to restrict people who aren’t going to obey the law. > [@](#): > > and no, I don’t know why 5 would be better, or 15 would be worse. So then how about we go with 30 rounds? I can live with any restriction that we are willing to impose on our police and common ground soldier. ---
**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 14, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/68 "2016-06-14T02:50:57Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > I’m still surprised about that. But it doesn’t really change anything here or in that topic. The point isn’t that people shouldn’t fire warning shots into water because it could ricochet, the point is that warning shots seem to be safer than none if properly trained, and one can fire into water without it bouncing off. > > I think its kind of funny that in this topic, we have people like Damuri who want civilians and law enforcement to have equal capabilities and over in that other topic we’re talking about how police in this country are so bad they should be limited in their weapons. I was going to half-jokingly propose that US cops should keep their guns, but only get 2 bullets each to avoid the kind of senseless slaughter our cops are too often a part of. Just a funny observation 😃 > > No, yours is an example of trying to frame the debate in favorable terms. There’s no universal reason why a magazine should be one size or another. It is perfectly ok to debate what size magazine should be standard for the types of weapons that will be allowed > > Then realize the totality of the argument includes things that your response does not cover. Its like how some religious types argue evolution: they think its a 3 legged stool and that if you knock one leg off, the whole thing will tip over. Instead evolution, and in this case the gun debate on safety, is more like a table with a hundred legs. Knocking one off does nothing, and the original point still stands. The kind of rapid shooting capability that I described is one thing that should be banned from private gun ownership, and along with other regulation such as limited magazine size, promote safety and cuts down on the kind of mass murder that is all to prevalent in the US > > This would only make sense if you’re facing the same type of attacks that police and the military are, or plan on taking over the government. Since you don’t, there is no reason to uniformly enforce the same standards between civilians and law enforcement. If there is one conspiracy theory that the Dope condones, its this fantasy that the government is out to kill all of you. You should not have the same capability to wage violence as the government. They enforce the law, you don’t If you were a shopkeeper during the LA riots and your family’s livelihood depended on your store not being looted or burned down, would you prefer a rifle with 10 round magazines or one with 30 round magazines? What if those riots spilled over into your neighborhood (like it did into mine) and they were threatening your home and family? > [@](#): > > I’ve mentioned this before. Just because the dwarves cannot agree on where Loki’s neck ends and where his head starts doesn’t mean that we cannot have a discussion or make a determination. 10 is the limit. > > Here’s where you’re right. I am, and people don’t. > [@](#): > > Average citizens do not stop mass shootings. They stop a guy at a 7/11 robbing the clerk. The stop a road rage incident. They scare off a coyote that wandered into a yard. But they don’t stop the likes of mass killings we see It doesn’t have to be a mass shooting to be a tense situation. > [@](#): > > Honestly, I don’t think you want to, or else you’d have proposed one already. I thought I did. I am willing to abide by whatever restrictions we place on our police and common foot soldiers. > [@](#): > > I think your mind is set and any arguments will be bogged down by semantics or wild examples or conspiracy theories. One does not claim that civilians and the military should have the same capabilities without thinking there’s something wrong with law enforcement having more firepower I think that there is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens having access to the same firepower as the police. Why do you think law enforcement needs larger magazines than law abiding citizens? > [@](#): > > That doesn’t happen. At all. There are little other industries that have laws protecting them from being sued. There are few others that need the protection. > [@](#): > > The more fair thing would be, if these people actually cared about the Constitution, to let people sue for what they want and let the courts decide. They did, time and time again but people kept suing despite the fact that the courts kept throwing out their cases. Noone sues car manufacturers because soomeone died in a car accident. Noone sues Jim Beam because the driver was drunk. Because it would be frivolous. But they sue Smith and Wesson when a criminal shoots someone. The case gets thrown out and then someone else sues. It was a bit ridiculous. Then some states started to move to apply liability to gun manufacturers if their guns are used in a crime. When else does that sort of shit happen? > [@](#): > > Also, not many things go from 0 to OMG TYRANNY in each and every single debate. And people don’t generally claim that their pet industry CANNOT (not merely “should not”) be regulated. Every single right you have is subject to regulation, free speech isn’t completely free, freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can sacrifice humans, but apparently its the default in gun debates that the government cannot regulate guns at all. In case you didn’t know… > **[Gun law in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States)** > > In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). > The private right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment o... > [@](#): > > But by all means, prove me wrong. Take a reasonable stance like guns can and should be regulated, and we’ll debate what regulation. Are you under the impression that we don’t have gun regulations at the moment? I’ve proposed licensing and registration many many many times on this board to the chagrin of some on the gun rights side. You can see my proposal in post 26. The typical response from the gun control side has been something along the lines of “I like licensing and registration but you have to get rid of everything else. That would be a good start. Lets see what happens and go from there” > [@](#): > > Acknowledge that just because the government wants to control guns, it doesn’t signal anything nefarious. The government already controls guns. Very few things are controlled as much as guns are. Can you acknowledge THAT? > [@](#): > > Admit that there is no slippery slope that makes guns unique in any way, that if a politician is for gun control, they are not secretly plotting to ban all guns and put you all in camps. I don’t think they are trying to put us in camps. I think a lot of politicians would ban guns if they thought they could get the votes. I don’t think they could ever get the votes so I am not really worried about it. > [@](#): > > Really, I’d love to be proven wrong, but this has been my experience in every single gun debate except one. One of my earliest posts on the SDMB is when I requested a gun debate where one cannot assume that there will be a slippery slope to gun banning. That one did well, I think, for a while. I don’t think you stand in the way of a good idea because a bad idea might follow. I don’t think that licensing and registration leads to confiscation any more than I think that guns lead to significantly higher rates of suicide. IOW, I don’t. I have problem with licensing and registration as long as we implement some good ideas going in the other directions like pre-emption, national carry licenses, and repeal of all other gun laws. ---
**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 14, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/69 "2016-06-14T02:53:15Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > because it didn’t do much to impede [Seung-Hui Cho.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho) he just took along a bunch of loaded 10-round magazines. Glock 19s have 15 round magazines. His .22 had ten round magazines. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/70 "2016-06-14T03:05:00Z")
Since this is the usual “lets do something” thread after a terrorist attack I need to ask how many rounds of ammunition should be allowed in pressure cookers and what kind of background check should be used? Not one person died in that bar as a result of gun violence. Not one law suggested would have stopped the attack. What would have stopped the attack was people with guns and they were late to the rescue. Had the bar owners carried guns the result would have been different. What killed 49 people was a person who planned to do so. With or without a gun. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/71 "2016-06-14T03:16:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Since this is the usual “lets do something” thread after a terrorist attack I need to ask how many rounds of ammunition should be allowed in pressure cookers and what kind of background check should be used? > > Not one person died in that bar as a result of gun violence. Not one law suggested would have stopped the attack. What would have stopped the attack was people with guns and they were late to the rescue. Had the bar owners carried guns the result would have been different. > > What killed 49 people was a person who planned to do so. With or without a gun. I think that the need to own a firearm is reflective of a violent mentality. Americans need firearms because we accept living in a violent society, and we accept violence as a way to solve problems. I don’t mean that eliminating guns will eliminate violence, but if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need guns, if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need a death penalty as retribution for murder, and if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need to use violence to impose American style “democracy” and capitalism on others…maybe then we might see a decline in violence. America lives by the sword (gun), and die by the sword (gun) she will. ---
**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 14, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/72 "2016-06-14T03:18:42Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > The proposal in the OP is a nonstarter. It is not a “gun control” proposal, it is a “gun elimination” proposal with a substantial grandfather clause. > > Any gun control proposal in the US should recognize that the value in the fact US is the only first-world nation that _entrusts_ its citizens with the ability to go to a store and purchase the same weapons and ammunition that are given to its own soldiers and police. If you don’t accept that this trust is a fundamental, defining characteristic of the United States and the relationship of its people with the government, a characteristic that is valuable and worth preserving as part of the essence of what “freedom” means in the US, there’s not much point in having any discussion. > > Here’s my proposal for gun control: > > 1. Anyone can apply for and get issued a “gun possession permit” after a background check. This permit allows them to legally possess a gun of any type. The background check verifies that you meet certain legal requirements to possess a gun (not a felon, not on a terrorist watch list, etc.) > > 2. If you take a few legally-mandated training classes, you can get a concealed carry endorsement which is good nationwide. > > 3. On January 1, 2018, a gun possession permit is required in any circumstances where a firearm is under your direct control. If you fail to apply for and receive a permit by January 1, 2018, you cannot possess any firearms after that date. There is a substantial penalty for violating this provision. > > Your permit can be revoked once it is granted if something occurs that would cause you to fail a background check if you were to re-apply. Otherwise, it does not expire and does not need to be renewed. > > If your permit is revoked, you have 30 days to sell your guns or transfer them to someone with a valid permit (including a gun broker who may sell them for you on consignment). > > 1. You can purchase any gun by showing your “gun possession permit”. The seller can verify that your permit is valid and not a forgery using an online database. No background check is required at time of purchase (the permit indicates you have already passed a background check), and the government keeps no record of private firearms transactions. > > 2. If you transfer a gun to a person (either by a gift or through sale), you are legally required to verify that they have a valid gun possession permit. If you fail to do so, you are liable as an accessory for any crimes that they commit with that gun. > > 3. Careless storage of a gun that leads to it being stolen or otherwise used by a non-permitted individual is a class A misdemeanor. > > 4. There are no restrictions on magazine capacity or weapon type beyond those already in place at the federal level. > > This proposal provides the government with a strong means of controlling who is authorized to possess guns, while granting something that gun owners have wanted for a while (nationwide concealed carry) and avoiding the dreaded “gun registry”. Lets say we capture a murderer with a gun, we trace it back to you but you tell us that you sold it to some guy that had a a valid permit. You don’t remember who. Or lets say you wrote down his name and address. The guy says he never heard of you. Your idea is basically universal background checks. There is a reason the gun lobby thinks that universal background checks lead to registries. Its hard to enforce universal background checks without a gun registry. For the record i am in favor of gun registries. It is a boogeyman that the NRA has gotten everyone afraid of without really explaining why its so scary. heck if it makes people feel better we can limit the gun registry to handguns and get a handle on the most commonly used guns in crime. ---
**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 14, 2016, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/73 "2016-06-14T03:22:06Z")
> [@furt](#): > > See, this is the whole problem. You want to mock and insult people for no reason other than the fact that they are making arguments on topics they don’t understand. Why can’t you accept that people who are utterly ignorant about a topic can still have valid and important ideas that need to be respected? Its possible for people without specific knowledge to speak at the theoretical level but that’s not what you are doing when you (and I am not directing this specifically at you) say you want to ban guns with collapsible stocks, pistol grips, detachable magazines etc. You are saying that there are very specific things that are bad but you only think they are bad because someone else is telling you they are bad. It is possible to have policy positions but when you say guns are the problem without really understanding the problem you are just repeating something that someone else told you. Gun rights advocates are not all original thinkers and are repeating what others have told them in many cases as well but what they are being told are at least consistent with actual real facts. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/74 "2016-06-14T04:06:43Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I think that the need to own a firearm is reflective of a violent mentality. Americans need firearms because we accept living in a violent society, and we accept violence as a way to solve problems. I don’t mean that eliminating guns will eliminate violence, but if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need guns, if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need a death penalty as retribution for murder, and if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need to use violence to impose American style “democracy” and capitalism on others…maybe then we might see a decline in violence. America lives by the sword (gun), and die by the sword (gun) she will. I think the ownership of a firearm is reflective of a person willing to take responsibility for his/her safety. I grew up in an era where we carried knives to school and the rural kids kept guns in their vehicles so they could shoot in school clubs. You’re fear of guns is misdirected nonsense. The problem isn’t the gun, it’s the person who wishes to do harm. Taking away the gun doesn’t change that desire or ability to do harm. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/75 "2016-06-14T04:59:32Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why don’t mass shooters use fully automatic weapons to commit their mass murders? Seems like that would be better for them. This seemed like a worthwhile question that didn’t get answered (at least that I saw). So here’s my answer to it: Full-auto weapons are extremely expensive, rare, and difficult to legally acquire. In our country with maybe 100 million gun owners who collectively own several hundred million guns, there are maybe 100,000 - 200,000 (bit of a guess here) privately-owned full-auto weapons. They are usually the crown jewels of very serious gun collectors’ collections. 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 (this would be EXTREMELY ILLEGAL! **DO NOT DO IT!** You’ll go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for ten years!). If someone like this latest shooter is already planning on going out with a bang, an extra 10-year prison sentence isn’t much of a disincentive, so why not do it? Two reasons I can think of: 1. mass shooters aren’t individuals of average skill and intelligence. They’re often dumb, and may not know that it’s possible, or how to do it 2. even if they do know how, they may choose to stick with semi-auto fire (one shot per pull of the trigger) for the same reason that most infantry riflemen usually use semi-auto fire: it’s more accurate and conserves ammunition. Full-auto weapons are difficult to control and aim accurately while they’re firing, and they burn through ammo at an astounding rate. If you’re trying to hit targets, like bobbing and weaving people, full-auto fire is not a recipe for success. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/76 "2016-06-14T07:36:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This seemed like a worthwhile question that didn’t get answered (at least that I saw). So here’s my answer to it: > > Full-auto weapons are extremely expensive, rare, and difficult to legally acquire. In our country with maybe 100 million gun owners who collectively own several hundred million guns, there are maybe 100,000 - 200,000 (bit of a guess here) privately-owned full-auto weapons. They are usually the crown jewels of very serious gun collectors’ collections. Typical models cost $10,000, I think the cheapest was around $6000 last I checked. Plus $200 tax stamp, plus a months long wait. Exact prices are often hard to determine due to limited quantity. > [@](#): > > 1. even if they do know how, they may choose to stick with semi-auto fire (one shot per pull of the trigger) for the same reason that most infantry riflemen usually use semi-auto fire: it’s more accurate and conserves ammunition. Full-auto weapons are difficult to control and aim accurately while they’re firing, and they burn through ammo at an astounding rate. If you’re trying to hit targets, like bobbing and weaving people, full-auto fire is not a recipe for success. Armies like full auto (or in the US, burst fire), but it’s not necessarily the better option in many cases, and may even be less effective for someone untrained. The Hollywood experience is that they are effective in mowing down tons of VC/Mafiosi/terrorists, but really you hold down that trigger and your magazine is completely spent in **under 4 seconds** , not enough time to “sweep” effectively. Machine guns when used militarily are typically **not** used because they are more effective at killing but because they are used for [suppressive fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire). ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/77 "2016-06-14T09:33:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > . Only by torturing the English language are you able to say that standard = large. The standard size of nutmeg that Costclub Mart sells is 10 lbs. That is a large amount of nutmeg. Doesn’t seem too torturous to me. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/78 "2016-06-14T12:14:08Z")
This makes me laugh. So many of you are the same people who criticize the federal government for ineptitude on hundreds of matters, yet are paranoid that one day the government will become evil and efficiently confiscate all registered firearms. So which is it, are they inept or deadly efficient, or is it one or the other depending on convenience to your argument? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/79 "2016-06-14T12:53:02Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > I’m still surprised about that. But it doesn’t really change anything here or in that topic. The point isn’t that people shouldn’t fire warning shots into water because it could ricochet, the point is that warning shots seem to be safer than none if properly trained, and one can fire into water without it bouncing off. The point was that warning shots are not safer. That’s why police don’t generally fire warning shots. > [@](#): > > There’s no universal reason why a magazine should be one size or another. It is perfectly ok to debate what size magazine should be standard for the types of weapons that will be allowed If there is no reason that magazines should be limited, then I don’t see why your proposed limits can, or need to be, debated. ‘We should limit magazines to no more than 10.’ ‘Why?’ ‘No reason.’ > [@](#): > > Knocking one off does nothing, and the original point still stands. The kind of rapid shooting capability that I described is one thing that should be banned from private gun ownership, and along with other regulation such as limited magazine size, promote safety and cuts down on the kind of mass murder that is all to prevalent in the US Now you are claiming that there is a reason. Great - please demonstrate how limiting magazine size to 10 will cut down on mass murder. > [@](#): > > I’ve mentioned this before. Just because the dwarves cannot agree on where Loki’s neck ends and where his head starts doesn’t mean that we cannot have a discussion or make a determination. 10 is the limit. Why 10? > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] > > I am trying to make the point that there is this tendency to treat gun rights with much less respect and deference than other constitutional rights. That doesn’t happen. At all. [/quote] It happened in the OP. > [@](#): > > But by all means, prove me wrong. That’s where you get it wrong. No one has to prove you wrong. You have to prove your proposals are right. You apparently didn’t grasp the distinction between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Thus your proposal about that characteristic of guns is not based on accurate information. It is therefore up to you to prove that your opinion about magazine size, or any other proposal that you might make, is better founded. So you might want to try that. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 14, 2016, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/80 "2016-06-14T13:23:53Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > The standard size of nutmeg that Costclub Mart sells is 10 lbs. That is a large amount of nutmeg. > > Doesn’t seem too torturous to me. If you think it through it may make more sense. Large is a relative measure - it needs to be with respect to something else. So if Costclub only sells one size, it would make so sense to call it large. It could be the standard Costclub size, but large compared to other stores who sell smaller sizes. Now, some states have legislated magazine size limits. So a standard CA magazine for a Glock 17 in CA for example, is 10 rounds. A standard magazine for that exact same pistol in every other state that doesn’t have a magazine limit is 17 rounds. If 99% of Glock 17s are sold with 17 round mags, and 1 % are sold with 10 round mags, what would you say the standard size is? (these %'s are hypothetical) It’s an obvious farce to call a 17 round magazine “large” or “high capacity” when it is the default standard magazine. Only where legislation has restricted the size is the magazine size reduced. Remember when the term “assault weapon” was popularized? It was done in part as an effort to confuse people. Calling standard mags large or high capacity is the same transparent BS. _Why would anyone need a high capacity magazine?!?!_ The horror! No, that’s the standard magazine it comes with. _Oh._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=5)