# 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:** 5
**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 14, 2016, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/81 "2016-06-14T13:44:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. [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. > [@](#): > > 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. Is that the standard that people want? 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? So you can “fight them off” if the revolution comes? :rolleyes: Snark aside, I honestly don’t understand this point of view. The same access to weapons as Law Enforcement and the Military? ---
**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, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/82 "2016-06-14T14:28:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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._ 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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/83 "2016-06-14T14:40:45Z")
In another thread in IMHO titled “Repealing the 2nd Amendment”, **friedo** posted a list of possible gun control regulations that sounded reasonable: > [@](#): > > [ol] > [li]Make background checks include psychiatric history and other relevant data rather than just criminal records[/li][li]States could mandate that gun owners be subject to licensure and that they must pass reasonable safety tests[/li][li]Regulate private sales of semi-autos, so everything has to go through a licensed dealer who will do background checks and maintain records. (So-called “gun show loophole.”) [/li][li]Adequately fund law-enforcement so existing regulations regarding licensed gun dealers are actually enforced[/li][li]States could mandate that gun owners carry liability insurance (the policy would list each gun you own, like car insurance. (This also has the added benefit of establishing another paper trail.))[/li][li]Start holding people liable for knowingly failing to report stolen weapons[/li][li]Improve mandated-reporting laws so weapons can be temporarily confiscated (with due process) from people with psychiatric problems[/li][li]Require gun manufacturers to include better tamper-resistance for serial numbers, e.g. by including RFID chips within the receiver body[/li][/ol] How do these sound to you? ---
**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, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/84 "2016-06-14T14:54:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Is that the standard that people want? 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? So you can “fight them off” if the revolution comes? :rolleyes: > > Snark aside, I honestly don’t understand this point of view. The same access to weapons as Law Enforcement and the Military? It’s not a maximum - but it’s a guidepost. It’s a less arbitrary way of defining what is reasonable. Police arguably go through analysis to determine what the most effective carry tools are for them. Piggybacking off of this analysis is a means to establish a baseline. If it is reasonable for police to carry 17 round mags in their service weapons, then it is reasonable for individuals to carry 17 round mags. This isn’t to say larger magazines are unreasonable. Another facet of this line of reasoning is that laws that prohibit people from various things related to arms sometimes exempt police, off duty police, or even retired police. This makes no sense. Just like the proposal in the OP - when exempting hunters it’s an effort to divide gun rights advocates. The idea is that gun control folks aren’t after hunters, so they should acquiesce to various restrictions. It has had limited success in the past but I think many folks have wised up to this strategy of division. And by including police within the the same group of people that any limits will be imposed upon, then there is the expectation that police will not support restrictions that make them less effective. It adopts every argument that a police force may employ to support their choice in arms. The military aspect arises because of the militia component and that is more of a constitutional argument. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/85 "2016-06-14T14:56:38Z")
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). If your position is “It is impossible to reduce gun violence through legislation”, then I’d like to know what makes America different from the other countries out there which have, apparently, reduced gun violence through legislation. Other than the fact that the gun lobby here is highly affective at blocking legislation. (Feel free to say “the Second Amendment”, too, if you really want to make the argument that it makes it impossible to reduce gun violence.) ---
**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, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/86 "2016-06-14T15:13:53Z")
> [@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). First, I would stop saying “gun violence”. Because I can’t tell if you’re including suicide with a firearm. Are you? Second, make gun ownership and possession a suspect class under the 14th amendment. Third, national CCW reciprocity. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/87 "2016-06-14T15:26:40Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First, I would stop saying “gun violence”. Because I can’t tell if you’re including suicide with a firearm. Are you? > > Second, make gun ownership and possession a suspect class under the 14th amendment. > > Third, national CCW reciprocity. Could you explain how any of these three suggestions would reduce the prevalence of gun violence? The first is just “If we don’t talk about it, it’s not there”, the second and third…you got me? ---
**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 14, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/88 "2016-06-14T15:31:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If it is reasonable for police to carry 17 round mags in their service weapons, then it is reasonable for individuals to carry 17 round mags. But I don’t find this reasonable. Of course I don’t find exempting retired police officers reasonable either. They are retired, should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. “I should be able to because the police are able to” just doesn’t strike me as a good argument for anything. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/89 "2016-06-14T15:38:48Z")
> [@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? The person needs to be respected, but when the proposal comes from a position of ignorance (i.e. the “assault weapons” proposed to be banned are fully automatic, and not semi-automatic as they actually are), and one that was argued twenty-two years ago that calling these things “assault weapons” was deliberately done to cause such confusion, then the position is faulty from the outset. The person who proposes it needs to reassess his position. If the debate is about safety features in a car, and I am operating on the belief that an airbag deployment will kill an average adult, is my position that airbags should be outlawed a valid one? ---
**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 14, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/90 "2016-06-14T15:50:45Z")
I thought that **furt** was being sarcastic, no? ---
**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, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/91 "2016-06-14T15:52:23Z")
> [@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? That would be okay with me. I suspect that these regulations, as well as the ones I proposed upthread, would be okay with the vast majority of gun owners in the US, but _only if you could guarantee_ that the anti-gun lobby would be satisfied with these regulations, and would not immediately start pushing for even stricter regulations the next time there is a high-publicity mass shooting. Since many people seem to be of the opinion that private gun ownership has no redeeming value whatsoever and that the US would be better off completely banning it and confiscating all privately-owned firearms, many people who value their gun rights feel like they are better off not yielding any ground whatsoever, rather than “compromising” their rights away year-by-year. And before you complain that lots of other products are highly regulated without similar complaint - is there a loud and vocal group of people lobbying for the complete ban of those products? ---
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/92 "2016-06-14T15:53:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. Each seller could be required to maintain their own records (e.g. a copy of the buyer’s license and his signature on a form), that would not be stored in a centralized database. ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/93 "2016-06-14T15:56:06Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > But I don’t find this reasonable. Of course I don’t find exempting retired police officers reasonable either. They are retired, should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. > > “I should be able to because the police are able to” just doesn’t strike me as a good argument for anything. I accept you don’t find this reasonable. And that’s the rub - gun control folks talk about reasonable regulations, reasonable restrictions, reasonable this, reasonable that. It cuts both ways - I don’t find most gun control reasonable. So it goes. The reason isn’t simply because police are able to. Is there a reason police are able to, or choose to? I adopt all of those reasons. Unless you are arguing that police should be restricted to 10 round magazines. Are you? > [@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. It’s unlikely. It’s also unlikely that a mob of people will loot and burn whole areas of a city while police do nothing and only those stores that have people armed with rifles be spared. It’s also unlikely to engage in a gun battle with a single person and [fire 33 rounds, hitting 14 times](https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/), and having the attacker survive. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Could you explain how any of these three suggestions would reduce the prevalence of gun violence? The first is just “If we don’t talk about it, it’s not there”, the second and third…you got me? And here I thought you were bowing out. Appreciate you gracing us with your wise questions as always. As to the how - because more people would be able to carry and defend themselves. That could reduce gun violence. ---
**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, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/94 "2016-06-14T15:58:54Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > 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? The fact that the government is bloated, corrupt and inefficient doesn’t mean that they can’t accomplish things. It means that they take longer than they should, spend much more of our money than they should, and end up distributing a large portion of that money mainly to contractors and sponsors of lobbyists who manipulate the system for their own gain. Separately, the government doesn’t have to become “evil” or super-efficient in order to confiscate all firearms. All they would have to do is pass a law that makes possession of a firearm illegal, and law-abiding citizens like myself would turn their guns in voluntarily rather than risk being charged with a felony. ---
**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, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/95 "2016-06-14T15:58:57Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I suspect that these regulations, as well as the ones I proposed upthread, would be okay with the vast majority of gun owners in the US, but **_only if you could guarantee_ that the anti-gun lobby would be satisfied with these regulations, and would not immediately start pushing for even stricter regulations the next time there is a high-publicity mass shooting.** (my bold) That’s funny. Pull the other one. If anyone believes this is true there’s bridges to sell, Florida swamp land real estate, and PT Barnum is Nostradamus. ---
**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, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/96 "2016-06-14T16:07:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In another thread in IMHO titled “Repealing the 2nd Amendment”, **friedo** posted a list of possible gun control regulations that sounded reasonable: > > > [@](#): > > > > Improve mandated-reporting laws so weapons can be temporarily confiscated (with due process) from people with psychiatric problems > > How do these sound to you? The devil is in the details, as usual. [ul] [li]Who, specifically, should become mandatory reporters? Police? Teachers? Neighbors? Family members? Employers?[/li][li]What psychiatric problems will they be mandated to report? Depression? Anxiety? Social maladjustment? Do they have to be diagnosed by a professional, or is a layman’s opinion enough? [/li][li]What due process will have to be followed before the government can confiscate their guns? Do they have to appear before a judge? Is there the presumption of innocence, or the necessity for probable cause?[/li][/ul] Or are there other improvements that you (or **friedo** meant? Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/97 "2016-06-14T16:58:24Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > The fact that the government is bloated, corrupt and inefficient doesn’t mean that they can’t accomplish things. It means that they take longer than they should, spend much more of our money than they should, and end up distributing a large portion of that money mainly to contractors and sponsors of lobbyists who manipulate the system for their own gain. > > Separately, the government doesn’t have to become “evil” or super-efficient in order to confiscate all firearms. All they would have to do is pass a law that makes possession of a firearm illegal, and law-abiding citizens like myself would turn their guns in voluntarily rather than risk being charged with a felony. They can’t even catch every tax cheat, and they have their IDs. I can’t imagine them being effective at confiscating guns from registered owners even if they had a list of every single weapon and its owner. It’s laughable. And paranoia of the nth degree. ---
**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 14, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/98 "2016-06-14T17:12:58Z")
> [@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? since the quote didn’t carry over, I’ll repost them here: > [@Repealing the 2nd Amendment](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/16): > > I gave several examples in post #4. But I’ll enumerate some more here: > > [ol] > [li]Make background checks include psychiatric history and other relevant data rather than just criminal records[/li][li]States could mandate that gun owners be subject to licensure and that they must pass reasonable safety tests[/li][li]Regulate private sales of semi-autos, so everything has to go through a licensed dealer who will do background checks and maintain records. (So-called “gun show loophole.”) [/li][li]Adequately fund law-enforcement so existing regulations regarding licensed gun dealers are actually enforced[/li][li]States could mandate that gun owners carry liability insurance (the policy would list each gun you own, like car insurance. (This also has the added benefit of establishing another paper trail.))[/li][li]Start holding people liable for knowingly failing to report stolen weapons[/li][li]Improve mandated-reporting laws so weapons can be temporarily confiscated (with due process) from people with psychiatric problems[/li][li]Require gun manufacturers to include better tamper-resistance for serial numbers, e.g. by including RFID chips within the receiver body[/li][/ol] I’m pretty much on board with 1, 4, 6, and 7. The rest depends on the details. 1. hinges on an agreement of what are “reasonable” tests and requirements for licensure. i. e. they can’t be designed to be impossible to qualify for. 2. I am and have been in favor of “universal background checks,” even if it means all transfers have to go through an FFL. we effectively have UBC in Michigan for handgun transfers; if you buy from an FFL they run you through NICS, if you buy from a private party you have to go to your police department for a “license to purchase” where they run the background check and issue the transfer forms the next business day. _However_, one critical thing UBC would have to do is protect me as a seller. Right now I can sell a long gun (rifle/shotgun) to another private party basically cash and carry. If a UBC law(s) pass, then if I sell a firearm to someone who passes the background check, that should shield me from liability should the buyer later go do something bad with it. 3. I’m not opposed, so long as it’s not intended to be so expensive no one can afford it. 4. would need clear language as to what sort of mental health issues would justify temporary/permanent holds. IIRC you’re already technically disqualified from purchasing a firearm if you’ve been declared mentally incompetent or have ever been committed, it’s question 11f on the form 4473. 5. I don’t see doing anything worthwhile. as long as a ne’er do well can find the RFID chip, it can be rendered useless. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/99 "2016-06-14T17:13:17Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > They can’t even catch every tax cheat, and they have their IDs. I can’t imagine them being effective at confiscating guns from registered owners even if they had a list of every single weapon and its owner. It’s laughable. And paranoia of the nth degree. It seems like you missed the very last sentence you quoted. The government would not need to call out the army to disarm the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens. Pass a law against owning particular types of guns, and the good guys will likely decide that they are happy with their job, 2.4 kids, and house with the yard, and not yet ready to die in a revolution against their own government, so they will \*voluntarily hand in their guns. \* So, congrats, you’ve disarmed all of the good guys, leaving the only guns in the hands of criminals, the insane, and Ruby Ridge right wingers. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/100 "2016-06-14T17:14:41Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > They can’t even catch every tax cheat, and they have their IDs. I can’t imagine them being effective at confiscating guns from registered owners even if they had a list of every single weapon and its owner. It’s laughable. And paranoia of the nth degree. You’re making the same argument you just ridiculed in your previous post. They don’t need to be effective at searching them down and confiscating them. They just need to pass a law that requires people to turn them in themselves before a certain date. Sure, people could decide to just hide their guns somewhere, but they would have to live with the constant risk of being thrown in jail if they were ever found out. Normal, law-abiding people would have no choice but to comply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=6)