# 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:** 7
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/121 "2016-06-14T17:56:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In any case, I think people should be prepared for what they feel is appropriate, based on their own risk tolerance and willingness to deal with the inconvenience associated with that level of preparedness. People should be able to choose. They should, and others should be able to mock and ridicule people for over-preparedness for a low risk event, similar to dooms-day preppers, without being called “Gun-Control Nuts”. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/122 "2016-06-14T17:59:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Almost any national policy that applies equally to all fails to take into account any differences in different people. That’s weird. I thought we had plenty of national policies. Are you saying that they should apply differently to different people? That seems to violate some sort of rights that I read in an old document. ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/123 "2016-06-14T18:01:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So what do you think should be done? Do you think the AR-15 (the Orlando shooter used a Sig MCX) should be legal? What steps would you suggest to further whatever goals you have in mind? Three questions in a row…right after accusing me of Just Asking Questions. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/124 "2016-06-14T18:02:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So what do you think should be done? Do you think the AR-15 (the Orlando shooter used a Sig MCX) should be legal? What steps would you suggest to further whatever goals you have in mind? > **[NARRATIVE FAIL: Orlando Islamic Terrorist Did NOT Use An AR-15](https://bearingarms.com/bobowens-bearingarms/2016/06/13/narrative-fail-orlando-islamic-terrorist-use-ar-15-n25854)** > >   Cite for that. I particularly like the “Journalist Guide to Firearms Identification” where every long gun is an AR-15, and every pistol is a Glock, except for a real Glock which is an AR-15. 🙂 ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/125 "2016-06-14T18:07:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As **Cyros** said, no amount of regulation will stop these mass shootings. This particular mass shooter in Orlando would have passed any background check and probably would have qualified for a CCW permit in New York, New Jersey, D.C., or any other restrictive locale because he was a security guard for Homeland Security. > > The reason why nobody had a self defense weapon in that bar is because the State of Florida, permissive as it is, prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying weapons in a nightclub, even with a CCW permit. > > Imagine a culture where a person carries a gun the way he does a cell phone. How many people would have died that night had everyone in that Orlando bar who had a cell phone also had a gun? Of course one or two would have been taken by surprise, and perhaps a few more would have been killed by friendly fire. I’m not saying that is okay, but would 50 have died? Instead of tweeting for help, they could have helped themselves. What do you think the tipping point is? What is the magic percentage point of armed Americans and gun regulations taken off the books that will result in these events and gun violence in general dropping to an appreciable degree? Will we have the safe society we strive for if Americans can have any gun they want without restrictions? ---
**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, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/126 "2016-06-14T18:12:14Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That’s weird. I thought we had plenty of national policies. Are you saying that they should apply differently to different people? > > That seems to violate some sort of rights that I read in an old document. No, what I am saying is that there should not be many national policies because of these differences. The Constitution enumerates powers of Congress and by overstepping that in many areas (like gun control) the policy usually underserves or overserves people. Further, those limits were enacted when the United States was largely homogeneous (at least the white people that were the only ones that lawmakers were really concerned with). Today the list should be limited even further. Especially when we are talking about who should have what guns and where and why. The answer is different if I am in the Alaska wilderness versus at a White House state dinner. How can a federal law on, say, magazine size limits pick out the number “10” and claim that is adequate in all situations, coast to coast? That is the problem many of us have with choosing a particular magazine limit (assuming we would agree to it on condition of no further limits). Maybe if I live next door to a police station, ten rounds would suit me in all but the most ridiculous of circumstances. If I live out in the boonies where the police will NEVER come, I might need a warehouse. Top down policy does not work in a heterogeneous culture in all but very few circumstances. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/127 "2016-06-14T18:13:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Three questions in a row…right after accusing me of Just Asking Questions. :rolleyes: [Whoosh.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19402917&postcount=49) ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/128 "2016-06-14T18:16:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why? How much better? Are the people that they shoot at anatomically different than those that regular citizens shoot at? Better than anyone that they may come up against has. > [@](#): > > It seems like your side wants to paint us as building fallout shelters and stocking canned goods, but buying a gun and ammo is not in the same league. “My” side? And which side do you think MY side is? I agree, buying a gun and some ammo is not in the same league. Buying DOZENS of AR-15s and 30K of ammo IS in the same league. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/129 "2016-06-14T18:19:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is the problem many of us have with choosing a particular magazine limit (assuming we would agree to it on condition of no further limits). Maybe if I live next door to a police station, ten rounds would suit me in all but the most ridiculous of circumstances. If I live out in the boonies where the police will NEVER come, I might need a warehouse. > > Top down policy does not work in a heterogeneous culture in all but very few circumstances. I see. So when you say other places are more “homogeneous” you mean they all live closely together, in the same type of environment, with the same type of gun needs. But what you definitely DON’T mean is “mostly the same race”? ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/130 "2016-06-14T18:20:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > My comment is that it wasn’t my list, so you’ll have to ask the person who made it in the first place about the details. You said that the list sounded reasonable, and asked how it sounded to others. If you think the mandatory reporter part was reasonable without knowing exactly how it would work out, then that is a different definition of ‘reasonable’ than is common in Great Debates. > [@](#): > > Three questions in a row…right after accusing me of Just Asking Questions. :rolleyes: Followed by a post asking three questions in a row. 😃 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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/131 "2016-06-14T18:24:37Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, I doubt we will ever agree on this point, so no point to discussing that aspect. No problem. You asked about the rationale for police-use parallel. > [@](#): > > I don’t, and I admit I’m just guessing. But I don’t see how police responding to a shooting would say “Gee, I hope they have the exact type of weapons we have!” The police chief in Detroit said that [more armed citizens would drive down the crime rate as well as deter terrorists.](http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/12/01/police-chief-says-armed-detroit-cut-terror-risk/76592116/) The police chief in Washington DC said that during active shooting situations, [citizens should take the gunman out if faced with a threat](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lanier-others-urge-civilians-to-sometimes-confront-active-shooters/2015/11/23/8757001e-91e4-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html). Presumably she didn’t mean with harsh language - though given DCs position on gun control I’m not sure what she expects people to use. [Here’s a smaller county in NY State where the Sheriff wants those who are licensed to carry to do so](http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20151203/ulster-county-da-urges-caution-after-sheriff-calls-on-residents-to-carry-weapons-if-licensed)- saying in a active shooter situation if people aren’t armed then they are useless. The [annual survey of police chiefs and sheriffs](http://www.nacoponline.org/surveyresults.pdf)reflects a very favorable view of armed citizens as well. These don’t speak specifically to the issue of the scope of weapons police would be in favor of civilians having, but it does speak to the favorability of having an armed populace. Of course in your example you’re talking about what police would want criminals to have, not the people defending themselves so it’s not exactly on point. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/132 "2016-06-14T18:24:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What do you think the tipping point is? What is the magic percentage point of armed Americans and gun regulations taken off the books that will result in these events and gun violence in general dropping to an appreciable degree? Will we have the safe society we strive for if Americans can have any gun they want without restrictions? First, these events are rare in the scheme of things. There were no news stories of the tens of thousands of nightclubs that were not shot up this year. So we are reasonably safe as it is and it is admittedly unknown what relaxation of the regulations would lower an already statistically small event. Crime is already at the lowest rate it has been since the 1950s. But which is it? We have people on here saying that these new regulations need to be enacted to prevent these things because it is a growing problem, but if someone wants to own a gun to protect himself from these things, then he is as paranoid as someone worrying about a meteor strike. Is it a problem that needs addressed, or is it such a blip that a person is paranoid for thinking about it? In any event, just on moral grounds, for those rare instances where things happen, people should be permitted to have the tools needed to protect themselves from it. At least then, society is not to blame for disarming innocent people. Further, it is telling that (almost?) all of the events occur where guns are prohibited. When is the last time a mass shooter killed a bunch of people in a redneck shitkicker bar in West Virginia or at a gun show? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/133 "2016-06-14T18:25:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > From 1996 to present, the overall homicide rate and gun deaths went down in the United States as well. So? Your contention is this would disarm the good guys leaving the weapons in the hands of various groups that aren’t nice. The unstated assumption is these bad people will now have the good people at a severe disadvantage and will use this new found edge to prey on the good folks. Clearly this has not happened. > [@](#): > > Further, Australia does not have our history and tradition of the Second Amendment and a revolutionary war. Regarding the second amendment this is a “what if” scenario. None of any of this will happen without serious changes in the constitution and that is not happening anytime soon. As for the revolutionary war so what? If you are saying the notion is to protect ourselves from our own government that is a fantasy. Maybe once it was true and that may have been part of the original intent of the FFs but that ship sailed long ago. If we need to rise up against the government you had better pray the military is on your side. No amount of rifles and ammo will help you if the military decides you’re the one who needs taking out. If you manage to kill a few evil government troops so what…the powers that be won’t care at all about that. > [@](#): > > Also, the population is vastly smaller and more homogeneous. It is also an island which can control all points of entry. > > IOW, apples and oranges. I am sure that Pitcairn Island could also effectively ban guns. Again, so what? Do you think Australian criminals and insane and right wingers are different or nicer than they are in the US? Bottom line is the guns were taken away in Australia and the criminals and insane and right wingers did not run amok. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/134 "2016-06-14T18:25:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > [Whoosh.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19402917&postcount=49) Not a “whoosh”-just another reason not to answer any questions from you that I know will not be seriously considered. Any time you want to stop “wooshing”, mocking and attacking, and ask me questions that you _actually_ want the answers to just let me know and we can talk about this topic. If not, there are others here I can talk to. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/135 "2016-06-14T18:28:32Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I see. So when you say other places are more “homogeneous” you mean they all live closely together, in the same type of environment, with the same type of gun needs. But what you definitely DON’T mean is “mostly the same race”? Race affects when and where people are living closely together, the environment, and gun needs. Different races bring different cultures. So it is one aspect, but not the sole aspect or relevant in all circumstances, or relevant for any improper reason that you may possibly be trying to impute. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/136 "2016-06-14T18:29:09Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m fairly certain I’ve never said we should be spending significant effort to prevent mass shootings. Can you quote a post where I said that? > > The consequences of a meteor strike on my house are pretty dire as well. Surprisingly, I don’t have any meteor protection. Perhaps I should run out and at least buy some meteor insurance, you know, 'cause of all the dire consequences. > > I also don’t go around in life worried about being killed in a mass shooting. Sorry, my mistake. Then you agree that no legislative action is required to strengthen gun control in the US in response to this shooting? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/137 "2016-06-14T18:30:14Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Of course, you can see from the graph that firearm homicides had already been trending downwards since 1987, and with the exception of a blip in 1996, the trend wasn’t really affected by their gun ban, it merely continued on the same slope. The drop from 2003 onwards correlates with the a drop in non-firearm homicides as well. > > This is hardly clear evidence that a gun ban will dramatically reduce homicide rates. The contention is the good people will disarm themselves leaving the bad guys with all the guns. This presumably makes the good people easier targets for the bad guys and the bad guys will gleefully exploit that weakness. But that did not happen in Australia did it? ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/138 "2016-06-14T18:30:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > First, these events are rare in the scheme of things. There were no news stories of the tens of thousands of nightclubs that were not shot up this year. So we are reasonably safe as it is and it is admittedly unknown what relaxation of the regulations would lower an already statistically small event. Crime is already at the lowest rate it has been since the 1950s. > > But which is it? We have people on here saying that these new regulations need to be enacted to prevent these things because it is a growing problem, but if someone wants to own a gun to protect himself from these things, then he is as paranoid as someone worrying about a meteor strike. Is it a problem that needs addressed, or is it such a blip that a person is paranoid for thinking about it? > > In any event, just on moral grounds, for those rare instances where things happen, people should be permitted to have the tools needed to protect themselves from it. At least then, society is not to blame for disarming innocent people. > > Further, it is telling that (almost?) all of the events occur where guns are prohibited. When is the last time a mass shooter killed a bunch of people in a redneck shitkicker bar in West Virginia or at a gun show? None of this addresses the question of how far you think the arming of citizens and the disarming of regulations should go. “People should have the tools needed to protect themselves” is just a vague filler sentence in my opinion. I’m asking what tools you think they ultimately should be allowed. ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/139 "2016-06-14T18:31:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No problem. You asked about the rationale for police-use parallel. I know, and appreciate the answer. I meant that in the future we probably won’t ever agree on that point. > [@](#): > > These don’t speak specifically to the issue of the scope of weapons police would be in favor of civilians having, but it does speak to the favorability of having an armed populace. Of course in your example you’re talking about what police would want criminals to have, not the people defending themselves so it’s not exactly on point. I find it hard to believe that asking a police officer “Do you feel the police should be better armed than the rest of the populace?” and the officer answers anything but “Yes”. Could be wrong though. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/140 "2016-06-14T18:32:39Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Sorry, my mistake. Then you agree that no legislative action is required to strengthen gun control in the US in response to this shooting? LOL, what gun control legislation would have prevented the shooting? None that I can think of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276.md?page=8)