# A proposal for gun control **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 18, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419 "2012-12-18T13:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**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:** [December 19, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/121 "2012-12-19T20:16:58Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > Yes, this is another gun thread. My apologies. Feel free to click away now… > > So here’s my proposal for controlling guns in America: > > [ol] > [li]No semi-autos. Period.[/li][li]No handguns. Period.[/li][li]No detachable magazines - integral magazines only.[/li][li]Integral magazines for any NEWLY-produced guns to be limited to a capacity of 6 rounds maximum.[/li][li]No silencers/suppressors - I can’t think of a single legitimate reason anyone needs these outside the military. Get caught making a homemade version and you do jail time.[/li][/ol] > > The only allowable guns for private ownership would therefore be bolt-action, lever-action or pump-action rifles or shotguns. If you hunt, you can still use your rifle or shotgun. If you enjoy plinking, you can still use a bolt-action or lever-action .22. If you need something for home defense, you can still use a 12-gauge Mossberg. Competition target-shooters don’t need semi-autos, and they don’t need 30-round magazines. > > So please explain to me why this wouldn’t work. how about you explain how it _will_ work? All the ones out there aren’t going to just up and disappear at the stroke of a pen, and unless you have some guarantee that you can take them away from the bad guys as rapidly as the law-abiding, I’m not really listening. And if you wonder why people might have a problem with your proposal, I would suggest that people don’t like the idea of becoming felons through no action of their own. ---
**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:** [December 19, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/122 "2012-12-19T20:18:53Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I wonder what the holdup is. In an era of chipped employees, retinal scanners, remote control drones, bomb squad robots and Mars rovers it would seem to me that we should be able to come up with something that works 99.999% of the time. Is it a lack of will on the part of manufacturers? A lack of interest amongst potential customers? Is the scanner/reader or whatever too bulky or something? > > With the way cellphones, computers and TV’s are going, it would seem a trifle to have a tiny circuit board hardwired to the grip of the gun with a fingertip scanner built into it. Or some system like what you have with newer cars where the car senses the presence of the key and unlocks the doors for you and allows you to start the car at the push of a button. > > What is the technological hurdle here? shock resistance is a big one. anyone who has touched off a round from a 12-gauge knows how brutal the recoil impulse is. Shock (acceleration) and vibration are very harmful to electronics. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/123 "2012-12-19T20:29:05Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Well, one problem is that guns are totally mechanical devices. You can put a fingerprint reader on a gun easily enough, but you also need some way to couple that into the actual functioning of the gun. Moving around the parts in the gun takes a reasonable amount of force, so this will require a not-insignificant battery. There’s not a whole lot of extra room in most handguns. And no police officer wants to risk his battery running low and the gun not firing, so he’ll probably have to charge the damn thing every night or something. And if you have the gun “unlock” when the battery is dead, all the criminal has to do is remove the battery. > > Furthermore, even if you got all this wired up right, another problem is reliability. Think of how often your cell phone, computer and TV are slow to respond or otherwise glitchy. Often they eventually work, but if a police officer draws his gun on a criminal advancing with a deadly weapon, any delay whatsoever might be fatal. > > Then there are issues of gloves, and dirty fingers. No cop wants his gun not to fire because the donut grease from his fingers smudged the sensor. An excellent summary. Anther issue is that (in my experience) biometric sensors require you position your finger “just so” in order to work. What happens if your shooting grip on that gun puts your finger in a suboptimal position on the biometric sense? I can see that happening easily if the shooter’s fingers are a bit longer or shorter than what the gun was designed for. In an emergency the shooter doesn’t have time to fine-tune his grip, so that sensor better be sitting in EXACTLY the spot his fingertip goes to naturally (a fit which would be hard to achieve in a mass-produced item). ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/124 "2012-12-19T20:29:17Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > This is true only when you limit it to _legal_ and _legally owned_ full-auto arms. Alan Berg (liberal talk radio host) was killed by neo-nazis in Denver in 1984 with an illegally modified full-auto MAC-10, as the one specific example that I am aware of. I lived in Denver at that time, and occasionally listened to his show, so this one sticks in my mind. I seem to recall some drug cartel related killings that were full-auto, but can’t point to specifics. Well, of course I’m limiting the discussion of insurance to legal weapons. Try getting car insurance for a stolen car. EDIT: Oh, I understand what you mean, you’re referring to the statistic, not the cost of the insurance per se. But it remains true that, in a competitive market, the insurance company will only consider the risk history of other legally-owned firearms when insuring your legally-owned firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/125 "2012-12-19T20:42:00Z")
Well, I retract my statement. In the insurance market proposed, where the owner’s insurance would pay out if the gun were ever used illegally, the insurance rates for guns that could easily be converted to full-auto would theoretically be slightly higher. In practice, I think the numbers still work out to essentially zero, but in theory the correlation is there and owners of such guns would pay for it. But it would be the owners of easiest-to-convert semi-auto guns that would pay, not the owners of legal full-auto guns, based on the existing risk history. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/126 "2012-12-19T20:51:21Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Not totally behind this one. Not that I don’t think firearms owners shouldn’t bear the cost, but rather that I don’t want it to be used initially as an excuse to water down or cheapen the legislation. An annual fee + surcharge on all new firearms is acceptable. Though there should be a requirement that local or regional shooting facilities are provided through the program for training purposes. > > Additionally the homicide rate is a National problem. We should be willing to come together as a nation and bear the start up costs to get these programs rolling. Ongoing program funding can be derived from license and surcharge fees. > Again a bit tough to implement. Remember, millions of unregistered firearms. Probably need to make it a legal requirement like auto insurance. The license funded training facility is a great idea, perhaps we can include professional trainers (police or ex-military - certainly not mothers) as a part of that training rather than for-profit entities. Publicly funded facilities should be training only, not for recreational shooting else the owners of current ranges will object. I would also offer rebates on the licensing if you could prove that the firearm in question was used for match shooting, skeet, trap or hunting (but only for game that required a tag or stamp (i.e. hunting rebates for big game, water fowl - not for varmints). The liability insurance coverage will never be perfect (after all, we have uninsured motorist issues now), but requiring it legally is fine. I like the idea above about preferred rates based on type and storage. If not required, lack of liability insurance could be made self-correcting. Get sued and have to pay without insurance would change a lot of minds - also, report it stolen with no insurance - big fine. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/127 "2012-12-19T20:56:04Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > The technology’s not yet reliable enough to implement on guns. A firearm needs to fire every time the lawful user pulls the trigger, not 3/4 of the time (that’s about the failure rate of the biometric check-in setup at my local gym). > > When the technology DOES become reliable enough, I’d love to own a gun with a biometric lock. But we’re not quite there yet. Here is a current [article](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/12/smart_guns_we_have_the_technology_to_make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.html) about safe gun technology - 1% failure rate. ---
**Author:** ![This\_Just\_In\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@This\_Just\_In\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_Just_In_2)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/128 "2012-12-19T21:17:47Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > Here is a current [article](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/12/smart_guns_we_have_the_technology_to_make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.html) about safe gun technology - 1% failure rate. That is a great and eyeopening article. I seriously can’t understand why gun users wouldn’t want some consumer protection oversight on their tools. It sounds like many of the problems could be solved by using technology like this, and mandating that guns need to be built as safe to their users as any other equipment. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/129 "2012-12-19T21:21:42Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > Here is a current [article](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/12/smart_guns_we_have_the_technology_to_make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.html) about safe gun technology - 1% failure rate. “We Have the Technology To Make Safer Guns Too bad gunmakers don’t care.” Oh, they are not promoting any kind of agenda whatsoever. Certainly there is no chance they are glossing over any problems. And 1% is pretty bad in any case. This will not even solve the problem **This Just In** claims to be living in fear of. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/130 "2012-12-19T21:26:32Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > Here is a current [article](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/12/smart_guns_we_have_the_technology_to_make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.html) about safe gun technology - 1% failure rate. 1% is still a fairly high failure rate (at least if you’re talking about a weapon for defensive use - I wouldn’t carry a pistol that failed to fire once out of every hundred rounds), but it certainly sounds like the technology’s on the verge of becoming practical, which is great. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/131 "2012-12-19T21:30:57Z")
> [@This\_Just\_In\_2](#): > > I seriously can’t understand why gun users wouldn’t want some consumer protection oversight on their tools. Well, most gun users aren’t worried about their weapon being snatched from their hands and used against them. It’s just not a problem that’s relevant to target shooting or hunting. And preventing children or other household visitors from picking up the weapon and firing it can be accomplished more simply by keeping the gun locked up in an appropriate safe. But people who carry for defensive reasons, like the police, should welcome this advance provided it is truly reliable enough (and a 1% failure rate isn’t quite there yet). ---
**Author:** ![This\_Just\_In\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@This\_Just\_In\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_Just_In_2)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/132 "2012-12-19T21:32:24Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Well, most gun users aren’t worried about their weapon being snatched from their hands and used against them. It’s just not a problem that’s relevant to target shooting or hunting. And preventing children or other household visitors from picking up the weapon and firing it can be accomplished more simply by keeping the gun locked up in an appropriate safe. But people who carry for defensive reasons, like the police, should welcome this advance provided it is truly reliable enough (and a 1% failure rate isn’t quite there yet). Did you even read the article. The consumer oversight is about protecting the gun users and those around them from malfunctioning weapons. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/133 "2012-12-19T21:32:43Z")
Eh, the university professor who designed it claims the prototypes have a 1% failure rate in the lab. I’d like to see someone in field conditions run a combat course and determine the failure rate before I believed any of the data. I’d also like to know how tamperproof it is. Preventing someone from picking it up and using it immediately is one thing (and certainly a laudable and useful goal), but if I’ve got a few hours and a toolbox, can I remove the biometric device and make the gun completely usable by anyone? That makes it useless for the stolen gun used later in a crime scenario. There’s also no mention of the cost, which is worrisome in an article so clearly in favor of it. A new handgun runs what, $300 to about $1000 these days? Does this device increase that by $50, or $150, or $5000? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/134 "2012-12-19T21:35:25Z")
> [@This\_Just\_In\_2](#): > > Did you even read the article. The consumer oversight is about protecting the gun users and those around them from malfunctioning weapons. Did _you_? That is not the topic of the article at all. ---
**Author:** ![This\_Just\_In\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@This\_Just\_In\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_Just_In_2)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/135 "2012-12-19T21:39:55Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > This will not even solve the problem **This Just In** claims to be living in fear of. > [@Absolute](#): > > Homicides in general are very different from the random mass shootings by deranged individuals that **This Just In** is living in fear of. You’ve said this twice now in response to my quote that I fear my 2 or 5 year child could be a victim to guns. In light of recent events, my fears are reasonable and justified and I don’t appreciate what is starting to be a condescending tone regarding this. You say it is so incredibly rare that any person would be exposed to this danger - yet there I was a week ago with my kids and family in the same food court a mass shooter came shooting through a hour after I’d left. Like I explained in my previous post - you don’t have to actually be shot to be impacted financially or emotionally. There were 10,000 people fleeing or hiding in panic in that mall, and it is going to have a large financial impact on many others. ---
**Author:** ![This\_Just\_In\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@This\_Just\_In\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_Just_In_2)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/136 "2012-12-19T21:41:23Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Did _you_? That is not the topic of the article at all. Well I read past the headline. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/137 "2012-12-19T21:52:23Z")
> [@This\_Just\_In\_2](#): > > Did you even read the article. The consumer oversight is about protecting the gun users and those around them from malfunctioning weapons. Yes, I did read the article, in its entirety. The problem is, most guns accidents aren’t malfunctions. The gun did precisely what it was supposed to do - go off when the trigger was pulled. Most gun accidents are a result of poor safety practices on the part of the user, such as that father whose toddler son died - he clearly didn’t know how to unload a semiautomatic pistol. That’s a HUGE user error, not a small mistake. (In car terms, he did the equivalent of leaving his car in neutral with the parking break off while on a steep hill.) Dad didn’t need a biometric gun, Dad needed to have no firearms until he learned both the essential rules of gun safety and how to properly unload a pistol. When it comes to firearms, the most important safety feature is the one installed between the user’s ears. And the more safety features you try to build into a weapon, the more potential points of failure you’re introducing, and the more likely it is that the gun will fail at a critical moment. For a defensive gun, the #1 most important feature is that it MUST always fire when the trigger is pulled. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/138 "2012-12-19T22:03:20Z")
> [@This\_Just\_In\_2](#): > > You’ve said this twice now in response to my quote that I fear my 2 or 5 year child could be a victim to guns. In light of recent events, my fears are reasonable and justified and I don’t appreciate what is starting to be a condescending tone regarding this. You say it is so incredibly rare that any person would be exposed to this danger - yet there I was a week ago with my kids and family in the same food court a mass shooter came shooting through a hour after I’d left. Like I explained in my previous post - you don’t have to actually be shot to be impacted financially or emotionally. There were 10,000 people fleeing or hiding in panic in that mall, and it is going to have a large financial impact on many others. Damn, okay, I’m truly sorry. I read your post where you said that on my iPhone and somehow missed the critical sentence where you mentioned you had actually been at that mall. I hope you will eventually realize that the risk is no greater now than it ever was, and that you are statistically in essentially no danger whatsoever from this sort of thing, but I certainly cannot blame you for being scared and disturbed about it now. I’m sure I would feel the same way. I will also point out that that shooter was reportedly [stopped](http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/15/Man-With-Concealed-Carry-Gun-May-Have-Prevented-Oregon-Shooter-From-Inflicting-More-Carnage) by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun, a former security guard. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/139 "2012-12-19T22:13:48Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > 1% is still a fairly high failure rate (at least if you’re talking about a weapon for defensive use - I wouldn’t carry a pistol that failed to fire once out of every hundred rounds), but it certainly sounds like the technology’s on the verge of becoming practical, which is great. It could be argued that 1% is statistically insignificant when combined with the number of times shots would be fired in a personal defense situation (police standards would be different) - and balanced against the decreased risk of having the weapon taken from you and used against you - or accidental use or discharge as mentioned in the article. Are there any figures on mis-fire or jam rates in ‘dumb’ weapons? ---
**Author:** ![This\_Just\_In\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@This\_Just\_In\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/This_Just_In_2)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/140 "2012-12-19T22:26:45Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I hope you will eventually realize that the risk is no greater now than it ever was, and that you are statistically in essentially no danger whatsoever from this sort of thing, but I certainly cannot blame you for being scared and disturbed about it now. I’m sure I would feel the same way. I had been at the mall - but left about an hour before the shooter arrived. However what really cuts even deeper is hearing about the 20 children being shot in their classroom. How does any parent not register fear at that thought. Talk to me about the statistics and logic all you want, but people and parents have emotions man. Now isn’t the best time to be salivating at how cool the AR-15 is, or stating how this only affects those that are actually shot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419.md?page=8)