# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/161 "2012-12-20T14:35:02Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > But will there in fact be any benefit? The type of crime people want to curtail (mass shootings) can be carried out by someone armed with pretty much any weapon more advanced than a muzzle-loader. I’m not sure banning particular types of guns will do much (as opposed to tighter screen of those wishing to purchase firearms, which might). But right now, some sort of gun ban seems to be all that anyone’s talking about. > > I’m not willing to curtail rights to no useful purpose. Of course there will be a benefit, how is that even debateable? Yes any loon can start shooting up a mall or a school with any gun they can get their hands on, but that type of determined crazy will kill a lot fewer people with a bolt-action hunting rifle than he will with a semi-auto AR-10 and several 30-round magazines. The aim is to remove, control or limit access to weapons with increased lethality, not to take everyone’s guns away. Again, with the proposals I’ve made here, hunters can still hunt, people can still defend their homes and recreational or sport shooters can still enjoy their firearms responsibly, but crazies will have a harder time getting their hands on weapons that can kill lots of people quickly. If you have to change the Constitution to make that happen, then change the damn Constitution. Why do people insist on revering the 2nd Amendment as the unalterable word of God? If there is a demonstrably useful purpose to bans - if they can actually save lives, why wouldn’t you be willing to curtail some of your freedoms for that? What on earth would you be losing in comparison to what you’d gain? The “right” to have handguns? The “right” to an AR-10? ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/162 "2012-12-20T15:09:13Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > If there is a demonstrably useful purpose to bans - if they can actually save lives, why wouldn’t you be willing to curtail some of your freedoms for that? What on earth would you be losing in comparison to what you’d gain? The “right” to have handguns? The right to own handguns is in fact of critical importance to me, and I would fight any proposal to ban their ownership. Regulating ownership is fine (and we already do that, to varying degrees in different states). I would also fight any proposal to ban legal carry of handguns, as there is no proof whatsoever that legal carry (as opposed to criminals carrying) causes any increased risk to society. Want to reduce handgun deaths? Require tough background checks to own one, confiscate and destroy handguns found on criminals, make owners civilly (and possibly criminally) liable if they don’t store their handgun in a safe or report a stolen gun promptly and that gun is later used to commit a crime. That’s enough regulation. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/163 "2012-12-20T15:21:07Z")
Sorry - I should have included this in my previous post. > [@Bibliovore](#): > > Of course there will be a benefit, how is that even debateable? Yes any loon can start shooting up a mall or a school with any gun they can get their hands on, but that type of determined crazy will kill a lot fewer people with a bolt-action hunting rifle than he will with a semi-auto AR-10 and several 30-round magazines. The aim is to remove, control or limit access to weapons with increased lethality, not to take everyone’s guns away. That may be your aim - but a lot of people are saying they want to completely stop these sorts of killings, which is impossible as long as ordinary citizens are allowed to own ANY guns. We’d still be hearing big outcries when the occasional loony shoots up a public place with a bolt-action rifle and a shotgun and kills 5-10 people. > [@](#): > > If you have to change the Constitution to make that happen, then change the damn Constitution. Why do people insist on revering the 2nd Amendment as the unalterable word of God? Because changing the Constitution is risky. What other rights will we decide to alter or abolish, after we abolish the Second? We have tinkered with other amendments (notably passing and then revoking the Eighteenth), but the first ten amendments have never been altered; they’re regarded by most Americans as core guarantees we shouldn’t discard. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/164 "2012-12-20T15:31:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*When the law changes, you can be law-abiding and surrender your \*books, _or you can keep them and be an outlaw. Your choice._ “A book is a loaded gun in the house next door…Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man?” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/165 "2012-12-20T15:50:33Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > I personally don’t drink and I think the world would be a better place if others didn’t. However none of these massacres were committed by someone wielding a can of beer. > > Yes, alcohol-related deaths are a problem that should be tackled. Does that mean that gun-related deaths shouldn’t be tackled as well? Should we just say “Booze killed more people than guns, so I guess we shouldn’t do anything about the guns?” If not, then it’s utterly pointless to bring the subject of alcohol deaths or car deaths into this. The problem under discussion is deaths by firearms and how to reduce them. That is not what I’m saying. I am not saying that we should not address gun violence because alcohol kills more people. Not at all. > [@](#): > > No, you can’t “make life perfectly safe” - when has anyone ever proposed that? How about we try to make it a little safer though? > > Yes, “some freedoms are worth protecting”, but at what point does the price get too high before you’re prepared to voluntarily curtail SOME of those freedoms in order to make your country a safer place? As you try to make people more and more safe, you eventually reach the point of diminishing marginal returns, where you are drastically reducing people’s freedom in exchange for a minimal improvement in safety. Many gun owners feel that blanket restrictions such as those proposed in the OP reach this point. As tragic and horrible as mass shootings may be, they just _do not happen often enough_ to restrict the freedoms of 100,000,000 law-abiding gun owners as dramatically as some people are calling for. Do we need better gun laws? Definitely yes. Do we need to ban 75% of the guns in this country, as the OP proposes? Definitely not. I brought up alcohol simply because I thought it might help some people who have trouble understanding this view see it from the gun owner’s perspective in a different context. Unquestionably we could reduce the number of needless, tragic deaths in this country by promoting laws intended to limit alcohol consumption. Should we? That is a different question, and the answer is not obvious. I really don’t give a shit about alcohol and it would be easy for me to say “Oh hell yeah, we should have a law that proposes enforces a federal 300% tax on alcohol, that will really cut down on the drunkards!” Just like it is easy for people who don’t give a shit about guns to propose these sweeping bans without any consideration for other people’s rights (and existing private property!) Of course these things will reduce the number of deaths. That’s not the absolute only factor you can ever consider. > [@](#): > > And no, I’m not saying that the “pro-gun” position is psychopathic - I absolutely believe guns should be allowed, just not all guns, and not by everyone. > > Let me make that point clear again - I’m not “asking law-abiding people to _sacrifice_ their rights, freedoms, and enjoyment” - I’m saying that if the status quo is so clearly fucked up, then it’s time to ask those law-abiding people to voluntarily limit SOME of their gun-related rights for the benefit of ALL. Well, the problem is, my voluntarily limiting ANY of my gun-related rights will do jack shit for gun violence and gun crime. I and people like me are not the cause of the gun violence problem in this country. So, I support a very strict licensing and regulation regime that would require people to obtain a license to own and use any gun, pass a test, pass a background check, obtain liability insurance, whatever, so that there is a mechanism for responsible, law-abiding people to obtain whatever gun they want. I do not support any blanket bans, which punish law-abiding people inordinately more than any improvement in safety they bring about, nor any restrictions based on “need” that would lead to some government bureaucrat deciding that no one in his jurisdiction really _needs_ a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/166 "2012-12-20T15:56:34Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Sorry - I should have included this in my previous post. > > That may be your aim - but a lot of people are saying they want to completely stop these sorts of killings, which is impossible as long as ordinary citizens are allowed to own ANY guns. We’d still be hearing big outcries when the occasional loony shoots up a public place with a bolt-action rifle and a shotgun and kills 5-10 people. > > Because changing the Constitution is risky. What other rights will we decide to alter or abolish, after we abolish the Second? We have tinkered with other amendments (notably passing and then revoking the Eighteenth), but the first ten amendments have never been altered; they’re regarded by most Americans as core guarantees we shouldn’t discard. I agree, completely stopping these sorts of killings is impossible as long as ordinary citizens are allowed to own ANY guns. It’s delusional to think that gun deaths will stop entirely, but mitigating them, reducing them - surely that’s something that’s worth aiming for, even at the expense of some of your freedoms. Isn’t it? If you DECIDE to to alter or give up some of your rights, if you collectively choose through due democratic process to amend your own constitution to better suit the needs of Americans as they live today rather than hundreds of years ago, why is that a problem? Such a decision will not, CANNOT be forced upon you externally. But what you’re presenting here is the “slippery slope” argument - that if you ban high-capacity semi-auto assault weapons today, you’ll be forced to give up your grandpa’s breech-loading double-barrelled shotgun later on. That won’t happen. Even in the UK it hasn’t happened. But if it DOES happen, it’ll be because the majority of Americans \*chose \*it to be so. What I’m seeing today is the lack of will amongst the majority of Americans to make that change. I only pray it won’t take more massacres before you find that will. Until then, the rest of the world will continue to look on at America and shake its head in bafflement and disbelief, while US gun-advocates continue to clutch desperately at their weapons like an old lady clutching her purse tight in a bad neighborhood. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/167 "2012-12-20T16:04:22Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > I agree, completely stopping these sorts of killings is impossible as long as ordinary citizens are allowed to own ANY guns. It’s delusional to think that gun deaths will stop entirely, but mitigating them, reducing them - surely that’s something that’s worth aiming for, even at the expense of some of your freedoms. > > Isn’t it? The answer to the question you have posed here, is “not necessarily.” It is not a foregone conclusion that it is worth sacrificing an unspecified amount of freedom to “reduce” gun deaths by an unspecified amount. If you can sacrifice a little freedom to reduce deaths by a lot, sure. If you must sacrifice a lot of freedom to reduce deaths only by a little, no. Many people view the kinds of restrictions you and others are proposing as sacrificing a lot of freedom to reduce deaths only by a little. As easy as it may be for someone who knows jack shit about guns to say “Who needs a semi-auto anyway?”, most gun owners disagree. “I mean, who really needs hard liquor? I think beer and wine should be enough for anyone. And they should be limited to 5% ABV so that it is less likely people will get dangerously drunk.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/168 "2012-12-20T16:08:37Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > Until then, the rest of the world will continue to look on at America and shake its head in bafflement and disbelief, while US gun-advocates continue to clutch desperately at their weapons like an old lady clutching her purse tight in a bad neighborhood. I know – the Border Patrol hasn’t had any work to do for months since the rest of the world disdainfully regards the US as such a dangerous place. No one wants to come here, that’s for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/169 "2012-12-20T16:17:01Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > The answer to the question you have posed here, is “not necessarily.” It is not a foregone conclusion that it is worth sacrificing an unspecified amount of freedom to “reduce” gun deaths by an unspecified amount. > > If you can sacrifice a little freedom to reduce deaths by a lot, sure. If you must sacrifice a lot of freedom to reduce deaths only by a little, no. > > Many people view the kinds of restrictions you and others are proposing as sacrificing a lot of freedom to reduce deaths only by a little. As easy as it may be for someone who knows jack shit about guns to say “Who needs a semi-auto anyway?”, most gun owners disagree. > > “I mean, who really needs hard liquor? I think beer and wine should be enough for anyone. And they should be limited to 5% ABV so that it is less likely people will get dangerously drunk.” Then I think we’ve hit upon the crux of our disagreement. I think these proposals will reduce deaths by a lot, while you think they’ll reduce deaths by only a little. I therefore think giving up some freedoms would be worth it, while you don’t. Fine, I get that. I think the only way to persuade someone otherwise would be to provide solid statistical proof that the majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns and other semi-autos. We’d probably still quibble over how many deaths would be “enough”, but at least we’d be getting somewhere. And btw, I know more than jack shit about guns, thank you very much. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/170 "2012-12-20T16:22:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know – the Border Patrol hasn’t had any work to do for months since the rest of the world disdainfully regards the US as such a dangerous place. No one wants to come here, that’s for sure. Sarcasm duly noted. But you know very well that I was specifically talking about international reactions to America’s gun laws and gun culture, not the attractiveness of the US as a whole. Don’t be disingenuous. ---
**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 20, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/171 "2012-12-20T16:25:29Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Well, the problem is, my voluntarily limiting ANY of my gun-related rights will do jack shit for gun violence and gun crime. I and people like me are not the cause of the gun violence problem in this country. I would dispute this. Not you specifically - but when applied to ‘people like you’ in general. You and people like you are part of the cause of gun violence in this country. There are tens of millions of people ‘like you’, law abiding gun owners who keep their guns perfectly safe and secure. Until something screws up in their life or they make a mistake. This past week: Nancy Lanza was a legal gunowner with no criminal history. Her AR-15 gun was stolen from her and she was shot. Jacob Roberts stole a AR-15 from an acquaintance, a legal gun owner, and shot up a mall. From the reports, these crazy people probably didn’t have contacts with gangs or the black market to purchase their AR-15’s. By far the easiest method for them was to simple take it from someone they knew. So, really you are asking me to put my trust in you, and all of the people like you - and in addition everyone you know as well as everyone that knows people like you. This represents pretty much the entire population of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/172 "2012-12-20T16:37:00Z")
> [@This\_Just\_In\_2](#): > > I would dispute this. Not you specifically - but when applied to ‘people like you’ in general. You and people like you are part of the cause of gun violence in this country. There are tens of millions of people ‘like you’, law abiding gun owners who keep their guns perfectly safe and secure. Until something screws up in their life or they make a mistake. > > This past week: > Nancy Lanza was a legal gunowner with no criminal history. Her AR-15 gun was stolen from her and she was shot. > Jacob Roberts stole a AR-15 from an acquaintance, a legal gun owner, and shot up a mall. I do not have any mentally-disturbed sons, or any mentally-disturbed friends. But in any case, I think stricter liability laws are a great solution to your concern. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/173 "2012-12-20T16:39:34Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Scratch an anti and under the superficial layer of “compassion” you will very often find the most ruthless of authoritarians. You aren’t against killing. As you’ve made abundantly clear in this thread, there is no upper limit on the body count you find unacceptable. How many of those outlaws would you be willing to look in the face and kill personally? I’m from Missouri. A lot of them are friends and family. And believing in the law means believing in the law even if your family break it. You can call that “authoritarian,” fine. Doesn’t make it wrong. Order is preferable to chaos. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/174 "2012-12-20T16:51:32Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I’m from Missouri. A lot of them are friends and family. And believing in the law means believing in the law even if your family break it. > > You can call that “authoritarian,” fine. Doesn’t make it wrong. > > Order is preferable to chaos. You didn’t answer my question. You’ve made it clear that you’re cool with condemning as many people as necessary to death in order to achieve your goal. How many of them are _you_ willing to kill personally? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/175 "2012-12-20T17:06:08Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > I would also fight any proposal to ban legal carry of handguns, as there is no proof whatsoever that legal carry (as opposed to criminals carrying) causes any increased risk to society. How do you tell the difference? > [@](#): > > Want to reduce handgun deaths? Require tough background checks to own one, confiscate and destroy handguns found on criminals, make owners civilly (and possibly criminally) liable if they don’t store their handgun in a safe or report a stolen gun promptly and that gun is later used to commit a crime. Not bad, but a lot of people would object to keeping a gun in a safe. > [@](#): > > That’s enough regulation. Well, I would at least outlaw (or regulate into near-irrelevance) some categories of weapons: Explosive ammo, extended magazines, full auto… But we have done a lot of that already, and we have twerps picking fights with youths on the streets of Florida and shooting them dead. That’s why I’m done. Just ban guns. Home defense does not have to mean a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/176 "2012-12-20T17:08:10Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You didn’t answer my question. You’ve made it clear that you’re cool with condemning as many people as necessary to death in order to achieve your goal. How many of them are _you_ willing to kill personally? All of them? All that resist, sure. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/177 "2012-12-20T17:10:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know – the Border Patrol hasn’t had any work to do for months since the rest of the world disdainfully regards the US as such a dangerous place. No one wants to come here, that’s for sure. What a lame argument. Sure, we border a country with conditions much worse than ours. Doesn’t mean the rest of our peers don’t consider us to be barbarians. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/178 "2012-12-20T17:14:52Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > No semi-autos. Period. It seems that you’re making an argument for allowing guns for self-defense. In that case, semi-auto is a pretty big deal. When firing a weapon defensively, one will want to take multiple shots quickly to ensure a hit. That is, if I’m in a life or death situation, I’m not going to take the time after each shot to make sure my target is disabled, I’m going to take no less than two or three shots. Semi-auto makes this a lot more responsive and, thus, makes it a lot more effective for home defense. So I can’t agree with this one. > [@](#): > > No handguns. Period. Terrible idea. Handguns are a lot more manuverable inside a home. Trying to use a rifle or a shotgun through hallways, doorways, just isn’t very effective. Basically, the entire design intent is for personal and home defense, so it just doesn’t make sense to take those out of the hands of the people who want to use them for that purpose if we’re trying to make concessions for it. > [@](#): > > No detachable magazines - integral magazines only. > Integral magazines for any NEWLY-produced guns to be limited to a capacity of 6 rounds maximum. Let’s also pass a law that no more than 1 person may invade a home simultaneously. Seriously, if you get a couple or more people invading at the same time or you miss, 6 shots may not be enough. Sure, one probably doesn’t need a 30-round magazine, but 10-12 rounds isn’t unreasonable for home defense. And round capacities like that just make more sense in detachable magazines. Besides, if I wanted to commit a crime and have more than 6 shots, all you’re really doing is forcing the criminal to carry extra guns if they can’t get their hands on one with a detachable magazine. Sure, it would be a burden if I thought I’d needed to carry around half a dozen guns to rob a bank, but if I’m going to mug someone or break into their house or hold up a gas station, one or two 6-round guns is plenty. > [@](#): > > 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. I will agree that silencers and suppressors aren’t justifiable as reasonable home defense precautions. Thing is, short of actually going on a shooting rampage, they don’t really serve much purpose for crime either, where they add bulk to a weapon, making them harder to carry and conceal, and they typically aren’t going to fire them anyway. Further, as I understand, it’s not to difficult to make a half-way decent one with basic materials, so I don’t really know how this would really be enforceable or really accomplish much. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, I don’t think a 12-gauge is anywhere near as effective for home defense as something like a 9mm handgun. Besides the added manuverability and higher rate of fire to downing an intruder, I could also keep the weapon closer because of it’s compact size, like in the night stand. > [@](#): > > So please explain to me why this wouldn’t work. I realise some people would sooner give up a vital internal organ than give up their handgun, but wouldn’t this approach drastically reduce gun crime while still allowing legitimate gun owners to enjoy their firearms responsibly? It wouldn’t impinge on hobby-shooters (or at least, only minimally), and it seems far more straightforward to go with these restrictions than to try and ban guns based on pointless cosmetic distinctions like pistol grips. Put as many bipods, flash-suppressors and scopes on the damn thing as you please. Handguns seem to account for the most deaths by shooting, so ban them. I don’t even personally own a gun, but I don’t see how this would reduce gun crime at all. I can still hold up a gas station shot-gun, in fact, I’ve seen plenty of those videos precisely because they’re already easier to get than handguns. All you’ve really effectively done is take effective defensive weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It would impinge hobby shooters. There are plenty who enjoy shooting handguns, there’s handguns competitions as well. Yes, handguns are used a lot in gun crimes, but I just don’t think banning them will make them all that much harder for criminals to get their hands on. Further, even if we could get rid of them, I’m sure you’d just see those same people modifying rifles and shotguns and using those for similar purpose. A rifle or shotgun with the stock shortened or removed and a shortened barrel isn’t going to be all that much more difficult to carry and conceal and use in gun crimes than a handgun. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/179 "2012-12-20T17:17:14Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > How do you tell the difference? Simple - a person who is carrying legally (in the majority of states, at least) will have a permit on their person. Someone carrying illegally will not. Oh, and criminals rarely use holsters, while legal carriers generally do. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/180 "2012-12-20T17:18:17Z")
I think this is an important point. **Scumpup** would balk at killing his favorite uncle just because said favorite uncle won’t surrender his firearms to the controlling legal authority. **Scumpup** doesn’t like shooting people; **Scumpup** is not a misanthrope. On the other hand, **foolsguinea** is a misanthrope, and a vicious little vector of wrath, who was once puzzled that armies have a hard time getting raw recruits to pull the trigger on the enemy. Maybe **Scumpup** doesn’t really understand how people can intentionally kill each other with guns. Or maybe he doesn’t understand why anyone would look at his deadly weapons and see a threat. But **foolsguinea** understands how one can do it intentionally, and unintentionally, and accidentally, and a whole gradient in between. I can see the rage in my own heart, and the recklessness in my friends. The world is dangerous enough without explosives slinging hot lead through your buddy’s head because someone has a bad day. The law is written to govern people like me. The law is not capable of distinguishing “angels” like you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419.md?page=10)