# A serious question for gun control advocates: effect of loosening gun laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127 "2016-04-25T21:29:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/121 "2016-05-04T16:59:28Z")
There’s a big difference between “inconvenient” and “virtually impossible”; semi-auto handguns in California appear to be the latter. For the record, my opinion is that you shouldn’t have to humbly beg your betters for their gracious permission to let you own a small, weak weenie gun while serous guns are for grownups only. Even if it’s technically possible to acquire a firearm in that scenario, I’d still count that as violating any sense of keeping and bearing arms as a right. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/122 "2016-05-04T17:06:39Z")
If I tell you that you are banned from entering my house, what do you think that means? Do you think that it might mean you can only go into certain rooms, or only enter through certain doors, or only enter at certain times, or any combination of these…or do you make the basic assumption that I mean _that you are totally banned from my house?_ Likewise, when you say that there is a gun _ban_ without stating that it is partial/limited, the _natural_ and _logical_ assumption for most people to make is that the ban is absolute. Now, I understand why you might want to use the word “ban” instead of “restriction”-it’s very dramatic and makes it look as it the side you oppose took the ultimate draconian step you’ve been warning everyone about. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/123 "2016-05-04T17:33:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If I tell you that you are banned from entering my house, what do you think that means? Apparently it’s not a ban at all, since there are other houses I can go to. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/124 "2016-05-04T17:56:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If I tell you that you are banned from entering my house, what do you think that means? I think it means I am banned from entering your house. I do not think it means I am banned from entering all houses. Now will you answer my question? **Would you consider the phrase “Obama never ever tried to ban guns” equivalent to “Obama never ever tried to ban all guns”?** ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/125 "2016-05-04T18:01:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think it means I am banned from entering your house. I do not think it means I am banned from entering all houses. Now will you answer my question? > > **Would you consider the phrase “Obama never ever tried to ban guns” equivalent to “Obama never ever tried to ban all guns”?** Fuck, yeah. Do you know why? _Because I know the difference between “restrict” and “ban”._ ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/126 "2016-05-04T18:06:20Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Let’s keep the personal remarks down, please. noted, sorry. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/127 "2016-05-04T18:07:48Z")
A more honest statement, _if true_, would use the term “partial-ban”. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/128 "2016-05-04T18:15:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I know right? Why not just redefine what words mean and ascribe or eliminate meaning of words entirely. No need to be nitpicky about equivocation. > As I said, you haven’t provided enough information for that determination. It may be possible, it may not be. There are many laws that would prohibit you from purchasing. These are just threshold items. Well, a quick googling shows many gun shops in the state of CA, with many types of handguns for sale so I’m going to assume that people can in fact buy handguns in CA. So, I’m a resident of CA, I’ve received a favorable California Personal Firearms Eligibility Check, I had a friend check me out in NICS and I’m good to go there, and I am exempt from needing the Handgun Safety Certificate per California Penal Code 31700. So I don’t see any problem with purchasing a handgun in CA. Do 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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/129 "2016-05-04T18:18:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Fuck, yeah. Do you know why? > _Because I know the difference between “restrict” and “ban”._ Great - so if these two statements are equivalent - what is the effect of the word “ **all** ” in the second statement? Do you think it adds meaning, takes away meaning, or is superfluous? ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/130 "2016-05-04T18:23:49Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, a quick googling shows many gun shops in the state of CA, with many types of handguns for sale so I’m going to assume that people can in fact buy handguns in CA. > > So, I’m a resident of CA, I’ve received a favorable California Personal Firearms Eligibility Check, I had a friend check me out in NICS and I’m good to go there, and I am exempt from needing the Handgun Safety Certificate per California Penal Code 31700. > > So I don’t see any problem with purchasing a handgun in CA. Do you? Several more hurdles actually. But the biggest problem I see is that it appears you’ve accessed the NICS database in an unauthorized fashion. That would be a prohibited depending on the fact pattern. And the exemption under CPC 31700 applies to the following: > [@](#): > > 1. (a) The following persons, properly identified, are exempted > from the firearm safety certificate requirement in subdivision (a) > of Section 31615: > (1) Any active or honorably retired peace officer, as defined in > Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2. > (2) Any active or honorably retired federal officer or law > enforcement agent. > (3) Any reserve peace officer, as defined in Section 832.6. > (4) Any person who has successfully completed the course of > training specified in Section 832. > (5) A firearms dealer licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to > 26915, inclusive, who is acting in the course and scope of that > person’s activities as a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 > to 26915, inclusive. > (6) A federally licensed collector who is acquiring or being > loaned a firearm that is a curio or relic, as defined in Section > 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, who has a > current certificate of eligibility issued by the department pursuant > to Section 26710. > (7) A person to whom a firearm is being returned, where the person > receiving the firearm is the owner of the firearm. > (8) A family member of a peace officer or deputy sheriff from a > local agency who receives a firearm pursuant to Section 50081 of the > Government Code. > (9) Any individual who has a valid concealed weapons permit issued > pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5. > (10) An active or honorably retired member of the United States > Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, or the > active reserve components of the United States, where individuals in > those organizations are properly identified. For purposes of this > section, proper identification includes the Armed Forces > Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that > the individual is an active or honorably retired member. > (11) Any person who is authorized to carry loaded firearms > pursuant to Section 26025 or 26030. > (12) Persons who are the holders of a special weapons permit > issued by the department pursuant to Section 32650 or 33300, pursuant > to Article 3 (commencing with Section 18900) of Chapter 1 of > Division 5 of Title 2, or pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with > Section 32700) of Chapter 6 of this division. Which provision applies? Many other rules are different if you are exempt under (1) for instance. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/131 "2016-05-04T18:27:40Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Several more hurdles actually. But the biggest problem I see is that it appears you’ve accessed the NICS database in an unauthorized fashion. That would be a prohibited depending on the fact pattern. > > And the exemption under CPC 31700 applies to the following: > > Which provision applies? Many other rules are different if you are exempt under (1) for instance. Provision 10. And I haven’t accessed the NICS database in an unauthorized fashion. It was a lawful NICS check pursuant to other activities performed by personnel authorized to run a NICS check on someone. Nice try. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/132 "2016-05-04T18:33:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Great - so if these two statements are equivalent - what is the effect of the word “ **all** ” in the second statement? Do you think it adds meaning, takes away meaning, or is superfluous? If you save the word “ban” for those times when you mean “all”, instead of using it dramatically for any and/or all those times you think restrictions are being made on guns, there would be no problem. If the Supreme Court ruled that abortions couldn’t be done after 36 weeks, would it be proper to say “The Supreme Court banned abortions!”? According to your logic, it would be o.k. because the sentence didn’t say “ALL abortions”…but I would see such a sentence as rather dishonest and rabble rousing. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/133 "2016-05-04T18:39:30Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Provision 10. And I haven’t accessed the NICS database in an unauthorized fashion. It was a lawful NICS check pursuant to other activities performed by personnel authorized to run a NICS check on someone. Nice try. Great, honorably retired military. Do you have a firearm safety (locking) device or can you prove that you own an approved gun safe? ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/134 "2016-05-04T18:43:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If you save the word “ban” for those times when you mean “all”, instead of using it dramatically for any and/or all those times you think restrictions are being made on guns, there would be no problem. If the Supreme Court ruled that abortions couldn’t be done after 36 weeks, would it be proper to say “The Supreme Court banned abortions!”? > According to your logic, it would be o.k. because the sentence didn’t say “ALL abortions”…but I would see such a sentence as rather dishonest and rabble rousing. I note you didn’t answer the questions posed. Can you do that? ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/135 "2016-05-04T18:46:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Great, honorably retired military. > > Do you have a firearm safety (locking) device or can you prove that you own an approved gun safe? Yes. I have a receipt for a gun safe that I purchased, and an affidavit certifying that the gun safe meets all State of California Department of Justice Regulatory Gun Safe Standards. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/136 "2016-05-04T18:53:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I note you didn’t answer the questions posed. Can you do that? Why don’t you just list all your questions now, so we can get them over with? I’m getting tired of “What about this?” “Well, what about this?” “Well, what about _this_?” I get that you are trying to frame the conversation in such a way so that, in some rare situation, I _might_ use the word “ban” to mean something other than “total restriction”, but I’m not in the mood to continue this crap if I don’t see an end in sight. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/137 "2016-05-04T18:56:59Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yes. I have a receipt for a gun safe that I purchased, and an affidavit certifying that the gun safe meets all State of California Department of Justice Regulatory Gun Safe Standards. Great! Are you addicted to or a user of any controlled substance? Have you purchased another handgun within the last 30 days? Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution? ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/138 "2016-05-04T18:59:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Great! > > Are you addicted to or a user of any controlled substance? > Have you purchased another handgun within the last 30 days? > Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution? Why don’t you just fucking print out the form, have him fill it out, and mail it back to you? :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/139 "2016-05-04T18:59:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Great! > > Are you addicted to or a user of any controlled substance? > Have you purchased another handgun within the last 30 days? > Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution? No, No, and No. ---
**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:** [May 4, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127/140 "2016-05-04T19:00:26Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > No, No, and No. Excellent! Do you want to buy a Glock 21 SF with an ambidextrous magazine release? Or how about a Springfield Armory XD-45 Tactical 5” Bi-Tone stainless steel/black handgun in .45 ACP? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-gun-control-advocates-effect-of-loosening-gun-laws/753127.md?page=8)