# Common sense reasonable gun laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275 "2015-12-12T22:18:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**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:** [December 17, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/201 "2015-12-17T14:59:44Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Nope. I thought I was all clever and stuff, but the [mandatory gun insurance](https://www.bing.com/search?q=mandatory+gun+insurance&form=EDGNTC&qs=AS&cvid=73a32bb8f01c42aeb9bc63fa2acf5621&pq=mandatory%20gun%20insurance)has some traction. I haven’t seen any common sense logic or well thought out arguments in this thread that would cause me to change my mind You don’t think the fact that by far the largest perpetrators of firearm crime would not acquire gun insurance to be a weakness in this proposal? Here’s a protip: no one who you wish to persuade takes the phrase “common sense” seriously. What you suggest is the opposite of common sense. You suggest something that will burden everyone but the people who should be burdened, and call that common sense. A proposal with limited efficacy, and a high cost. Something that has not been proposed outside of the gun control strongholds in certain counties, and only discussed at limited state levels and call that traction. Add to that the fact that insurance generally covers accidents, not intentional acts or illegal activity - and accidents make up a tiny fraction of gun related deaths. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/202 "2015-12-17T15:08:08Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If owning guns is ultimately stupid and harmful for society, what do you do in a democracy if a voting supermajority of people want them nonetheless? You allow them, or you get voted out of office (unless you successfully change the minds of the voters) and the next guy votes to allow them. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/203 "2015-12-17T16:12:42Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I got my definition by googling it, with hits from Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia, in case you suspect I pulled the definition out of my ass or something. Yeah… well your definition looks like you made it up after watching a couple of movies. You should stick with what the 1994 AW Ban defined as an assault weapon if you insist on using the term, because yours is ridiculous. If you can cite any definition of an assault weapon that includes being converted from full auto to semi auto at the point of civilian sales (I believe that’s what you said…) I’d appreciate it. That is against federal law by the way. > [@](#): > > There have been [353 mass shootings](http://www.shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015) in the US so far this year, so we’re obviously pulling data from different sources. In just mass shootings (ignoring single-victim shootings or suicides for the moment), 457 people were killed so far this year, 1,317 were wounded, for a total of 1,774 shot. I’m looking at the [FBI data](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls) for ALL homicides by firearm, not just “mass shootings”. The data is through 2013. Please note the number of times rifles were used then compare it to the number of deaths associated with handguns, and tell me why banning any sort of rifle, let alone the subset that you consider “assault weapons” would make a difference whatsoever? You’ll also note that more people are killed with knives, blunt objects, etc by 4-5 times than rifles. I know AWs look scary, but if you really want to look like a good pro gun-control type, you should at least know your numbers. Handguns are used far and away more than any other firearm combined for firearms deaths annually. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/204 "2015-12-17T16:45:08Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I got my definition by googling it, with hits from Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia, in case you suspect I pulled the definition out of my ass or something. I’ll add this. You used the term military grade assault rifle earlier, you described however what most call an assault weapon. The former is a highly regulated firearm and all new sales have been banned to civilians since 1986. They are essentially never used in crimes. If you really want to ban the sales of “military grade assault rifles” have at it. Of the 400,000,000 million firearms in the US, there are around 250,000 of them that are available for sale. If you want to ban semi auto rifles with telescoping stocks or pistol grips or flash hiders or bayonet lugs and detachable magazines, even though all of those things are cosmetic and don’t affect the functionality of the gun itself, use the proper terminology to avoid confusion. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/205 "2015-12-17T17:23:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You don’t think the fact that by far the largest perpetrators of firearm crime would not acquire gun insurance to be a weakness in this proposal? Sure it’s a weakness in this proposal. But need to start somewhere. The amount of pushback on insurance by legal gun owners is but a tiny blip compared with the pushback on requiring universal registration and responsibility until ownership has been legally transferred. I get that you think self-policing by gun owners is sufficient. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/206 "2015-12-17T17:26:21Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If owning guns is ultimately stupid and harmful for society, what do you do in a democracy if a voting supermajority of people want them nonetheless? One American way is to tax and regulate them. 😃 It is somewhat akin to smokers. If you want to smoke and accept the associated health risks, well have at it. I don’t want to be exposed to your second hand smoke in public places, and I’d certainly prefer if smokers paid more of their health related costs so my health insurance would go down. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/207 "2015-12-17T18:21:06Z")
Here’s an interesting write up that firearm related deaths now [exceed automobile related deaths](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/)in the US for the first time in more than 60 years. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/208 "2015-12-17T18:32:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Registration will significantly reduce the primary source of guns entering criminal hands. People selling guns to criminals. It wont’ turn off the flow of guns into criminal hands but it will restrict the flow enough without restricting guns in law abiding hands. > . Why and how would it do that? You understand that now, a new buyer fills a FFL form, right? Then the FBI can track a gun from Manufacturer to dealer to buyer, right? Does that stop buyers from re-selling now? Ever hear of shell corporations, nominees, and so forth? I was a Fed for twenty years myself- altho there remains certainly the chance of some really stupid criminals, registration really has no current law Enforcement purposes. Current gun owners look upon it simply as a gateway to mass confiscation. Altho I find that doubtful, it’s not crazy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/209 "2015-12-17T18:36:03Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Do I really have to explain the advantage to law enforcement, if a firearm is used to commit a crime, of the ability be able to quickly trace the serial number efficiently, and track down the owner? > . How many criminals do you think drop the gun at the scene of the crime? And, we can do that now. You run the serial #, Manufacturer, etc. They tell you which FFL dealer bought it. That FFL dealer can tell you who bought the gun from them. It’s of very little use to law enforcement. Mainly as when you do track down the owners, the gun turns up resold, lost or stolen almost every time. You proposal wouldnt change that. ---
**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:** [December 17, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/210 "2015-12-17T18:43:27Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If owning guns is ultimately stupid and harmful for society, what do you do in a democracy if a voting supermajority of people want them nonetheless? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You allow them, or you get voted out of office (unless you successfully change the minds of the voters) and the next guy votes to allow them. I thought that was pretty much what was happening; but allegedly it’s all the fault of the NRA, not the voters. > [@China\_Guy](#): > > Here’s an interesting write up that firearm related deaths now [exceed automobile related deaths](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/)in the US for the first time in more than 60 years. Is that because gun deaths are going up (I keep hearing the opposite) or that automobile deaths have gone down? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/211 "2015-12-17T19:14:40Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I thought that was pretty much what was happening; but allegedly it’s all the fault of the NRA, not the voters. If you’re talking about the overwhelming support for gun rights – at a basic level, it’s the “fault” of the founding fathers. They did include the Second Amendment, after all, and the US has had a gun culture since the beginning. If you’re talking about the incredible resistance to _any_ form of gun control or restrictions, like extending background checks to all purchases, then I think the NRA deserves some of the “blame” for that (if you think it’s a bad thing). I don’t believe the 2nd amendment and a commitment to private gun ownership is a bad thing, but I do believe that knee-jerk resistance to any form of gun control is a bad thing, and knee-jerk dismissal that some forms of gun control might be able to have some positive impact (even a small positive impact) on crime is a bad thing (for example – if it was illegal to manufacture and sell magazines larger than 10 rounds, then eventually there wouldn’t be many larger-than-10 round magazines any more, and killers who wanted to commit mass shootings might be slightly less effective in killing lots of people). In my view, it’s reasonable to support private ownership of guns, and it’s reasonable to have some restrictions on private ownership, including things like background checks and restrictions on magazine size or other physical characteristics of certain firearms (to a point). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/212 "2015-12-17T19:18:09Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Here’s an interesting write up that firearm related deaths now [exceed automobile related deaths](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/)in the US for the first time in more than 60 years. From your own cite: \*Over the same period gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths. \* **Gun homicide rates have actually fallen.** ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/213 "2015-12-17T19:19:35Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Is that because gun deaths are going up (I keep hearing the opposite) or that automobile deaths have gone down? _The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950…Over the same period gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths._ Large decline in car deaths, significant increase in suicides. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/214 "2015-12-17T19:26:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In my view, it’s reasonable to support private ownership of guns, and it’s reasonable to have some restrictions on private ownership, including things like background checks and restrictions on magazine size or other physical characteristics of certain firearms (to a point). I’ll add that while I support these policies, I think they would have only have a minor impact on crime in the US. As long as there are lots of guns in the US (and no commonly proposed regulations would do anything to affect this, and I doubt anything that could affect the amount of guns in the US would be constitutional), and as long as there are lots of people in relatively desperate circumstances, there will be lots of gun crime. When guns are ubiquitous, they will be easy for people to get if they really want one, no matter what the law says. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/215 "2015-12-17T19:56:14Z")
[quote=“Horatio\_Hellpop, post:162, topic:740275”] > [@](#): > > Are your First Amendment rights not satisfied with revolvers and the kind of long guns primarily associated with hunting? I have competed in IPSC handgun matches at various points in my past. > [@](#): > > If you own assault rifles, who exactly are you arming yourself against? Cartels? A negro revolt? Jack-booted thugs from the ATF? Are these rifles a realistic response to any of these possibilities? An AR pattern semi auto .223 is a pretty solid all around gun for hunting. there are tons of accessories for it and gunsmiths know it well. There are other non AR pattern .223 semi autos but nobody seems to care about them even though functionally they are the same gun. > [@](#): > > Theoretically, does the 2nd Amendment entitle you to own fragmentary grenades or Stinger missiles? No > [@](#): > > Are spiraling instances of mass shootings an acceptable trade-off for being able to party like Ted Nugent? Gun violence overall is still falling > [@](#): > > Is it possible for civilians to responsibly own weapons that have no civilian applications? Possible, yes, reasonable, not really. I dont know of any reason for civilians to own dedicated anti armor weapons like RPG’s or fragmentation grenades. ---
**Author:** ![Annadroid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Annadroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annadroid)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/216 "2015-12-17T20:19:31Z")
hhmmm Comparing firearms-related deaths with vehicle-related deaths? Deaths from vehicle crashes and the like have been reduced significantly by simply increasing the ability of the cabs to keep the critters inside them safe. I cannot see how the same concept can be reasonably applied to firearms. I like the insurance idea, but that still does nothing to curb the criminal element usage. Anyways, here in Canada we had a pretty good set of firearms regulations but I think over the years, enforcement got slack. The we had an incident where a college student killed some 14 other students. The government at the time went all reactionary and implemented laws that criminalized hard-working, honest people and did nothing to discourage illegal usage of firearms (and cost us taxpayers some $2 billion to do it). In fact, after this long-gun registration and licensing and whatnot was implemented, firearms violence increased. Not only that, but the hard-working, honest critters were pissed about being criminalized so they registered everything and anything they possessed that was even similar to firearms: things such as water guns, hair dryers, paint strippers, screw guns, etc. along with only partial registration of the firearms that fire bullets. In the meantime, I think firearms violence had been on the downswing. It has since continued on a downward path here in Canada. We used to have to have separate license for possession and acquisition, but those were combined into 1 license in Sept this year. We also need a permit for transportation purposes but that simply allows for transporting for a specified purpose (such as going from home to gun range) and does not allow for carrying a firearm for general purposes like the USA “carry permits”. And we still have to have hunting licenses, game tags, etc. Laws requiring registration changed so now we do not have to register unrestricted firearms but it is moot as we still have to have licenses. The Canadian government estimates that there are between approx. 2.5 million and approx. 15 million firearms in Canada and about 2 million are licensed. Most people outside government estimate far more. I think laws help a little bit against violence, but keeping proliferation in control would help more in the States, l think. The biggest factor that would help , I think, is changing attitude, as I mentioned earlier. A lot of Canadians seem to think that Americans have the attitude that they are still living in the old west. Whether it is the Canadian attitude that having firearms is a privilege more than a right or not, I have no idea, but as a farmer, hubby and I view firearms as tools no different than a gate in a fence, a screwdriver, our dozer or excavator, etc. and we can either use them for the purpose we bought them for (hunting and target-shooting) or we can abuse them for other purposes. Anyways, here is the RCMP’s page on our firearms program: [Firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police](http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Annadroid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Annadroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annadroid)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/217 "2015-12-17T20:21:18Z")
Oh, yeah, I also think that proper screening by authorities as to who may possess firearms makes a big difference, as well. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/218 "2015-12-17T20:21:58Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Then we have to agree to disagree. To me it is imminently sensible. You have your firearm, no one tells you how to secure it, actuarials will determine what the insurance premium should be, and you are the responsible owner until the ownership is officially registered as changing hands. It’s a common sense model. I get that a lot of firearm owners would see that infringing on the lax rules, regulations, laws and enforcement in place today, and cost you insurance premiums. In what way does this deal with mass shootings, or criminal use of a firearm? This is attacking the smallest weakest gun problem with a massive pile of legislation. I am pretty sure no insurance company on the planet is going to cover me, and will specifically exclude coverage, if I go all rambo at the mall. If you want a “common sense” approach to something like this I would say something like a $50 tax levied on any gun purchase that (as a matter of said law) only goes to a fund to which survivors of random gun violence could apply to help with medical bills. I don’t like it but it has a far more reasonable cost benefit situation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/219 "2015-12-17T20:29:31Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Hard to say, since that isn’t what I wrote. “Point blank”? Try copy-and-paste. > > I’m told by my cousin in Maryland that full-auto weapons are not available in gun shops. Maybe it’s different in your state? Sorry – that was copy/paste with Tapatalk, and evidently a weird spell check spasm. But my question remains: Can you give me an example of an assault rifle meeting your definition that is sold to civilians? ---
**Author:** ![Annadroid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Annadroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annadroid)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/220 "2015-12-17T20:47:34Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > If you want a “common sense” approach to something like this I would say something like a $50 tax levied on any gun purchase that (as a matter of said law) only goes to a fund to which survivors of random gun violence could apply to help with medical bills. I don’t like it but it has a far more reasonable cost benefit situation. I like that idea better than insurance. (Most insurance, IMO, is simply a way to suck people’s money from them without having to supply anything). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=12)