# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2015, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/261 "2015-12-19T05:39:17Z")
> **[Log into Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/noelomfjs/posts/384643008412974)** > > Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know. The gun control lobby’s chief researcher? ---
**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 19, 2015, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/262 "2015-12-19T06:03:57Z")
Nice Bricker. Your legal mind is pretty interesting. But this is pure partisan bullshit without even an emoticon playing to some kind of fantasy fan base that was forwarded to you? Mao on a pogo stick, you can do better than linking to some stoopid Facebook page forwarded to you that has some dippy dumbass confusing drill bits with bullets like it’s some kind of authoritative anti gun nut site. Shesh, are you even trying? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![ziper1221](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a183cd/32.png) [@ziper1221](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ziper1221)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2015, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/263 "2015-12-19T06:57:11Z")
In an effort to move this topic more toward its start, here would be my proposal for gun control reform: Eliminate restrictions on 1 Length- Someone can turn something from a legal firearm to an illegal one in 10 minutes with a hacksaw. Why even regulate this? 2 Supressors- They dont work like in the movies, and mostly just keep you from losing your hearing. All manually repeating or C&R firearms could be sold either in a private sale or through FFLs if being sold from a dealer. Autoloading firearms MUST be sold through an FFL, with background checks. I am not sure about full-auto weapons. They are, after all, military weapons, so it would seem that they would be of great use to a militia, and ought to pass under my limited understanding of Miller. I do not think they would be that useful for untrained hoodlums anyway. They phased out full auto M14s for a reason. (I remember a story about a policeman who seemed to place a lot of importance on the fact that a criminal fired on him with an SKS that had the sear filed down to fire full-auto. He was only hit twice, and recovered ok. He did not seem to realize that if it was still semi-automatic the criminal would have been more likely to hit him with the follow up shots, and it was the full auto nature of the rifle that actually helped him). I am very curious about the outcome of Hollis v Lynch. ---
**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 19, 2015, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/264 "2015-12-19T07:19:46Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > End state is a “reasonable” level of crimes and deaths from firearms. No one can tell you now if plan A will work and that’s all that is required. Plan A gets implemented and maybe that leads to the need for Plan B. That ain’t a slippery slope, that’s common sense. IMHO it’s asinine to demand one tiny incremental solution that will fix the firearms issue once and for all, and if you can’t guarantee that will happen then it isn’t worth even attempting to try. I feel like a primer on effective communication when discussing gun issues would be a big help here, but I’m not sure if I’m too lazy to do it. Rather than use loaded language like “reasonable”, why not put a stake in the ground at what level you think that is and let the reader determine if they agree if that is reasonable to them? I also want a reasonable level of crimes and deaths - yay we agree! Equivocating on this type of loaded terminology is meaningless. You complain of the slipperly slope argument while at the same time engaging in it. Try A, if that doesn’t work, try B, then C, then D, and you call that common sense. How about evaluate each proposal on their merits, is that asinine? Things like AWB which have small benefits and large costs, yet get pushed repeatedly. Is that asinine? Is it asinine that a proposal need demonstrate even potential for efficacy? You want to create with fingers crossed an entire new line of insurance and turn upside down theories of liability while acknowledging that it wouldn’t do that much given the inherent weaknesses. But that is what you’d want to see attempted. > [@](#): > > Sure, there is a tiny percentage of folks that want zero private firearm ownership. I’m not one of them. Just like there is a tiny percentage of folks that think having completely unrestricted private gun ownership without limitation is the right way to go. The vast majority of the middle ground are not going after zero private firearm ownership or anything close to it. Again, you label folks as extremists, as if there is a binary criteria for evaluating the spectrum of folks. But it’s the loudest voices proposing stupid shit like AWBs so what are they? Just good people using common sense for reasonable gun laws? > [@](#): > > Methinks it’s raging firearm fetish paranoia that believes any firearm control is a gun grabber play for zero firearm ownership. Just 'cause there are extremists that are really vocal about it and want zero firearm ownership doesn’t mean that is what the majority or even a credible minority of Americans want. Correlation does not prove causation. Again, IMHO its raging paranoia. And here is where your argument falls apart. It’s been obvious from the get go, but you attribute disagreement from those who oppose your proposals to firearm fetish paranoia. If that underlies your arguments, they can’t be taken seriously. Given heads of the CDC, and VPC, Handgun Control Inc (Brady), the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (CSGV), Op-Eds in the LA Times and the front page of the NY Times, among others have called for outright bans and they are the ones often cited and referenced, you’ll understand when people take them at their word and believe them when they say they want to ban guns. Maybe not all guns, but some. And this is what you may not realize, a ban on some will be treated as a ban. [“It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed.”](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) > [@](#): > > It ain’t no different from “need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” and arm school teachers and make everywhere in the US of A a free fire zone gun nuts. Extremists on both sides are, well, extremists by definition. So howsabout we don’t trot out that meme? Of I can just exit stage left if there is nothing to debate since everything is a slippery slope. Here’s the thing, a bad guy with a gun is often stopped by a good guy with a gun. Mostly it’s the police - with guns. Do you dispute that? Do you think that’s extreme to recognize that? And [here’s the thing about slippery slopes](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.pdf): > [@](#): > > I think the most useful definition of a slippery slope is one that covers > all situations where decision A, which you might find appealing, ends > up materially increasing the probability that others will bring about > decision B, which you oppose. 12 If you are faced with the pragmatic > question “Does it make sense for me to support A, given that it might > lead others to support B?,” you should consider all the mechanisms > through which A might lead to B, whether they are logical or psychological, > judicial or legislative, gradual or sudden. You should consider > these mechanisms whether or not you think that A and B are on a > continuum where B is in some sense more of A, a condition that would > in any event be hard to define precisely. 13 You should think about the > entire range of possible ways that A can change the conditions - > whether those conditions are public attitudes, political alignments, > costs and benefits, or what have you - under which others will consider > B. Choice A may have many mechanisms to make B more likely, and it need not be direct for their to be sufficient justification to oppose A. So not everything is a slippery slope and nothing can be done - but any proposal has a high hurdle to overcome which at a minimum must demonstrate substantial benefits. > [@](#): > > And I look at the pushback in this thread on anything that might make guns owners accountable. What would you propose to make responsible gun owners actually accountable beyond good intentions? And here is where your argument utterly fails. Why should gun owners be accountable for crimes of other people not themselves? Gun owners are not some monolithic group that has collective guilt when there is a tragedy. If a person commits a crime or injures another - they should be held accountable and no one else. You are trying to push this bizarre notion of responsibility and culpability that is simply nonsense. ---
**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 19, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/265 "2015-12-19T17:07:56Z")
I’ve made proposals that puts the onus on firearm owners. You don’t want that onus and label any discussion as a gun grabber wanting a 100% ban on civilian ownership. Not a lot to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/266 "2015-12-19T18:04:47Z")
Gawrsh! Ya think? ---
**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 19, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/267 "2015-12-19T18:27:41Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > I’ve made proposals that puts the onus on firearm owners. You don’t want that onus and label any discussion as a gun grabber wanting a 100% ban on civilian ownership. Not a lot to discuss. If you started out saying that law abiding gun owners should be held responsible for the actions of people who do not follow the law or injure others, it would have been a lot more straightforward. And that is a big problem with the approach you propose - you explicitly want to burden those who are not responsible for the actions you are trying to prevent. It would be like saying, you’re human, humans commit all murders, so you as a human are responsible whenever there is a murder. And also replace “murder” with every bad thing you can think of. Sounds like reasonable common sense! ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/268 "2015-12-19T19:18:22Z")
Collectivist mentality. “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few”, although immoral in my opinion, is at least arguable if the good of the many is actually benefited by the policies one is proposing. Gun control in America does no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/269 "2015-12-19T19:31:18Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Nice Bricker. Your legal mind is pretty interesting. But this is pure partisan bullshit without even an emoticon playing to some kind of fantasy fan base that was forwarded to you? Mao on a pogo stick, you can do better than linking to some stoopid Facebook page forwarded to you that has some dippy dumbass confusing drill bits with bullets like it’s some kind of authoritative anti gun nut site. Shesh, are you even trying? :smack: Are you? By this characterization, you seem to believe your posts that attempt to offer factual information about guns, or the law, are accurate, in contrast to this poor Facebook user who cannot tell the difference between drill bits and ammunition. But from my point of view, the factual inaccuracy of your assertions is not much different from the inaccuracy of that Facebook poster. Your mistakes, in other words, are at a similar level; your conviction and pride in your lack of knowledge is similarly mirrored. Do you disagree? Do you think your errors are somehow more understandable than hers? If you do, why? ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/270 "2015-12-20T01:09:33Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Whatever dude. Your motivations are suspect because you want the freedom of owning firearms but not take any personal responsibility that can be verified. And if want world peace before embarking on fixing the firearm issue, then that doesn’t leave room for a discussion. Yes, I do want the freedom to own a firearm. I’m already personally responsible in a verifiable way. You’re little line about “wanting world peace before fixing the firearm issue”, which you’ve used a couple times, is 100% USDA certified strawman. If your true concern is saving lives, why wouldn’t you work big to small? ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/271 "2015-12-20T01:16:46Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > My side? That’s paranoia talking and it’s infuriating. I’m not on a “side”, I just happen to think that the current situation is fucked up, want to work on unfucking it, and run into > > I grew up with “you are responsible for securing your piece.” You disagree and think that your best effort is good enough and you don’t have responsibility if your best effort isn’t good enough. That’s accountability. Let me give a simple example. Dick Cheney nailed some guy with [shotgun pellets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident), but that was okay for whatever reason instead of castigating Dick for not knowing what he was shooting at. Nobody disagrees a gun owner is responsible for securing his property. It’s nonsense to say otherwise. It’s also nonsense to think your registry would make any gun any more secure. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2015, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/272 "2015-12-20T01:17:56Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > bite me ya sissy 😃 Cogent argument. ---
**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 20, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/273 "2015-12-20T01:31:25Z")
Move the goalposts much? Q: firearm violence, death, wounding, etc is or is not a problem that should be addressed in the USofA? Enrique Marquez was a straw buyer and transferred his firearms to Syed Rizwan Farook. This is something that all “legal” firearm owners could do without oversight. Something is fucked up with this situation. How would y’all want to change laws, registration requirements and financial requirements to at least improve this situation? Bricker - I think you’re mixing me up with others in the thread. What are my errors pray tell that are even close to conflagrating drill bits with bullets? ---
**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 20, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/274 "2015-12-20T01:36:23Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Move the goalposts much? > > Q: firearm violence, death, wounding, etc is or is not a problem that should be addressed in the USofA? > > Enrique Marquez was a straw buyer and transferred his firearms to Syed Rizwan Farook. This is something that all “legal” firearm owners could do without oversight. Something is fucked up with this situation. How would y’all want to change laws, registration requirements and financial requirements to at least improve this situation? If Marquez did that in CA, he was in violation of CA law as it is not permissible to transfer firearms without going through an FFL in CA. Going through an FFL would require a background check and a 10 day waiting period in CA. Did you know that? Since you say that all legal firearm owners could do that without oversight which is factually untrue, I think it’s safe to say you did not know that. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/275 "2015-12-20T02:47:57Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Cogent argument. For the record, China Guy calling me a “sissy” was a humorous response to me calling him a “rat bastard”. I took no offense. (I even chuckled a little.) ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2015, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/276 "2015-12-20T02:54:54Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > For the record, China Guy calling me a “sissy” was a humorous response to me calling him a “rat bastard”. > > I took no offense. (I even chuckled a little.) Duly noted. I think we need an insult registry, so people who use insults (hereafter referred to as “your piece”) will be visited with a shit storm from Uncle Sugar. ---
**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 20, 2015, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/277 "2015-12-20T03:03:05Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Except we will probably never reach an end state of a “reasonable” level of crimes and deaths from firearms. Sure maybe the majority today don’t want a 100% ban on guns; but every time the current level of restrictiveness failed to prevent another massacre, there would be calls to push it back even further. And in the process of trying, gun ownership would be successively pushed back and back and back. If not to zero guns, then some regimen so limited it would be a mockery of any “right” to own weapons for self-defense. Say, no semi-automatics at all; no revolvers larger than 6-shot .38 Specials, and those are strictly May Issue that maybe one person in 10,000 can get a permit for; for hunting, breach-loading shotguns and single-shot rifles that to own you have to be fingerprinted, bonded, and you have to turn them into the local police for storage when you’re not using them. Strict limits on how much ammunition you can buy per year; etc. etc. And the end result would probably look more like Mexico than Britain: a disarmed public while criminals could get all the firepower they need. It would probably be as futile and as socially destructive as the War On Drugs. > > As for “need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” and arm school teachers and make everywhere in the US of A a free fire zone gun", I personally would love to see that given a try, at least in some local or regional venue. I strongly suspect it would be astonishingly successful. > [@China\_Guy](#): > > Whatever, We have to agree to disagree on the slippery slope. IMHO opinion you’re a loon, and IYHO you’re a freedom loving patriot. Not much to debate is there? Just out of curiosity, which of the points that I posted do you disagree with? That “reasonable” gun control would fail to achieve its stated goal? That in reaction further restrictions would be applied? That a next-to-zero guns policy would be called for if lesser measures didn’t give the desired results? That a black market in illegal guns would make a mockery of the gun laws? Or that a population where 1/4 or more of people in public routinely went armed would give positive results? Since the last has to the best of my knowledge never actually been tried, that’s why I said it would make a fascinating experiment. ---
**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 20, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/278 "2015-12-20T03:50:57Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Just out of curiosity, which of the points that I posted do you disagree with? That “reasonable” gun control would fail to achieve its stated goal? That in reaction further restrictions would be applied? That a next-to-zero guns policy would be called for if lesser measures didn’t give the desired results? That a black market in illegal guns would make a mockery of the gun laws? Or that a population where 1/4 or more of people in public routinely went armed would give positive results? Since the last has to the best of my knowledge never actually been tried, that’s why I said it would make a fascinating experiment. What I think is needed is something that you probably won’t think is reasonable. Hopefully, the Supremes will get some cases that help define this since a new amendment is a pretty difficult thing to achieve in practical terms. No one can guarantee that step one will fix the problem once and for all. And if step one doesn’t fix the problem, then step two is needed. I totally get that this is a slippery slope but seems like common sense to me. This isn’t a concealed 100% gun grabber strategy, it’s step by step until until it works. “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue” Chicago way approach. I’m of the school that they pull a knife, you don’t set off a nuclear weapon as the first response, hence necessitating ramping up the response if the initial results are insufficient. I also remember the laws against drunk driving that started with a pretty high blood alcohol level and pretty weak fines. Enforcement has increased, BAC thresholds have gone down, fines (and associated insurance premiums) have gone up. Much as I enjoyed driving drunk back in the 70’s with little risk, I think the current state of drunk driving affairs is “better”, although it inconveniences me. I’m not a next to zero private ownership of guns guy, so you’ll have to ask someone who is. I’m not a zero guns guy, so you’ll have to ask someone who is. Hell, I want to reserve the right to go get my own piece whenever I feel the need. IMHO, insurance on a firearm ain’t no different than the attractive nuisance I carry on my house since I have a trampoline in the backyard. YMMV. I would love for funding for some real studies on gun use, ownership, risks, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but seems like the NRA and extremist second amendmenters have lobbied very successfully to severely limit funding for such studies such as from the CDC. I don’t blame the lobbiests (well I do as they are rat bastard scum like most lobbiests) as much as the spineless beholden congress critters that are too afraid to get some actual data so both sides have an unbiased source. The funding also ties into tracking the effect of your 1/4 of the population routinely goes armed (and IMHO 1/4 seems really high for practically what most firearm owners would actually want but I could be wrong). I would be happy for someone to actually provide numbers but even at the most armed wild wild west days I’m pretty sure 1/4 of the population didn’t go out and about armed with a firearm? For your 1/4 proposition. I’m open to that if a) there is funding to actually track what the real life results are and b) you carry insurance in case legal firearm owner judgement actually turns out to be poor and increases the problem. And the insurance is self adjusting. If There are miniscule issues, then premiums drop. You have a bunch of bad things happen, then your insurance goes up. You have insurance for a firearm in the home at one level (and you decide how that firearm is secured), you want concealed carry then that price goes up. It’s really close to car ownership insurance where a Prius is one price, a Ferrari is another, and they look at your driving record. This is what I want to see, and I believe over time that would reduce firearm related deaths and violence. 1. firearm owners need to have insurance much akin to personal vehicles 2. There does need to be universal registry for legal owners. You aren’t on the registry by definition then you are illegal and should pay the price 3. Gun owners are responsible until their is a clear transfer of ownership to someone legally entitled to purchase the firearm. 4. The government doesn’t tell you how to keep your weapon safe in your home. But,by the same token, if there is an accident or it’s no longer in your possession (and you have not reported it stolen), then owners have clear responsibility and insurance to cover at least some of the societal cost. 5. You aren’t a “legal firearm owner” then a shit rain comes down on your head. 6. I wanna be able to buy my piece whenever I feel the desire. ---
**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 20, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/279 "2015-12-20T03:57:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If Marquez did that in CA, he was in violation of CA law as it is not permissible to transfer firearms without going through an FFL in CA. Going through an FFL would require a background check and a 10 day waiting period in CA. Did you know that? Since you say that all legal firearm owners could do that without oversight which is factually untrue, I think it’s safe to say you did not know that. Dude, by definition, Marquez \*was \*a legal firearm owner in CA. That he was able to so easily give his guns to a terrorist despite the laws on the books at least suggests that the laws or the penalties are insufficient. Any firearm owner in CA could do the same thing, even though it’s illegal, suggests that something is fucked up. It’s not factually untrue. It’s practically what happens. So forgive me if “legal gun owners” responsibility to prevent guns going to the black market is much of a deterrent or a comfort level to those of us that disagree that gun owners self responsibility is adequate to the demands. Q: what oversight does any government body have if you unilaterally give your firearm to someone else? Are you required to report the transfer of ownership? Do you pay real penalties for not doing so? ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2015, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/280 "2015-12-20T04:03:01Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > 1. firearm owners need to have insurance much akin to personal vehicles. Doing this would add considerable cost to owning a firearm. How is that not an infringement? > [@China\_Guy](#): > > 1. There does need to be universal registry for legal owners. You aren’t on the registry by definition then you are illegal and should pay the price. What will the registry do to prevent gun crime? > [@China\_Guy](#): > > 1. Gun owners are responsible until their is a clear transfer of ownership to someone legally entitled to purchase the firearm. . Gun owners are already responsible for the use of their gun while it is in fact their gun. How does the registry change this? > [@China\_Guy](#): > > 1. The government doesn’t tell you how to keep your weapon safe in your home. But,by the same token, if there is an accident or it’s no longer in your possession (and you have not reported it stolen), then owners have clear responsibility and insurance to cover at least some of the societal cost. If the government can tell you that you must put your name on a list, what prevents them from telling you how to store your firearm? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=15)