# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/61 "2015-12-14T06:16:44Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Changing the imprecise wording of the 2nd Amendment, or establishing a binding precedent that restricts assault rifles\* to police and military, could go a long way to inconveniencing mass shooters and not legitimate hunters/sportsmen/home defenders. There must be some solution, since no other developed nation in the world seems to have this problem on our scale. > > * * * > > \*And don’t trot out the bullshit trope that there’s no way to legally define “assault rifle.” Rifles generally associated with game hunting can’t be converted to full automatic, whereas Bushmasters, AK-47s, AR-15s _et al_ are good for little else. The combination of ignorance and confidence is jaw dropping. Assault rifles are machine guns. I think you mean assault weapon. Easy enough mistake. What is all this nonsense about easy conversion to fully automatic. I don’t think you know wtf you are talking about. If you file down the firing pin in ANY semi-automatic gun (including lots of hunting rifles) the gun will go full automatic but not like you think. In a machine gun, if you pull the trigger the bullets start firing and will stop firing when you release the trigger. If you file down the firing pin, when you pull the trigger the bullets start firing and you really have no control over when they stop firing. Machine guns are not really a good argument for your side. > **[Fully automatic guns in the US are highly regulated, and regulation works](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years)** > > When most of us think of an "assault rifle" we think of the fully automatic Tommy guns used by Al Capone's henchmen during prohibition. Did you know those guns have been restricted since FDR? > > ... In what world is an AR-15 and AK-47s good for little else other than being converted to full automatic (BTW Bushmater is the name of a manufacturer, like Colt, its not a type of gun). It seems like you are long on opinions and emotion and really short on facts and knowledge. These are not the only machine gun deaths but the machine guns deaths account for such a teeny tiny fraction of overall deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/62 "2015-12-14T06:23:22Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > I think a common sense law is that make gun owners are responsible for their piece . I grew up in the country around guns. > > The broad strokes (and let’s not nit pick away please) are: > > 1. firearm liability insurance is mandatory. It’s somewhat akin to private automobile insurance. > 2. firearms are registered to an owner, who is then responsible for that piece until there is a clear transfer of ownership. In other words, you loan it to your cousin and it’s used illegally by your cousin (or your cousin’s “friend”), then you have criminal and/or civil liablity. If you transfer registration then of course the new owner is the one that is liable. Of course there will be some outlandish scenarios that might need an exception but the OP is for common sense > 3. No one tells you how to secure your piece in your home. However, you are criminally and/or civilly on the hook if there is a gun accident in your home. Or if there is a young child tragedy. Or if your piece is just lying next to the bedroom and it’s stolen, you have some kind of responsibility as you didn’t properly prevent it from being stolen. Again, not here to dictate what is safe or how to store it in your home, but no free pass if tragedy happens. I think that’s a fair deal. You’re confident the piece is “secured” (however you define it) and if it’s not then it’s on you. > > IMHO the above is a pretty American solution. You own a piece, you are personally responsible. Full stop. Yu have to have insurance so there is at lease some coverage if your piece causes a tragedy. If you use your piece to defend your home, property or person in a legal manner, then of course there is no liability. The notion that you would hold someone who has committed no crime criminally liable for the actions of others is nonsense. The notion that you would hold someone crimianlly liable for a gun that is stolen from them regardless of what precautions they took is beyond nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/63 "2015-12-14T06:28:13Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Okay. Should gun ownership or possession be among them? Like the post before this one, I think gun owners should be more and not less responsible for their property, but I’ll entertain counter-arguments if you want to make one. It is a constitutional right with no less constitutional protection that the right to freedom of the press and free speech. If you want to start undermining constitutional rights because you don’t like this ONE constitutional right then you really can’t complain if someone comes along and tries to undermine the ones you like. If you don’t think n it should be a constitutional right then it is up to YOUR side to get 2/3rds of each house and 3/4ths of the states to repeal the second amendment. Whinging about an omnipotent gun rights lobby just makes you look ineffective and weak. There is nothing special about the NRa other than the fact that there are a lot of folks who are otherwise apathetic voters who will go to the polls if someone is fucking with their gun rights. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/64 "2015-12-14T06:30:11Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I don’t know for sure, and you don’t know for sure. One real possibility is that he or she is going to sell it to a stranger met on the Internet, or in a gun show parking lot, with no background check. As I said, I don’t know for sure, but I think it is much more likely that a 21st gun will be sold, with or without a background check, during the owner’s lifetime, than with a first gun. > > If he or she doesn’t sell it, in a personal sale or through a dealer, and maintains the firearm in a reasonable condition, that 21st gun will become part of the estate. If the heir is someone like me, it will then be destroyed by our local police. But, in most cases, it be transferred to another owner, and then transferred to another owner, and then transferred to another owner, until it either becomes permanently non-functional or used to shoot someone. > > Would the gun buyers buy new if a used one wasn’t available? Not necessarily, because the large number of used guns on the market keeps down their price. Cheaper guns mean more gun owners. > > And the more guns in a society, the more people who are likely to be shot. This is bad news for future generations of Americans: > > [The average gun owner now owns 8 guns — double what it used to be](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/) You realize that none of this is compelling or convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/65 "2015-12-14T06:36:59Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > In a mass-shooting scenario–and we have those–a lot of theatre-goers or students or other people who rightly expect not to get shot that day are having their rights curtailed by (often) a man with multiple firearms with him. In my worldview, the unarmed many’s rights are a little more compelling than the excessively-armed one’s. This makes me “ignorant”? No, your ignorance makes you ignorant. And in a democracy I don’t really have to give a shit about one person’s world view, especially if that person’s world view is informed by a whole lot of ignorance that the person doesn’t seem to want to remedy. > [@](#): > > There is a point you cross where you stop being a hunter/sportsman and start being an armed menace, just like there’s a point where you stop being a cat lover and start being of legitimate concern to your neighbors and the health department. For gun owners, where is the limit? More than six and less than 5000, but where? I don’t know where the line should be drawn, but you seem pretty sure that such a line should not exist. Yes I’m pretty sure that the limit you are talking about does not exist. > [@](#): > > The FCC limits, for instance, how many local radio and television stations you can own in a single market and takes a dim view of monopolies among publishers in towns with multiple newspapers. So in a sense, yes, no, and maybe, respectively. Well if they were only going to let one person have all the guns then I would have a problem with that too. > [@](#): > > Quite a bit. In this country, how you feel about gun control depends a lot on where you live, and the judges you elect reflect the standards of your community. Judges elected in big cities, and in the North and Northeast, would tend to favor limited gun control measures. Judges in rural areas, and in the South and Southwest, would tend to oppose such measures. WTF!!! So you think constitutional rights should be subject to local standards? Jim Crow would like to have a word with you. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/66 "2015-12-14T06:39:55Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > If you have fifty holes on your license during its ten-year cycle–signaling ten guns bought, regardless of how long you held on to each gun, made by a federally-licensed gun dealer–you may need a personal wake-up call. If the police examine your license in regards to a local shooting, that might be the wake-up call you need. > > Gun owners tend to frame this as a dispute between law-abiding citizens and insane criminal madmen whose actions cannot reasonably be predicted. Gun control advocates frame it as a conflict between people who do and don’t own guns–and you guys are doing all the fucking mass murders! And THERE it is. Conflating gun owners with criminals. Its pretty much why you don’t give a shit about the rights of gun owners because they are virtually criminals anyway just by owning a gun. Lots of emotion not a lot of knowledge. A potent brew. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/67 "2015-12-14T06:42:37Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > If loaning your piece out to the wrong person means there is a risk of losing your house and having wages garnished for the rest of your life if lax control of your weapon enables a Sandy Hook, then IMHO there would be a decline in straw buyers and “responsible” gun owners might even become more responsible than is the case today. It also wouldn’t matter if it’s a Saturday Night Special, AK47 or a hunting rifle. That really just sounds like you want to fuck with gun owners. the chances of passing a law like that are much MUCH lower than licensing and registration (which would do the same thing) but you want to punish gun owners and fuck with them. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/68 "2015-12-14T06:47:14Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Ummm, you have a cite for alternative gun control option that the NRA actually consistently supports? I’m not being snarky, but IMHO haven’t seen anything that the NRA supports that in any way shape nor form falls into a definition of gun control. I guess you missed the post about a page upthread. > [@](#): > > I’m a simple guy. As of today, there isn’t much, if any prosecution, if a “responsible gun owner” is not actually in fact responsible. In fact, seems like there is less responsibility to owning a firearm than there is to owning a passenger vehicle or for that matter an attractive nuisance like a trampoline in the back yard. > > If you secure your piece, then everything is kosher. So if my reasonably secure gun gets stolen, I’m free and clear of anything that someone does with my gun, right? > [@](#): > > If you sell your piece on the internet, at a gun show, at a swap meet, to your “cousin”, well then you’re an enabler, NOT a responsible gun owner, and should not get a free pass. Again, I’m not here to tell you how to secure your weapon, but if shit happens and your weapon ain’t secure, well then \*you \*need to pay a “_substantial_” price. I think that is eminently sensible, and in line with common sense. Your idea is stupid. ---
**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 14, 2015, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/69 "2015-12-14T08:45:47Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I identify myself pretty blatantly when I enjoy my first amendment rights, or my fourth or fifth. What’s your point? This is incredibly ignorant. Anonymity in speech has been expressly protected - see SCOTUS cases Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, among others. Unless you are the subject of reasonable suspicion, you are not required to divulge your identity or be subject to search. It’s kind of silly to suggest you can exercise your fifth amendment rights anonymously. How would that even work? In summary, your post is a poorly conceived counter point. ---
**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 14, 2015, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/70 "2015-12-14T08:52:38Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Ummm, you have a cite for alternative gun control option that the NRA actually consistently supports? I’m not being snarky, but IMHO haven’t seen anything that the NRA supports that in any way shape nor form falls into a definition of gun control. The NRA supported the [The NICS Improvement Act.](http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49) > [@](#): > > The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms. Most states still either do not report, or report very very little. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/71 "2015-12-14T08:55:15Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I identify myself pretty blatantly when I enjoy my first amendment rights, or my fourth or fifth. What’s your point? My point is that you have weaseled away from giving an answer to my question. Do you have any objection to forcing Jews to identify themselves by wearing yellow stars before they can exercise their freedom of religion? Whether you choose to identify yourself blatantly before you exercise some of your rights has no bearing on whether you think it is acceptable to force other people to do so. So, now, can I have an honest answer to my question? ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/72 "2015-12-14T16:45:20Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > My point is that you have weaseled away from giving an answer to my question. > > Do you have any objection to forcing Jews to identify themselves by wearing yellow stars before they can exercise their freedom of religion? Godwin’s Law, much? Of course it’s wrong to force Jews to wear a yellow star. In this country, the way most people exercise their freedom of religion is to attend a very public religious service. I’m not even sure how you would go about exercising your freedom of religion anonymously–is Bokononism a thing now? Are Santeria cults more widespread than I’ve been led to believe? > [@](#): > > Whether you choose to identify yourself blatantly before you exercise some of your rights has no bearing on whether you think it is acceptable to force other people to do so. > > So, now, can I have an honest answer to my question? You’re asserting the right to anonymously own, possess and carry firearms. Not sure where you think this right emanates from, but no, I don’t think you have such a right. If any of your guns have a serial number that’s filed off or traceable to anyone but you, you’re weasely and dishonest if you claim it’s legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/73 "2015-12-14T16:47:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s kind of silly to suggest you can exercise your fifth amendment rights anonymously. How would that even work? It doesn’t, and that’s quite the opposite of what I said. Go back and read it again, more slowly. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/74 "2015-12-14T17:38:43Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > You’re asserting the right to anonymously own, possess and carry firearms. Not sure where you think this right emanates from… From the Second Amendment. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you have such a right. You’re mistaken. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/75 "2015-12-14T17:53:31Z")
Unless the 2nd Amendment has been rewritten recently, “concealed carry” for civilians is not directly addressed. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/76 "2015-12-14T18:15:30Z")
Did you know that “bear” and “carry” are synonyms? You could look it up! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/77 "2015-12-14T18:22:48Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Unless the 2nd Amendment has been rewritten recently, “concealed carry” for civilians is not directly addressed. Try again. True. And unless the First Amendment has been rewritten recently, ink is not directly addressed. But I suspect, if the government tried to control the press by banning ink unless it was used for printing approved material only, you’d assert that the First Amendment was violated. True? ---
**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 14, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/78 "2015-12-14T18:26:49Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > It doesn’t, and that’s quite the opposite of what I said. Go back and read it again, more slowly. The point is, there is no way to exercise the 5th anonymously so there is no counterfactual. Your other points about the first and fourth have already been shown to be false. You were wrong. Do you see that now? ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/79 "2015-12-14T18:49:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The point is, there is no way to exercise the 5th anonymously so there is no counterfactual. Your other points about the first and fourth have already been shown to be false. You were wrong. Do you see that now? No, but if you stamp your foot and say it again with a furrowed brow, someone might think you’re being authoritative. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/80 "2015-12-14T19:23:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. And unless the First Amendment has been rewritten recently, ink is not directly addressed. > > But I suspect, if the government tried to control the press by banning ink unless it was used for printing approved material only, you’d assert that the First Amendment was violated. > > True? “Freedom of the Press” and “Freedom of Speech” still mean essentially the same thing today that they meant in the 1780s, and are applied much the same way to new media as they have been to old. Although the First Amendment didn’t mention things like “radio” or “the internet,” the intent of the authors was clear enough that subsequent lawmakers understood political and other discourse on new media to be protected. “The right to bear arms” is different. Semi- and converted full-automatic rifles with large capacity ammunition clips weren’t anticipated by George Mason and company in 1787, and neither were the kind of mass shootings we’ve seen in the last 20-30 years. The Supreme Court needs to address what the Second Amendment means in the modern age. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=5)