# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/81 "2015-12-14T19:31:51Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > My short list would be: > No one who has been i… on a terrorist watch list, … may be issued a gun license and any person who has one who acquires one of these statuses is required to relinquish their license. > > -People on a terror watchlist be prohibited from buying guns > . The terror watchlist is bogus. You dont have to go thru a court or a hearing to be put on one, and in fact you can be effectively on one if your name is just very similar to someone on it. You would have no idea you’re on it, and no real process to be taken off one. The watchlist is just a tool and a pretty bad one. Even the Government agree it’s very inaccurate, about 35% inaccurate. It’s a very poor idea. > **[No Fly List](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List)** > > The No Fly List, maintained by the United States federal government's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), is one of several lists included in algorithmic rulesets used by government agencies and airlines to decide who to allow to board airline flights. The TSC's No Fly List is a list of people who are prohibited from boarding commercial aircraft for travel within, into, or out of the United States. This list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that do not have start- o Th... > **[Terrorist Screening Database](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database)** > > The Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) is the central terrorist watchlist consolidated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terrorist Screening Center and used by multiple agencies to compile their specific watchlists and for screening. The list was created after the September 11 attacks. > The TSDB is overseen by the FBI Terrorist Screening Center. It was created after the September 11 attacks. A 2007 report by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General stated that the TS... The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General has criticized the list for frequent errors and slow response to complaints. An Office of Inspector General audit found that 38% of a 105 record sample contained inaccuracies. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/82 "2015-12-14T19:40:43Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > “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… Could you show the evidence for this? I am reluctant to simply take your word for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/83 "2015-12-14T19:41:11Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Yes, I’m the freak and [this guy](http://www.attn.com/stories/4528/south-carolina-man-gun-stockpile?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=internal) is a reasonable patriot. No, he’s been arrested for receiving stolen property. He’s apparently not a gun collector, but a guy who buys and sells stolen guns. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/84 "2015-12-14T19:49:58Z")
I can’t imagine that “no guns for anyone on a terror watch list” could withstand a court challenge. But I’d appreciate if one of our resident legal experts would weigh in. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/85 "2015-12-14T20:05:38Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > “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. Nor did they anticipate desktop computers however the 1st and 4th amendment still applies to things we say and searching them for evidence of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/86 "2015-12-14T20:17:36Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Your detector would kill more people than the guns would. Anything that can detect a piece of lead inside a metal box at range is going to be putting out enough radiation that you’re probably justified in shooting anyone who points it at you. Point noted. I am not knowledgeable in the details of the current state of various imaging technologies that might detect a specific element accurately. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/87 "2015-12-14T20:34:20Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > “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. This is absolutely false. Reginald Cooper, alive in 1790, could hand-crank his press and produce some broadsheets. Getting those distributed instantly to the entire country was simply impossible; his news traveled as fast as a horse and was limited by how much that horse could carry. The new media means that I can blog about something and have it go viral in an hour and be read by anyone from Fairbanks, Alaska to Fairfax, Virginia. That kind of instant reach wasn’t anticipated by George Mason and company any more than semi-auto handguns were. In fact, given the evolution of firearms, I’d suggest that Reggie’s contemporaries could much more easily extrapolate the development of faster rates of fire in guns than they could an “Internet.” So, you’re completely and utterly wrong. Again. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/88 "2015-12-14T20:39:28Z")
Given that there were already efforts in the colonial era to develop breech-loading weapons and repeating weapons, why would they have trouble extrapolating success of those efforts? ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/89 "2015-12-14T20:44:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t imagine that “no guns for anyone on a terror watch list” could withstand a court challenge. But I’d appreciate if one of our resident legal experts would weigh in. You’re absolutely right. Latif et al v. Holder. It’s a federal district case out of Oregon. It’s a denial of due process, since the inclusion on the terror list lacks a sufficient process for the excluded person to challenge the decision. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/90 "2015-12-14T20:50:24Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Given that there were already efforts in the colonial era to develop breech-loading weapons and repeating weapons, why would they have trouble extrapolating success of those efforts? What constantly amazes me in these discussions is the confident tone taken by those who argue these points, combined with a huge gap in substantive knowledge of the field. I doubt seriously that HH is aware of the evolution from matchlock, c. mid-15th century, to wheelock to flintlock to percussion cap and finally cartridge-based systems, and how these affected the rate of fire possible. But he’s quite willing to draft laws based on that complete lack of foundational knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/91 "2015-12-14T21:02:13Z")
I don’t have a solution. I do find it amusing that the second amendment is cited in these discussions. From my perspective, the relevancy of the second amendment as written is the issue. I am highly skeptical of any political solution but am also highly frustrated that there is no ability to have a serious discussion about it. The recent shootings in CA were cited as a reason gun laws don’t work because it was a state with some of the toughest gun laws. That just as easily is evidence that we need consistent laws to keep people from picking the jurisdiction where to purchase. A caller to CSPAN cited the “before guns it was knives, before knives it was sticks, etc” as a reason that gun laws won’t help. That could be evidence that we need to restict guns. If someone is at my kid’s school and is going to kill as many as he can before the police arrive, I’d rather him be lugging a 50 pound boulder versus a semi-automatic rifle. And yes, I would also favor discussion about free speech in the world of modern communication. I don’t think those things should be be changed lightly but there is a reason there is a way to change them. The main thing is to support our troops - and the second amendment in case we need to kill them. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/92 "2015-12-14T21:06:14Z")
I have noted several times before that among the anti-gun contingent, ignorance on the topic of guns is a point of pride. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/93 "2015-12-14T21:34:33Z")
> [@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. Project Exile had ALREADY BEEN CITED and described in this thread when you posted your question. I’m sure you haven’t seen anything that the NRA supports because you ignored it when it was posted on page 1 of the thread, probably because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe. And just a few more: It was the NRA and not gun control groups that pushed to create NICS, the background check system everyone loves to talk about today. It’s utterly bizarre to see people talk about background checks in one breath, and to say that nothing the NRA supports falls into a definition of gun control. Gun control groups wanted a (useless) nationwide 5-day waiting period and no background checks at all. [Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) Bone cited the NICS improvement amendment of 2007 [Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics](http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49), as well as John Cornyn’s bill to improve sharingf of mental health records with NICS and assist local law enforcement in dealing with people with mental issues. [http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsReleases&ContentRecord\_id=006952cf-d1ea-476d-8dcd-f4cca5cbdaba](http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=006952cf-d1ea-476d-8dcd-f4cca5cbdaba) . > [@](#): > > With all due respect, if you’re not in compliance with existing guns laws on the books that are not prosecuted, well you’re actually not law abiding. Jus’ sayin’ Pointing out that people routinely do things like make straw purchases without being prosecuted does not mean that I make straw purchases myself, it just means that I’m attempting to bring some actual facts into this ‘common sense’ discussion. The fact that you turn ‘you pointed out a fact about how the legal system works’ into an accusation that I am a criminal says quite a lot about you. ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/94 "2015-12-14T23:11:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is absolutely false. Reginald Cooper, alive in 1790, could hand-crank his press and produce some broadsheets. Getting those distributed instantly to the entire country was simply impossible; his news traveled as fast as a horse and was limited by how much that horse could carry. The new media means that I can blog about something and have it go viral in an hour and be read by anyone from Fairbanks, Alaska to Fairfax, Virginia. That kind of instant reach wasn’t anticipated by George Mason and company any more than semi-auto handguns were. > > In fact, given the evolution of firearms, I’d suggest that Reggie’s contemporaries could much more easily extrapolate the development of faster rates of fire in guns than they could an “Internet.” How is this relevant to what content is or isn’t protected by the First Amendment? Let me save you some time: It isn’t. > [@](#): > > So, you’re completely and utterly wrong. Again. You’re reaching. Again. ---
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/95 "2015-12-14T23:17:16Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > I have noted several times before that among the anti-gun contingent, ignorance on the topic of guns is a point of pride. Those of us who support better regulation of guns see weekly mass shootings as a problem, one that the rest of the developed world doesn’t seem to have. Those of you who support less or zero regulation of guns, despite your dazzling knowledge of calibers and stock/muzzle ratios, don’t seem particularly concerned about it or aware that changes might be necessary. Is that something you’re proud of? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/96 "2015-12-14T23:17:58Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > "“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. What makes you think they haven’t? What you seem to be saying is: “The SCOTUS needs to agree with me about what the 2nd amendment means in the modern age.” ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/97 "2015-12-14T23:35:29Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Those of us who support better regulation of guns see weekly mass shootings as a problem, one that the rest of the developed world doesn’t seem to have. Those of you who support less or zero regulation of guns, despite your dazzling knowledge of calibers and stock/muzzle ratios, don’t seem particularly concerned about it or aware that changes might be necessary. Is that something you’re proud of? it’s just that you all sound so ridiculous bitching and ranting about things you clearly don’t understand on even the most elementary level. The fact that your ignorance could be rectified with, perhaps, an hour or two of reading highlights the pride you take in that ignorance. It appears, from my POV, that you consider your ignorance a badge of moral superiority. your post I just quoted nicely illustrates that. ---
**Author:** ![erocked](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f08c70/32.png) [@erocked](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erocked)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/98 "2015-12-14T23:38:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What constantly amazes me in these discussions is the confident tone taken by those who argue these points, combined with a huge gap in substantive knowledge of the field. > > I doubt seriously that HH is aware of the evolution from matchlock, c. mid-15th century, to wheelock to flintlock to percussion cap and finally cartridge-based systems, and how these affected the rate of fire possible. > > But he’s quite willing to draft laws based on that complete lack of foundational knowledge. Incidentally that knowledge is just about as necessary to drafting laws on gun control as it would be necessary for someone to understand the history and complexity of modern micro processors, modems and digital displays would be to draft a digital copyright law. I’ll also add that i disagree with HH if his stance is that we should limit the number of guns a person can own. The goal of a gun control law should have responsibility as its core. A weapon that holds 100 7.62x39 rounds in a responsible and safety minded owners hands is not dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/99 "2015-12-15T00:19:42Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > ALL homicides where rifles of ANY type, not just your assault rifles, are used total around 300 annually and have remained consistently so for years. According the FBI (in the very same link you provide in #54) [almost 2,000 US murders a year are due to](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) “firearms, type not stated.” Because of that, we simply do not know the “used total” of rifle homicides. ---
**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 15, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275/100 "2015-12-15T00:33:52Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > No, but if you stamp your foot and say it again with a furrowed brow, someone might think you’re being authoritative. It’s not me who is being authoritative, it’s SCOTUS. You claim you can’t exercise your first amendment rights anonymously and I cite two SCOTUS cases saying you can. Your response is, \*but I really want the world to be what its’ like in my imagination! \* You’re very very wrong here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-sense-reasonable-gun-laws/740275.md?page=6)