# Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2019, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925 "2019-10-17T21:42:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/161 "2019-10-29T16:42:13Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Sorry, missed this earlier. Not sure what you said or didn’t say as I’ve lost track of the original conversation, but I agree with you…if you could magically make guns go away, it would have a short term effect…possibly even a medium term effect…on suicide deaths using guns. No doubt about it, IMHO. I doubt it would save all, but there would be a non-zero number of folks who, not having a gun, would not commit suicide when they wanted too, and a percentage of those folks could and almost certainly would talk to someone or maybe just move past the darker period and decide, in the end, not to commit suicide after all. > > Having done that, however, I think that in a fairly short time the numbers would start to rebalance, as you haven’t really addressed anything but magically taking away a method. I know you are saying we should magic away the guns AND enhance suicide prevention programs and all the rest, and that’s all great and would certainly help, but just taking away guns would only have a small, short term effect IMHO. Eventually, people would simply switch to other means readily available to commit suicide. Clearly, in countries with heavy gun bans or restrictions they find ways that are superior to the US wrt deaths from suicide per 100K. And even in the gun laden US, the majority of suicides are from other methods than guns. > > The thing is, in reality, you can’t magic away the guns, so you get into whether it would be practical, feasible or even meaningful wrt suicides as well as just general gun deaths (murders, accidents, etc) for any specific and actually do-able sort of regulation that stays within the confines of the 2nd Amendment. In the end, by allowing guns and having a protected right, Americans basically accept that people WILL die due to this. It’s up to the citizens to decide if the cost in lives is worth the right and ability of common citizens to keep and bear firearms. Just like we make that calculation with other things that WILL kill a non-zero number of citizens. To me, the cost is similar to many things our society allows. That said, as with those other things we allow that will kill citizens, mitigation is always a good thing, if it can be done within the confines of the law and Constitution. IF that mitigation is actually useful and helpful and would make any sort of difference, I think it’s worth looking into. Sounds about correct, give or take. And I do agree that ultimately any gun control law is ultimately going to boil down to “Is the gunhaving worth the cost ?”. Which most people outside the US think you guys are really nuts about the cost analysis, but you do you. That said, and perhaps paradoxically, I really don’t reckon your main problem with gun control lies with the 2nd. It’s vague and weirdly worded enough that you could take a crowbar to it any which way ; and in fact you have since e.g. fully automatic weapons have been federally banned before and a number of weapons are very heavily tracked and controlled to this day (AFVs, high explosives, etc…). So there’s clearly precedent for ‘nfringin’ ; it’s just a matter of votes and support. To my mind, the real-er hurdle lies with the simple nature of y’alls federation. That is to say, it’s almost tautological that any city’s, county’s or even state’s gun control measures is utterly pointless since anybody can just drive a truck over the stateline, fill 'er up with guns and ammo then Smokey & the Bandit it up back home without very much hassle. Which, BTW, is what makes gun nut arguments like “See ? D.C. has super stringent gun regulations and they still have tons of gun murders, CHECKMATE gun grabbers !” silly and specious. No, for any gun control measure to ever have a chance to work it has to be enabled and enforced at the federal level ; but then you run into the giant problem of the “Nuh uh, STATE’S RIGHTS !” brigade and getting reluctant States to enforce it properly ; and I wish you guys good luck with \*that \*shit. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/162 "2019-10-29T16:47:41Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > To my mind, the real-er hurdle lies with the simple nature of y’alls federation. That is always the ultimate case. It’s up to the voters and society to determine if the perceived cost to benefit is worth it. It’s how all societies judge risk and cost balanced against what they want/need. In other countries, other calculations are made. Often, what they allow causes as many or more deaths than the same thing in the US because of how societies accept risk or cost (in lives) weighed against what the citizens want. In the US the majority of citizens still feel that a personal right to keep and bear arms is something they want, and thus the perceived benefit of that outweighs the cost in lives, be they from suicide or from murder or accident, etc. Until and unless that changes, it’s what we gots. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/163 "2019-10-29T16:48:10Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Because that’s not what you said, which was about suicide booths and other bullshit that had nothing to do with my own post. In addition, I specifically said that it WOULD have an effect, especially in the short and medium term. Thus, it’s a strawman. In fact, it’s the definition of strawman. > > Suicide, and specifically suicide rate has a lot of factors. Method is only one of them, and, pretty obviously, varies from country to country, region to region, and over time in the same country or region. Methods go out of favor, or come into favor, or are used more or less. But the method isn’t what makes the base rate. Who cares about the base rate? And you are repeating what I apparently wrongly strawmanned: you don’t think suicide booths would have a long term effect on suicide rates. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/164 "2019-10-29T18:10:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think you would ever get a conviction for a violation that arose out of a sheriff running out of the legally necessary forms. I think it would also violate the constitution. I dunno if they convicted anyone, but they indicted them and confiscated the guns. So lawyer fees, bail fees, etc. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/165 "2019-10-29T18:12:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Solutions and possible solutions that you vehemently oppose do not automatically become “off-topic”. No, but if you dont respect the Op they do. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/166 "2019-10-29T18:13:39Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > How is that a strawman? You are literally saying the ease of use and accessibility of suicide tools doesn’t matter. Or for long, I assume you think suicide rates would bump up but then settle into pre-suicide booth levels. What does suicide have to do with the OP? **Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding** ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/167 "2019-10-29T19:31:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, but if you dont respect the Op they do. The OP? That would be **HurricaneDitka**. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/168 "2019-10-29T20:58:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Oddly, you tend to go ballistic whenever posters wont keep one of\* your\* Ops on what \*you \*consider the true topic as stated by \*you. \* > [@DrDeth](#): > > Can we get back to the Op and away from your little hijack? > [@Kobal2](#): > > No. I’m talking to my friend **XT** now, and our side discussion doesn’t prevent your own. Go away, leave us alone and stop junior modding. > > (I already said all there was to be said about the OP in post #4 anyway) This is all junior modding. Knock it off. [/moderating] ---
**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:** [November 7, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/169 "2019-11-07T18:12:39Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Who cares about the base rate? And you are repeating what I apparently wrongly strawmanned: you don’t think suicide booths would have a long term effect on suicide rates. I don’t know if there is some tipping point in ease and accessibility of suicide that would significantly increase the suicide rate but I doubt it. If you had an abortion clinic in every town so that it was already reasonably accessible to anyone that wanted one, do you think the rate of abortions would significantly increase if there was an abortion clinic on every corner or would the level of abortion remain relatively stable as soon as it became reasonably accessible? If suicides were driven by the availability of guns, you would expect that a country that has more privately owned guns than people like the USA would have a sky high suicide rate. But among economically developed nations, our suicide rate has historically been average compared to other economically developed countries. It has been rising lately but it’s hard to say it’s because of greater accessibility to guns. I think it’s hard to make the argument that guns are causing an epidemic of suicides. ---
**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:** [November 7, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/170 "2019-11-07T18:16:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I dunno if they convicted anyone, but they indicted them and confiscated the guns. So lawyer fees, bail fees, etc. Maybe I missed it but do you have a cite for that because that seems highly unjust. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925/171 "2019-11-07T20:13:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Maybe I missed it but do you have a cite for that because that seems highly unjust. That was a few decades (1989) ago, so it’s gonna be hard. I found this: > **[California Man Has Home Raided, Guns Confiscated After Trying to Register...](https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-man-home-raided-guns-confiscated-trying-register-firearm/)** > > A California man had his home raided, guns seized, and will appear in court after attempting to register a rifle in accordance with state law. and this: > **[Lockyer Ends Defense of Assault Gun Registration](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-18-mn-1290-story.html)** > > Weapons: Owners who registered after 1992 deadline, as permitted by former Atty. Gen. Lungren, face penalties if they do not surrender firearms or take them out of state. \*Putting close to 1,500 gun owners in legal jeopardy, state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has decided to drop a court fight defending his predecessor’s controversial practice of registering semiautomatic assault weapons declared illegal by a 1989 state law. The decision means that the owners of almost 2,000 UZIs, AK-47s, AR-15s and 72 other types of assault weapons will face a fine and imprisonment if they do not turn in their guns, destroy them or take them out of California…He said the decision is unfair to gun owners who registered their weapons. “Everyone thought they were complying with the law and doing the right thing,” he said…Officials in Lungren’s administration said they registered more than 16,000 assault weapons after the March 30, 1992, deadline. They said many of them were weapons that owners submitted just a few days before the deadline but were not processed until afterward.\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-proposals-for-which-the-burden-falls-on-criminals-and-not-the-law-abiding/841925.md?page=8)