# gun grabbers and gun nuts: Would you take this grand bargain on guns? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138 "2013-04-30T19:59:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [May 1, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/61 "2013-05-01T19:13:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Would you accept a gun compromise where: > > The federal government exerts supremacy to knock out all state and local gun restrictions so there is a uniform gun law across the country. So, CA can no longer ban 50 caliber weapons, prohibit mail order ammunition, require pistols to be proven ‘not unsafe’, limit purchases to 1 per month, separate DROS fees for long guns and handguns purchased at the same time, impose penalties for unlocked storage, magazine limits, have possession of firearms be probable cause for search, etc? It depends on what the uniform laws across the country would be. If they suck, then no. > [@](#): > > The federal government repeals NFA with respect to suppressors and short barreled rifles (does anyone think this makes sense anymore?). I think this will eventually be litigated away anyways, so this isn’t a big deal and not really much of a compromise. > [@](#): > > The federal government started auctioning surplus select fire M-16s. Same as above, not much of a compromise and this alone is probably a deal breaker for gun control advocates. If instead you said that any select fire weapon was now not subject to NFA and were treated the same as any other firearm, then we’re talking. > [@](#): > > BUT, > > You have to get a federal gun license (which gives you the right to carry nationwide). Later you added subject to a restraining order which I think is shit so that’s a no. If you strike that, and the license is shall issue then we’re talking. Should be no harder to get than a driver’s license. Background check is fine. Fees need to be low just enough to cover direct costs. > [@](#): > > You have to register all your firearms with a national registry. Only if it’s made explicitly unconstitutional to ever confiscate, at any level of government, with no immunity for government agents who attempt to do so. So overall…maybe. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/62 "2013-05-01T19:38:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Further, with a national gun registry, I would think that we would see a sharp increase in gun thefts, either real ones, or ones reported as such for under the table cash as sales to criminals. Of course we wouldn’t totally eliminate the flow of guns into criminal hands but it would severely restrict the flow of guns into criminal hands. Its not like we are going to end up with enough fake gun thefts to match the current level of straw sales. I also don’t think that actual gun thefts would go up enough to make up the difference. > [@](#): > > And a criminal only needs to steal/buy on the black market one gun. I have a gun that my great-great grandfather used when he was speculating in gold in the Black Hills of South Dakota in the late 1800s. It still fires well and ammunition is readily available for it. I killed a deer with it in 2010. I could rob a bank or commit a murder with it. How do we control the transfer or possession of something that only requires a once in 150 years commitment to buy, beg, steal, or borrow? The fact of the matter is that most gun crimes are committed within weeks of the crimnal getting the gun (I think they even have a term for the period of time between purchase of the gun and the criminal use of the gun, I forget the term). > [@](#): > > Further, the criminal doesn’t care, because he already cannot possess a gun. If the cops find a gun on him today, he will lose it as he is already likely a convicted felon. He won’t care about violating a gun registry law, if he doesn’t care about breaking into someone’s house and stealing a gun. There will be significantly more risk for everyone in the supply chain and will be MUCH harder for a criminal to get a gun. > [@](#): > > Then, when what I have described comes to pass, the other side will want to close the “ammunition loophole,” the “unsecured registered gun loophole,” the “unlucky bastard” loophole which is where if you report a bunch of guns stolen the BATFE will be up your rear end suspecting you of gun trafficking. I’m afraid the unlucky bastard that keeps getting his guns stolen is going to have to deal with just such an investigation. If someone kept stealing your car and committing hit and run on pedestrians, the cops might believe the car was stolen the first time, but by the third time, they’re going to dig a little deeper. > [@](#): > > I understand that you support gun rights but simply want a “reasonable” compromise. Those on the other side have admitted that they don’t want to stop at any point other than a total handgun ban and maybe letting us keep rifles and shotguns at a federally approved armory. They flip side of getting legal select fire M-16s is not important to me. I don’t want or need one. I support someone else’s right to have one, but I don’t have the funds or the desire for one. There are always going to be people at the extreme and that over time gun regulations have only gotten stricter over time so why give up so much now when they are never going to give up their efforts to push regulation ever futher? I guess because I think it would reduce gun violence and I would resist any attempt at further regualtion (to the point of not voting for Democrats generally). > [@](#): > > National CCW is nice, but NYC, Chicago, and DC don’t want it. They will fight tooth and nail. Even if we get it, carrying in those areas will be a “beat the rap but not the ride” type of situation. They will impose restrictions that are so onerous that we will just leave our guns at home. I want to protect myself, but I don’t want to be getting into fist fights at Riker’s Island and missing time with my family at the Statue of Liberty just to finally be exonerated in the end. With preemption, there would be no other gun laws. No other restrictions. You have a valid license for that gun? Yes? Thats the end of the conversation if your license is valid. > [@](#): > > I would gladly support “reasonable” gun laws if someone would tell me how those laws restricting my freedom actually helps anyone. I can’t prove beyond all doubt that forcing you to put up with the incobnvenience of getting a license and registering all your guns would reduce gun crime but studies going back as far as the 1960’s show that licensing and registration would reduce the flow of guns into criminal hands. LBJ tried to get licensing andregistration after MLK and RFK were assassinated. Licensing and registration would probably not have done anything to prevent those two particular assassinations but it was believed that it would reduce gun violence genrally. Maybe significantly so. > [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > So you’re changing the rules already. And you wonder why we don’t trust you. Sorry, I forgot that the original plan was that CCW would require taking a test. personally, I think everyone should take gun classes, it should be taught in schools and offered at community colleges, I’m a pussy that way. If the notion of taking a writtena nd practical test for a CCW offends you, then ignore it. There are plenty of states that think that CCW is a constitutional right and I don’t think that the training is what would make gun grabbers who don’t like the idea suddenly lie it or vice versa, I put that in there because I like it. Just as an aside, training classes are worth every dollar. Every gun instructor I have ever met has confirmed this.😉 > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > No. National. Registry. > > Deal breaker for me. Why? > [@pkbites](#): > > If an adult has done something so heinous that they cannot be trusted to posses a firearm, why the hell are they free to walk among us at all? To me, a lot of this is statistical. Hentor is probably going to drop by and tell me why I am wrong in a minute but in a nutshell: we have a really good idea of who is likely to commit gun homicide, this includes felons, people who are under restraining order, people with a history of domestic violence, etc. So while these people may or may not one day assault someone, they are much more likely to than the average joe and if they havea firearm, theya re much more likely to use a firearm in the assault. > [@](#): > > Because we have the right to bear arms and a registry would be an infringement on that right. Do you want a registry of what books I have in my house, too? If you wanted o create a registry of everyone who owned acopy of Mein Kampff or the communist manifesto, then I would object. I think this is different. > [@](#): > > Is anyone here of Native American ancestry? The OP should ask an Indian what they think of “grand bargains” and such. Whoa. > [@Sanity\_Challenged](#): > > In theory, it sounds nice. Having a universal CCW and consistent sales laws across the country would be a big benefit over the current situation, and I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I certainly wouldn’t care that my guns are registered on some list that would never be looked at until I commit a violent crime, as I never intend to commit any. > > But in practice, it just doesn’t work out so well. Nevermind the ominous slippery slope of future confiscation, our governments already [use existing registries to conduct witch hunts](http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/Judge-Orders-Guns-Returned-to-Man-After-Finding-Error-by-State-Police-202620671.html), even when [that data is supposed to be confidential by law](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/11/feds-requested-and-got-names-all-conceal-carry-own/). I think there is a difference between the nation at the federal level (with a majority of states being fairly pro-gun and the state level where you have some states that are dominated by gun grabbers. Unless the political climate across the antion starts to resemble California, I don’t really se a problem. > [@](#): > > The Feinstiens of our nation will continue to push for the legal jump from registration to confiscation, but until they get it they will happily settle for harassing and marginalizing existing gun owners by any means available, therefore making it untenable to provide them any more means. I don’t think there is much of slippery slope or much opportunity for nibbling at the edges. In fact I think you will start seeing a gun rights version of the Hatch amendment inserted into every peice of legislation that comes out of congress. > [@](#): > > And while requiring background checks and transfer paperwork for every change in ownership sounds like a good idea in theory, how does it actually work out in reality? How will Christmas morning go when a family member wants to give a firearm as a gift? Will I have to do 10 minutes of paperwork and pay a $30 fee to take a few test shots of an interesting gun from the friendly guy in the next booth at the range? YOu can possess a firearm as long as you have a license. You must change registration upon change in ownership. So no you don’t have to invite an FFL to Christmas morning but you have to get the gun registrered at some point. You can fire your buddy’s gun, you just have to show him your license. > [@](#): > > Will I be able to go on vacation, leaving my guns locked up in the house with my roommate? You can say “of course we’ll allow that” now, but next year those will be the loopholes by which criminals are getting their guns. I’m not sure how that would be a problem for licensing and registration. > [@](#): > > In the end, it will all add up to no effect on gun crime. The vast majority of criminals that commit gun crimes are already not allowed to possess firearms, but do so anyways. Making it even more not allowed won’t change their minds. You are making thngs much more difficult for the supply chain that takes a gun from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. > [@](#): > > I very much want the consistent CCW and sales laws across states, and I’d love to live in a world where universal background checks and firearm registries were practical and not onerous, but that just isn’t the world we live in. This is why both “90% of American support background checks” and “My voters won’t support me if I vote for this background check bill” can both be true, non-conflicting statements. The NICS system performs about 99% of what a national registration system would require. Adding a licensing requirement would make the registration process even faster and easier. > [@steronz](#): > > Man, I’m pissing myself with schadenfreude here. You hear this shit Damuri Ajashi? It’s like the trail of tears up in here! Well, people seem open to the idea. You’re never going to cvonvince everyone. > [@pkbites](#): > > Being locked up and/or fined is the punishment. Felons can vote in most states, and they can hold professional licenses. > > I repeat; if an adult cannot be trusted to posses a firearm, whether it’s because they are criminal, drug addict, or mental, then they should not be free to walk among us. The way things are now is candy ass. Some people have poor impulse control. This doesn’t make them such a danger to society that we have to keep them permanently incarcerated but they are statistically so much more likely to commit gun violence that I have no problem preventing them from owning a firearm beyond the term of their initial incarceration. > [@jtgain](#): > > I think the point is that if you have a person that is walking free in society, but if presented with the opportunity to have a gun in his possession would go hog wild, robbing, raping, murdering, and firing randomly, that the problem isn’t with a gun law, but the law that let this guy out of jail. > > Either he is reformed or not. If reformed, he should be able to use firearms responsibly. If not reformed, and would be a menace if he had access to firearms, he needs to stay in jail because he absolutely WILL have access to firearms.. Licensing and registration would severely reduce his access to firearms. The point of liceinsging and registration is to leave the law abiding citizenry as armed as it wants to be while disarming the criminals by drying up their access to guns. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/63 "2013-05-01T22:30:31Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > A > > The facts we know and (I think) we can agree on: > > [ol] > > [li]Mass shootings require a gun capable of carrying out the act (large capacity, rapid to fire, etc.)[/li] > [/ol] Nope. Mass shootings can happen with revolvers. Or hunting rifles. Take for example, a Winchester Model 1894, chambered for .357 magnum. Holds ten rounds. Pair it with a couple of revolvers chambered for the same round. Throw in a few speed loaders for the revolvers. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/64 "2013-05-01T23:22:07Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Militia arms the armaments of the foot soldier. Long guns, pistols, swords, knives, and ordnance that can be delivered by hand. If you do not trust an adult to posses these, then they are not free men and should not be walking among us. > > Who are the militia? The whole people. You and me. Okay. That’s a fuzzy distinction at best (Are Claymore mines militia weapons? Can I have one please?), but if you’re going to pin your defense of firearm ownership on the militia part of the Second Amendment, it’s a very poor argument against a registry. A registry would likely help in the organization of a militia. If you’re pinning firearm ownership to the militia portion of the amendment, registration seems absolutely permissible, as long as ownership isn’t limited. ---
**Author:** ![pjnlsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e8c25b/32.png) [@pjnlsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjnlsn)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/65 "2013-05-01T23:26:39Z")
I’d take the bargain, but only if I could arrange to gun down the gun-nuts. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/66 "2013-05-02T00:12:05Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > Okay. That’s a fuzzy distinction at best (Are Claymore mines militia weapons? Can I have one please?), but if you’re going to pin your defense of firearm ownership on the militia part of the Second Amendment, it’s a very poor argument against a registry. A registry would likely help in the organization of a militia. If you’re pinning firearm ownership to the militia portion of the amendment, registration seems absolutely permissible, as long as ownership isn’t limited. If Michael Bloomberg could tell me with a straight face that the purpose of NYC registration is so that he has a quick reference of gun owners in case he needs to form a militia, then I might support it just for his acting skills. But I’ll bet that he would start laughing half way through. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/67 "2013-05-02T01:20:19Z")
Pluses, for me, of the proposal: – Reduced smuggling of guns into Mexico – Fewer guns into criminal hands in states which today have high gun ownership rate Minuses, for me, of the proposal: – More guns, because it will be much easier to keep and bear arms in areas like Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, California, and New England where there now is significant handgun control. – More successful suicides, because of there being more guns. – Possibility of more guns in criminal hands in places like Hawaii and New York where there are, today, very few legal handguns that can get fall into criminal hands. The percent of guns getting into criminal hands would decline, but that will be of no help where the number of available guns skyrockets. – Because of the M16, more people killed in gun massacres. – Because of the M16, the average gun smuggled into Mexico will be more powerful – The federal government, which should be discouraging gun ownership because of the safety issues, would instead be subtly endorsing it when it hands out licenses – States lose ability to experiment in order to find gun policy that works best for their local conditions – More people in prison because many gun owners will not voluntarily comply with licensing – Many otherwise law-abiding people now can’t ever get a decent job because they once were arrested for a gun licensing violation – Higher deficits, or more taxes, because of the last two factors mentioned The proposal would likely lead to more people being shot. I’m against it. ---
**Author:** ![Sanity\_Challenged](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Sanity\_Challenged](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sanity_Challenged)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/68 "2013-05-02T02:35:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > YOu can possess a firearm as long as you have a license. You must change registration upon change in ownership. So no you don’t have to invite an FFL to Christmas morning but you have to get the gun registrered at some point. You can fire your buddy’s gun, you just have to show him your license. Define “change in ownership.” Define “at some point.” In legally-binding, enforceable terms. > [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > [Quote=Sanity Challenged] > Will I be able to go on vacation, leaving my guns locked up in the house with my roommate? You can say “of course we’ll allow that” now, but next year those will be the loopholes by which criminals are getting their guns. I’m not sure how that would be a problem for licensing and registration. [/quote] The crux of my argument. Licensing, registration, and background checks are all unicorns and rainbows in theory, but once you get down to the practical matter of defining the nuts and bolts of the law it starts to look like a mess. One of the recent gun bills, in attempting to define what constituted a legal transfer and what kind of grace periods were reasonable, had the unintended side effect of making it illegal to go on vacation for more than 7 days without legally transferring every firearm you owned to your roommate. Of course, that also required transferring them back, with a nice FFL transfer fee for each. The devil’s in the details. Make the definitions too rigid, and law-abiding citizens suffer. Make them too loose, and criminals will smoothly dance through the new Christmas Morning Loophole or the It Was Just a Loan Loophole. This is why I like the theory of licensing and registration, but in practice it starts to fall apart. The current system we have today is a compromise on these issues: the majority of firearms today have been purchased with an accompanying background check, but the laws aren’t too onerous. But from here on out is diminishing returns, and every law we pass will cover an ever-decreasing number of the already minority number of un-checked firearm sales, while making the hassles that law-abiding owners have to go through increasingly painful. That is unless someone can come up with some pretty clever wording of laws - something we haven’t seen yet. Show me some of the beautiful prose that makes the laws reasonably painless, immune to misuse for the gun-grabbing agenda, yet still has enough teeth to actually make a dent in illegal gun ownership, and I’ll show you a Yes vote. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are making thngs much more difficult for the supply chain that takes a gun from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. I don’t see how. [The vast majority of guns used in crimes are acquired using already illegal means](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html): mostly straw purchases or crooked FFLs selling to known prohibited persons. If someone is already willing to commit a crime to provide a gun to a prohibited person, they’ll be more than happy to continue to do so, regardless of whether they are prohibited by the current system or by a shiny new gun license card. IMHO, this is where we should be looking: not at “how do people get guns” but at “how do criminals get guns.” It turns out we already have laws covering the most popular methods. We just have to start enforcing 'em. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/69 "2013-05-02T03:27:39Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Nope. Mass shootings can happen with revolvers. Or hunting rifles. Take for example, a Winchester Model 1894, chambered for .357 magnum. Holds ten rounds. Pair it with a couple of revolvers chambered for the same round. Throw in a few speed loaders for the revolvers. So, in the interest of preventing mass shootings, we should ban revolvers, hunting rifles, and speed loaders. All I said was that mass shootings required a gun capable of carrying out the act. You provided examples of guns capable of carrying out the act. So, we still agree. Do we agree that mass shootings are worthy of prevention? If so, what do you suggest we do toward that goal? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/70 "2013-05-02T04:01:43Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > All I said was that mass shootings required a gun capable of carrying out the act. No, you specified large capacity and rapid to fire. Neither weapon I described fits that criteria. Both of those weapon types have been in popular use by civilians since the 19th century. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/71 "2013-05-02T13:56:16Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No, you specified large capacity and rapid to fire. Neither weapon I described fits that criteria. Both of those weapon types have been in popular use by civilians since the 19th century. Okay. I agree that you pointed out that large capacity and rapid fire are not required criteria in order to carry out a mass shooting. I’m okay with that. So, are you arguing that gun control should include more weapons? If we are to conclude that lower capacity, slower to fire weapons have a use beyond mass shootings (and I would agree that they do), does that mean that no gun control of any kind is possible? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/72 "2013-05-02T14:01:31Z")
> [@pjnlsn](#): > > I’d take the bargain, but only if I could arrange to gun down the gun-nuts. 😛 This is not the right board for you. You’ve been here two weeks, you have two warnings and a brief suspension, and you have no idea what’s allowed here. Bye. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/73 "2013-05-02T14:07:31Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > …does that mean that no gun control of any kind is possible? It means that _preventing mass shootings_, as a primary motivation for hardware-based gun control, isn’t a very compelling rationale. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/74 "2013-05-02T16:28:55Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > If we are to conclude that lower capacity, slower to fire weapons have a use beyond mass shootings (and I would agree that they do), does that mean that no gun control of any kind is possible? Anything is possible, up to and including confiscation, via the legislative process and a constitutional amendment. In my view, no new restrictions on ownership are desirable. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/75 "2013-05-02T16:55:41Z")
I think part of the issue here is pointed out by this statement of **Drum God’s** : > [@](#): > > The facts we know and (I think) we can agree on: > Mass shootings are unacceptable. > Mass shootings require a gun capable of carrying out the act (large capacity, rapid to fire, etc.) > The number of gun deaths (including unlawful homicide, lawful homicide, suicide, and accidents) in the US is unacceptably high. and this statement of **damuri ajashi’s** : > [@](#): > > We have almost as many gun deaths per year as we do automobile deaths every year. On their faces these statements are true, but with a little bit deeper digging, there are issues with them. 1. Mass shootings are unacceptable. Mass shootings are also a vanishingly tiny number of deaths when compared to total firearm violence deaths, and they’re also not even a blip when it comes to the number of firearm crimes per year. In other words, they’re a total anomaly, and without exception point toward severe mental illness on the perpetrator’s part. 2. A huge chunk of what are classed as gun violence deaths are actually suicides- almost 20,000 suicides to roughly 11,000 homicides in 2010. Furthermore, those homicides are overwhelmingly perpetrated among criminals- in several cities, something like 3/4 of all victims were criminals. So this whole thing boils down to trying to restrict or keep a lid on upwards of 300 million firearms in the country because there are some mentally ill people that kill a tiny number of people, and a larger number of mentally ill who kill themselves, or a small number of criminals who shoot each other up? It seems like a problem searching for a solution, probably because a lot of the anti-gun folks aren’t looking at it like they’re trying to solve a problem, unless that problem is with the very existence and availability of firearms in general. > **[Gun violence in the United States | Homicides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides)** > > Unlike other high-income OECD countries, most homicides in the U.S. are gun homicides. In the U.S. in 2011, 67 percent of homicide victims were killed using a firearm: 66 percent of single-victim homicides and 79 percent of multiple-victim homicides. Between 1968 and 2011, about 1.4 million people died from firearms in the U.S. This number includes all deaths resulting from a firearm, including suicides, homicides, and accidents. > In 2017, compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-re... ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/76 "2013-05-02T17:14:49Z")
> [@bump](#): > > So this whole thing boils down to trying to restrict or keep a lid on upwards of 300 million firearms in the country because there are some mentally ill people that kill a tiny number of people, and a larger number of mentally ill who kill themselves, or a small number of criminals who shoot each other up? There are two contradictory ideas in the minds of many gun owners. One is echoed here, that if you don’t shoot yourself, and you’re not a gang member or a career criminal, the odds of you being killed by a gun are low. So low, that it’s a problem that doesn’t need to be solved. At the same time, gun owners get CCW permits and EDC weapons to defend themselves from what is apparently a non-problem. The fact is, gun crime _is_ a problem in many communities. Not just for the criminals who get shot, but also for the innocent civilians who get robbed/mugged/carjacked/beaten at gunpoint; for the innocent bystanders who get caught in the crossfire; and for the kids who grow up in a culture of gun violence, only to repeat the cycle when they become teenagers. Growing up in an inner city, watching constant gun violence, seeing people get killed and shot at, it’s got to be nearly impossible to escape such a stressful environment and go on to lead a normal life. For all of those reasons, making it harder for criminals to get guns is a noble goal, and to his credit, I think **Damuri Ajashi** ’s registration and licensing plan would be moderately effective. The additional upshot of it is that the “non-problem” of gun violence affecting suburban people, which we know is actually a problem because suburban people feel the need to arm themselves against it, might _actually_ become a non-problem. If gun violence is less of a problem, then fewer law-abiding citizens would feel the need to own guns. And if there are just plain fewer guns out there, then there will be fewer successful suicides (which is a good thing), and fewer gun accidents, like little kids shooting each other (which is a very good thing). I suppose all that’s left is for you to disagree with the idea that licensing and registration would have an affect on criminal access to guns, but I think logic and science is on **DA** ’s side here. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/77 "2013-05-02T17:22:45Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think part of the issue here is pointed out by this statement of **Drum God’s** : > and this statement of **damuri ajashi’s** : > On their faces these statements are true, but with a little bit deeper digging, there are issues with them. > > 1. Mass shootings are unacceptable. Mass shootings are also a vanishingly tiny number of deaths when compared to total firearm violence deaths, and they’re also not even a blip when it comes to the number of firearm crimes per year. In other words, they’re a total anomaly, and without exception point toward severe mental illness on the perpetrator’s part. > > 2. A huge chunk of what are classed as gun violence deaths are actually suicides- almost 20,000 suicides to roughly 11,000 homicides in 2010. Furthermore, those homicides are overwhelmingly perpetrated among criminals- in several cities, something like 3/4 of all victims were criminals. > > So this whole thing boils down to trying to restrict or keep a lid on upwards of 300 million firearms in the country because there are some mentally ill people that kill a tiny number of people, and a larger number of mentally ill who kill themselves, or a small number of criminals who shoot each other up? > > It seems like a problem searching for a solution, probably because a lot of the anti-gun folks aren’t looking at it like they’re trying to solve a problem, unless that problem is with the very existence and availability of firearms in general. > > [Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides) Thank you for your contribution to the conversation, complete with facts that add to the discourse. You agree that mass shootings are unacceptable. I agree that, as a total percentage of overall deaths, the number is very small. Does that mean that nothing should be done (with regard to firearms) in response to this issue? You mention the 2:1 ratio of suicide:homicide. However, you seem to indicate that the suicide by firearm rate is not an issue that needs to be addressed. I don’t think I agree. Suicide by firearm is an issue and addressing the prevalence of guns is one tactic to take in dealing with it. It is not the only tactic, but it is a valid and important one. You go on to say that the majority of homicides are criminals killing criminals. Again, does that mean that no action should be taken? All of that said, I disagree strenuously with your statement that gun control is a solution looking for a problem. The problem is “There are too many deaths caused by firearms.” Now, there are many approaches to take to this problem, but controlling the supply of guns is obviously one important piece. To say otherwise is absurd. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/78 "2013-05-02T19:15:00Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > For the OP, I’m not sure why we need to add a bunch of fully automatic M-16s to the system. Since you mentioned removing the restriction on barrel length but not removing the restrictions on automatic weapons, I assume they would have the current level of restriction and registration that already exists for an M-16. I’m reluctantly okay with that, but I’m not sure how it’s meant to fit in with the greater proposal. All it does is flood the market with existing guns under the current restrictions, something that could be accomplished by the manufacturer if the market were there. (As I understand it, the basics of the current restrictions on M-16 ownership are a background check, a one-time tax, and registration.) Well, I think that licensing and registration makes almost all other gun regulation moot but I figured the gun grabbers would have a collective aneurism if I simply opened up the registry to all machine guns going forward. If we eventually open up machine guns to commerical sellers, I would like to see the tax on machine guns somewhere in the thousands of dollars. [quote] I’m not 100% behind the proposed licencing/carry requirements. What I’d like to see is a background check on every sale, a national concealed carry license, and registration.There is effectively a background check on every sale because you have to run the ID card to see if its valid. Things like felonies or restraining orders will get your card suspended or revoked. > [@](#): > > While I think everybody should have a gun safety course if they’re going to own a firearm, I don’t think it should be part of the process. I also don’t like that the ownership license is something that has to be renewed. If you were cleared to own the firearm during the background check phase, you’re done with the process. You’re now free to put the gun in the attic and forget you have it. Well, if you’re going to get rid of the training or testing requirement would not be as important but having a periodic inspection of databases to see if you could qualify for a license on the renewal date does serve a purpose IMHO. > [@](#): > > I can see the use in renewal for the concealed carry permit, so I’ll support it there. If you’re actively carrying, let’s do a basic check to make sure you haven’t been convicted of a crime and no doctor flagged you as a danger to yourself or others. Why not have the same rules periodically for everyone? Local law enforcement would report things that would get your license revoked or suspended so why check again for CCW but not for everyone else? > [@](#): > > Also, property owners have the right to restrict carry on their property, including government buildings, but not public areas (e.g. streets, sidewalks, wilderness areas). This is probably the area that will need the most nuance and negotiation. I was proposing we keep the rules we have now which pretty much amounts to what you just said. > [@](#): > > **jtgain** points out that such a registry is useless if the serial numbers are filed off a gun, but it’s my understanding that filing the serial numbers off is itself illegal. Like having a firearm with the serial number filed off, having an unregistered weapon is an indication that something is amiss. Its not easy to file off serial numbers from a gun. I’ve taken several guns apart down to its constituent components and every modern gun I know of has a serial number printed somewhere I can’t get to it without destroying the gun. > [@](#): > > Certainly there must be some constitutional level of restriction to arms ownership in your mind, or are firearms a special case? Otherwise, anybody can own any arms, right up to WMD. A sarin bomb is an arm. Are you trying to say that the government can’t prohibit me from owning sarin? If firearms are a special case, what’s the justification? I think the 2nd amendment now provides for two rights. The right to effective self defense and the right of the states to a well regulated (i.e. trained) militia. In today’s day and age, I think effective self defense means a firearm. Yes I think the government can prohibit you from owning Sarin or Plutonium 239. The common foot soldier doesn’t need to know how to use sarin bombs. But having a population of people who know how to use a rifle or a handgun would be beneficial to any state that wanted to protect the security of a free state. > [@jtgain](#): > > That’s my point. If I’m Jimmy the Crack Dealer, I don’t care if I’m violating the “felon in possession” law, the “possession of an unregistered gun” law, or the “possession of a gun with a removed serial number” law. The law isn’t to dissuade Jimmy the Crack Dealer from breaking the law. It creates a paper trail so we have a better idea of who sold of gave Jimmy the gun and dissuades the transfer of guns from people who can own firearms to those who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. > [@](#): > > How does registration affect me in any way since I’m committing the more serious drug trafficking felonies already? Or committing the MOST serious felony of murder already? You will find it much more difficult to get someone to give or sell you a firearm. [quote=“Drum\_God, post:60, topic:657138”] [li]Mass shootings require a gun capable of carrying out the act (large capacity, rapid to fire, etc.)[/li][/quote] I don’t think we all agree. As others have pointed out, the only way to prevent mass shottings is to go house to house confiscating all firearms other than muzzle loaders. I am pretty sure that a crazy person with a single shot shotgun in an elementary school is going to kill a lot of people. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/79 "2013-05-02T19:27:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And what is the national registry going to be used for? Never mind that, you will find out eventually. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/80 "2013-05-02T20:37:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So, CA can no longer ban 50 caliber weapons, prohibit mail order ammunition, require pistols to be proven ‘not unsafe’, limit purchases to 1 per month, separate DROS fees for long guns and handguns purchased at the same time, impose penalties for unlocked storage, magazine limits, have possession of firearms be probable cause for search, etc? It depends on what the uniform laws across the country would be. If they suck, then no. I told you what the laws would be, licensing and registration of firearms and otherwise just the federal rules we already have in palce (repealing parts of the NFA). California could no longer have a different set of rules than anyone else on the purchase or possession of guns. If you want a rule for .50 caliber BMGs then get it passed at the federal level. You want to limit how many handguns you can purchase in a month, then get that rule passed at the federal level. > [@](#): > > I think this will eventually be litigated away anyways, so this isn’t a big deal and not really much of a compromise. Why do you think this would get litigated away? Its been the law for 75 years without even an attempt to litigate it away, why do you think this would just happen anyway? Right now it takes about 6 months to get a suppressor. > [@](#): > > Same as above, not much of a compromise and this alone is probably a deal breaker for gun control advocates. If instead you said that any select fire weapon was now not subject to NFA and were treated the same as any other firearm, then we’re talking. Why do you think that we would get M-16s anyways? Once again its been 75 years without even a challenge and there is no challenge on the horizon. I think that machine guns are different than other firearms, I think it is worth taking an intermediate step between commercially available machine guns and surplus military. If we ever do go with commercially available machine guns, I would support a much higher tax for private owners. > [@](#): > > Later you added subject to a restraining order which I think is shit so that’s a no. Thats the law right now, and for good reason. > [@](#): > > If you strike that, and the license is shall issue then we’re talking. Should be no harder to get than a driver’s license. Background check is fine. Fees need to be low just enough to cover direct costs. You take a written and practical test to get a driver’s license. Are you OK with a written and practical test to get a basic gun license? > [@](#): > > Only if it’s made explicitly unconstitutional to ever confiscate, at any level of government, with no immunity for government agents who attempt to do so. I don’t think we have the ability to change the constitution the way you say but we can pass HIPAA type laws making it a federal crime to make unauthorized disclosures of information on the list. Confiscation could only happen if permitted by federal law (confiscation from felons, etc.). > [@](#): > > So overall…maybe. Everyone has something they hate about this idea. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Pluses, for me, of the proposal:… > > …-- Fewer guns into criminal hands in states which today have high gun ownership rate > > Minuses, for me, of the proposal:… > > …-- Possibility of more guns in criminal hands in places like Hawaii and New York where there are, today, very few legal handguns that can get fall into criminal hands. The percent of guns getting into criminal hands would decline, but that will be of no help where the number of available guns skyrockets. You seem to be under the impression that criminals in places like NYC have trouble getting guns because they are illegal in NYC. There used to ba a total ban oin guns in Washington DC and it served as no impediment to criminals getting their hands on guns. It will not increase the number of armed criminals in any of the 48 contiguous states. Alaska already has more guns than people. Hawaii may be the only state where gun restrictions have had a significant effect on gun crimes. > [@](#): > > – More guns, because it will be much easier to keep and bear arms in areas like Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, California, and New England where there now is significant handgun control. > > – More successful suicides, because of there being more guns. Right now the law of the land is that you can get a gun if you want (see Heller). You may have to jump through hoops in some states but you can get a gun. This rule would make you get a license and register a gun, most states don’t require even that. So how do you figure this would result in more successful suicides? I don’t see anything reducing gun suicides unless you ban almost all guns. All it takes is a revolver and you can get that in any state now, even Hawaii. > [@](#): > > – Because of the M16, more people killed in gun massacres. > > – Because of the M16, the average gun smuggled into Mexico will be more powerful Yeah? How many machine guns are being smuggled into Mexico right now? You do realize that there are several machine guns for sale on gunbroker right now, right? Why aren’t THOSE guns smuggled into mexico? I think its because they are registered to a particular owner. > [@](#): > > – The federal government, which should be discouraging gun ownership because of the safety issues, would instead be subtly endorsing it when it hands out licenses What?!?! Licensing is generally considered to be pro-gun control. The states that require gun licenses tend to be the most anti-gun states. Does Utah require a gun license? No. Does Washington, DC? Yes. Why should the federal government be discouraging the exercise of the second amendment? > [@](#): > > – States lose ability to experiment in order to find gun policy that works best for their local conditions What other constitutional rights do you think we should leave up to the states to experiment on? What you are saying is that you want to give some states the right to impose almost prohibitive restrictions if thats what they want to do. > [@](#): > > – More people in prison because many gun owners will not voluntarily comply with licensing > > – Many otherwise law-abiding people now can’t ever get a decent job because they once were arrested for a gun licensing violation If they are willing to break the law, why shouldn’t they be in prison? We have examples of licensing and registration in other states and we have not seen a flood of people being jailed for failure to comply. Do you have a cite to all these gun license violators in states that currently have gun licensing requirements that are having trouble finding jobs? > [@](#): > > – Higher deficits, or more taxes, because of the last two factors mentioned Any support for that idea? > [@](#): > > The proposal would likely lead to more people being shot. Probably the opposite. Your ealizet aht your side has alreadyn lost right? There is now a right to own a firearm in every state in the union and the District of Columbia. How does this proposal increase the number of people getting shot? > [@](#): > > I’m against it. I think you are against it for the wrong reasons. > [@Drum\_God](#): > > …So, are you arguing that gun control should include more weapons? I think he is arguing that short of near total gun confiscation, gun control isn’t going to affect how many crazy people go on murderous rampages. > [@](#): > > If we are to conclude that lower capacity, slower to fire weapons have a use beyond mass shootings (and I would agree that they do), does that mean that no gun control of any kind is possible? Its popssible, but it just wont do any good, at least not the kind of gun control you envision. > [@Drum\_God](#): > > Does that mean that nothing should be done (with regard to firearms) in response to this issue? More or less, the answer is yes. You are basically asking, “how do we stop crazy people from killing a bunch of people in a crazy way?” Short of a near total gun ban/confiscation, you can’t do it through gun control; and short of repealing the 2nd amendment, you can’t have a near total gun ban/confiscation. Licensing and registration won’t help. > [@](#): > > You mention the 2:1 ratio of suicide:homicide. However, you seem to indicate that the suicide by firearm rate is not an issue that needs to be addressed. I don’t think I agree. Suicide by firearm is an issue and addressing the prevalence of guns is one tactic to take in dealing with it. It is not the only tactic, but it is a valid and important one. Once again, short of a near total gun ban/confiscation, what are you proposing? Licensing and registration won’t help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138.md?page=5)