# 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:** 5
**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 2, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/81 "2013-05-02T21:47:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. So you’ve wiped out all the gun laws of CA, NY, NJ, and IL. Somehow I think we’ve just entered fantasy land. I’m fine with that then. > [@](#): > > 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. > > 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. For 75 years we haven’t had Heller and McDonald. I think with the right foundations, these things could get litigated away. I’m not holding my breath, and this may be in the 10+ year time frame, but there’s no reason for it not to happen with the right legal team and the right plaintiffs. > [@](#): > > Thats the law right now, and for good reason. this is wrt restraining orders. I understand reasonable people can disagree, but it is trivially easy for a vindictive person to get a restraining order against you, and then you are now a prohibited person for life. That is shit. I agree people should intent on committing acts of violent aggression not be able to possess firearms. There is no due process to eliminating your right to firearms based solely on a restraining order. > [@](#): > > 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? Seems fine, depending on how it is applied. > [@](#): > > 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.). Hey, you magically poofed away all the laws in several states, I think you can apply some magic and change the constitution. Places where confiscation has happened like CA and LA, those folks should be penalized heavily with no immunity shield. > [@](#): > > Everyone has something they hate about this idea. This doesn’t make it good. Nor bad. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/82 "2013-05-02T21:57:30Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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. I doubt that is why anyone thinks we need a registry but it is pretty clear that registration is constitutional. > [@Sanity\_Challenged](#): > > Define “change in ownership.” Define “at some point.” In legally-binding, enforceable terms. Upon transfer of ownership. For sales, the point of sale. Other transfers don’t require registration but the gun stays in your name until you transfer registration(remember you can only transfer possession of a gun to someone with a gun license). > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t think we have that problem here. We already know how to run a registry, we have one at the federal level and we have several at the state level. They all seem to work pretty well. I think you are seeing insurmountable complications and uncertainty in a system that we have already had for the better part of a century. > [@](#): > > 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. It depends on what you think is reasonable. The Christmas morning loophole doesn’t exist. If I give something to a minor that is too young to own a firearm, then I am effectively giving it to his parents. If I sell you a gun, or give you a gun, we go to the DMV, Police station, FFL, Post office, etc. and pay a nominal fee (all they do is run your license to check if its valid and then change the name on the form) to make sure your license is valid and then register the gun to your name. If I just lend you the gun (after checking your license) then I can keep it in my name as long as I want (how long do you want to be on the hook for a gun that someone else possesses)? > [@](#): > > 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. You don’t think a chain of title would make it a lot easier to figure out who those straw purchasers are? > [@](#): > > 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. Its not about restricting how people get guns, its about creating and maintaining a chain of title to a gun to reduce gun trafficking. Almost every gun used in crime is bought at from an FFL. I agree we need to enforce the laws we already have. But licensing and registration makes it a lot easier to enforce rules than a system where gun ownership is largely anonymous. I mean think of it, the main reason most gun nuts hate the idea of registration is because they don’t want the government to know they have the guns and confiscate them in some dytopian future. Well, that anonymity works for criminals too. The chain of title that a registry provides makes it a LOT easier to shut down gun trafficking. > [@steronz](#): > > 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). [/quote] +1 I would add, there is a difference between trying to reduce suicide by reducing the desire to own guns and reducing suicide by trying to ban particular types of guns. > [@](#): > > 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. I think this “should be” the crux of the gun nut argument. I am ready to defend the notion that these things are likely to reduce gun violence by reducing straw purchases and inadvertant private sales (or other transfers of guns) to prohibited persons. The gun grabbers (for the most part) are probably going to think that any sort of regulation or speed bump to gun ownership is a good thing with varying degrees of regard to whether they are how effective they are in reducing gun violence. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Never mind that, you will find out eventually. :eek: ---
**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 2, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/83 "2013-05-02T22:47:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. Forgot about this part. Why would you support a much higher tax for private owners? Why is there a tax at all? How very Brady of 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:** [May 2, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/84 "2013-05-02T22:52:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So you’ve wiped out all the gun laws of CA, NY, NJ, and IL. Somehow I think we’ve just entered fantasy land. I’m fine with that then. That is what preemption means. If you want to pass gun laws you have to do it at the federal level. > [@](#): > > For 75 years we haven’t had Heller and McDonald. I think with the right foundations, these things could get litigated away. I’m not holding my breath, and this may be in the 10+ year time frame, but there’s no reason for it not to happen with the right legal team and the right plaintiffs. What part of Heller makes you think that machine guns and suppressors would be protected by the second amendment? I read Heller to recognize an individual right to bear arms (for self defense). I also read it as endorsing all manner of restrictions. I think this would include restrictions on machine guns (but perhaps not suppressors and sbr’s). > [@](#): > > this is wrt restraining orders. I understand reasonable people can disagree, but it is trivially easy for a vindictive person to get a restraining order against you, and then you are now a prohibited person for life. Are restraining orders for life? > [@](#): > > There is no due process to eliminating your right to firearms based solely on a restraining order. You can get restraining orders lifted cant you? > [@](#): > > Seems fine, depending on how it is applied. Well, I would like testing requirements as well but there seems to be a lot of resistance to that idea. Some people have compared it to ljteracy tests to vote. > [@](#): > > Hey, you magically poofed away all the laws in several states, I think you can apply some magic and change the constitution. Places where confiscation has happened like CA and LA, those folks should be penalized heavily with no immunity shield. Its much easier to get a federal law passed than get the constitution amended. Just passing a federal law could poof those local laws. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t make it good. Nor bad. Yeah I know but I just wanted to point out that you tale the good withthe bad if you take it at all. ---
**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 2, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/85 "2013-05-02T22:59:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What part of Heller makes you think that machine guns and suppressors would be protected by the second amendment? I read Heller to recognize an individual right to bear arms (for self defense). I also read it as endorsing all manner of restrictions. I think this would include restrictions on machine guns (but perhaps not suppressors and sbr’s). the “Dangerous and unusual” part. It would depend on good litigation, but it’s possible. > [@](#): > > Are restraining orders for life? > > You can get restraining orders lifted cant you? They are not for life, and you can get them lifted. Compare the effort it takes to get it lifted vs. the effort it takes to have one layed. I don’t think due process is satisfied with the current way restraining orders and firearms interact. > [@](#): > > Yeah I know but I just wanted to point out that you tale the good withthe bad if you take it at all. Only in your hypothetical. ---
**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 3, 2013, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/86 "2013-05-03T05:38:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > the “Dangerous and unusual” part. It would depend on good litigation, but it’s possible. Sure anything is possible but you almost made it sound inevitable. I think its highly unlikely that they overturn a 75 year old law and let people start buying machine guns from commercial manufacturers in order to protect the individual’s right to self defense. > [@](#): > > They are not for life, and you can get them lifted. Compare the effort it takes to get it lifted vs. the effort it takes to have one layed. I don’t think due process is satisfied with the current way restraining orders and firearms interact. A cop can get a warrant to search your home based just on what a cop says. The critieria for a restraining order is usually higher than that. You don’t have to be able to face your accuser for due process to be satisfied. You have the opportunity to face them after you have been accused. You only have to go to court once, your accuser has to go twice. You may not like the fact that there are a few bad apples that abuse the system but the incidence of gun violence committed by those subject to a restraining order is orders of magnitude higher than the general population. This is a reasonable and rational rule to further a compelling state interest. > [@](#): > > Only in your hypothetical. I don’t know if there is a way to get where we want to go without some sort of compromise. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/87 "2013-05-03T05:54:00Z")
As long as we’re forbiding the insane and felons from having ANY guns and keeping military-grade weapons from EVERYONE I can endorse the OP. ---
**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 3, 2013, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/88 "2013-05-03T07:10:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > A cop can get a warrant to search your home based just on what a cop says. The critieria for a restraining order is usually higher than that. You don’t have to be able to face your accuser for due process to be satisfied. You have the opportunity to face them after you have been accused. You only have to go to court once, your accuser has to go twice. > You may not like the fact that there are a few bad apples that abuse the system but the incidence of gun violence committed by those subject to a restraining order is orders of magnitude higher than the general population. This is a reasonable and rational rule to further a compelling state interest. So restraining order eliminating fundamental civil right is like the DUI checkpoint exception to the fourth amendment? I’m fine with a temporary restriction on firearm possession in most of these cases, but the process should be more rigorous. > [@](#): > > I don’t know if there is a way to get where we want to go without some sort of compromise. With the Heller and McDonald 5, along with most of the state laws, gun rights are winning. Why would there need to be compromise? And if there is to be compromise, let the other side offer something. I’m waiting to see what Chicago comes up with for its version of compromise now that they’ve been bitch slapped by the court. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/89 "2013-05-03T14:20:20Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > As long as we’re forbiding the insane and felons from having ANY guns and keeping military-grade weapons from EVERYONE I can endorse the OP. What’s a “military grade” weapon? The Beretta M9 is the standard US Army sidearm; it’s a semi-automatic pistol. Do you mean howitzers and mortars and stuff? ---
**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 3, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/90 "2013-05-03T15:25:47Z")
And Damuri - what makes you think license and registration would be the panacea against gun violence? California already has this for all pistols for quite some time, and long guns next year. Since long guns are not the source of the vast majority of gun violence, I think that CA is a good example of what you propose. CA also has an assault weapon ban, a magazine capacity limit, and every single sale, private, or dealer, must go through an FFL and a 10 day wait. Wouldn’t you expect to see noticeable differences between CA an other states without license and registration? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/91 "2013-05-03T16:10:51Z")
RNATB-I’m mostly refering to machine guns and grenades, and anti-missile ammo. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/92 "2013-05-03T16:50:23Z")
“Machine guns” as in heavy-caliber automatic weapons that aren’t man-portable, or as in automatic rifles and the like? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/93 "2013-05-03T17:37:28Z")
**Really** -The former. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/94 "2013-05-05T02:55:00Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > As long as we’re forbiding the insane and felons from having ANY guns and keeping military-grade weapons from EVERYONE I can endorse the OP. How would you determine whether or not someone is insane? ---
**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 5, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/95 "2013-05-05T02:57:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So restraining order eliminating fundamental civil right is like the DUI checkpoint exception to the fourth amendment? I’m fine with a temporary restriction on firearm possession in most of these cases, but the process should be more rigorous. In what way? You usually have to make a statement under penalties of perjury so there are consequences if they are just making stuff up. > [@](#): > > With the Heller and McDonald 5, along with most of the state laws, gun rights are winning. Why would there need to be compromise? And if there is to be compromise, let the other side offer something. I think we can all agree that it is too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns and we can bitch and moan about enforcement of current laws all we want but our current laws are very hard to enforce. You would have to believe that several administration from both sides of the political spectrum that disagreed on everything else agreed that we should be really bad at enforcing gun laws. I realize that from a purely partisan perspective, the gun nuts are giving up a lot more than the gun grabbers. Assuming that you agree that criminals have too much access to guns, what would you propose? > [@](#): > > I’m waiting to see what Chicago comes up with for its version of compromise now that they’ve been bitch slapped by the court. I suspect they will come up with something like what DC has. > [@Bone](#): > > And Damuri - what makes you think license and registration would be the panacea against gun violence? California already has this for all pistols for quite some time, and long guns next year. Since long guns are not the source of the vast majority of gun violence, I think that CA is a good example of what you propose. CA also has an assault weapon ban, a magazine capacity limit, and every single sale, private, or dealer, must go through an FFL and a 10 day wait. Wouldn’t you expect to see noticeable differences between CA an other states without license and registration? I don’t think it would eliminate gun violence. I think it would give us the opportunity to bring it down to the lowest level possible without unduly encroaching on the second amendment. I think California or any of the 48 contiguous states are a bad example (I think any gun control in the 48 contiguous states is severely diluted by the interstate highway system (or just walking). I would be interested to know how many guns used in crimes were registered (as a percentage of all registered guns) as opposed to how many guns not subject to registration are used inc rime as a percentage of all guns that are not subject to registration. I think that Hawaii will be interesting. Hawaii is seeing a huge spike in gun licenses and gun sales. Lets see if the gun violence rate in Honolulu skyrockets to the same levels as Washington DC, NYC and Chicago. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/96 "2013-05-05T03:27:42Z")
All you ever need to know about the NRA is summarized in their choice of keynote speaker for their convention…Glenn Beck. The right becomes more and more removed from touch with reality every day. Do you know they endorse giving kids as young as 5 their own rifles? their parents aren’t old enough to be trusted with guns, let alone the little tykes, kids who love to wait until Mom and Dad aren’t looking, then play at shooting their kid sister. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/97 "2013-05-05T03:36:31Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > How would you determine whether or not someone is insane? Insane in the membrane (Insane in the brain! ) Insane in the membrane (insane in the Brain! ) Insane in the membrane (crazy insane got no brain! ) Insane in the membrane (insane in the Brain! ) Insane in the brain in the brain (it’s because I’m loco) Insane in the Brain in the brain (it’s because I’m loco) Insane in the brain in the brain (insane) it’s because I’m loco ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/98 "2013-05-05T04:00:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Suppose I loan a gun to my friend, and he robs a bank with it. Am I liable, if I had no knowledge of his intent? > > And do I need to update this registry every time a gun changes hands, even temporarily? What if the gun is stolen or lost, or inherited? A gun is found at a crime scene. The police run the registry and find out it belongs to you. They go to your house and ask about the gun. You tell them you loaned it to the friend. Friend gets caught for the robbery. ---
**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 5, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/99 "2013-05-05T04:41:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In what way? You usually have to make a statement under penalties of perjury so there are consequences if they are just making stuff up. You really believe this? Girlfriend is pissed off at ex-boyfriend. She says, he threatened me, I need a restraining order. Bam, loss of 2nd amendment rights with a long road to restore them. Consequences for girlfriend? None. > [@](#): > > I realize that from a purely partisan perspective, the gun nuts are giving up a lot more than the gun grabbers. It’s not only from a partisan perspective. Objectively this is the case. Registration is a gun control holy grail (I exaggerate, but just a little). In exchange, I want national shall issue with no restrictions in any public space, including quasi public spaces like businesses open to the public. Only private clubs would be able to restrict. Anywhere that wants to restrict would need to provide a level of security that ensured no one entering was armed, and also safe storage. No more gun free anywhere zones. Then we’re talking about something that has some parity. Less than that I’d tell the other side to pound sand. > [@](#): > > Assuming that you agree that criminals have too much access to guns, what would you propose? More permissive carry laws, and more prisons. And no more war on drugs, in fact, complete legalization of all drugs. > [@](#): > > I suspect they will come up with something like what DC has. I doubt it and I think you don’t understand the Illinois legislature. The Illinois legislature is made up of a majority pro gun rights folks. All they have to do is wait out the clock. If the other side proposes DC style regulations, they can tell them to go fuck themselves and Illinois becomes constitutional carry at the end of June. If they are smart, Illinois will go shall issue with state preemption and Rahm Emmanual can complain to high heaven. I’m hoping that Maddigan appeals to SCOTUS and that’s how we get nation wide carrry now that Kachalsky is dead. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it would eliminate gun violence. I think it would give us the opportunity to bring it down to the lowest level possible without unduly encroaching on the second amendment. Gun violence is pretty low, IMO, and is isolated mostly to criminals. I don’t think license or registration infringes on the 2nd, but that’s still not a reason to not oppose them. > [@](#): > > I think California or any of the 48 contiguous states are a bad example (I think any gun control in the 48 contiguous states is severely diluted by the interstate highway system (or just walking). I would be interested to know how many guns used in crimes were registered (as a percentage of all registered guns) as opposed to how many guns not subject to registration are used inc rime as a percentage of all guns that are not subject to registration. So, the largest state in the union has all of the rules in place you suggest, and more, and it’s not a good example? The rational that, hey, ‘it failed, so we need to do it more’ is not persuasive. Yes, guns can walk across the border. But that would be illegal. Just like not registering the weapon would be too. In other words, it would impact law abiding folks, and criminals will continue to get their weapons the same way they do now. > [@](#): > > I think that Hawaii will be interesting. Hawaii is seeing a huge spike in gun licenses and gun sales. Lets see if the gun violence rate in Honolulu skyrockets to the same levels as Washington DC, NYC and Chicago. I think culturally Hawaii is vastly different than DC and pretty much any metropolitan area in the US. No matter what happens there, it wouldn’t be predictive of other areas. And they are still pretty damn hard to get a weapon there. ---
**Author:** ![PandaBear77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@PandaBear77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PandaBear77)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138/100 "2013-05-05T04:47:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then I understood you correctly, and I just disagree. It would be OK with me if felons were not allowed to possess firearms. Or vote, or be licensed. > > So, if the background check consisted of “have you ever been convicted of a felony” and “have you ever been found by a judge to be a danger to yourself or others?” that part of the package I could accept. > > Regards, > Shodan My dad was a convicted felon several times over. Had quite a gun collection when he died. Felons aren’t known for being sticklers about obeying the law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers-and-gun-nuts-would-you-take-this-grand-bargain-on-guns/657138.md?page=6)