# Guns: Newsweek proposes a compromise **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345 "2015-07-16T18:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/281 "2015-07-26T23:02:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, I’ll repeat my disagreement with that, then. There are two huge fundamental errors in that reasoning. > > The first is that it promulgates the delusion that society has some sort of basic duality, that it is comprised of a distinct “criminal class” who were all apparently born that way, and then a class of eternally “law-abiding citizens” who can do no wrong, ever. I never claimed that and my argument doesn’t depend on that. Obviously there is a spectrum through the population of people very likely to misuse guns, people very unlikely to misuse guns and a middling percentage. What I claimed is that the people who are very likely to misuse guns can or already have obtained them- that we’re categorizing the results of gun ownership on the basis of a biased sample. IOW, I see no evidence for the claim that a majority of the population are “one bad day” away from homicide. This was basically the “blood in the streets” argument against Shall Issue, and so far every loosening of gun restrictions has failed to produce the plague of homicide that gun control advocates are certain **must** be the result of more guns. To use an often cited example, take permit holders as your sample population and you get a completely different picture of the results of gun ownership. > [@](#): > > The second major fallacy in your reasoning is the fatalistic idea that there are so many guns around that nothing can be done. No one claims that a solution can be achieved overnight. But important things can happen over time, even if it takes decades or generations eventually leading to fundamental changes in culture – beginning with basic attrition of supply and buyback and amnesty programs like in Australia where [hundreds of thousands of guns were recycled](http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2012/12/AUS_guns.jpg?alias=standard_600x400) into useful commodities that don’t kill people. And legal changes that recognize that, for example, much as one might like to have a gun in the home for “protection”, the reality is that “a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present” (cite: Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)). Or the idea that if someone trespasses on your property, you’re perfectly justified in blowing his head off. In the evolution of civilized culture it’s generally recognized that force may be met with justifiable force, but that in the absence of such justification, what you have there is what is technically called “murder”. Whether such cultural and legal changes are realistic in the US in any reasonable future I don’t know. I do know that they’re possible, given the political will. Essentially this argument amounts to a proposal for social engineering; that if you only _discourage_ gun ownership enough eventually the [del]proles[/del] public will come around. Speaking for myself I find this an incredibly arrogant and condescending proposal. Only the self-righteous assurance that your position has moral authority on its side, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either misinformed or willfully wrong, could justify that degree of absolutism. When carry advocates promote open carry as a means to desensitize the public against the fear of guns, it’s derided as impossibly foolish; when gun control advocates promote delegitimizing firearms ownership it’s called “dismantling the gun culture”. To address your specific points above, no one is saying that guns should be used in anything but in an instance of justifiable force; and in fact people who have “blown their head off” of trespassers have been tried and convicted of murder. As for the statistics quoted it’s beyond me to research the cite for the sake of one post, but I would ask if they are perhaps based on the same biased sample I mentioned earlier. If it includes for example every person who owns a gun illegally because they have a felony conviction, or every person who was killed by something _other than_ the gun in that household- like a visitor’s gun- then the numbers are going to be skewed. Let me put it this way: if people who don’t currently own a gun were for some unimaginable reason forced to keep a gun in their home, would this result in a skyrocketing number of homicides? I would suppose a few more; but a doubling of the ownership rate resulting in a doubling of the homicide rate? Nuh-uh. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/282 "2015-07-27T09:40:21Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > A lot of arguments in favor of gun control boil down to “more guns equals more gun violence”, and that therefore the only direction that gun ownership can take that will reduce gun violence is down. This presumes that the relationship between gun ownership rates and violence rates is linear; that double the gun ownership rate and the gun violence rate will double. But the evidence seems to contradict that. Consider that Shall Issue did not lead to gunfights over parking spaces, carry in bars has not lead to the mass slaughter predicted, and now states with no permit requirement at all for carry have not at least yet shown an uptick in gun violence as a result. > > I’ll repeat an assertion that I’ve made several times before: since criminals, sociopaths and irresponsible yahoos _ **already** _ have all the guns they want, there’s almost literally nothing that could make the gun violence situation in the US worse. We’re probably at or close to the peak of a bell curve: the worst people have guns while only a small percentage of law-abiding responsible people routinely carry. Too few to create a “herd immunity” where crime or violence with guns is likely to be deterred or countered by armed self-defense or good samaritans. > > Gun control has been tried, in that it used to be illegal to carry in most states and permits were “May Issue”, usually meaning no; and this didn’t stop gun crime and violence. Carry proponents would like to test the opposite strategy- what if at least a quarter or more of the people in a random crowd were carrying? What if committing robbery or assault was as risky as Russian Roulette? What if there were no “fish in a barrel” situations for shooters to exploit? There is anecdotal evidence that in times and places where carry was ubiquitous among average people, the result was surprisingly crime and violence free. Two issues with what you’re saying - 1. MORE guns hasn’t worked. Making it easier to get and carry guns in more places hasn’t reduced the violence. 2. And in “no true Scotsman” fashion - I don’t think you’ve seen “real” gun control in the US, not a concerted effort to get guns off the street. Most criminals carry guns because they’re simply so easy to get. Make it hard, make an illegal gun a large expense, make it so that it’s simply not economic for a criminal to try to buy one. It will take time, it will take resources, but as the number of guns comes down, so will the gun violence ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/283 "2015-07-27T11:11:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But important things can happen over time, even if it takes decades or generations eventually leading to fundamental changes in culture – beginning with basic attrition of supply and buyback and amnesty programs like in Australia where [hundreds of thousands of guns were recycled](http://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2012/12/AUS_guns.jpg?alias=standard_600x400) into useful commodities that don’t kill people. Would this be the same Australia that has [far more guns now than in the decades or generations prior to the buyback?](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150) The same Australia where gun deaths continued to fall at exactly the same rate regardless of the buyback? The same Australia where gun deaths have halved despite an increase in firearm ownership? The example you cite seems to be the perfect example that your proposals are both unworkable and ill-thought out, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/284 "2015-07-27T12:33:24Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > 1. MORE guns hasn’t worked. Making it easier to get and carry guns in more places hasn’t reduced the violence. There’s no correlation between gun laws/ownership and crime rates. However, crime and murder have, in fact, fallen in the U.S. over the past decades. You can keep barging into these threads and announcing that you aren’t aware of that basic fact because Salon told you that there are mass shooting everyday, if you want. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/285 "2015-07-27T15:16:33Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Two issues with what you’re saying - > > 1. MORE guns hasn’t worked. Making it easier to get and carry guns in more places hasn’t reduced the violence. I maintain that more guns as in **more law-abiding people with clean records carrying** hasn’t been tried on anything but a small scale yet. In those places where it has, the preliminary results are encouraging. > [@](#): > > 1. And in “no true Scotsman” fashion - I don’t think you’ve seen “real” gun control in the US, not a concerted effort to get guns off the street. > Most criminals carry guns because they’re simply so easy to get. Make it hard, make an illegal gun a large expense, make it so that it’s simply not economic for a criminal to try to buy one. No we haven’t; but if the example of illegal narcotics is anything to go by there is substantial room for doubt. And while countries like Australia are held up as shining examples of the benefit of banning guns, there are [counter-examples](http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jamaica.htm) like [Jamaica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Court), where it achieved little or nothing. Also you have to consider that unlike narcotics the underground market for guns would include otherwise law-abiding people, the die-hard gun rights proponents who would be an ideologically motivated La Résistance. In fact, ten or twenty years from now an illegally fabbed gun may be cheaper than heroin or cocaine is today. > [@](#): > > It will take time, it will take resources, but as the number of guns comes down, so will the gun violence \ Again, _of course_ if no one could obtain guns (doubtful) there would by definition be less **gun** violence; but what about violence overall? Guns give the small and weak the ability to defend themselves against the large and strong, or a lone person against a gang. If you think that crime-ridden urban areas would become oases of peace and safety once the guns were gone, the centuries of experience before guns were invented tells differently. It’s naive to think that you can take the current death and injury toll of guns and presume that not a single one of those would have happened if there somehow were no guns. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/286 "2015-07-27T16:25:30Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > … crime and murder have, in fact, fallen in the U.S. over the past decades. So you keep saying. At least six times now, I think. And yet _ **you** _ are the one accusing _ **others** _ of not understanding statistics, and lecturing us about independent variables! The irony is rich here. :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [July 27, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/287 "2015-07-27T16:35:36Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Protect constitutional rights by not having any restrictions what so ever on gun ownership, ammunition, carrying, etc., while at the same time prohibit the criminal and civil prosecution of a person who kills a gun owner, gun carrier, gun seller, or gun manufacturer. > Problem solved. > (That, or grow up and join the rest of the civilized world in implementing serious gun control.) Or you can grow up and realize we live in a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/288 "2015-07-27T16:41:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So you keep saying. At least six times now, I think. And yet _ **you** _ are the one accusing _ **others** _ of not understanding statistics, and lecturing us about independent variables! The irony is rich here. :rolleyes: Correcting the misapprehension that crime is going up by pointing out that it’s going down is not a test of the effect of a variable. I do so enjoy whenever you talk about this subject, though. It’s a way more effective takedown of the anti-gun mentality than anything I could post. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/289 "2015-07-27T16:56:15Z")
[QUOTE=Muffin] Protect constitutional rights by not having any restrictions what so ever on gun ownership, ammunition, carrying, etc., while at the same time prohibit the criminal and civil prosecution of a person who kills a gun owner, gun carrier, gun seller, or gun manufacturer. [/QUOTE] This must be one of those reasonable, common sense gun control proposals I hear so much about. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [July 27, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/290 "2015-07-27T17:05:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This must be one of those reasonable, common sense gun control proposals I hear so much about. > > Regards, > Shodan Naw…if it was really common sense it would have included the optional immediate death penalty clause for owning a gun. I mean, allowing open season on gun owners and gun store operators is certainly a step in the right direction, but you would really need to follow that up with sanctioned death penalties by the state to really get to the level of common sense. And I haven’t heard anything about allowing for the rape and murder of the gun owners families yet, either. Or anything about their pets, for that matter. All of those need to be covered as well. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/291 "2015-07-27T17:10:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Somehow you are probably able to reconcile these statements - I’m not able to. I don’t think either is accurate, not the paraphrase of Lumpy, nor your conclusion about the political climate. They’re not hard to reconcile. It’s clear that nothing can be done federally in the present political climate, because essentially nothing _ **has** _ been done, despite countless mass-shooting tragedies and the ongoing dull roar of daily shootings that don’t even make the news. But the way forward is clear – progressive states have been able to take some actions, and other countries have taken definitive ones. There is no reason to believe that the political climate cannot change with time. It’s mostly the noise of the NRA that keeps churning the fear. > [@Bone](#): > > Australia engaged in a nationwide gun confiscation. Are you supportive of that? Another poster argues that Australia has more guns than ever, so you guys need to get together and make up your minds which it is. What I’m supportive of – and what Australia, the UK, Canada, the rest of the Commonwealth and most of the civilized world have done – is put reasonable licensing restrictions on guns, rated and licensed by type for those who have been appropriately screened and qualified. > [@Bone](#): > > No. The NRA does not wish more people to die. You said that on your own. If you’d like to rephrase or withdraw that comment, go right ahead. That’s a very strange interpretation indeed of what is obvious sarcasm – on Maher’s part and mine – that is clearly making a point about the dangers of guns. Meanwhile you have lunatics like Wayne Lapierre, the voice of the NRA, whose solution to mass shootings in schools is to flood all the schools with guns, because “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Right, because this is what elementary schools have always been about: reading, writing, and a hail of gunfire. It’s no wonder that the New York Times called Lapierre’s speech about the Newtown tragedy a “[mendacious, delusional, almost deranged rant](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/the-nra-crawls-from-its-hidey-hole.html?_r=0)”. This is the guy who recently raised fear-mongering to new heights, throwing red meat to the gun nuts by [claiming that American society was collapsing and descending into uncontrolled violent chaos](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lapierre-nra-annual-meeting-speech) – setting the gun fanatics and survivalists off on another gun buying spree. This is the guy who urged everyone listening to him in another interview that [they have to buy a gun or they risk being killed](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/13/nras-wayne-lapierre-buy-a-gun-or-you-will-die/192660). Now tell us again who is really promoting a state of fear that is going to result in more guns, more gun violence, and more deaths. If you’d like to rephrase or withdraw your comment, go right ahead. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Essentially this argument amounts to a proposal for social engineering; that if you only _discourage_ gun ownership enough eventually the [del]proles[/del] public will come around. Speaking for myself I find this an incredibly arrogant and condescending proposal. Only the self-righteous assurance that your position has moral authority on its side, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either misinformed or willfully wrong, could justify that degree of absolutism. When carry advocates promote open carry as a means to desensitize the public against the fear of guns, it’s derided as impossibly foolish; when gun control advocates promote delegitimizing firearms ownership it’s called “dismantling the gun culture”. Really? You think there’s something “arrogant” about believing that government has a responsibility for public safety? It’s one of the major reasons that governments exist! This is no more “social engineering” than product safety or environmental legislation, restrictions on controlled drugs, or licensing to drive a car or fly a plane, and less so than tax codes that incentivize certain kinds of individual and corporate behavior in the public interest. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/292 "2015-07-27T17:21:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > ``` > This is the guy who recently raised fear-mongering to new heights, throwing red meat to the gun nuts by claiming that American society was collapsing and descending into uncontrolled violent chaos > > ``` But enough about the anti-gun posters in this thread… ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/293 "2015-07-27T17:54:20Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > Correcting the misapprehension that crime is going up by pointing out that it’s going down is not a test of the effect of a variable. I do so enjoy whenever you talk about this subject, though. It’s a way more effective takedown of the anti-gun mentality than anything I could post. Thank you, and I enjoy your posts, too – for the same reason – especially since you bill yourself as an expert on statistics. Please support your assertions by enlightening us about the following: **1. Where in this thread have I ever stated that crime rates are going up – in the US, or in general?** You stated (for about the sixth time) the complete irrelevancy that “crime and murder have, in fact, fallen in the U.S. over the past decades.” **Where did I say otherwise?** I clearly stated in #206: " … let’s cut out the pretending that lax guns laws have anything to do with reduced crime, since we all know that demographic factors have been causing crime rates to fall all over the industrialized world that was affected by things like the post-war baby boom, and we’ve made other improvements in social conditions and law enforcement, too. The factors hold across almost all western nations." **So I would ask you to please stop claiming I said things that I did not.** **2.** And I would ask again why you have seen fit to mention about half a dozen times now that general crime rates are going down in the US, since it has absolutely nothing to do with guns, which, as you may have noticed, is the subject of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/294 "2015-07-27T17:59:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And I would ask again why you have seen fit to mention about half a dozen times now that general crime rates are going down in the US, since it has absolutely nothing to do with guns, which, as you may have noticed, is the subject of this discussion. It has a lot to do with the poster claiming “crime rates are going up” who I was correcting. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/295 "2015-07-27T18:03:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > They’re not hard to reconcile. It’s clear that nothing can be done federally in the present political climate, because essentially nothing _ **has** _ been done, despite countless mass-shooting tragedies and the ongoing dull roar of daily shootings that don’t even make the news. But the way forward is clear – progressive states have been able to take some actions, and other countries have taken definitive ones. There is no reason to believe that the political climate cannot change with time. It’s mostly the noise of the NRA that keeps churning the fear. So nothing can be done, federally, until something can be done. Got it. There’s a lot that’s being done at the state level. So far this year, 28 states have enacted legislation which expands protections of Second Amendment rights, and one state has enacted legislation to reduce those rights. > [@](#): > > Another poster argues that Australia has more guns than ever, so you guys need to get together and make up your minds which it is. Do you understand that while some guns were confiscated, the total number could have increased over time? From the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia): > [@](#): > > Prime Minister John Howard immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[18] and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls. > > … > > The Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[25] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-automatic .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles. But, as with the great nation of Canada - gun laws in Australia have no relevance to gun laws in the US. My only question was if you supported confiscation. **You neglected to answer. Do you support confiscation?** > [@](#): > > What I’m supportive of – and what Australia, the UK, Canada, the rest of the Commonwealth and most of the civilized world have done – is put reasonable licensing restrictions on guns, rated and licensed by type for those who have been appropriately screened and qualified. Yay, Canada! > [@](#): > > That’s a very strange interpretation indeed of what is obvious sarcasm – on Maher’s part and mine – that is clearly making a point about the dangers of guns. If you want to call your comment sarcasm, okay. Poe’s law in full effect. I wonder if **Muffin** would take the same out. Other than that, I find your characterizations of the NRA and statements by LaPierre quite poor. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2015, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/296 "2015-07-27T18:30:56Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’ve made the statement before and I’ll say it again: Things will get worse before they will get better. I fully expect that in the initial stages of a ban, as law-abiding citizens turn over their guns, that guns will only be in the hands that by definition are criminals, some violent, some not. I’ll say honestly that I don’t know how long this will last or how bad it will get, but I’ll also say for certain that things will get better, for the reasons you’ve stated above. We as a society seem unwilling to pay that price for what is certainly a long-term lowering of gun violence The price may not be worth it. You think it is, I think its not. Fortunately we live in a country where we have developed a method for determining who wins these arguments. Its called democracy. If you think the second amendment is outdated then just repeal it, all you need is 2/3rds of each house and 3/4ths of the states. > [@](#): > > I’m not ignoring it, I just think its irrelevant to this discussion. I can agree that some guns are used to save lives, some are used to stop crime, and some are used harmlessly for sport and recreation. That we have so much violence as well overshadows that in my opinion and therefore I choose not to address it in my argument. How is the benefit side of a cost benefit analysis irrelevant to the discussion? > [@](#): > > Don’t mistake my desire to ban guns as the only goal I’m willing to entertain. I’m very much for licensing and registration, and as a more realistic option, I’d happily end on that note if things were to fall that way and abandon stricter gun laws permanently. OK, if all gun control folks were like you, I think we could get somewhere but too many gun control folks think that any gun control is just one stepping stone on the way to MORE gun control. > [@](#): > > That’s some good news then. I should go look up the latest…And there is absolutely no way I’d believe what the GOP says about guns. If they claim its biased, I automatically think its infallible. Given the recent history of the GOP, I think that stance is far more logical than assuming they are reliable Recent history tells us that the GOP knows a lot more about guns than the Democrats. Have you followed the discussions about the assault weapons ban? > [@](#): > > First paragraph is what I’m talking about, glad we at least see eye to eye on that. For the record, I also think its near impossible that the US government will go around confiscating guns from people’s homes. Yes, maybe if you’re arrested, maybe if they go searching in your house and find a stash of weapons, but the kind of dictatorial behavior I envision is not supported by isolated instances of gun confiscation of individuals. So I’m pretty cavalier on the whole slippery slope thing, I simply refuse to entertain that as a realistic option and don’t consider it at all > > I think that’s an exaggeration by gun rights people. They tend to take any sort of small confiscation or gun regulation and yell as if the sky’s falling. I know they’re in power and there’s no reason they’d want to give that up, but I’d see their arguments as more convincing if they don’t overreact to every little thing. I think the question should be, is it reasonable for gun rights folks to feel that way? And I think it is pretty clear that the view is justified. Heck, the most vocal proponents of gun control on this board clearly want to ban guns. > [@](#): > > It seems like there’s always someone, usually more than one someones, that like to bring up, when responding to some gun incident, the question of whether laws like background checks would have helped stopped this particular incident. I know perfectly well laws don’t stop all crime. I’ll stop using that argument when people stop telling me that background checks wouldn’t have stopped some specific crime though. I’m not really sure what you are saying? I never thought you were trying to say that background checks would stop all gun crime. That would be silly. > [@](#): > > Probably not, but we weren’t talking about cops, just security. I’d want cops to be armed. I hold them to a different standard and accord them different rules than non-law enforcement citizens. I don’t think that creates a police state, I don’t have any problems with being unarmed in the face of an armed government, and I think we’d be just as fucked if the government decided to turn into a dictatorship if we were armed than if we weren’t Thats not what I’m asking. I’m asking why let cops have guns at all? In the face of an armed criminal element, there is a value to a gun in the hands of a cop. Why isn’t there also some value to a gun in the hands of a security guard or a law abiding citizen? > [@](#): > > By definition, anyone who has guns would be criminals. But the difference would be in usage. Given 200 years of a gun ban, people wouldn’t be using it as openly as they do now. Plus, we likely wouldn’t have this gun obsessed culture that we do now, which is arguably one of the more damaging aspects of having such easy access to guns. Why the hell wouldn’t criminals be using guns just as frequently? Chicago used to have a total ban on guns. And yet their criminals didn’t seem shy about using them (the same can be said of plenty of places that had a total ban on guns. > [@](#): > > The gun deters people while its happening. But they still happen with alarming regularity I don’t get your point? Are you saying that crime still exists despite the private ownership of guns? > [@](#): > > I don’t think your last sentence refutes the stat as you assume it would. The very fact that US states have completely open borders mean that if a state banned guns it would do little. Guns will come in from neighboring states. But if the whole country bans it and people are forced to smuggle it over the border, that would lead to a decrease. Real world cases of state bans will always be flawed because we cannot ban it from all states So guns come in from neighboring states? Into whose hands? Criminals right? So how many examples of gun bans doing nothing to decrease violence would it take for you to admit that gun bans might be ineffective in some situations. You’re just saying that with a national ban criminals would not have an influx of guns and we would see a steady decline in violence (after some period (perhaps a century long) of increased violence), aren’t you? Do you want to conduct a decades long experiment (during which we are all subjected to armed criminals without being armed ourselves) because you THINK that it will have some dramatic effect on gun violence? This country has over 300 million guns. There is no realistic way to make a significant dent in that number without confiscations. We know that gun bans didn’t really work in places like mexico, so why are you so sure it would work here? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/297 "2015-07-27T18:39:35Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Protect constitutional rights by not having any restrictions what so ever on gun ownership, ammunition, carrying, etc., while at the same time prohibit the criminal and civil prosecution of a person who kills a gun owner, gun carrier, gun seller, or gun manufacturer. And they’re going to kill the gun owners and carriers _ **with what?** _ 😉 ---
**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:** [July 27, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/298 "2015-07-27T18:49:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If the gun control people actually want these things, then they would need to contemporaneously provide a system that prevents abuse. For example, #1 background checks - The risk is that this is used as a way to restrict purchase. By allowing the government to be an intermediary in a transaction, they have the ability to deny that transaction. So safeguards must be put in place so this power is not abused. Things that would have to be addressed: Creating a registry, undue delay, mandatory delay. I could see a system like e-verify which is voluntary and open to the public being a decent alternative. There is no need to include serial/make/model of the firearm, and records should be destroyed instantly upon approval. Something like that may work. Is the current system abusive? Why not extend it to all gun purchases and not just ones at gun shops? Why does all information have to be destroyed? > [@](#): > > #2 - some statutory penalty and damages would need to be imposed for improper use of a registry, such that it would make it prohibitive for anyone to attempt to. Even then, I’m generally opposed to a registry of any kind. I do not think it’s viable to have the government maintain a list of what I own. They do it with real property, they do it with cars, why not with guns? > [@](#): > > #3 and #6 go together I think. You can’t hold people accountable for stolen weapons. I think as long as people aren’t prosecuted for stolen weapons, mandatory reporting seems tenable. Without a registry this is a less powerful tool, but can exist independently, as long as there are provisions for ignorance of items stolen. In order to attach criminal penalties for failure to report a gun theft, I think the threshhold would have to be pretty high. It seems to me that you would have to satisfy the elements of criminal negligence. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/299 "2015-07-27T18:54:46Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s mostly the noise of the NRA that keeps churning the fear. [sarcasm] Ah yes, the NRA;that totally alien foreign power that forces unwanted guns upon the helpless population of the USA.[/sarcasm] Ah yes, the NRA: the chief national lobbying arm of _ **the millions of Americans who want guns to stay legal** _. > [@](#): > > Really? You think there’s something “arrogant” about believing that government has a responsibility for public safety? It’s one of the major reasons that governments exist! It’s arrogant that a government should set out to ignore what the people actually want, as evidenced by the representatives they vote into office, and decide that it’ll tell the sheep what’s good for them; and if the sheep don’t agree, tough. You call that democracy? ---
**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:** [July 27, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/300 "2015-07-27T18:59:42Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > And they’re going to kill the gun owners and carriers _ **with what?** _ 😉 Pools, obviously. Because pools are offensive weapons [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345.md?page=16)