# How is the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms So Heavily Infringed Upon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781 "2018-12-08T04:16:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/481 "2019-01-08T02:41:13Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Most? The NYPD is one notable exception, but the LAPD and the LA Sheriffs and the CHP all require cops buy their own. > **[Do law enforcement officers choose their own weapons and gear? Obviously, all...](https://www.quora.com/Do-law-enforcement-officers-choose-their-own-weapons-and-gear-Obviously-all-new-officers-receive-standard-issue-weapons-and-gear-But-beyond-that-can-they-upgrade-or-customize-weapons)** > > Answer (1 of 12): It depends on the policy of their departments. At NYPD, you carry your issued gun or nothing. More commonly, the department issues a gun that probationary officers carry until they are off probation, then they can switch to any... \*More commonly, the department issues a gun that probationary officers carry until they are off probation, then they can switch to any personal weapon they like from a list approved by their department. If I had to guess, I’d say that most U.S. police officers carry personally-owned weapons on duty. Off-duty guns are another matter. A few limit any off-duty carry to the same gun the officer carries on duty. More commonly, the department authorizes one or more ammunition types, and officers can carry any firearm that will handle that ammunition. This permits officers to carry smaller, more easily-concealed firearms while off duty.\* > **[California law that lets cops buy 'off-roster' guns expanded to include more...](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-atf-follow-20170504-story.html)** > > One day in February, agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives searched a home on a quiet street in the Los Angeles County city of Sierra Madre, and left with enough guns to fill two trucks. > **[To protect and to serve in Minnesota can be expensive](https://www.startribune.com/to-protect-and-to-serve-in-minnesota-can-be-expensive/297900681/)** > > A new officer in some Minnesota cities can spend $7,000 just to hit the streets, and that cost is rising every year. \*By the time they graduated from the academy earlier in March, Minneapolis’ newest police officers had everything they needed to bring criminals to justice. Everything, that is, except a gun. And handcuffs. And a flashlight. … Before hitting the streets, new recruits are required to buy their own sidearms ($600-$700) and holsters ($100-$200), although the department does supply ammunition.\* In other nations, usually the police are issued their duty, but not their off duty or back up guns. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/482 "2019-01-08T04:08:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The NYPD is one notable exception, but the LAPD and the LA Sheriffs and the CHP all require cops buy their own. > [https://www.quora.com/Do-law-enforcement-officers-choose-their-own-weapons-and-gear-Obviously-all-new-officers-receive-standard-issue-weapons-and-gear-But-beyond-that-can-they-upgrade-or-customize-weapons](https://www.quora.com/Do-law-enforcement-officers-choose-their-own-weapons-and-gear-Obviously-all-new-officers-receive-standard-issue-weapons-and-gear-But-beyond-that-can-they-upgrade-or-customize-weapons) > \*More commonly, the department issues a gun that probationary officers carry until they are off probation, then they can switch to any personal weapon they like from a list approved by their department. > > If I had to guess, I’d say that most U.S. police officers carry personally-owned weapons on duty. > > Off-duty guns are another matter. A few limit any off-duty carry to the same gun the officer carries on duty. More commonly, the department authorizes one or more ammunition types, and officers can carry any firearm that will handle that ammunition. This permits officers to carry smaller, more easily-concealed firearms while off duty.\* > [California law that lets cops buy 'off-roster' guns expanded to include more in law enforcement](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-atf-follow-20170504-story.html) > > [http://www.startribune.com/equipping-minnesota-officers-is-a-costly-weighty-decision/297900681/](http://www.startribune.com/equipping-minnesota-officers-is-a-costly-weighty-decision/297900681/) > \*By the time they graduated from the academy earlier in March, Minneapolis’ newest police officers had everything they needed to bring criminals to justice. > > Everything, that is, except a gun. And handcuffs. And a flashlight. > … > > Before hitting the streets, new recruits are required to buy their own sidearms ($600-$700) and holsters ($100-$200), although the department does supply ammunition.\* > > In other nations, usually the police are issued their duty, but not their off duty or back up guns. So, department issue plus upgrades plus smaller, off duty guns, for the million or so law enforcement officers in the US. Plus military weapons. That’s a lot of guns. Should be enough to keep Smith and Wesson in business for decades, centuries even. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/483 "2019-01-08T21:38:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First - comparing firearms licensing to cars, heavy equipment, etc. is not on point. Those items are not constitutionally protected. A better comparison would be requiring a licence to practice religion, or to exercising free speech. Like a permit to march or demonstrate, perhaps? Or being restricted in where/when you can do either? > [@Bone](#): > > Second - A license that is issued and can be denied is like a permission slip. People > shouldn’t need permission to exercise their rights. Like those marching and demonstrating permits, I presume? > [@Bone](#): > > Third - What you propose - national will issue or something like it - this isn’t something that is on the table. No one on the gun control side who has political power offers compromises, only additional restrictions. Why would people agree to the increased administrative burden and hassle of periodic renewal and re-checking, longer background checks, etc.? These seem like things that can easily be abused to deny people. And there is nothing wrong with a slippery slope argument. Each additional restriction makes further restrictions easier, so it makes sense to curtail those as early as possible. It’s a hypothetical; there’s a perceived need to tighten up the gun ownership restrictions because of the recent uptick in mass shootings by clearly mentally ill people. And what would be a compromise exactly? The current situation seems to be one side saying that they’d like a change in the status quo (i.e. tighter restrictions), and the other side accusing them of not wanting to compromise. In my experience, it’s been the gun owner/gun lobby that’s been notoriously unwilling to compromise, budge, consider, or anything- the strategy seems to be one of dogged and insane stubbornness in terms of not considering anything beyond a completely free and unfettered access to guns, along with an absolute refusal to engage with the idea that there could possibly be a problem with that. Look at the opprobrium and hatred that still dogs Bill Ruger’s memory because he had the temerity to actually try to compromise and not dig his heels in on RKBA stuff. It’s a very 3 year old approach to the problem- one that works if you get enough people being stubborn enough. Problem is, that I have a feeling that like a 3 year old, when the grownups get fed up, they’re going to get overruled and spanked. > [@Bone](#): > > Fourth - The downside of licensing is the potential misuse of the information. Some people don’t like gun owners, so the information could be used to discriminate, or confiscate. At some point if the amount or type of firearm owned crosses a line where folks think there isn’t a justifiable need, then other restrictions could be imposed. What would you offer to mitigate these risks or assuage these concerns? First, I wasn’t talking about gun registration. I was talking about something much more akin to a drivers’ license or fishing/hunting license that indicates that you’ve been duly trained and vetted to operate a firearm. Just having the license doesn’t indicate anything about what fishing rods or boats or how many of each you have. Put simply, I’m not advocating gun control so much as shooter control. I’m not so stupid as to think that a guy with a Winchester 1907 couldn’t be nearly as deadly in a mass shooting as a guy with an AR-15. Or a 10/22 for that matter. It’s not the tool that’s deadly; it’s the guy pulling the trigger, and that’s where the effort needs to be put in identifying and preventing loons and felons from openly buying guns. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/484 "2019-01-08T22:32:49Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Like a permit to march or demonstrate, perhaps? Or being restricted in where/when you can do either? More like a permit to publish your own book, or to speak in the public square. Permits for marching and demonstrations are typically for logistical purposes, not content. > [@](#): > > And what would be a compromise exactly? The current situation seems to be one side saying that they’d like a change in the status quo (i.e. tighter restrictions), and the other side accusing them of not wanting to compromise. Those proposing a change from the status quo have the burden to offer the compromise. When all is proposed is restriction after restriction, it’s accurate to level the accusation of not wanting to compromise. > [@](#): > > First, I wasn’t talking about gun registration. I was talking about something much more akin to a drivers’ license or fishing/hunting license that indicates that you’ve been duly trained and vetted to operate a firearm. Just having the license doesn’t indicate anything about what fishing rods or boats or how many of each you have. I was talking about licensing as you were. The concerns still stand. What would be a fair offer to mitigate those risks or assuage those concerns? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/485 "2019-01-09T01:55:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > L > > It’s a hypothetical; there’s a perceived need to tighten up the gun ownership restrictions because of the recent uptick in mass shootings by clearly mentally ill people. > … > … > > First, I wasn’t talking about gun registration. I was talking about something much more akin to a drivers’ license or fishing/hunting license that indicates that you’ve been duly trained and vetted to operate a firearm. Just having the license doesn’t indicate anything about what fishing rods or boats or how many of each you have. > … But none of the suggested solutions would have helped in those rare cases. They have that in CA. As you can see by CA’s murder and violent crime rate, it hasnt helped. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/486 "2019-01-09T02:55:43Z")
> [@bump](#): > > In my experience, it’s been the gun owner/gun lobby that’s been notoriously unwilling to compromise, budge, consider, or anything- the strategy seems to be one of dogged and insane stubbornness in terms of not considering anything beyond a completely free and unfettered access to guns, along with an absolute refusal to engage with the idea that there could possibly be a problem with that First off, I just want to say this has been my experience too, and it infuriates me. I’m sick of it. > [@](#): > > I’m not so stupid as to think that a guy with a Winchester 1907 couldn’t be nearly as deadly in a mass shooting as a guy with an AR-15. Or a 10/22 for that matter. It’s not the tool that’s deadly; it’s the guy pulling the trigger, and that’s where the effort needs to be put in identifying and preventing loons and felons from openly buying guns. This however is just silly. You don’t think that if we did as Japan does and only allow shotgun and air rifle ownership, and no handguns, that we could solve the problem to a great degree? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/487 "2019-01-09T02:59:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But none of the suggested solutions would have helped in those rare cases. > They have that in CA. As you can see by CA’s murder and violent crime rate, it hasnt helped. Right. Those are worthlessness stopgap measures. Banning unneeded and powerful guns would be the most effective. You know, if people are really serious about greatly reducing deaths by guns. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/488 "2019-01-09T03:02:00Z")
> [@bump](#): > > And what would be a compromise exactly? The current situation seems to be one side saying that they’d like a change in the status quo (i.e. tighter restrictions), and the other side accusing them of not wanting to compromise. In my experience, it’s been the gun owner/gun lobby that’s been notoriously unwilling to compromise, budge, consider, or anything- the strategy seems to be one of dogged and insane stubbornness in terms of not considering anything beyond a completely free and unfettered access to guns, along with an absolute refusal to engage with the idea that there could possibly be a problem with that. . Right in this thread I suggested several reasonable compromises. The issue is, that such compromises are seized upon, then derided as not enough, then the “gun grabber” want more restrictions. I have asked here several times whet the anti-gun faction would accept as reasonable compromises. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/489 "2019-01-09T03:04:59Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Right. Those are worthlessness stopgap measures. Banning unneeded and powerful guns would be the most effective. You know, if people are really serious about greatly reducing deaths by guns. Yep, see. CA has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. Many of which are under judicial review. But these very strong and restrictive gun laws are called “worthlessness stopgap measures”. Why should the gun side offer to compromise when the grabber side refuse to compromise? When even the strongest gun laws in the nation- are 'worthless"? (which, more or less, they\* are\*- worthless) Whats a “unneeded and powerful gun”? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/490 "2019-01-09T03:08:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I support Constitutional gun control measures. Which I have mentioned several times in this thread, alone, not to mention many times elsewhere. But without defining what they are, or on what Constitutional, legal, and moral basis they derive. So, whaddaya got? Nuthin’, amirite? > [@](#): > > If a _Judge,_ after a _hearing,_ says you are mentally unfit , you can’t own or buy a gun. Your cite even admits this. But mentally ill people do keep getting guns anyway, don’t they? Despite your total denial just a few posts ago. So, whaddaya got? > [@](#): > > Here’s what I would like to see- a ban on bump stocks. Easy, since real semiautomatics are still easy to get, and you don’t want to do anything about them. > [@](#): > > A requirement that if you sell more than three guns a year, you have to use a cheap, easy background check. Three? Why not one? Harder to evade that way. > [@](#): > > I have many times posted what are valid reasons for gun ownership- hunting, self defense, target shooting, collecting , olympic sports, needed for your job (security, etc), cowboy action shooting, etc. And we agree, although it’s way too easy to create loopholes and simply lie. I do hope you can agree that only guns appropriate and intended for those purposes would fit under those usages, or it’s meaningless. > [@](#): > > But for the third time: **what "reasonable’ gun controls do you propose?** YOU. Since you implicitly admit that there are no other valid uses, and I agree, then anything outlawing those other uses and guns intended for those other uses is reasonable. Good. Now why do you oppose those measures? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/491 "2019-01-09T03:09:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > CA has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. Many of which are under judicial review. But these very strong and restrictive gun laws are called “worthlessness stopgap measures”. Because they are neither very strong nor restrictive, although the gun lobby will say that about anything. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/492 "2019-01-09T03:15:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Those proposing a change from the status quo have the burden to offer the compromise. Can you honestly claim to be willing to entertain any position other than the one you hold? Is any compromise, however you define the term, something that there’s any point presenting to you? It would be more in line with the thinking of civilized society to say that those wanting to exert a right to undermine its most basic precept, the preservation of human life, have the burden to support their claim. You might try that approach sometime if you want to convince anyone. > [@](#): > > When all is proposed is restriction after restriction, it’s accurate to level the accusation of not wanting to compromise. What sort of “compromise” is even theoretically conceivable to you other than one creating restrictions on your ability to kill? > [@](#): > > What would be a fair offer to mitigate those risks or assuage those concerns? How about saying “Your concerns are unfounded, now get on with it”? Concerns are held by the concerned. Getting them taken seriously is their own problem, and if they can’t do it they need to grow the hell up. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/493 "2019-01-09T03:32:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yep, see. CA has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. Many of which are under judicial review. But these very strong and restrictive gun laws are called “worthlessness stopgap measures”. Why should the gun side offer to compromise when the grabber side refuse to compromise? When even the strongest gun laws in the nation- are 'worthless"? (which, more or less, they\* are\*- worthless) > > Whats a “unneeded and powerful gun”? You said: “They have that in CA. As you can see by CA’s murder and violent crime rate, it hasnt helped.” You are making my point for me. The measures are virtually worthless, because they HAVEN’T WORKED! And as I’ve said, oh 3 thousand times to you\*, strong gun control laws in just select states are of course not going to address the problem. As for “unneeded and powerful”, as I alluded to earlier, how about we go the Japan route and only allow shotguns, air rifles, and no handguns. The 2nd amendment would be preserved, and gun deaths would drop dramatically. ETA: \*That was you, right? My mind is going… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/494 "2019-01-09T03:38:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But without defining what they are, or on what Constitutional, legal, and moral basis they derive. So, whaddaya got? Nuthin’, amirite? > > But mentally ill people do keep getting guns anyway, don’t they? Despite your total denial just a few posts ago. So, whaddaya got? > > Easy, since real semiautomatics are still easy to get, and you don’t want to do anything about them. > > Three? Why not one? Harder to evade that way. > > And we agree, although it’s way too easy to create loopholes and simply lie. I do hope you can agree that only guns appropriate and intended for those purposes would fit under those usages, or it’s meaningless. > > Since you implicitly admit that there are no other valid uses, and I agree, then anything outlawing those other uses and guns intended for those other uses is reasonable. Good. Now why do you oppose those measures? Gee, ya gotta really read the thread, I have listed several Constitutional gun control measures in this very thread, such as a ban on bump stock and better controls/background checks. And, you are responded to a couple now, so? Yes, and you know what? Drunk drivers still kill people. Despite strong laws against it, campaigns, etc. “real semiautomatics”? what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about banning all semi-automatic firearms? I picked a reasonable number. And really- background checks dont stop criminals from getting guns. Pretty much all guns are "guns appropriate and intended for those purposes ". I dont really know what you’re talking about. The list is not all inclusive. What do you mean by \*“anything outlawing those other uses and guns intended for those other uses is reasonable. Good. Now why do you oppose those measures?” \*What other uses? What guns are intended for uses other than those I have listed? What measures do i oppose? **But for the FOUTH time:what "reasonable’ gun controls do you propose? YOU.** And try to make your response understandable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/495 "2019-01-09T03:40:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Because they are neither very strong nor restrictive, although the gun lobby will say that about anything. They are the strongest & most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Do you know what CA gun laws are? Pretty much, no other gun laws could be proposed that would be Constitutional, as really several CA laws are under judicial review as we speak. So, what you want is laws more restrictive than allowed under the Constitution, right? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/496 "2019-01-09T03:49:08Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > You said: “They have that in CA. As you can see by CA’s murder and violent crime rate, it hasnt helped.” You are making my point for me. The measures are virtually worthless, because they HAVEN’T WORKED! And as I’ve said, oh 3 thousand times to you\*, strong gun control laws in just select states are of course not going to address the problem. > > As for “unneeded and powerful”, as I alluded to earlier, how about we go the Japan route and only allow shotguns, air rifles, and no handguns. The 2nd amendment would be preserved, and gun deaths would drop dramatically. > > . \*\*Yep, this proves my point. \*\*No matter how strong and restrictive gun laws in America are- the gun grabbers want even more restrictive laws. Why? Well, because the ones we have dont work! (we can all agree on that). But you see- _The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result._ So, a sane person would say “\*Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly gun laws in American are useless in reducing violent crime!” \*The \*other type of person \*😛 would say "_Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly, we need to double down and get more and stronger laws!"_ Because a sane person would expect to see \*some \*results from the toughest and most restrictive laws in America- and then be able to go "_See, those laws reduced violent crimes by 25%! Clearly, even more laws would get a bigger reduction!_ " But no! it’s "See, those laws didnt reduce violent crime at all! Clearly, even more laws would get a bigger reduction! " Logic much? What you propose would violate the 2nd Ad. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/497 "2019-01-09T18:20:52Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > This however is just silly. You don’t think that if we did as Japan does and only allow shotgun and air rifle ownership, and no handguns, that we could solve the problem to a great degree? No… my point was that a Winchester 1907 is a semi-automatic, large caliber, magazine fed self-loading rifle. It also looks a little like the grand-dad of the M-14. But in practical terms, there’s no difference between one of these and an AR-15, except that nobody would call this an “assault rifle” because it’s old looking, has a wooden stock, etc… Someone could easily use one in a mass shooting. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/xDa5FVwqvRs/maxresdefault.jpg "Winchester 1907") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDa5FVwqvRs) Another point is that this thing was produced and sold commercially in the US for 53 years from 1905-1958. Clearly whatever problems we’re having with mass shootings aren’t really with the availability of guns- they’ve ALWAYS been available and common. The issue is with people thinking that mass shootings are a valid way to do… something. And since nearly every one is mentally ill, or thought to have been mentally ill, that something is probably irrational and insane. So the rational way to prevent these events isn’t to come down like a hammer on the sale of guns; they’re already out there in too great of numbers, it’ll just force people underground (much like prohibition), and it effectively punishes the overwhelmingly vast number of law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a handful of lunatics. The rational way is to better vet the owners/users such that lunatics and unstable types are prevented from having them. I’d think a combination of better vetting of gun owners and/or licensing combined with better reporting requirements and penalties for non-compliance among the mentally ill would reduce the number of mass shootings. I’d also think that some kind of crackdown on the number of hours you can report on a mass shooting would help the most (if they weren’t in the news, nobody would do them), but that would probably run afoul of the 1st amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2019, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/498 "2019-01-10T01:49:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\*Yep, this proves my point. \*\*No matter how strong and restrictive gun laws in America are- the gun grabbers want even more restrictive laws. Why? Well, because the ones we have dont work! (we can all agree on that). But you see- _The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result._ So, a sane person would say “\*Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly gun laws in American are useless in reducing violent crime!” \*The \*other type of person \*😛 would say "_Hey , these gun laws dont work! Clearly, we need to double down and get more and stronger laws!"_ > > Because a sane person would expect to see \*some \*results from the toughest and most restrictive laws in America- and then be able to go "_See, those laws reduced violent crimes by 25%! Clearly, even more laws would get a bigger reduction!_ " But no! it’s "See, those laws didnt reduce violent crime at all! Clearly, even more laws would get a bigger reduction! " Logic much? But making much more restrictive laws, ones that would actually DO SOMETHING to reduce deaths, is not “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” It instead would be doing something new, that we have never tried in this country. Call it gun-grabbing, call it what you wish. You might be against this (and understatement to beat all understatements, I am well aware), but that doesn’t mean it’s illogical. > [@](#): > > What you propose would violate the 2nd Ad. So? If one really wanted to see deaths reduced by even more than has happened due to the general decrease in violent crime over the last few decades, one might at least consider the possibility that the 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct, and amending it or even abolishing it should be on the table. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2019, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/499 "2019-01-10T01:54:22Z")
> [@bump](#): > > No… my point was that a Winchester 1907 is a semi-automatic, large caliber, magazine fed self-loading rifle. It also looks a little like the grand-dad of the M-14. Okay. > [@](#): > > The rational way is to better vet the owners/users such that lunatics and unstable types are prevented from having them. I’d think a combination of better vetting of gun owners and/or licensing combined with better reporting requirements and penalties for non-compliance among the mentally ill would reduce the number of mass shootings. I’d also think that some kind of crackdown on the number of hours you can report on a mass shooting would help the most (if they weren’t in the news, nobody would do them), but that would probably run afoul of the 1st amendment. I am not opposed to these things. If I were a betting man, though, I’d wager they won’t do much at all to stop mass shootings. No, it’s like some people say about climate change. We can’t do anything about it now, so we’re gonna just have to learn to live with it. So, if we won’t put heavy restrictions on the number and types of guns we are allowed to own, we’re just gonna have to learn to live with mass shootings. ETA: Wait, what the **hell** am I saying? We obviously _have learned to live with them._ ☹ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2019, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781/500 "2019-01-10T08:38:39Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > But making much more restrictive laws, ones that would actually DO SOMETHING to reduce deaths, is not “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” It instead would be doing something new, that we have never tried in this country. Call it gun-grabbing, call it what you wish. You might be against this (and understatement to beat all understatements, I am well aware), but that doesn’t mean it’s illogical. > So? If one really wanted to see deaths reduced by even more than has happened due to the general decrease in violent crime over the last few decades, one might at least consider the possibility that the 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct, and amending it or even abolishing it should be on the table. We already tried bans on handguns- they didnt work. Except that there is no evidence that gun control laws would reduce violent crime. _They never have_- why should they then if we just make them stronger? Banning handguns would cost tens of billions, put millions in prison, and all for what? To _maybe_ reduce violent crime? “It’s never worked before, but\* this \*time!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-so-heavily-infringed-upon/825781.md?page=26)