# Idea for compromise on gun restrictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153 "2018-02-19T23:10:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/21 "2018-02-21T16:49:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that there is no evidence at all we woudl get that. In America, there does not seem to be any correlation between strict gun control and lessened violent crime. In fact, one NEMJ cite used to show guns are more dangerous also concluded\* “However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate”. \* > > But let us say there is a reduction in mass shootings. The chance I, or any American will die in one of those is tiny. Assault weapons kill less than 200 Americans a year. No doubt, putting govenors on cars to keep speeds below 60MPH would significantly reduce the 40000 traffic deaths a year. Banning Prescription Opioids would greatly reduce the 15000 who die from Prescription Opioid abuse., Banning Cigs would reduce the 500000 Americans who die each year. But we don’t do that. We don’t ban, we place reasonable restrictions. We don’t put governors on cars, but we do pull you over if you are going too fast. Banning opioids would cause a great deal of harm, bu we are looking into ways of restricting their distribution in ways that may help, as well as having programs to help to get people off their addiction. We restrict cigs to adults, we restrict where you can smoke (you can take your gun more places than you can smoke these days), and we fund programs to reduce the number of smokers. If in any of those cases, we find that as a matter of public safety, some regulations should be changed, we change them. We put none of these types of restrictions on firearms, there are not reasonable discussions about what changes can be made to gun policies that would reduce their harm. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/22 "2018-02-21T17:07:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But we don’t do that. We don’t ban, we place reasonable restrictions. > > We don’t put governors on cars, but we do pull you over if you are going too fast. Banning opioids would cause a great deal of harm, bu we are looking into ways of restricting their distribution in ways that may help, as well as having programs to help to get people off their addiction. We restrict cigs to adults, we restrict where you can smoke (you can take your gun more places than you can smoke these days), and we fund programs to reduce the number of smokers. > > If in any of those cases, we find that as a matter of public safety, some regulations should be changed, we change them. > > We put none of these types of restrictions on firearms, there are not reasonable discussions about what changes can be made to gun policies that would reduce their harm. Well, we do try to reduce violent crime, do we not? As I said in another thread:\*“And indeed, we are trying to reduce murders and violence. Just not by putting law abiding citizen gun owners in prison for crimes their guns might possibly commit. Extra police, extra sentencing for gun use during the commission of a crime, better forensics to catch killers, and so forth.” \* We arrest you if you use a gun in a crime and add extra years to sentencing. We restrict various ages from buying various guns and we fund guy buy back and education programs. But we DO put those types of restrictions on firearms: when you buy a new gun you register that firearm. There are restrictions, in various states, on magazine size, bump stocks, ownership of “assault weapons”, waiting periods, age restrictions, and of course felons, wife beaters and certain mentally ill people can not own firearms at all. And remember, there is no evidence at all that “assualt weapon bans”, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, etc have ANY significant reduction in violent crime. " \*“However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate”. \* ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/23 "2018-02-21T18:00:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, we do try to reduce violent crime, do we not? As I said in another thread:\*“And indeed, we are trying to reduce murders and violence. Just not by putting law abiding citizen gun owners in prison for crimes their guns might possibly commit. Extra police, extra sentencing for gun use during the commission of a crime, better forensics to catch killers, and so forth.” > \* > > We arrest you if you use a gun in a crime and add extra years to sentencing. We restrict various ages from buying various guns and we fund guy buy back and education programs. I don’t know that we do all that much to reduce violent crime. Our justice system is a mess as is, and just increasing penalties for committing crimes doesn’t make them stop. You have to address the roots of the crime, not just threaten punishment. > [@](#): > > But we DO put those types of restrictions on firearms: when you buy a new gun you register that firearm. There are restrictions, in various states, on magazine size, bump stocks, ownership of “assault weapons”, waiting periods, age restrictions, and of course felons, wife beaters and certain mentally ill people can not own firearms at all. I do not need to register a gun if I buy it from my friend, and he can tell anyone that is interested that he thinks he lost it in a boating accident. There are no federal restrictions to most of that, and the state restrictions are constantly being challenged as being too restrictive. I would be very onboard with states and cities being allowed to have their own gun laws, but they are not allowed to. You say that domestic abuse and mental illness disqualifies one from owning guns, but if they don’t actually come take them, they don’t actually put your name into the database, then that does no good. Universally, the only things that you list calls out is felons. > [@](#): > > And remember, there is no evidence at all that “assualt weapon bans”, waiting periods, magazine restrictions, etc have ANY significant reduction in violent crime. > " \*“However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate”. \* That’s crime rate. Not violent crime rate, and certainly not gun violence rate. There is much evidence that gun restrictions have a very significant reduction in gun violence. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/24 "2018-02-21T19:30:31Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > Okay, I’ve seen this “compromise” point here a few times, always in the context of “Well, what do we gun owners get?” > > Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people. > > It’s telling that they never seem to think of _that_ as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise. This is question begging. Since we don’t know the future we don’t know that gun control with mean a reduction in the number of mass shootings and other shootings. There is a possibility of that if your model of how the world works is correct. On the other hand if gun control is passed we know that gun owners will be impacted. So the trade off is not guns versus few shootings, it is the certainty of fewer gun rights versus the possibility of fewer shootings. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/25 "2018-02-21T19:51:10Z")
I’d like to see a law that says if you threaten ANYONE on social media with guns you get yours taken away. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/26 "2018-02-21T20:03:54Z")
Would that include posting vague warnings about popular insurrections if the Gun Grabbers come for yours? Extra credit for adding “Molon labe” in your signature. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/27 "2018-02-21T20:09:15Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > I’d like to see a law that says if you threaten ANYONE on social media with guns you get yours taken away. And you’d get away with it too, if it weren’t for that meddlesome First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/28 "2018-02-21T20:15:25Z")
Are death threats protected speech? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/29 "2018-02-21T20:17:32Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Are death threats protected speech? There’s a lot of gray area and legalese wrapped up in that answer, but the short version is ‘yes, at least in many cases’. [https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/free-speech-and-cyber-bullying](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/free-speech-and-cyber-bullying) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/30 "2018-02-21T20:30:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s a lot of gray area and legalese wrapped up in that answer, but the short version is ‘yes, at least in many cases’. > > [Free Speech and "Cyber-bullying" | ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/free-speech-and-cyber-bullying) Anything that the florida shooter said on social media that should have had his gun rights put in question? What about the kid in washington, who was making plans, and was foiled by his grandmother reading his journal? Had a kid locally who posted to snapchat the day after the florida shooting, “17 people. I can do better.” I’m pretty sure I’ve linked both of those, probably in this thread. Ask if you want links. Here’s one I haven’t linked to in quite some time. A little while back, a [student threatened to](https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/butler-county/liberty-township/lakota-east-student-threatened-to-kill-classmates-in-snapchat-video-officials-say) “hire hitmen” to kill the kids bullying him. > [@](#): > > The boy appeared before a magistrate in Butler County Juvenile Court, who ordered that he remain housed in the county juvenile detention center until his next court appearance … > > The police immediately investigated the suspected student. At this time, we can assure you there is no threat to the safety of East students. The student responsible for the video is facing charges from the Butler County Sheriff’s department All of these kids have action taken against them for “death threats”, more than just having their access to guns taken away. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/31 "2018-02-21T20:43:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Anything that the florida shooter said on social media that should have had his gun rights put in question? > > What about the kid in washington, who was making plans, and was foiled by his grandmother reading his journal? > > Had a kid locally who posted to snapchat the day after the florida shooting, “17 people. I can do better.” > > I’m pretty sure I’ve linked both of those, probably in this thread. Ask if you want links. > > Here’s one I haven’t linked to in quite some time. > > A little while back, a [student threatened to](https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/butler-county/liberty-township/lakota-east-student-threatened-to-kill-classmates-in-snapchat-video-officials-say) “hire hitmen” to kill the kids bullying him. > > All of these kids have action taken against them for “death threats”, more than just having their access to guns taken away. Like I said, grey area and legalese. Here is some information on a recent SCOTUS decision on the matter of death threats via social media: > **[Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech? (Published 2014)](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html)** > > After decades of declaring true threats as an exception to the rule against criminalizing speech, the Supreme Court will consider whether threats on social media count, too. > **[True Threats and the Limits of First Amendment Protection](https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threats-and-the-limits-first-amendment-protection)** > > The First Amendment guarantees every person the right of free speech, but that right is not absolute. > **[Elonis v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States)** > > Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines (under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening. In controversy were the purported threats of violent rap lyrics written by Anthony Douglas Elonis and posted to Facebook under a pseudonym. The ACLU Elonis... The result: an 8-1 victory for the guy posting death threats on Facebook. ---
**Author:** ![Squirrel\_Whisperer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@Squirrel\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squirrel_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/32 "2018-02-21T21:19:09Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > What’s going to stop an authority just saying no every time? Hi. I’m aware that a similar argument is used against mandatory training requirements. A sufficiently anti-gun county sheriff or other local government could use this in “bad faith” as they do in restrictive may-issue localities. I don’t currently have a response to this other than to perhaps build in some sort of appeals process. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/33 "2018-02-21T21:19:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Like I said, grey area and legalese. Here is some information on a recent SCOTUS decision on the matter of death threats via social media: > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/do-online-death-threats-count-as-free-speech.html) > > [https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threats-and-the-limits-first-amendment-protection](https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threats-and-the-limits-first-amendment-protection) > > [Elonis v. United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States) > > The result: an 8-1 victory for the guy posting death threats on Facebook. And to be honest, especially for that case, which he successfully claimed were not real threats, but just a parody of threats, I don’t know that jail is the appropriate way to deal with that sort of thing. But, I would say that he has demonstrated more then enough intent that he should have his access to guns restricted. That is something that the 2A’ers won’t let happen. Is there anything that a person can do, short of actual criminal action, that you would find acceptable to take a look at whether or not he should have as easy access to guns as you and I do? ETA: Specifically to the recent school shooting, do you think that law enforcement should have been able to restrict his access to guns? ---
**Author:** ![Squirrel\_Whisperer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@Squirrel\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squirrel_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/34 "2018-02-21T21:27:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d probably be onboard with that trade (assuming we could get the ATF’s processing time down to a reasonable time period), but this line (quoted above) seems wrong. Why would an M1 Garand not be in your new restricted class of firearms? It’s semi-auto, \>.22LR, and uses en bloc clips (in my eyes functionally the same as a detachable box magazine)? If your answer is that clips are different than magazines then, 1) good on you for knowing the difference, and 2) I see a revitalization of clip-loading firearms hitting the market shortly after this bill passes. Ok, I would revise my original post and say “detachable box magazine”. Also, disregard my “heirloom” wording. I would just grandfather-in all currently owned semi-autos and allow transfers to family members. ---
**Author:** ![Squirrel\_Whisperer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@Squirrel\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squirrel_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/35 "2018-02-21T21:32:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d probably be onboard with that trade (assuming we could get the ATF’s processing time down to a reasonable time period), but this line (quoted above) seems wrong. Why would an M1 Garand not be in your new restricted class of firearms? It’s semi-auto, \>.22LR, and uses en bloc clips (in my eyes functionally the same as a detachable box magazine)? If your answer is that clips are different than magazines then, 1) good on you for knowing the difference, and 2) I see a revitalization of clip-loading firearms hitting the market shortly after this bill passes. Forgot to add something. A stripper clip works well with a 10-round capacity. But would it even work with, say, 30 rounds? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/36 "2018-02-21T21:35:28Z")
If I’m understanding the terminology correctly, I searched for 30 round stripper clip in Google and got some results that indicates yes. But we may want someone with more knowledge of this topic to chime in. ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/37 "2018-02-21T22:34:45Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > If I’m understanding the terminology correctly, I searched for > 30 round stripper clip > in Google and got some results that indicates yes. But we may want someone with more knowledge of this topic to chime in. Evil black rifles in California are restricted if the have easily detached magazines. A company makes a device that reloads 30 rounds through the ejection port about as fast as most folks can swap magazines. Probably faster than some others can do so. > **[MA Loader for AR-15 | Mean Arms](https://www.meanarms.com/products/detail/ma-loader-for-ar15)** > > \#META-TITLE# GaryM ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/38 "2018-02-21T22:37:39Z")
> [@Squirrel\_Whisperer](#): > > Forgot to add something. A stripper clip works well with a 10-round capacity. But would it even work with, say, 30 rounds? [Yes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqJ6KZ7Pzt0&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s) ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/39 "2018-02-21T22:42:51Z")
My error the loader does not hold 30 rounds, it holds 10. But still fast. GaryM ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153/40 "2018-02-21T22:59:02Z")
> [@GaryM](#): > > My error the loader does not hold 30 rounds, it holds 10. But still fast. > > GaryM The idea would be to use three separate stripper clips in succession to load a 30-round magazine (or 2 to load a 20-rounder, or 6 to load a 60-rounder, etc). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-for-compromise-on-gun-restrictions/809153.md?page=3)