# Those for new gun control laws... **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 3, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847 "2017-10-03T05:06:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/81 "2017-10-04T15:33:06Z")
> [@phreesh](#): > > Man, your editing cut out what was shaping up to be an interesting argument! > > That said, I bristle at comments suggesting any developed country is some kind of unique snowflake along any axis. You need a large, developed rural country as a counter-example? How about your friendly neighbours to the north? There’s no huge uproar that farmers and the like can’t have guns for protection. > > And, c’mon, are you saying that the folks who mostly have guns in the US are farmers? I’d argue that the people with the most guns are the ones with the fastest police response time, like inner cities. > > Also, it looks like we’re arguing from both sides of the correlation/causation spectrum. I think you have more crime because of guns. Get rid of the guns and you’ll have less crime. As I understand it, you think that you have more guns because there’s so much crime. Get rid of crime and the guns will go away. > > So, if crime rates fell, people would be okay with gun control? At what crime level would you be okay with getting rid of the second amendment? Each country is different in circumstances, geography, and population so there is no reason to believe that all countries are alike. Obviously most gun owners are not farmers, but the ruralness means that any trouble must be handled by the people involved since the cops are far away. Canada has a per capita gun rate that is about 27% of America’s and the murder rate there is about 33% of the US. If the low rate of murder is caused by gun control then we could look before gun laws were strengthened in 1977. In 1975 the murder rate in Canada peaked and was about one third of the US rate. In 2013 after decades of much harsher gun laws in Canada the murder rate is about one third of the US rate. Crime has fallen drastically and so has the number of households that own guns. If crime continues to fall, so will the number of guns so gun control will not be necessary. There will still be more guns in the US than most other countries because we have alot more hunters in the US than other countries and we have a much bigger military than other countries. Many of the two million odd soldiers will become gun enthusiasts during their time in the military and will want to own guns for sport shooting and collecting. However these rifles and shotguns do not pose a crime threat since more people are beaten to death in the US than killed by rifles. ---
**Author:** ![Tzigone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/82 "2017-10-04T15:33:10Z")
I’d like some required training (which would have to followed up on to check for effectiveness and modify or scrap for some other program) and for buyers to have to pass a test (in both usage and gun safety) before buying. It’s not going to help for the mass shootings. Not even for criminal or mental health shootings (though other laws might help for those and have in some places), but it could help against “my toddler got my gun from my purse and shot someone”. Likewise, if you shot yourself in the foot or there was another accidental gun discharge (that is public enough to be known about), you get points against you or lose your gun license (and existing guns) at least until you can retake the test of what you are not supposed to do. I don’t know if this would work at all, but it’s definitely something I’d be interested in seeing the results of. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/83 "2017-10-04T15:42:35Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And that’s pretty much my whole point. You can either deal with people like myself, who don’t want to see al guns confiscated, but wants to see reasonable measures to see events like this and other instances of gun violence reduced, or you can refuse to deal with people like myself, and instead deal with the people who actually want to take all the guns. This is the problem, you claim that you are in possession of reasonable measures that would end mass shootings and reduce gun violence overall. Then the reasonable measures turn out to be timeworn arguments like closing gun show loopholes, banning silencers, banning machine guns, or keeping guns out of the hands of seniors who seek financial or psychological help. None of the proposed solutions would have prevented any of the mass shootings. The problem is not that gun nuts won’t consider rational measures, it is that none of the proposed solutions will help the problem and they hurt innocent people. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/84 "2017-10-04T15:54:56Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I think you need a new spiel to convince anybody. Again noting my position is mainly bemusement about the wasted energy on this issue when nothing major is going to happen on the gun side, not that I personally oppose small symbolic changes to gun laws. I live in one of the tightest gun control states, and it doesn’t really bother me. Not wasting energy, sitting here, waiting for the phone to ring on a slow day. You say that democrats that are running in red states aren’t pushing gun control? That’s obvious. If they want to have any chance in a state like that, then they need to be as close to being a republican as they can while still being a democrat. Dems still seem to have a litmus test on abortion, but do not seem to have one on gun control, so sure, why would they shoot themselves in the foot over an issue that would help them none? I do not think that the second will be repealed anytime soon. But, I do think that when 2A enthusiasts proudly proclaim that nothing can be done about the gun violence because of the 2A, it weakens the public’s support for it that much more. We can try to do something reasonable now, or we can wait until we have another few, or maybe another few dozen of these style shootings before there is enough public pressure to change things. And my point is, that at that point, the gun side is not going to be able to get concessions. Once 2A is gone, the public doesn’t need to give any head whatsoever to the “rights” of gun owners. They can pass any law they want, banning any or all guns in any or all places, and there will not be a single thing that gun advocates can do about it. It is in the gun enthusiast best interest to assist the public in reducing gun violence, especially when it comes to large, high profile events like this. If the public only notices guns when something tragic like this happens, does it not make more sense for gun owners to be seen as helping prevent the next one, rather than to be thumbing their noses at anyone trying to prevent the next one? > [@Shodan](#): > > If there is not enough consensus to push thru what you think is reasonable, how will there be consensus to push thru what even you agree isn’t reasonable? Today there will not be. Tomorrow, after the next mass shooting, there will be a bit more. Next week, with another couple dozen dead, there will be even more people joining in the consensus that something needs to happen, and the gun enthusiasts have insisted that nothing can happen while the second amendment sits there unmodified. > [@](#): > > I think people will lose interest pretty soon - that’s what usually happens. Maybe a ban on bump stocks, but that won’t affect the statistics on gun violence noticeably, so nothing further. > Well, no, that’s kind of silly. Mass shootings like this are extremely rare, and nobody is going be on the lookout for snipers for more than a couple of weeks. Today they are. But this guy laid out a roadmap for anyone else who isn’t as into planning, but is into as much killing as he is. I was surprised by the amount of planning this guy actually ended up doing, especially as it seems most of his plans fortunately did not see fruition. But, for as much planning as he did, it would take very little to replicate it. [quote] But your false dichotomy is why we don’t have to accept your “reasonable” gun control suggestions - the idea that we can either live our lives in fear, or repeal the Second Amendment, is not reasonable. [/quote[ Actually, I specifically made a third option there. And was pointing out that if we don’t take a third option, then we are stuck with the two choices that you just outlined. I would agree that that is not a reasonable idea, which is why I proposed a different one. Just because you snipped it out of the quote doesn’t make it just magically disappear. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/85 "2017-10-04T16:36:19Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is the problem, you claim that you are in possession of reasonable measures that would end mass shootings and reduce gun violence overall. Then the reasonable measures turn out to be timeworn arguments like closing gun show loopholes, banning silencers, banning machine guns, or keeping guns out of the hands of seniors who seek financial or psychological help. None of the proposed solutions would have prevented any of the mass shootings. The problem is not that gun nuts won’t consider rational measures, it is that none of the proposed solutions will help the problem and they hurt innocent people. I disagree. First, I don’t care about silencers, and don’t really understand why that’s an issue. If you could actually make a silent gun, then maybe a concern, but I have no dog in that fight, so that’s one assumption that you have made that’s already incorrect. I still don’t understand why there is resistance to the idea that there should be some sort of accountability when you sell a gun to ensure it is not going to someone who is prohibited from having a gun. Closing the “gun show loophole” would actually remove an avenue for channeling guns into illegal purposes. Your last example, of preventing those who have been mentally incapable of managing the most basics of their own life from also owning a gun is debatable, I’m not sure how I feel on it, but the pro-gun side always makes it sound like it’s people who just have a bit of trouble with math, when that is not the case at all. The people that these bills talk about are people who are incapable of managing their life in any meaningful way. It’s a pretty good day when they are able to make their own decisions on lunch, much less on what sort of arsenal they should have in case the nursing home goes to lockdown. We’re talking about people with alzheimer’s, dementia, or other neurological conditions that leave them unable to make rational decisions for much, if not all of the time. And, in any case, it was not something that I brought up, so your assertion that that would be one of the tools I would use is incorrect. My first tool is to ask the gun enthusiasts what they would recommend to reduce the violences. They are the ones who are knowledgeable, and they are the ones who have a vested interest in keeping them available. If anyone can come up with a good compromise, it would be them. If they don’t have any ideas, or refuse to share them, then I would come up with some tools that the gun enthusiasts may not like. Things like registrations, and require a license that are not “shall-issue” for weapons. Want to hunt? Get a hunting license before you can buy a gun. Want a handgun? get trained, get psychologically tested, then you can take a test to see if you qualify to be responsible with this device. Want an AR-15, get a license for it, and in order to get a license, you need to give a demonstrable need for it. Stuff like that. I’ve asked before of “gun-nuts” as you called them, as to what we could do to reduce gun violence, and the single and only thing I have heard is to end the drug war. Now, I think that that is probably a minority view among gun owners, and even with this poster, it was not a high priority. Do you have any suggestions? Do you have any reasonable idea on how to reduce the gun violence, while staying within 2A? If not, then yeah, public support for the second amendment is going to erode. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/86 "2017-10-04T17:43:57Z")
Since people are pointing toward Australia as an example, I did some research. Australian implemented their stricter [gun control laws in 2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia)and the buy back ran for about year (10/16-9/17). Here are the comparative stats for [Australia](http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html) and the [US](https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014) for murders per 100,000 from 1990 to 2013: Country 1990 2013 Reduction Aus 1.7 1.2 30% US 9.5 4.5 53% What am I missing? I mean aside from not being able to get the numbers to line up, no matter what I try… ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/87 "2017-10-04T18:19:47Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Some of those may be somewhat true, but if the number of guns that exist in the country is cut, lets say, in half. Not as many people will be able to get a gun, legal or otherwise. Yes there are still ways to kill people, but not everyone will go that far. You have to snap a lot harder to plant bombs around a crowded area than to use the gun that’s been sitting in your closet for 10 years. Gun homicides have been cut in half over the last 20 years. In the same period, the number of guns owned by US citizens has more than doubled. “The number of guns” is simply not the issue. Pick another argument. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just earlier this year, the Republicans removed restrictions on [gun sales to the mentally ill](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people). > > Yes, it’s that bad. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Your last example, of preventing those who have been mentally incapable of managing the most basics of their own life from also owning a gun is debatable, I’m not sure how I feel on it, but the pro-gun side always makes it sound like it’s people who just have a bit of trouble with math, when that is not the case at all. The people that these bills talk about are people who are incapable of managing their life in any meaningful way. It’s a pretty good day when they are able to make their own decisions on lunch, much less on what sort of arsenal they should have in case the nursing home goes to lockdown. We’re talking about people with alzheimer’s, dementia, or other neurological conditions that leave them unable to make rational decisions for much, if not all of the time. And, in any case, it was not something that I brought up, so your assertion that that would be one of the tools I would use is incorrect. Dude, I saw a psychiatrist once and now I can’t own a gun in Illinois for 5 years. I’m not an invalid. I’m a war veteran with some depression. I’m also an engineer. I’m’ not incapable of anything or a danger to anyone. But guess what I won’t be doing ever again? Seeing a fucking psychiatrist. Yay. You guys sure fixed that problem. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/88 "2017-10-04T18:22:31Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > But guess what I won’t be doing ever again? Seeing a fucking psychiatrist. Yay. You guys sure fixed that problem. Are you so afraid of the boogeyman in your daily life that you would rather have a gun to protect your irrationally scared self then get help for any mental conditions that may crop up? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/89 "2017-10-04T18:38:55Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Gun homicides have been cut in half over the last 20 years. In the same period, the number of guns owned by US citizens has more than doubled. “The number of guns” is simply not the issue. Pick another argument. That’s a fallacy. You’re saying the number of guns owned increased while gun homicides decreased. If the facts speak to that, I’ll give it to you. However, are you suggesting that the inverse is true? If the number of guns decreases, gun homicides will increase? Or are you suggesting that so long as gun homicides are down, gun ownership must be high? IOW, I don’t see how you can say that gun ownership is on the rise while gun crime is going down and then extrapolate anything from that statement alone. Instead of me picking a different argument, I’ll suggest that you tighten up yours. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/90 "2017-10-04T18:54:48Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Gun homicides have been cut in half over the last 20 years. In the same period, the number of guns owned by US citizens has more than doubled. “The number of guns” is simply not the issue. Pick another argument. Another question, do you have a cite for those numbers. I’m at work and trying to look at them quickly and what I’m finding is that the number of gun homicides have, in fact, gone down quite a bit in the last 20 years. [This graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg) shows that pretty clearly, that. Down from 14k to 8k from 94 to 04. But then looking for gun numbers, that was harder. The graph on this [page](http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers) was the best I could find. It shows the the number of guns manufactured in the US has indeed skyrocketed. In fact, it’s even more than doubled in the last 20 years, like you said. However, what I’m seeing is that it’s only doubled in the last few years. I’m not sure if there’s a better source that has overlapping years, going all the way up to today. Also, IMO it’s important to count more than just ‘homicides’. Las Vegas would be counted as 59 but ignore the other 500+ that got hit, however, I don’t know that those stats exist. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/91 "2017-10-04T18:55:19Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > People are not turning their guns back in, guns stores are not libraries. The percentage of households with guns peaked in 1994 at 53%. It has since fallen one third to 36%. The total number of guns has gone up but this is because there gun enthusiasts who like to collect different guns. Or more people are less willing to answer truthfully in surveys. > [@DrCube](#): > > Dude, I saw a psychiatrist once and now I can’t own a gun in Illinois for 5 years. I’m not an invalid. I’m a war veteran with some depression. I’m also an engineer. I’m’ not incapable of anything or a danger to anyone. > > But guess what I won’t be doing ever again? Seeing a fucking psychiatrist. Yay. You guys sure fixed that problem. How does that work? It can’t be the mere visiting, right? The psych put in some sort of protection order? ---
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/92 "2017-10-04T18:57:26Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Dude, I saw a psychiatrist once and now I can’t own a gun in Illinois for 5 years. I’m not an invalid. I’m a war veteran with some depression. I’m also an engineer. I’m’ not incapable of anything or a danger to anyone. > > But guess what I won’t be doing ever again? Seeing a fucking psychiatrist. Yay. You guys sure fixed that problem. So, what you are saying is that we shouldn’t restrict people with mental issues from having guns, because then the people with mental issues will avoid seeking help out of the paranoia that they may be diagnosed as having mental issues that would mean that they are not responsible owning a firearm? My grandfather said exactly the same thing about his optometrist once. The doc said that his eyesight is getting bad enough that he probably shouldn’t be driving. You know what he didn’t ever do again? See another optometrist. Ran into the back of the garage a few times, so that was annoying, but he also never got to see his great grandchildren clearly, so, in the end, his stubbornness made him lose out. Now, is it just because you saw a therapist that you can’t own a gun in Illinois, or was it because of a diagnosis? I don’t know Illinois law at all, but I would think that they would have had to have had pretty big concnerns in order to bar you from gun ownership. To be honest, I am going to trust a liscend and trained therapist about your level of repsonsiblity than I am trusting your opinion on it. So, it sounds like you just demonstrated another flaw in our system. If you are found to be unable to be responsible enough to own a gun in one state, just moving to another state doesn’t make you saner. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/93 "2017-10-04T19:24:28Z")
Start with ammo. Require background checks and possibly certified training to purchase ammo. Even for private purchases. Use sting operations to deter people from selling to someone doing the checks. It’s easier to make a decent weapon if you have professionally made cartridges and an amateur-made gun than the other way around. The weapons market is thin (high transaction costs) whereas the drugs market is liquid. Low transaction costs for drugs means it’s easy to get them even if they’re illegal. For a product that’s in a thin market, the solutions are either advertising or having a trading hub, something which is rather difficult with illegal goods. Make it risky for someone (even private sellers) to sell to people who shouldn’t have guns. Someone mentioned changing attitudes around smoking, littering, seat belts, wife beating, racism; Any insights about that process and how it might apply to guns? The main impediment to all gun control solutions is the end-of-times paranoia that afflicts so many Americans. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/94 "2017-10-04T19:29:16Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m offering a third choice, we can work together, now, to find reasonable accommodations that are somewhere in the middle. You get to keep your guns, we get to keep our lives. If you refuse to work with those who are willing to work with you, if you tell the public that they just need to get used to being targets, then that third choice will go away, along with your precious guns. Is your “in the middle” similar to, wanting to cut off both your arms, but willing to meet in the middle and only cut off one of them? Or is it more like, each party gets something they actually want? As for “reasonable” - I am totally in favor of 100% of all reasonable things, but only if I get to define what is reasonable. IOW, equivocating on the word reasonable isn’t very useful since there is a giant chasm in what is considered reasonable. How about instead of cloaking things in terms of reasonability, actually be specific? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/95 "2017-10-04T20:06:37Z")
As far as “reasonable restrictions”, you know who first came up with the idea of mandatory background checks? The NRA. And yet, we still don’t have them. But to come up with meaningful reasonable restrictions, we would first have to know just why owning guns is so important. But no explanation for why guns are important actually seems to hold up to scrutiny. To be able to fend off the government? Then tanks and fighter planes would also need to be legal, and I’ve heard very few arguing for that, even among the gun-grabbers. For hunting? Then a three-round magazine limit would be no problem, but nobody wants to agree to that. For self-defense? I’ve yet to hear any explanation for how a gun even could be used in self-defense, that doesn’t result in either the “defender” getting shot first, or killing “attackers” who are completely innocent. For fun? Then all we need is paintball guns. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/96 "2017-10-04T20:14:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > How about instead of cloaking things in terms of reasonability, actually be specific? How about you offering something other than disdain? What do \*you \*propose that \*you \*would consider reasonable? And when did you start working for it? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/97 "2017-10-04T20:21:46Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Are you so afraid of the boogeyman in your daily life that you would rather have a gun to protect your irrationally scared self then get help for any mental conditions that may crop up? No. I expect to retain my basic rights when I seek treatment for my personal health issues. Should we strip voting rights from people who have arthritis? Should we ban the speech of people with cancer? Should the state enforce a religion on people with lupus? Do you think those policies would lead to _more_ people seeking treatment for their medical issues, or less? > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > How does that work? It can’t be the mere visiting, right? The psych put in some sort of protection order? No protection order, no adjudication. I voluntarily checked myself into a hospital for depression, and stayed overnight because my doctor said it might be a good idea. A year or so later I apply for my FOID card, answer honestly that yes, I went to a psychiatric facility once. BZZT! No FOID card for me. To be fair, I think Illinois is the only state with this ignorant policy. Other states actually require a judge to rule that you are mentally unfit before taking away your right to own a firearm. Whatever. I can wait a few more years to purchase a tool I don’t ever intend to use for more than a hobby. I’m a big strong man who has no problem walking in East St. Louis at night. Women escaping abusive boyfriends and little old ladies who have found that their once cozy neighborhood has become a violent ghetto over the last generation probably wouldn’t be as patient as I am, though. > [@Joey\_P](#): > > That’s a fallacy. > > You’re saying the number of guns owned increased while gun homicides decreased. Yes, that’s exactly what I said. So how is it a fallacy? I specifically made no inferences from that fact. You want to claim that fewer _people_ own guns than did in 1993, and _that’s_ why crime went down even while the absolute number of guns in the country went up? Go ahead and make that case. But the naive “Obviously, fewer guns leads to fewer gun crimes…” argument has been debunked. Oh, and the “more sales = more crimes” and the “more guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners, through loss, theft or worse, supply the black market which leads to more crime” arguments are done as well. Maybe it is as simple as fewer people owning guns results in less gun crime. I’d need to see some evidence though. Seems like it’s more specific, like fewer _criminals_ owning guns results in less gun crime. “Criminal” in this case referring to rapists, murderers, thieves and arsonists, rather than the catch-all “anything that’s against the law”, as I highly doubt that traffic infractions, marijuana possession, tax evasion, improper disposal of batteries and motor oil, et cetera, correlate with more gun crime. But it’s your argument. Go ahead and make it. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/98 "2017-10-04T20:27:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Is your “in the middle” similar to, wanting to cut off both your arms, but willing to meet in the middle and only cut off one of them? Or is it more like, each party gets something they actually want? > > As for “reasonable” - I am totally in favor of 100% of all reasonable things, but only if I get to define what is reasonable. IOW, equivocating on the word reasonable isn’t very useful since there is a giant chasm in what is considered reasonable. How about instead of cloaking things in terms of reasonability, actually be specific? IIRC, you consider current gun regulations to be unreasonable, so I am not sure that anyone who is looking for a way to reduce gun violence could come to a compromise with you. I haven’t defined the middle, I’ve asked for gun advocates to take even just a single step towards the middle, and have been refused every time. Give me a solution, if you think that all of our solutions are unreasonable. You tell me what you consider to be a reasonable way to reduce gun violence overall, and prevent shootings like this in specific, from occurring again. Last time I asked that of you, the only suggestion you had was to end the drug war, but the party that you support is against that, so that’s a useless gesture of a suggestion. Do you have any suggestion, and reasonable idea at all, that could be workable, that could reduce gun violence? That’s what I keep talking about, being willing to work with gun advocates on finding reasonable measures, but it does not seem that you have any interest at all in any measure whatsoever that could work to reduce the number of people killed by guns. I had thought that earlier I had seen you agree that bump stocks should be restricted, and I thought that that was reasonable, but I’m not finding that post, so I’m not sure that that was your position, especially since you have now taken this tactic of refusing to meet any measure that could result in fewer deaths at the hands of gun wielding criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/99 "2017-10-04T20:32:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For self-defense? I’ve yet to hear any explanation for how a gun even could be used in self-defense, that doesn’t result in either the “defender” getting shot first, or killing “attackers” who are completely innocent. There are a number of examples of how guns can be used in self-defense where defenders don’t get shot, or “attackers” who do aren’t innocent, in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=773012). But more than that, this - > [@](#): > > But to come up with meaningful reasonable restrictions, we would first have to know just why owning guns is so important. But no explanation for why guns are important actually seems to hold up to scrutiny. shows a fundamental disconnect between the left and the right, on guns but also on other issues. My basic assumption, on guns as well as the other enumerated rights in the Constitution, and even on pretty much anything else, is when the government asks me a question, or asks me to justify whatever it is that I am doing, is that “none of your business” is the default answer. I do not have to justify myself, IOW - the government has to justify its asking. I do not have to give them any reasons they think are sufficient - they have to give their reasons to me. That doesn’t mean there never are any such reasons - there are a lot of them. But always and without exception the government should accept the default. If I want to own a gun just because it is shiny, or to protect myself against zombie invasions, or because I want to defend my home, or because I like to go target shooting on the weekends, and those are not good enough reasons to convince the government that I should be allowed to own a gun, tough fucking shit. If I use those guns to commit a crime, no problem - come down on me like the wrath of God. If I don’t, the government doesn’t get to decide that _I_ can’t own a gun because _someone else_ might commit a crime. That’s not how it works, or at least, not how it works in a Constitutional republic. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/100 "2017-10-04T20:39:48Z")
OK, so suppose someone asks me why I want nerve gas, or methamphetamine, or Cuban cigars, or any of the myriad other things I’m not allowed to have. Is “None of your business” a valid answer to all of those questions, too? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847.md?page=6)