# What is 'Common Sense' or 'Reasonable' Gun Control? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2002, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115 "2002-06-03T09:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/81 "2002-06-06T01:04:08Z")
> [@](#): > > as a gun owner I want any gun control legislation to be as precisely worded as is humanly and legislatively possible Me too, generally speaking. The OP asked what form reasonable gun control would take, not the exact wording of the legislation, and “assault rifles” captures the concept well enough for the OP’s purpose. > [@](#): > > As always, a definite need should be shown on the part of those proposing additional restrictions. Why is this weapon, or category of weapons, any worse than the others? What is the objective of any proposed legislation? How is it to be implemented? Are there unintended consequences? Of course. I think I’ve explained my proposals w/r/t most of those questions, and would be happy to do so with any I’ve missed. What we got instead was a pointless debate over whether SenorBeef’s secret identity is Merriam Webster. If I have not adequately explained any of those questions, please feel free to ask for clarification of the reasons for my position. > [@](#): > > You said something earlier (I’m not digging back for an exact quote) to the effect of, “If the price of [guns] goes up, then less people will be buying them. I have no problem with that.” > > Without attempting to cast negative aspersion on your motives, this sounds suspiciously like, “No guns for the lower income classes.” Nag, that’s pretty far beyond what I’m saying. First of all, any regulation on any good is going to lead to a price increase, and price increases are always going to be felt more strongly by lower income people. That doesn’t invalidate the concept of regulation (though the wisdom of any particular regulation is always open to question, including its effects on pricing). Second, I’m not talking about regulations that would dramatically increase the price of most firearms (with the previously-noted exception of assault rifles, however that broad term may eventually be specified in legislation). You had asked about the market effect of the technologies I’d been proposing. Even if it added up to $20 per gun (which is on the high side of my internal guesstimates) the effect on the market would be basically trivial. Demand for firearms is relatively inelastic, after all–if you’re frightened enough to think you need a gun for defense, or enjoy their recreational uses enough to want one for target shooting or hunting, you’re very unlikely to be deterred by an extra 20 bucks. Certainly, fewer guns will be sold at (for instance) $320 than at $300, but not very many fewer. > [@](#): > > Considering that dearth of violent crimes committed with fully automatic weaponry, I see no real need to tighten regulations concerning them. I don’t either. Of course, one of the primary reasons why violent crime so rarely occurs with automatic weapons is undoubtedly that they’ve been so tightly regulated that most ordinary criminals can’t get hold of them. I recall that full-auto weapons were highly favored by organized crime before they were regulated to the point of irrelevance. Considering the social benefits of private machine gun ownership are basically nonexistant, I would certainly oppose any lessening of their regulation. > [@](#): > > I would also like to see a shift of enforcement of firearms laws over to the FBI, away from the BATF. I don’t care who’s doing the enforcing, personally, as long as they’re effective at it. Whoever it is, however, had better have access to the administrative records that I’m talking about creating. > [@](#): > > I offer no excuse for my hypocrisy other than my subjective closeness to the firearms issues, and the byzantine legislative patchwork we currently have as a nation which inadvertantly criminalizes otherwise law abiding citizens with no criminal intent. Again, I largely agree. I’m not in favor of increasing transaction costs through pointless administrative complexity. Each of the administrative steps I would support would be there to serve a legitimate purpose, not just to increase aspirin consumption and decrease gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Barking\_Spider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Barking\_Spider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Spider)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/82 "2002-06-06T02:47:37Z")
The defining characteristic of an assault rifle is that it is capable of firing in either semiautomatic or full automatic mode. It has a selector switch to switch between semi and full auto. Thus, the military M16 is an assault rifle. The civilian AR15 is not. If it’s not capable of select fire, then its not an assault rifle. Assault rifles usually, but not always, share these other characteristics: carbine length. intermediate size round, removable magazine, bayonet lug. pistol grip. Now “assault weapon”, on the other hand, is a made up term that describes civilian, semiautomatic versions of military assault rifles. Of course, the mainstream media and the gun grabbing politicians and their lackeys are always trying to confuse the two terms. ---
**Author:** ![Barking\_Spider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Barking\_Spider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Spider)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/83 "2002-06-06T02:50:57Z")
Also, it’s not easy for a person to get an assault rifle. They are very expensive, the buyer must undergo an extensive background check, many states prohibit them altogether, and there is also a 200 dollar federal tax. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/84 "2002-06-06T04:07:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Except I’m arguing with you, an _aficionado_ of the ballistic arts, not the general public. So why would you attribute “scare tactics” to me in discussing this with you? Sheesh. \*\* Anti-rights activitists use loaded words with ambiguous or false meanings, as a habit, because it tends to influence those who are ignorant about the subject and work up an emotional frenzy about it. Clearly, you’re not trying to scare me, but anyone who is reading this. It’s a habit that anti-rights activists develop, because they want to capitalize on the emotional sentiment and confusion between real assault rifles and “assault weapons”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Oh, I get it. You’re claiming an M16 or an AK-47 isn’t a Magic Thunderstick because it is (at least in the versions issued to most militaries) fully automatic _and_ semi-automatic, not fully automatic _or_ semi-automatic. Thanks ever so much for splitting that hair. I’ll notify the dictionary editors immediately. > > Pot : Kettle \*\* Pot : kettle black my ass. You posted an incorrect definition. I said that it was incorrect. You said ‘whatever! it’s in the dictionary! It’s whatever the dictionary says!’. I said ‘if you want to get technical, by the dictionary’s definition does not classify an m16 or ak-47 as an assault rifle’ as a way of pointing out the flaw in the definition, and an attempt to make you accept intellectual honesty and drop it. Understand? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Please, once again, I implore you to provide an example of your Evil Tyrranical Dictatorship boogyman that replaced “a stable democracy (i.e., at least one full generation with a democratic form of government) with due process of law and legal protection for matters of individual conscience.” Go on. Bet you can’t. \*\* I’ll leave this one for more knowledgable people. You may be right. But even so, the tyranny of the majority can be as bad as the tyranny of one. If respect for rights is not given because mob rule dictates it should not be, then you have violated one of the core principles of a Republic. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Guns, schmuns. I’m asking you to provide an example–any example–of a tyrranical form of government that replaced “a stable democracy (i.e., at least one full generation with a democratic form of government) with due process of law and legal protection for matters of individual conscience.” Come on, demonstrate that your boogyman exists. \*\* Are you suggesting that America will never become more oppressive? That the government will not become larger and more invasive? That this hasn’t been the trend in the last 50 years? Are you saying that at some point the politicians will say “That’s it, we have enough control over the country, let’s stop getting more.”? Perhaps I’m pessimistic, but I see this country as spiralling down the drain, with increased government size and control of every day lives. Has there ever been a case where a government has not grown larger, more powerful, and more invasive and commanding of it’s citizens? Has the government ever ceded control back to a populace after it has taken it? I’m supposed to give up my right to self defense because I believe politicians are fundamentally good people, and will not try to be more powerful and invasive… contrary to a few thousand years of recorded history. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So by your own admission, widespread individual ownership of firearms would have been useless at preventing Hitler’s rise to power. Care to identify any tyrants who would have been prevented from taking power if the citizens had been armed? \*\* Hitler, as a whole, would not have been prevented, because he was generally popular. However, do you think the Gestapo would be so effective at silencing opposition groups if they were armed? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Lenin is right out, since he was pretty popular and kicked the military butts of his opponents. Mao’s out the window too. Just offhand, I can’t think of any 20th century tryants who assumed power without the clear support of the populace. Can you think of any? And if not, why do you think America would be so different if it ever came to that? \*\* If a people are willing to tolerate oppression, it will happen. There are two components to resisting oppression: A will and a means. Because, historically, some people have not have the will does not provide a logical reason to retract the means. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/85 "2002-06-06T04:22:02Z")
Beef, I’m through with you in this thread. This dictionary vs. you thing is just too stupid to support rational discussion, and your assertion that I am intentionally trying to scare people by using a term in common usage in accordance with that common usage is almost as stupid as it is insulting. You may now return to your regularly scheduled paranoia. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/86 "2002-06-06T04:33:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Me too, generally speaking. The OP asked what form reasonable gun control would take, not the exact wording of the legislation, and “assault rifles” captures the concept well enough for the OP’s purpose. \*\* Why is it that you want to ban them, anyway? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Of course. I think I’ve explained my proposals w/r/t most of those questions, and would be happy to do so with any I’ve missed. What we got instead was a pointless debate over whether SenorBeef’s secret identity is Merriam Webster. If I have not adequately explained any of those questions, please feel free to ask for clarification of the reasons for my position. \*\* Give me a break. You used a definition that you KNEW was faulty. When I reminded you of why it was faulty, you said “nyah nyah it’s in the dictionary!”. YOU were being a little, intellectually dishonest, brat about it. You were blatantly refering to a weapon by the wrong term in an attempt to further the confusion of people in general, the people reading this. I called you on it, and instead of being honest about it, you pulled the ‘nyah nyah, in the dictionary!’ card. And so, from there, I criticized the dictionary definition, because you decided to cling at it, and I ONCE AGAIN had to explain why it was faulty. Don’t make it look like I’m being an ass. You’re the one instrigating this. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/87 "2002-06-06T04:42:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > Heckler Koch manufactures and markets the following weapons as “military” or “law enforcement” > The following Remington guns look like standard hunting rifles to me: > I don’t pretend to know everything about weapons, so explain to me what makes the HK weapons better for military use than the Remington rifles. **You** , msmith537, are the one who stated that banning ‘military weapons’ was part of **your** idea of ‘common sense’ gun control, so **you** are the only one who can possibly know what **you** meant by it. Why is it so hard for you to tell me what guns it is that you want to ban? I would consider a Garand a military weapon (it did, after all, see us through WW2), but you explicitly said that you considered it not a military weapon. I’m not interested in what I’d cover with the term ‘military weapon’, I’m interested in what you mean by the term. It’s especially silly for you to keep dodging the question by effectively saying ‘this fully automatic gun is military, this non-fully-automatic and non-scary-looking gun isn’t’. I have already stated that I understand that fully automatic weapons are included in what you want to ban; what I’ve been asking for is clarification of what the set of weapons you want to ban other than fully automatic weapons. I’ve even thrown you simple questions that you’ve skipped over, for example asking directly whether you think AR-15s should be banned and whether you think that ‘military weapons’ is a functional or appearance difference, though your mention that ‘the remington guns look like standard hunting rifles to me’ suggests that you want an appearance-based ban. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/88 "2002-06-06T05:00:41Z")
How about [this one](http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/laws/us/hr4296.html), Riboflavin? > [@](#): > > The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means-- "(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as – "(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); "(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; "(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); "(iv) Colt AR-15; "(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; "(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; "(vii) Steyr AUG; "(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and "(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; "(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- "(i) a folding or telescoping stock; "(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; "(iii) a bayonet mount; "(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and "(v) a grenade launcher; "© a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- "(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; "(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; "(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; "(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and "(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and "(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- "(i) a folding or telescoping stock; "(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; "(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and “(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”. Some of the criteria are pretty pointless, but hey, at least it’s precise, right? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/89 "2002-06-06T06:11:08Z")
Ok, minty. So a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazines is alright. Or a gun with a pistol grip and a folding stock. But one with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, and folding stock is evil and banned. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/90 "2002-06-06T12:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Riboflavin \* > > **You** , msmith537, are the one who stated that banning ‘military weapons’ was part of **your** idea of ‘common sense’ gun control, so **you** are the only one who can possibly know what **you** meant by it. \*\* I would say that minty green’s criteria is a good place to start. In any event, I do not wish to debate every criteria of what makes a gun “military”. Nor do I wish to sort every gun ever made into catagories. That is not the point of this debate. Common sense means guidelines that are generally accepted by civilized society. It does not include extreme viewpoints like “all weapons are dangerous and should be banned” or “I should be allowed to own a howitzer”. Why don’t you answer some of my responses to your “guns are there to protect the people from their government” posts. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/91 "2002-06-06T13:08:51Z")
Interesting article that appears to be topical. From a Richmond [paper](http://timesdispatch.com/editorials/more/MGBX20XLW1D.html). From the article: “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against this tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” The arch-conservative loose cannon who shot off his mouth in such fashion was not Attorney General John Ashcroft, but Hubert H. Humphrey. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/92 "2002-06-06T13:32:12Z")
Very nice. Instead of providing even a single example of a stable democracy descending into tyrrany, we get an apocryphal quote from Hubert Humphrey. Guess that clears everything up, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/93 "2002-06-06T13:39:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > All of those situations assume that there is sufficient evidence of an independent crime. The “gap” registration fills there ensures that the bad guy with the unregistered firearm can be prosecuted **regardless of the availability of proof of any other crime**. Sorta like sending Capone to jail for tax invasion. I found this interesting. If there is no proof available that the person in question is a criminal, he or she should go to prison anyway - because he owns an unregistered firearm. How then is the government going to distinguish between the nasty drug dealer who is going to use his gun to murder old ladies, and the average citizen who owns a gun, but is just causing trouble for the powers that be by objecting to something they want to do? It sounds to me very much considering gun ownership to be proof of criminal intent. Guns, by their very nature, contaminate the mind and lead to crime, drug addiction, child abuse, and littering. Just like other forms of ideologically incorrect thought. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/94 "2002-06-06T13:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Very nice. Instead of providing even a single example of a stable democracy descending into tyrrany, we get an apocryphal quote from Hubert Humphrey. Guess that clears everything up, huh? \*\* Ok, **minty** from now on it’s only decaff for you… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/95 "2002-06-06T14:00:52Z")
> [@](#): > > How then is the government going to distinguish between the nasty drug dealer who is going to use his gun to murder old ladies, and the average citizen who owns a gun, but is just causing trouble for the powers that be by objecting to something they want to do? They should not make such distinctions. I am very serious about that. If you break the law, you should be subject to applicable legal penalties. Think of concealed carry, for instance. How are we supposed to distinguish between the drug dealer who is going to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and the average citizen who carries a concealed weapon, bit is just causing trouble for the powers that be by not getting a concealed carry permit? A: We don’t distinguish. > [@](#): > > It sounds to me very much considering gun ownership to be proof of criminal intent. Not at all. If a gun owner complies with the applicable rules and regulations–which are really quite minimal in my proposals–no crime has been committed. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/96 "2002-06-06T14:04:15Z")
So do YOU have such an example, **BF**? I’d dearly love to see whether one exists. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/97 "2002-06-06T14:15:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*So do YOU have such an example, **BF**? I’d dearly love to see whether one exists. \*\* Nope. Sure don’t. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/98 "2002-06-06T14:22:31Z")
☹ ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/99 "2002-06-06T19:54:27Z")
Yay. Because I upset Minty by calling him (her?) on their little dishonest definition games, they won’t respond to ANYTHING I say on this thread. Woohoo. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115/100 "2002-06-06T19:58:48Z")
Could we at least get a cogent explanation as to why guns, and gun owners, should not be subject to at least the same registration, tracking, licensing, and training requirements as automobiles and automobile owners? And could we also please get a position statement that doesn’t enter into fantasies about people’s militias repelling armed invaders, or overthrowing the tyranny of their own elected governments, or of any regulation at all automatically meaning the confiscation of all weapons? It is very difficult to give someone credit for reasonability when the only thing they’re leaving out is the black helicopters, ya know. Can we get some acknowledgment from the gun-rights contingent that there is something they might not like could still be reasonable? Please? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-common-sense-or-reasonable-gun-control/112115.md?page=6)