# What's the threshold for a firearm to be too dangerous? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510 "2019-03-25T17:00:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/1 "2019-03-25T17:00:44Z")
If you allow that some guns are ok and others are not, what do you consider the dividing line and why? ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/2 "2019-03-25T17:24:37Z")
Too dangerous for what? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/3 "2019-03-25T17:39:19Z")
I’ve posted about this before, but based on my experience in the military and shooting in general, there are 4 features of some semi-automatic rifles that make them virtually the perfect weapons for mass shootings in large interior spaces like schools or churches: 1. Semi-auto action (i.e. one trigger pull, one bullet comes out, as opposed to lever or pump action in which another motion is needed to chamber the next bullet). This enables significantly more rapid, accurate fire than other firearm actions. 2. Carbine-length barrel – around 14-18" barrel length, rather than a hunting weapon which typically is 22-24" or more. This allows relatively low weight and high maneuverability (i.e. can quickly and easily aim the weapon at multiple targets in sequence) while retaining enough accuracy for the kind of short and mid-range targeting likely in a school or church (point blank to ~10 yards or so). 3. Rifle-caliber ammunition – rifle-caliber ammunition generally has significantly more propellant (i.e. gunpowder) driving the bullet than pistol-caliber ammunition, meaning the bullet travels much faster, creating much more deadly wounds. A short or medium range rifle wound is much more likely to be deadly than a pistol wound (aside from some unusually powerful pistol calibers). 4. Large magazine sizes – this means that the shooter won’t need to pause and reload nearly as often… with every pause for a reload, that’s another chance for potential targets to either escape or fight back and subdue the shooter. With this in mind, I believe these features would be the reasonable characteristics to approach with legislation. Not to ban them (except, perhaps, #4 – I don’t think civilian magazine sizes need to be larger than 10 or so), but to limit their combination. For example, you can have a carbine-length rifle, but not with rifle-caliber ammo and semi-auto action. Or you can have a semi-auto rifle for hunting, but the barrel must be greater than 24", with a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer. Etc. This probably wouldn’t reduce the amount of shootings, but it could reduce the body count. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/4 "2019-03-25T17:43:23Z")
The total amount donated to currently elected members of Congress by the manufacturer’s lobbyists. Tris * * * Congress shall make no law. (That’s where they should have stopped.) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/5 "2019-03-25T17:56:23Z")
I’m outside the norm for the SDMB, but I’d like to see most any individually-transportable & usable firearm with non-explosive ammunition be legal to own, so I guess I draw the line at explosive ammunition or crew-served weapons. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/6 "2019-03-25T18:06:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > so I guess I draw the line at explosive ammunition or crew-served weapons. Hell, my buddies and I were going to start a “50 Cal” club… ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/7 "2019-03-25T18:09:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve posted about this before, but based on my experience in the military and shooting in general, there are 4 features of some semi-automatic rifles that make them virtually the perfect weapons for mass shootings in large interior spaces like schools or churches: > > 1. Semi-auto action (i.e. one trigger pull, one bullet comes out, as opposed to lever or pump action in which another motion is needed to chamber the next bullet). This enables significantly more rapid, accurate fire than other firearm actions. > > 2. Carbine-length barrel – around 14-18" barrel length, rather than a hunting weapon which typically is 22-24" or more. This allows relatively low weight and high maneuverability (i.e. can quickly and easily aim the weapon at multiple targets in sequence) while retaining enough accuracy for the kind of short and mid-range targeting likely in a school or church (point blank to ~10 yards or so). > > 3. Rifle-caliber ammunition – rifle-caliber ammunition generally has significantly more propellant (i.e. gunpowder) driving the bullet than pistol-caliber ammunition, meaning the bullet travels much faster, creating much more deadly wounds. A short or medium range rifle wound is much more likely to be deadly than a pistol wound (aside from some unusually powerful pistol calibers). > > 4. Large magazine sizes – this means that the shooter won’t need to pause and reload nearly as often… with every pause for a reload, that’s another chance for potential targets to either escape or fight back and subdue the shooter. > > With this in mind, I believe these features would be the reasonable characteristics to approach with legislation. Not to ban them (except, perhaps, #4 – I don’t think civilian magazine sizes need to be larger than 10 or so), but to limit their combination. For example, you can have a carbine-length rifle, but not with rifle-caliber ammo and semi-auto action. Or you can have a semi-auto rifle for hunting, but the barrel must be greater than 24", with a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer. Etc. > > This probably wouldn’t reduce the amount of shootings, but it could reduce the body count. Thought a lot about what might be useful for a mass shooting, have you? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/8 "2019-03-25T18:14:57Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Thought a lot about what might be useful for a mass shooting, have you? In this day and age, why wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/9 "2019-03-25T18:17:16Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Thought a lot about what might be useful for a mass shooting, have you? In terms of how their deadliness (and frequency, though that’s probably not affected by this post) might be reduced? Yes. Would you care to engage me on the substance of my post? IIRC, you’re a long-time gun owner. Perhaps you could correct me if I made any mistakes. Or you could tell me why you disagree, if you do disagree. You know, just if you’d like to have a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/10 "2019-03-25T18:25:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve posted about this before, but based on my experience in the military and shooting in general, there are 4 features of some semi-automatic rifles that make them virtually the perfect weapons for mass shootings in large interior spaces like schools or churches: > > 1. Semi-auto action (i.e. one trigger pull, one bullet comes out, as opposed to lever or pump action in which another motion is needed to chamber the next bullet). So all we need to do is ban semi-automatic rifles and we’re golden? Seems to me that overlooks virtually all handguns in circulation, which are semi-automatics and [far outpace rifles as weapons of choice of “active shooters”](https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/mass-shooting-gun-type-data/). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/11 "2019-03-25T18:29:38Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If you allow that some guns are ok and others are not, what do you consider the dividing line and why? Probably armor piercing, explosive or incendiary ammunition and high calibers, such as 20mm or .50 cal, though it’s really about the total energy not necessarily about the bore size (i.e. a small very fast moving bullet does as much damage as a slow moving but heavier round in many cases). But anything that’s a crew served weapon I think are definitely not ‘ok’ for civilian use and I think that’s a pretty rational dividing line. I don’t find magazine sized personally compelling, though I know this has become the poster child of the gun control crowd. Basically, I don’t see a lot of difference between a magazine fed gun that holds only 8 rounds verse one that holds 15 or more, not when a magazine change takes less than a second or two for anyone who knows which end of the gun the bullets come out of. I also don’t subscribe to the ‘ban anything that looks scary’ philosophy that also seems to have a lot of traction in a lot of these discussions. From a practical perspective I think the dividing line is what I said above…armor piercing/explosive and incendiary rounds should definitely cross the line (though obviously this is about ammo, not the weapons themselves) as well as crew served weapons or weapons with really high muzzle energies. So no .50 cal sniper rifles or machine guns, no electric (or manual for that matter) Gatling guns, no .30 caliber machine guns, no grenade launchers or rocket launchers and no cannon for you! Kind of crushes my own dream of one day owning my own fully functional tank, but sometimes you have to do what’s best for everyone… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/12 "2019-03-25T18:32:28Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > So all we need to do is ban semi-automatic rifles and we’re golden? Seems to me that overlooks virtually all handguns in circulation, which are semi-automatics and [far outpace rifles as weapons of choice of “active shooters”](https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/mass-shooting-gun-type-data/). No, I was speaking of a particular slice of possible firearm legislation that might help mitigate a specific problem (i.e. the high body counts of many mass shootings). I’m not arguing that my suggestion is the final answer, or anything close, to address gun violence in general, or even just mass shootings. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/13 "2019-03-25T18:35:46Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If you allow that some guns are ok and others are not, what do you consider the dividing line and why? Whether they’re more destructive than they need to be for the purpose for which they’re being held? That’s the principle used in the UK (simplified by the fact that we don’t accept self-defence as a generally accepted purpose, let alone preparing to stand up to a tyrannical government). So there are guidelines to local police as to what is and isn’t suitable for hunting particular sorts of prey, for sporting competition, and shotguns for farm vermin; as well as the numbers of weapons you can have for a given purpose, and not forgetting the security arrangements for storage. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/14 "2019-03-25T19:02:01Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > . > > That’s the principle used in the UK (simplified by the fact that we don’t accept self-defence as a generally accepted purpose, That seems to me to be strange. If a burglar is going to harm me in my house, I can’t shoot him. Can I hit with with a broom? My fist? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/15 "2019-03-25T19:19:28Z")
OP, why don’t you tell us where you think the dividing line should be and then we can debate it. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/16 "2019-03-25T19:34:48Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Probably armor piercing, explosive or incendiary ammunition and high calibers, such as 20mm or .50 cal, though it’s really about the total energy not necessarily about the bore size (i.e. a small very fast moving bullet does as much damage as a slow moving but heavier round in many cases). But anything that’s a crew served weapon I think are definitely not ‘ok’ for civilian use and I think that’s a pretty rational dividing line. I don’t find magazine sized personally compelling, though I know this has become the poster child of the gun control crowd. Basically, I don’t see a lot of difference between a magazine fed gun that holds only 8 rounds verse one that holds 15 or more, not when a magazine change takes less than a second or two for anyone who knows which end of the gun the bullets come out of. I also don’t subscribe to the ‘ban anything that looks scary’ philosophy that also seems to have a lot of traction in a lot of these discussions. From a practical perspective I think the dividing line is what I said above…armor piercing/explosive and incendiary rounds should definitely cross the line (though obviously this is about ammo, not the weapons themselves) as well as crew served weapons or weapons with really high muzzle energies. So no .50 cal sniper rifles or machine guns, no electric (or manual for that matter) Gatling guns, no .30 caliber machine guns, no grenade launchers or rocket launchers and no cannon for you! > > Kind of crushes my own dream of one day owning my own fully functional tank, but sometimes you have to do what’s best for everyone… > > 😛 See, I’d argue that given the current licensing regime and price structure, those are perfectly safe. They’re too damn expensive to actually use, and too tough to actually get licensed for (full-auto). Plus, crew-served weapons, you know, take a CREW. Nobody’s going to hold up a bank or commit a mass shooting with a M-60 or the like because the things are just too damn cumbersome. I mean, I suppose you could set up with your bipod outside a stadium exit and rip through a belt, but that might be kind of obvious, and beyond that, I’d say that we should examine the data from the mid-late 1990s when we had an assault weapons ban AND a waiting period- did either of those materially affect gun violence rates? [The analyses done by the Rand Corporation](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html) say that they either didn’t do anything either way, or they were inconclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/17 "2019-03-25T19:37:46Z")
Semi Auto. ---
**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:** [March 25, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/18 "2019-03-25T19:37:50Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > That seems to me to be strange. If a burglar is going to harm me in my house, I can’t shoot him. Can I hit with with a broom? My fist? My understanding is that[no product that is made or adapted to cause a person injury is allowable.](https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm) Granted my understanding of the laws over there is not super great. > [@XT](#): > > From a practical perspective I think the dividing line is what I said above…armor piercing/explosive and incendiary rounds should definitely cross the line (though obviously this is about ammo, not the weapons themselves) as well as crew served weapons or weapons with really high muzzle energies. So no .50 cal sniper rifles or machine guns, no electric (or manual for that matter) Gatling guns, no .30 caliber machine guns, no grenade launchers or rocket launchers and no cannon for you! All rifle ammo is essentially armor piercing, or at least, level II body armor. They make body armor capable of withstanding rifle ammo impacts, so I guess it makes more sense to define what piercing capacity would be important to you. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/19 "2019-03-25T19:55:42Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Semi Auto. Why is there concern about semi-automatic? Double action revolvers fire as quickly as one can pull the trigger. George McDonald Fraser claimed he could fire a bolt action British rifle as fast as a semi-auto. Lever action rifles can be fired very quickly. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/20 "2019-03-25T19:57:46Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Why is there concern about semi-automatic? Double action revolvers fire as quickly as one can pull the trigger. George McDonald Fraser claimed he could fire a bolt action British rifle as fast as a semi-auto. Lever action rifles can be fired very quickly. Maybe by highly trained shooters (for lever action). But by the idiot scumbags who do school and church shootings? Probably a lot less likely. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=2)