# 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:** 3
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/41 "2019-03-25T23:55:36Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I was sort of operating on the assumption that the dividing line would be based on some sort of reasoning or another. As noted any gun is “too dangerous” if “too dangerous” means “can kill somebody”. Which means that we’re either saying that any gun is too dangerous, that no gun is too dangerous, or that there’s some circumstance or outcome more nuanced than “can kill somebody” that the line would be based on. One based on damage to property, maybe? Or a cap on maximum allowable awesomeness a single person may wield? Well, I took it as a dividing line for general (in the US anyway) use. Those other weapons I mentioned are probably not a practical weapons for most people, so they would be very niche weapons wrt crime. They WOULD, if available to the general public, be ideal for mass murders on a scale larger than anything outside of the box cutters and planes or big bombs level of crazy, so that’s why I drew the line I did. If you make the basic assumption that a gun, in and of itself isn’t ‘too dangerous’ then that’s where I draw the line. If you don’t, then talking about magazine capacity is meaningless, and instead you should focus on the action. Any gun that is a repeater is probably ‘too dangerous’, and even a single shot weapon with modern ammo is probably ‘too dangerous’ in that context. Like I said, a valid argument would be semi-automatic or repeating actions (bolt action, cylinder or pump action). It’s the action that makes such guns more dangerous than a single shot weapon. So we have several levels here…all guns being ‘too dangerous’, semi-automatic or repeating weapons being ‘too dangerous’, and highly specialized weapons like those I mentioned and the ammo types I noted, with a whole bunch of levels in-between that that folks can use to draw the line (say, caliber or muzzle velocity…I think they would be valid arguments especially the latter). I gave my answer to the ‘too dangerous’ (for civilian I presume) use answer. ---
**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 26, 2019, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/42 "2019-03-26T00:00:10Z")
I’m talking marginal improvements. I have no illusion that even a total ban and successful elimination of every \>10 round magazine in the country would make a huge difference. But it might make a small difference - maybe a shooter kills 11 instead of 14, because 3 got away while he was reloading. Or with a ban on carbine length barrels with rifle caliber ammo, maybe 9 are killed instead of 12 because 3 of them had survivable wounds. Or similar. Even a few seconds can be a really long time in the moment - certainly long enough to increase the chances of escape. It’s a monstrous, massive problem, largely driven by culture, including our culture that worships violence and especially gun violence. But looking at it rationally and logically, some weapons are more effective at different tasks than others. It’s not ludicrous to surmise that targeting certain features with legislation might have some non zero effect on the body count of shootings. I understand that many are philosophically opposed to anything like this, but the idea that there’s no possibility any such legislation could have any effect is not credible. ---
**Author:** ![l0k1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@l0k1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/l0k1)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/43 "2019-03-26T00:20:50Z")
I think all long guns should be muzzle loaders. ---
**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 26, 2019, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/44 "2019-03-26T00:38:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m talking marginal improvements. I have no illusion that even a total ban and successful elimination of every \>10 round magazine in the country would make a huge difference. But it might make a small difference - maybe a shooter kills 11 instead of 14, because 3 got away while he was reloading. Or with a ban on carbine length barrels with rifle caliber ammo, maybe 9 are killed instead of 12 because 3 of them had survivable wounds. Or similar. Even a few seconds can be a really long time in the moment - certainly long enough to increase the chances of escape. > > It’s a monstrous, massive problem, largely driven by culture, including our culture that worships violence and especially gun violence. > > But looking at it rationally and logically, some weapons are more effective at different tasks than others. It’s not ludicrous to surmise that targeting certain features with legislation might have some non zero effect on the body count of shootings. I understand that many are philosophically opposed to anything like this, but the idea that there’s no possibility any such legislation could have any effect is not credible. All of this applies to someone in a defense scenario as well. You seem to only be considering potential positives, not negatives. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/45 "2019-03-26T01:24:28Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > The total amount donated to currently elected members of Congress by the manufacturer’s lobbyists. > … Actually, very very small. Here’s the top 50, guns arent even in the top 100. [https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big](https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big) Big Health and Pharma together are the biggest. Big Tobacco, which kills 500,000 Americans a year, spends about 10-20 times what gun companies and the NRA does. … and kills 50 times more. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/46 "2019-03-26T01:25:58Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’m talking about armor piercing as in light armored vehicles, not body armor which, as you note, can be pierced (if we are talking about without the ceramic plates) by rifle caliber ammo. Then that would be limited to the .50 BMG, and possibly not even that. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/47 "2019-03-26T01:27:12Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > The other night there was a typical street corner shooting here. Maybe a drug deal gone bad, maybe a holdup. The police counted 80 shell casings. Just stopping that kind of random gun violence would be a big step. How many were killed? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/48 "2019-03-26T02:16:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > How many were killed? [One dead, two vehicles struck by bullets, although the no one was injured in either one.](https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/three-suspects-in-custody-after-downtown-st-louis-shooting/article_ff15bcf1-e4b5-5b34-946a-f2aea7802762.html) Three suspects in custody, one still at large. And for the sake of accuracy, it was 60 shell casings, not 80. My mistake. My question to you. Does 60 shots fired and only one death make it okay? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/49 "2019-03-26T02:36:23Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > A bolt action rifle could kill a lot from a high position. [Charles Whitman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman)would agree with you. ---
**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 26, 2019, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/50 "2019-03-26T02:45:37Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > My point with the shotgun is that he got off about 9-10 shots rapidly with a shotgun. Maybe with a pump shotgun he would’ve gotten much less off, with a single shot shotgun it would’ve been near useless for a massacre. Actually, [this guy did some real damage with a breach-loading shotgun](http://www.glynngen.com/history/bwkmassacre.htm). And accounts say the body count would have been higher if some of the shells he carried hadn’t been bird shot. > [@](#): > > Even the 1934 firearms act seems kind of arbitrary. Silencers, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns are not the problem. The common factor with these seems to be their portrayed use by criminals: “Tommy” guns by gangsters, silencers by assassins, robbers hiding short-barreled guns under a coat. Even back then Hollywood was sensationalizing gun crime. > [@](#): > > . A bolt action rifle could kill a lot from a high position. You’re thinking of the infamous University of Texas tower shooting? ---
**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 26, 2019, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/51 "2019-03-26T02:48:58Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > [One dead, two vehicles struck by bullets, although the no one was injured in either one.](https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/three-suspects-in-custody-after-downtown-st-louis-shooting/article_ff15bcf1-e4b5-5b34-946a-f2aea7802762.html) Three suspects in custody, one still at large. And for the sake of accuracy, it was 60 shell casings, not 80. My mistake. > > My question to you. Does 60 shots fired and only one death make it okay? It suggests to me that some people’s aim sucks. 😛 > [@bump](#): > > [Charles Whitman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman)would agree with you. Ninja’d. ---
**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 26, 2019, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/52 "2019-03-26T03:32:54Z")
Has any one even used a 50 caliber sniper rifle in a mass shooting before? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/53 "2019-03-26T04:41:12Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > [One dead, two vehicles struck by bullets, although the no one was injured in either one.](https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/three-suspects-in-custody-after-downtown-st-louis-shooting/article_ff15bcf1-e4b5-5b34-946a-f2aea7802762.html) Three suspects in custody, one still at large. And for the sake of accuracy, it was 60 shell casings, not 80. My mistake. > > My question to you. Does 60 shots fired and only one death make it okay? No, I just wanted to know, gang bangers are notoriously inaccurate. It was quite possible 80 casings, no one was hit. But actually, according to that, no one was dead and only one critically injured. ---
**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 26, 2019, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/54 "2019-03-26T08:30:59Z")
> [@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? The law says you can reasonable and proportionate force if attacked, but as to what that might be, that depends on the how the circumstances are eventually viewed by the police, prosecuting authorities and if necessary the courts. On the whole, we don’t attempt to prescribe every possible situation in legislation. But burglars here don’t, on the whole, set out to attack, rather to steal, and very rarely have guns in the first place, so the use of a gun on the average thief would be [wholly disproportionate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29). If you do get one waving a gun around, well, your life is worth more than your family heirlooms. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/55 "2019-03-26T09:30:05Z")
> [@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? I’ve been burgled in the UK three times (each time, before I managed to install a burglar alarm). One when I was in the house. At no time was I in any real danger, and I had no desire to shoot the kids who did it. Why do Americans always want to shoot burglars? ---
**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 26, 2019, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/56 "2019-03-26T09:39:34Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > All of this applies to someone in a defense scenario as well. You seem to only be considering potential positives, not negatives. That seems reasonable. And thank you for recognizing that there could indeed be some positives to this kind of idea. Do you know how many civilian self defense instances in the last decade or so involved reloading, or more than ten shots fired? I don’t, but I suspect the number is smaller than the number of mass shootings with more than ten shots fired. ---
**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 26, 2019, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/57 "2019-03-26T09:41:32Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > I’ve been burgled in the UK three times (each time, before I managed to install a burglar alarm). One when I was in the house. At no time was I in any real danger, and I had no desire to shoot the kids who did it. Why do Americans always want to shoot burglars? We have an extremely violent culture that worships the idea of “shooting bad guys”. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/58 "2019-03-26T09:47:36Z")
What’s the line in the military, or other enforcement organizations? Even in a context in which we might expect legitimate access to high powered weapons, I doubt they just open the door to the armory and say have fun! Plus, there are a hell of a lot of people, in a fairly high stress environment. There’s got to be at least one or two mental meltdowns just waiting to happen. Since everyone is so focused on the militia aspect, maybe we should just say use any weapon you want, you just have to be a current or standby member. What’s up with non semi automatic anyway? On TV there’s often a scene where someone is pointing a gun for some time and exchanging banter and then just to show they are extra serious, they cock the gun. What? What does that do? Does it make the bullet meaner? Or would the gun not have worked until then? In which case why pretend it’s a threat? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/59 "2019-03-26T10:08:38Z")
**Lumpy** , or anyone else, what do \*you \*consider an acceptable level of dangerousness, and why? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/60 "2019-03-26T10:27:07Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If you allow that some guns are ok and others are not, what do you consider the dividing line and why? It’s common sense: the more people that a weapon can kill in the hands of one person, the more dangerous it is. If we’re going to allow the average person to carry assault-style weapons why not let them carry hand grenades and IEDs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=4)