# 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:** 5
**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 26, 2019, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/81 "2019-03-26T16:13:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why not? Presumably there is some non zero self defense utility, in certain scenarios, for mines, or grenades, or fully automatic crew served weapons, etc. Why is it not logical or reasonable to use the same reasoning that restricts access to those weapons, for magazine sizes, or caliber and barrel length, or other features that are particularly useful for mass shootings? Sure, or nukes or tanks or napalm. But the utility of those things for self defense is vanishingly small. Like approaching zero for the average civilian. While the utility of a magazine, since you keep bringing it up is…small, but detectable. While how useful limiting magazine size with respect to it’s actual effect on mass shootings (another very rare occurrence) is questionable…or at least debatable. The others (plus the action which you didn’t mention) WOULD have a more profound effect, assuming you could actually get major changes and assuming that the people who are writing the legislature actually know enough about the subject to understand what they are asking for (i.e. caliber isn’t really going to help, since .223 is essentially .22 ammo wrt caliber size or bore size, but with a much higher muzzle velocity and more ballistic shape…it’s basically the same round that the M-16 and the various variants use…as for barrel length, are we talking actual length or apparent length, as in would a bullpup design meet the length requirements?..etc etc). ETA: Or what Bone said. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/82 "2019-03-26T16:25:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t know. It doesn’t much matter though because interest balancing is not a viable way to determine what rules are allowable. > > If we look at police encounters, there’s lots of available data. About 25-40% hit ratio, and about 3 hits to stop a threat. The math means that a 10 round magazine capacity is very possible to be insufficient in an encounter with greater than 1 target. Combine that with the fact that most police carry 17 round magazines in their service pistols and it’s quite obvious that there is positive utility with more ammo capacity. Obviously this will vary a little depending on which hellhole you live in, but I’m not convinced that the ability to ‘stop’ a threat is the greatest utility of a gun as a defensive tool. The extremely consistent impression I’ve gotten of the ‘threat profile’ that random civilians will encounter is that most threats they encounter will elect to retreat after the person they’re threatening both shows them a gun and demonstrates a willingness to use it - which requires one, maybe two shots. (If that.) I get that this may not apply if everyone in your neighborhood is constantly strung out on crack, but I don’t really get the impression that that’s the norm. Police of course regularly encounter the subset of humanity that _are_ more likely to be strung out on crack, and failing that the people they’re after know that the police they’re facing intend to capture or shoot them, and thus have reason to press the attack unrelentingly. > [@Bone](#): > > I understand there may be some disagreement, but I consider police to be civilians. For the purpose of gun discussions, I don’t. Police clearly are in a different situation regarding threat encounters than the average person, and beyond that are authorized agents of the state who quite reasonably could have separate gun rules than the average joe. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/83 "2019-03-26T16:29:14Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Fair enough. I think most people would have that initial flash of anger. > > But how is that reconcilable with “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”? That might argue for some sort of regulation and inspection by your National Guard, or something like the Swiss approach. At the time of writing “well regulated” did not have the current connotation of being controlled by an authority but meant in good working order. Militia during that time was not like the National Guard but referred to all the adults in the community who could be called upon to serve when necessary. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/84 "2019-03-26T16:37:28Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Here’s the thing, let’s say 30,000 people a year die from having their heads caved in by a hammer. Let’s also say that a country, a fully functioning modern country\* with 1/5th our population, has about 50 people a year die via hammer. > > Would that suggest to you that maybe we need to rethink how we deal with hammers? Would we all be gnashing our teeth with worry because someone might not be able to own a particular type of hammer anymore\*\*? Would be we “punishing” law abiding hammer owners by striving to cut hammer deaths by 25,000+ per year? > > \*Seriously, they can hang pictures and build houses and stuff even though they have restrictive hammer laws. > > \*\*You can have my 20oz milled face framing hammer when you pry it from my cold dead hand. This is not just a hypothetical, in 2015, 435 Americans were killed by blunt instruments such as hammers. In England and Wales in 2018, 36 people were killed by blunt instruments. Apparently American hammers are deadlier. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/85 "2019-03-26T16:43:02Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is not just a hypothetical, in 2015, 435 Americans were killed by blunt instruments such as hammers. In England and Wales in 2018, 36 people were killed by blunt instruments. Apparently American hammers are deadlier. Keeping in mind that America has five times the population of England/Wales… yep. American hammers are deadlier. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/86 "2019-03-26T16:53:19Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Because people are assholes. I’m conceptually OK with a double barrelled shotgun and a pump action, your 3 round semi auto is not remarkably different. However, if you allow one semi auto shotgun, the assholes will make sure it’s not just that gun, but other guns that are far more dangerous being allowed. Because to them, the law is a game and guns are toys. > > I was asked for a threshold, and the one I prefer is bright line and based on functionality. There is value in having a bright line rule, there should be no question what weapons are on either side of the line. The rule isn’t based on cosmetics or perception, it’s strictly functional. There are naturally going to be some weapons that are close to the line, but there is no question what side they are on. I appreciate the goal of a bright-line rule. Kudos on that. I do wonder if you realize just how broad that would be though. Do you have even a SWAG about how many guns you’re talking about? ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/87 "2019-03-26T17:00:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Because you are making a similar argument that Breyer made in _Heller_ which was rejected. Breyer argued that the limits are not that great, and the benefits were worth those limited restrictions. The court responded: > > Most things that are useful for defense will also be useful for offense. When police start routinely carrying mines, grenades, crew served weapons, then I’d say I should be able to have them too. I adopt all reasons they advance in favor of their arms layout. There are restrictions that have stood up to scrutiny beyond “whatever the police get”, so whatever legal argument that is made for them could be made for the restrictions I’ve suggested. But I’m making a reason and logic based argument, not a constitutional one. It’s indeed possible that there are no further restrictions of any kind that would pass constitutional scrutiny, at least at present. But that doesn’t change my mind about what might actually be good policy, at least to explore, that might reduce the number of dead kids. ---
**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 26, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/88 "2019-03-26T17:13:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I do wonder if you realize just how broad that would be though. Do you have even a SWAG about how many guns you’re talking about? It’s probably a big number. Do you have a SWAG about how many Americans have died from bullet wounds since 1980? That’s a big number too. Really MF’n big. And that’s not a count of little pieces of metal, of property, that’s a count of lives violently ended. So, yeah, my bright line rule encompasses a lot of property, a lot of pieces of metal, a couple hundred million of them most likely. You see, I’ve got another 30 years or so left on this planet before I age out. I’m a hell of a lot more interested in how many more dead people those little pieces of metal are going to make before I join the ranks, than I am about how many of those guns get melted down. ---
**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 26, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/89 "2019-03-26T17:44:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Keeping in mind that America has five times the population of England/Wales… yep. American hammers are deadlier. Only twice as deadly. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/90 "2019-03-26T18:00:10Z")
Gun violence isn’t something I’m personally worried about, but I don’t think that pointing out that X regulation wouldn’t have stopped one or a few specific incidents is a persuasive argument against X regulation. ---
**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 26, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/91 "2019-03-26T18:26:06Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It’s probably a big number. > > Do you have a SWAG about how many Americans have died from bullet wounds since 1980? That’s a big number too. Really MF’n big. And that’s not a count of little pieces of metal, of property, that’s a count of lives violently ended. > > So, yeah, my bright line rule encompasses a lot of property, a lot of pieces of metal, a couple hundred million of them most likely. > > You see, I’ve got another 30 years or so left on this planet before I age out. I’m a hell of a lot more interested in how many more dead people those little pieces of metal are going to make before I join the ranks, than I am about how many of those guns get melted down. Well, I’d guess that it’s, oh, say 3 orders of magnitude difference in big-ness wrt number of folks killed by guns since the 80’s verse the total number of guns you are talking about eliminating (a strange comparison, to be sure, but you were the one that brought it up). Maybe 4, it’s just a SWAG. You know what are bigger numbers? Number of Americans who have died due to alcohol since the 80’s. Or number of American who have died do to tobacco since the 80’s. Or the number of Americans who have died due to cheeseburger (a.k.a. heart disease) since the 80’s. All of those numbers are a lot bigger than the number of Americans who have died due to bullet wounds since the 80’s. They are also things that are more likely to kill you than a gun, even if you live in an inner city war zone in one of the worst gun violence cities in the US. That’s the thing about ‘too dangerous’. People are really, really bad at risk assessment and understanding relative risks. ---
**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 26, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/92 "2019-03-26T18:47:39Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, I’d guess that it’s, oh, say 3 orders of magnitude difference in big-ness wrt number of folks killed by guns since the 80’s verse the total number of guns you are talking about eliminating (a strange comparison, to be sure, but you were the one that brought it up). Maybe 4, it’s just a SWAG. I didn’t ask about directly comparing the two, just what a SWAG is for the number of people killed by bullets in the last 40 years or so. I’m guessing my bright line rule would impact at least 200 million weapons. What is your number? ---
**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 26, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/93 "2019-03-26T18:58:26Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I didn’t ask about directly comparing the two, just what a SWAG is for the number of people killed by bullets in the last 40 years or so. > > I’m guessing my bright line rule would impact at least 200 million weapons. What is your number? There are some wars in there, do they count? ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/94 "2019-03-26T19:01:44Z")
> [@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? Well, you see in the USA we have three types: drugged out dudes who dont case the joint and can act violently if they find people inside “pro” burglars who will never hit a house when anyone is home Heavily armed Home invasion types who come in deliberately when the owners are home to torture them into revealing where the money is, and half the time kill the witnesses. So, if you hear a intruder- how do you know what type it is? And you dont have type 1 in GB? ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/95 "2019-03-26T19:09:11Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > As for what law I want, I noted it upthread. Only single-action revolvers, bolt-action rifles and pump-shotguns for civilians. Guns that prevent the shooter from laying down a stream of bullets. A bolt action rifle can lay down a “stream” of bullets pretty much as fast as a semi-auto. And of course, they’d be next then. And why no double action revolvers? No faster than bolt action rifles. You also forget lever action rifles, double barrel shotguns, etc. Remember, despite the media attention, it isnt the crazed shooter with a AR 15 that is dangerous as a %, it’s the gangbanger with a cheap handgun. We could end every mass shooting in this nation and not see a significant decrease in murders. There is a article out there by a noted sociologist that blames the media for school shootings that without the attention given them, they’d be much, much more rare. Shall we muzzle the media instead? ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/96 "2019-03-26T19:16:31Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It’s probably a big number. > > Do you have a SWAG about how many Americans have died from bullet wounds since 1980? That’s a big number too. Really MF’n big. And that’s not a count of little pieces of metal, of property, that’s a count of lives violently ended. > > So, yeah, my bright line rule encompasses a lot of property, a lot of pieces of metal, a couple hundred million of them most likely. … Around 10,000 Americans are murdered each year by guns. That’s a lot, but to keep that in focus, 500,000 Americans each year die thru tobacco. 40,000 or so due to auto accidents, 70,000 to drugs and 90,000 due to booze. Lets ban smoking first, eh? No Bill of Rights. Your rules would ban about 200 Million guns. Perhaps more. (You left off double barrel shotguns, lever actions, and for some arcane reason included double action revolvers, which makes no sense, which basically bans 95% + of all handguns). ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/97 "2019-03-26T19:16:39Z")
Well, jeeze, if the threshold of “too dangerous” is whatever guns are effective in a mass shooting, then, pretty much all of them? A decent shot can kill 4+ unarmed people easy-peasy with just about any firearm. The Columbine shooters didn’t have particularly impressive guns compared to an AR-15, never ran out of bullets, and, in fact, could have killed a lot more people than they did. Thankfully, they appeared to have gotten bored and offed themselves instead. Honestly, I don’t think anything is going to stop mass shootings, until we find out WHY they are happening. We’ve always had plentiful, easy to access guns. Getting rid of all the guns is not going to happen, and I honestly question further legislation is going to have a huge impact. ---
**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 26, 2019, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/98 "2019-03-26T19:19:09Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > There are some wars in there, do they count? For a “since 1980” SWAG, let’s just assume domestic firearm deaths. At some point I’m sure I’ll wind up comparing the SWAG to all of the war dead in the history of our great nation, may as well avoid double counting right from the get go. ---
**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 26, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/99 "2019-03-26T19:29:31Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I didn’t ask about directly comparing the two, just what a SWAG is for the number of people killed by bullets in the last 40 years or so. > > I’m guessing my bright line rule would impact at least 200 million weapons. What is your number? Probably more, but 200 million is a good ballpark number. The thing with the rest is trying to put some context and perspective into things. When folks start talking about ‘too dangerous’ then it helps to put things in context, because, again, folks suck at assessing risk. Gun deaths are one of the things people really suck at assessing or putting into context wrt relative risk. It’s rather like the person deathly afraid of flying who blithely drives his car on the freeway without a seat belt while talking on his cell phone and munching on a cheeseburger with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Which behavior or action is actually ‘too dangerous’? Probably the air travel is the least dangerous thing. The magazines in the guns are definitely the least useful thing to limit if you want to have a real effect. If you want something that looks good and plays well to the faithful, then it’s something you focus on as it’s something you can get in, even if it’s basically meaningless (unless we are talking the long game…which is what we are talking about, in reality). You are correct to focus on the action, specifically repeating action firearms (semi-auto, bolt action, lever action, etc), as that WOULD have a very real effect…IF you could actually do it. That’s really the rub especially when you think about the scale (i.e. 200+ million). But it’s a valid line to draw wrt firearms and as an actual answer to the OP. ---
**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 26, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/100 "2019-03-26T19:31:49Z")
> [@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? Because the guy who tried to climb in through the car window told my Wife, “I have a gun and I’m going to kill you.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=6)