# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/161 "2019-03-28T18:27:51Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Common sense tells me that clip size makes a small, marginal difference, and in fact every mass shooting event left lots of ammo available when it was over. Swapping out clips was not a major part of any of the mass shootings that have happened. Most gang land shootings don’t have a bunch of clip changes either, in fact it’s usually just a handful of shots done in a drive by. So, again, clip size is a small, trivial part of this. > > I’m unsure why you think your football analogy is relevant. I bet that football players surprised, scared and in the fog of the event aren’t going to be able to run 20 feet at the shooter in the heat of the moment. They are playing a game, and one where they know what is happening. Again, it’s ironic that you are using the same argument that some pro-gun folks use for carry conceal, that people will magically react as they do in a non-stress situation and be able to draw their weapons and engage the bad guy (and not drop their gun, or shoot someone else by accident, or myriad other things). I am not saying the people attack the shooter. I am saying the people have more opportunity to run away or seek cover. Moving 20 feet while a very fat reload occurs is a lot of distance and could easily make the difference between being in the open or being around a corner. But hey, maybe someone goes for the shooter too. Either way having a couple seconds can certainly count. Gang land drive-by shootings unload and usually run after that. More bullets equal more chance to hit the target or by-standers. Gang shooting are not known for accuracy usually so the fewer bullets flying around the better. ---
**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 28, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/162 "2019-03-28T19:35:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not saying the people attack the shooter. I am saying the people have more opportunity to run away or seek cover. Moving 20 feet while a very fat reload occurs is a lot of distance and could easily make the difference between being in the open or being around a corner. But hey, maybe someone goes for the shooter too. Either way having a couple seconds can certainly count. > > Gang land drive-by shootings unload and usually run after that. More bullets equal more chance to hit the target or by-standers. Gang shooting are not known for accuracy usually so the fewer bullets flying around the better. I see what you are saying, I just think that it’s going to be a very small number of possible or probable events where it actually makes any difference at all…and probably something that, as you already acknowledged, won’t even be visible in the data. Ever. And the cost in paranoia from the pro-gun crowd is, IMHO, not worth it, though obviously it’s something that at least a certain segment of the regulation crowd can point to as a ‘success’, even if, to me, it hurts them in the long run. Like I said, if this were something else and we were talking about putting in legislature that would have no measurable change in the data and no way to verify what, if any effect it is even having I’m guessing you’d be arguing differently (and I’d probably be on your side then). There are lots of ‘common sense’ type solutions that people want or have dreamed up that would have a very real cost for no noticeable gain. I will make a small concession here though. Thinking about what you say about the gang land shooting thing and just doing a spray and pray drive by, that could be a case where a larger clip has a large difference to make it significant. I have no idea how many of these kinds of shootings actually happen, and my WAG is 2-3 guys with guns with 10 round magazines are going to have a similar effect to one guy with a 20 round clip, but I concede that a larger clip size in a drive by is probably a big enough advantage to say it’s measurable and significant. FWIW. ---
**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 28, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/163 "2019-03-28T20:38:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Police in other countries do not even carry firearms and manage just fine. > > At some point in the past in the US police didn’t carry larger magazines and managed just fine. > > Do you have data that shows police that carry larger magazines are more effective? Police in other countries can do whatever they want. But the police in the US have a lot of experience in carrying firearms, and a lot of data is available. It makes sense to look at that data when making evaluations. [Here’s an article that talks about round selection:](https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/accessories/ammunition/articles/390197006-Why-bullet-size-matters-in-officer-involved-shootings/) > [@](#): > > This remained the norm in the FBI until May 2014. In September 2014, LooserRounds posted an article titled FBI Training Division Justifies 9mm Caliber Selection. This post reported that the FBI Training Division had reevaluated which handgun round was best for FBI agents and reached the following conclusions: > … > 9mm Luger offers greater magazine capacity and less recoil/more weapon control at a lower cost. More info at the link. It should be straightforward though. The more rounds, the more chances for hits, the more effective. Unless you think police are in the habit of making ineffective choices in their weapon layouts. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Most gun self defense scenarios are fantasy. Statistics bear this out too. A gun in the home is more dangerous than no gun in the home. Something gun nuts repeatedly ignore thinking along the lines of automobile drivers. THEY are not a bad driver…everyone else is. > > And this is the answer to the OP: > > The threshold for a firearm to be too dangerous is owning a firearm. Statistically owning a firearm puts you at more risk than not owning one. We’ve done this before. Suffice to say, you’re wrong and you’re relying on bad data. Rather than rehash well tread arguments, [I’ll just link to a more recent example.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20592022&postcount=81) The claim you’ve made is the same here as it was there, and it’s still unsupported. ---
**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 28, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/164 "2019-03-28T20:41:06Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Reasoning? 😕 We [do have a thread which looks at America’s guns from a more rational viewpoint.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=680617) Unsurprisingly, the gunslingers seldom post there. a.k.a. **“Guns and Gun Owners are Stupid and Evil”**. I’ve posted everything I have to say about guns and gun control there at least twice and have nothing new to add. ETA: I couldn’t take the eyestrain from :rolleyes: every time I checked the thread and saw the latest replay was from **ElvisL1ves** ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/165 "2019-03-28T20:45:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Police in other countries do not even carry firearms and manage just fine. > > At some point in the past in the US police didn’t carry larger magazines and managed just fine. > … > Most gun self defense scenarios are fantasy. Statistics bear this out too. A gun in the home is more dangerous than no gun in the home. … > The threshold for a firearm to be too dangerous is owning a firearm. Statistically owning a firearm puts you at more risk than not owning one. > … Yes, five nations- every one a island nation. Out of about 200. Even so, GB has armed police, just their beat constables dont carry guns. And most nations carry a side arm with a large capacity magazine, the heckler koch usp, Glock 17, sig sauer p226, etc. Some nations are their police with assault weapons. And that study has been shown to use bad methodology, has been debunked repeatedly, and was admittedly done with the desired end result of showing that guns are bad. So, no, it’s not more dangerous to have a gun in the house: assuming you dont live with drug addicts, gangbangers and you are trained and the gun is properly secured. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/166 "2019-03-28T20:47:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Good! This should be required viewing for the whole gunslinging crowd. > > . Because indeed, he is a noted criminologist right? :dubious: Not just a stand up comedian?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2019, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/167 "2019-03-30T11:35:14Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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. 🙂 1976 Brinks armored car robbery in Montreal 🙂 They parked a truck in front of the armored car, dropped the back, and revealed a 50-calibre pointing at the driver. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2019, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/168 "2019-03-30T12:24:50Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > a.k.a. **“Guns and Gun Owners are Stupid and Evil”**. I’ve posted everything I have to say about guns and gun control there at least twice and have nothing new to add. > > ETA: I couldn’t take the eyestrain from :rolleyes: every time I checked the thread and saw the latest replay was from **ElvisL1ves** So that’s the most substantive answer you can come up with? If you really think that helps your cause, well, you’re quite mistaken. ---
**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 30, 2019, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/169 "2019-03-30T13:04:22Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > 🙂 1976 Brinks armored car robbery in Montreal 🙂 > > They parked a truck in front of the armored car, dropped the back, and revealed a 50-calibre pointing at the driver. 🙂 50 caliber what, heavy machine gun? In \*Canada? \* ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2019, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/170 "2019-03-30T13:42:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. > > 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. Isnt true that an arrow fired from a crossbow can penetrate armor? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/171 "2019-03-30T19:58:56Z")
A weapon that can fire, or be easily modified to fire X number of rounds per minute and hold Y number of rounds without reloading, and reloading must take a minimum of Z seconds. Then reasonable people decide values for X, Y and Z. ---
**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 30, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/172 "2019-03-30T22:56:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So that’s the most substantive answer you can come up with? If you really think that helps your cause, well, you’re quite mistaken. [\ ---
**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 31, 2019, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/173 "2019-03-31T05:48:55Z")
And regarding magazine size limits, the CA ban on magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds was [just declared unconstitutional.](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-Summary-Judgment-CA-Guns.pdf) Federal district court, and likely to be appealed to the 9th. But the 9th already upheld the injunction on this law, so there is a sliver of daylight. I’d rather it go straight to SCOTUS to not waste time, but for now it’s a win. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2019, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/174 "2019-03-31T11:46:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If you allow that some guns are ok and others are not, what do you consider the dividing line and why? I once built a single-shot black powder pistol from a kit, took a look at it, and decided I never ever would fire a gun I had built. So, for me, a dividing line is “did I make it?” :eek: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/175 "2019-03-31T19:35:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And regarding magazine size limits, the CA ban on magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds was [just declared unconstitutional.](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-Summary-Judgment-CA-Guns.pdf) Federal district court, and likely to be appealed to the 9th. But the 9th already upheld the injunction on this law, so there is a sliver of daylight. I’d rather it go straight to SCOTUS to not waste time, but for now it’s a win. I think the mistake they made was making simple\* possession\* a crime. Thus, overnite, making several millions of California’s criminals. They have banned the _sale_ of such before and gotten away with it. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2019, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/176 "2019-03-31T23:28:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So that’s the most substantive answer you can come up with? If you really think that helps your cause, well, you’re quite mistaken. Dude, for the record, you’ve been wrong so many times in gun threads on factual matters of law and such, that you’ve long since provided all the substantive information required to conclude that you can safely be disregarded. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/177 "2019-04-01T01:48:38Z")
You can have my flying Kalashnikov when you pry the remote out of my cold, dead hands. [https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kxI7l\_1553974677](https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kxI7l_1553974677) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/178 "2019-04-01T03:14:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > And this is the answer to the OP: > > The threshold for a firearm to be too dangerous is owning a firearm. Statistically owning a firearm puts you at more risk than not owning one. > > Period. > > Full stop. And here is where we get the real answer. We go around and around in these threads and have arguments about what “reasonable” regulations we should have, someone proposes a magazine limit or a semi-auto ban and the other side argues that it wouldn’t be effective, and we are just talking past each other, because this quoted above is the end goal. There is no “reasonable” regulation, just a stepping stone to a full and complete gun ban unless by the beneficence of the government we are allowed to keep single shot shotguns. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2019, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/179 "2019-04-01T09:36:46Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > There is no “reasonable” regulation, just a stepping stone to a full and complete gun ban unless by the beneficence of the government we are allowed to keep single shot shotguns. You don’t believe the existing regulations on full auto weapons are “reasonable”? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510/180 "2019-04-01T13:17:27Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If you allow that some guns are ok and others are not, what do you consider the dividing line and why? I’m a layman when it comes to guns; I’ll describe my dividing lines in layman’s terms, and let people better qualified than I am turn that into technical details: 1. Guns that can kill a lot of people in a hurry are bad. 2. Guns that civilians are allowed to carry in public (openly or concealed, I don’t care) except for a specific court-approved purpose, or hunting rifles during hunting season in an area where hunting is allowed, are bad. 3. Guns that persons with a track record of violence (most definitely including spousal abuse) are allowed to get their hands on, are bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-threshold-for-a-firearm-to-be-too-dangerous/831510.md?page=10)