Dan,

The problem with that is that the very people guarding the repository would be the very people against whom the threat of armed revolt needs to be maintained. The second amendment was not instituted for duck hunting, or for clay pigeons, but because we had just liberated ourselves from a tyrannical force who had made even the ownership of a forge illegal in the colonies.

In addition, you have just described a fascist state. The only way to ensure the weapons' return to the repositories is to escort individuals under armed guard back to said repositories. It would also be necessary to violate the fourth amendment in the seizure of the guns from owners who refused to turn them over.

It's easy to get emotional over these things. It is far more difficult to remain rational and realize that maintaining liberty will mean that security can never exist at the desired 100% level.

And then there is the problem of human nature. Does it escape your attention that divers are searching the canals of NE Illinois for the body of the wife of a police officer, who would have been one of those to keep his guns? If you implemented a system as you propose, people with violent inclinations would work to become police officers; much as pedophiles currently try to find jobs that give them access to children.

THEN there is the felony stipulation. I am sure you would agree, not all felonies are created equal. Someone guilty of check kiting doesn't necessarily pose a risk for violence. Add the adjective "violent" prior to "felons" and I would come closer to agreement.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a check kiter carrying around a gun. What if I was the accountant who put him away?

Oh the complications of life where one wants to make the world a better place to live but ones idea of a better world may not be the same as everyone else's. So how do you have freedom and take freedoms away at the same time? How do you make this world a better place without infringing in other peoples rights?

Personally, I wouldn't mind no guns in the US. I'd rather people beat each other to death rather than cheat by using guns. But when we have countries that would rather see the word Americans following the word dead, I'm not too sure I would wanna find myself in one of those "bringing a knife to a gun fight " situations.

I feel pain for every person that did not deserve to be shot but some idiot with a gun and an itchy trigger finger, regardless if they were criminals, innocent bystanders, gang bangers or even animals. But in a world where "you can't have it" means get it underground, I'd rather we shoot a few idiots rather than have the entire nation brought to its knee's. All for the "greater good".

Just kill everyone. Problem solved.

"The only way to ensure the weapons' return to the repositories is to escort individuals under armed guard back to said repositories."

Nope, if you check your gun into the kind of place, they clean it, service it if you wish, and store it for you. When you want to use it, all you have to do is go get it, sign for it, they do a quick check to make sure you aren't a felon and you are on your merry way. With an assigned time to bring the gun back. If you don't show with the gun, at the designated time, they send the posse after you then.

Its an idea, I didn't say it was perfect.

"It would also be necessary to violate the fourth amendment in the seizure of the guns from owners who refused to turn them over."

I don't think you go into people's houses and start searching for guns, I think you confiscate guns when people commit crimes, and make ownership in the sense that you cannot keep your gun at home, illegal. You could still buy a gun, you'd just have to keep it at the warehouse. If you are caught with a gun, without having it registered, and properly checked out from a warehouse, you get the gun confiscated and pay a fine, and you lose your right to use guns from then on.

Over time, guns go from being readily available, and purchaeable on the street for $50, to scarce and then rare, and expensive. Petty crime drops, the need for people to carry lethal protection drops, gun crime drops.

We have fewer instances of guns laying around the house by dumb shit parents, and being taken to school by grade schoolers, or high schoolers who know how to defeat a lockup system or are more familiar with the guns that the parents are. We also have guns, not easily obtainable by people, the gun culture drops off and becomes the obscure kind of thing it should be in a modern and civilized society.

"The second amendment was not instituted for duck hunting, or for clay pigeons, but because we had just liberated ourselves from a tyrannical force who had made even the ownership of a forge illegal in the colonies."

So if our government goes imperial or fascist, or into a dictatorship, you think citizens are going to rise up against it? Also, is it even feasible to think that there is any nation or combination of nations on the planet capable of conquering or even waging a successful war against us, that would need to be combated by civilians with handguns and assault and hunting rifles?

"Does it escape your attention that divers are searching the canals of NE Illinois for the body of the wife of a police officer, who would have been one of those to keep his guns?"

Police officers are exempt, even the situation which I first described it exceedingly rare, law enforcement using their weapons to murder civilians over rage. It is of course necessary for law enforcement to have guns. It is absolutely not necessary for civilians to have them, in this country at least.

"If you implemented a system as you propose, people with violent inclinations would work to become police officers; much as pedophiles currently try to find jobs that give them access to children."

Possibly, however there are ways to screen for that, I believe the need for fewer law enforcement officers, i.e. because of lower crime rates, would mean they could skim from the cream of the crop rather than taking lower quality candidates for official positions.

"I am sure you would agree, not all felonies are created equal. Someone guilty of check kiting doesn't necessarily pose a risk for violence."

So we trade off a reasonable assumption that we can do something to reduce gun crime, but we won't because some felonies aren't as violent or violent at all. I know that 200 years ago, the right to bear arms was necessary. However, 200 years ago, we didn't have teenagers walking into schools killing each other with guns, we didn't have people who can legally obtain them, killing adult students in colleges, and mall shootings with assault rifles.

It is an emotional topic, and I am trying to approach it with logic rather than emotion as best I can. What is the greater need, allowing any member of society to possess lethal weapons, at any time, or ensuring these kind of tragedies become a thing of the past? Personally, I don't think firearms are necessary for defense, when we have "tasers" for personal protection against a criminal attack. We certainly do not need sawed off shotguns or AK-47's for personal defense, I would argue we do not need handguns either. If you start removing the guns from gun crime, you still have people snapping, and maybe using other forms of violence against each other, I admit that you cannot prevent people from being angry or violent.

However, you can remove the tools for them to do so. It would be a slow process, but over time, it could be accomplished, and we would be a better society for it, even attempting it.

Show me one other tool that can instantly kill a room full of people, that is legal, easily obtainable, and necessary to daily life. A knife, or baseball bat, permit interdiction of bystanders. The unarmed civilians against a gunman, which is essentially the case in many shootings, are helpless, and usually dead, long before police can even respond to a situation. That kind of power does not belong in any body's hands today who doesn't need it to protect others.

"I'm not too sure I would wanna find myself in one of those "bringing a knife to a gun fight " situations."

If we eliminated the gun from the knife vs gun fight, then each party would have a chance of resolving it without one or more being dead instantly. Unless you are armed, you cannot hope to be able to compete with an armed gunman. Even if you are, people are likely to die in the crossfire. What usually happens to these people who go on to kill people, they end up killing themselves. Really what we need to do is take the gun out of the equation and get them some help.

"But in a world where "you can't have it" means get it underground, I'd rather we shoot a few idiots rather than have the entire nation brought to its knee's. All for the "greater good"."

Two good points, first, if you make guns more and more rare, reduce the gun culture, and work to suppress the black market, the price for the gun tool goes way up, reducing crime, because criminals are priced out of the market. When you think about the nation being brought to its knees, consider that we are already there. I'm not sure if you noticed but there are daily shootings in this country. They hardly make national news unless it's a double digit figure. Every time it's a spectacular event, we try to understand why, or how it could have been prevented but do nothing to remove the tool used to create the tragedy.

"few idiots"

Turns out to be tens of thousands of people each year.

I'm really surprised nobody seems to care about this issue. Hardly any posts.

Probably not. Most fascist dictatorships find ample support among the population, especially among the armed part of the population.

Using the typical example of Hitler Germany we can easily notice that guns were widely available in Germany in the 1920s (militias were formed because of restrictions on the German military) and that the militias openly supported the Nazis even before they were in power. I don't see an armed population as standing in the way of fascism. Historically, the armed population was the source of fascism.

However, making guns illegal also doesn't work. Criminals do illegal things and that includes buying guns. Violent crime is a problem in countries with tight gun control too. (But those countries don't have many legal gun owners who might shoot back.)

Remember, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. It is true.

(Except, I assume, those outlaws who try to prevent fascism by fighting the government; they are somehow always regarded as the only group of criminals without access to guns.)

To summarise:

1. I do not believe that an armed populace is a safeguard against tyranny. I have not seen it happen when it was needed but I did see the armed populace bring the fascists into power.

2. I do not believe that the American revolution was a canonical example of a fight against tyranny. The British were not so tyrannical and a lot of it was about permissions to settle in Indian land and keeping slaves anyway. I don't see the American rebels as freedom fighters and the British as tyrants. The Canadians seem to have managed, as did the Australians.

3. I do not believe that outlawing guns will somehow prevent criminals from getting them. Murder and theft is outlawed, but criminals still do it.

4. I do believe that an armed non-criminal can and would intervene in a shooting if he has the chance and is brave enough. I would rather rely on that than on the knowledge that the criminal's ownership of his gun is a crime already. (Who cares if his owning a gun is a crime? It's his shooting people that bothers me.)

5. I don't want another government agency looking over huge amounts of guns. It's difficult enough to keep the police and military under control.

6. I think state-controlled gun magazines where people pick up their guns would be among the most bureaucratic nightmares the world has ever seen, especially since it is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose.

7. I'm not sure how the civil servants watching over the magazine would identify nutters before giving them their guns. If gun stores cannot do it, why would the magazines be able to?

I also think that a good method to fight violent crime would be to put violent criminals away for good, after the first offence. There is no excuse for violence and I see no need for mercy. If the criminal only stole because "he was poor" or some such reason, then I am sure he can find a crime that doesn't involve violence, like theft. There is no such thing as accidentally taking your gun to a bank and shooting six clerks without meaning to. If you want to steal money from a bank, leave your gun at home. If you are caught, you get your time and can return to the world after it. I have no problem with that.

There is no way to prevent a nutter from flipping. Having them walk to a magazine before they act it out won't stop them.

You make some really good points... I'll try to get back to you on the ones I haven't answered.

"I do not believe that outlawing guns will somehow prevent criminals from getting them. Murder and theft is outlawed, but criminals still do it."

If guns, were not easily obtained, if they were restricted, then there would be fewer opportunities for criminals to use them. Sure there would still be criminals who own or can acquire guns. However, not for the price they can be acquired today, or guns that have been used in crimes that are like holding a plague, these guns available for $50, won't be available.

Eventually under this system of storing guns. I would think that the gun culture changes. For hunters this could be a boon, as more and more gun hunters don't want to go through the hassle of the paperwork and storage of their guns, they'd lose interest. The number of people hunting the same population of deer and other game, dwindles, meaning longer seasons, then year round hunting seasons, then finally, paid hunting sessions for hunters to go out and do what they enjoy, legally, with the condition being that they have to store their gun at the warehouse.

"I also think that a good method to fight violent crime would be to put violent criminals away for good, after the first offence. There is no excuse for violence and I see no need for mercy. If the criminal only stole because "he was poor" or some such reason, then I am sure he can find a crime that doesn't involve violence, like theft. There is no such thing as accidentally taking your gun to a bank and shooting six clerks without meaning to."

The problem is, a lot of gun crime is first time offenders who get pissed, and snap, some of pre-planned and motivated by long term ills, but some is also people who have the opportunity and take it. My idea would reduce both situations to a rare occurance.

"Having them walk to a magazine before they act it out won't stop them." Actually, many people exhibit signs and make statements before they carry out their plans, information that could be used, to stop a crime before it starts. Assuming, you wanted your gun, you'd have to give a few days notice, so that would entirely elminate the spur of the moment shootings. Once people realize what they have done, killing others in anger, they usually turn the gun on themself, if they are given a 3 day wait period, they will probably reach a different solution to the problem or cool off enough to not kill someone. If they are down right properly determined, nothing is going to stop them.

However that is more rare an occurance.

Guns are less easily obtained in Europe, yet Europe has its own share of flipping nutters mowing down students in schools.

I am not against gun control, but I find the magazine solution impractical. You are not solving the problem, you are just adding bureaucracy. And that won't stop people who don't care for bureaucracy. The nutters will still keep their guns at home and make them public once they flip.



Are there not more planned violent crimes than there are nutter flipping out? How many violent crimes have been stopped by (legal) gun owners and how many people were killed by flipped nutters?

that is because you live in a country where the people often condone those who don't care for bureaucracy



The ratio of rampage/population in Europe is far, far from the one in the USA. It won't make the problem disapear, but it can help solve part of it.

It's hillarious! On almost every issue the left holds dear "they are going to do it anyway" is the mantra... but if the left detests something, the mantra is silenced.

Drugs, condoms, birth control pills, abortions, you name it, if it's a lefty issue, it's all about making it easier to obtain.

If the schools really cared about making things safer for kids, gun safety courses would be part of the curriculum, just as sex ed and drug awareness.

What happened after Harris and Klebold shot the intelligence out of our public schools? Many schools got rid of their rifle and shotgun clubs. I wonder why that same logic isn't used with sex ed when the pregnancy rate goes up?


The fact is, guns aren't the problem. They aren't even part of the problem. If they were, then there would be the most killings in areas where there are the most guns.

What we need to be doing is looking at the differences in our society between the time there weren't so many shootings and now. Until we are willing to do that, we will keep playing innane political games... and watching the statistics fall dead on the floor.

"Guns are less easily obtained in Europe, yet Europe has its own share of flipping nutters mowing down students in schools.

I am not against gun control, but I find the magazine solution impractical. You are not solving the problem, you are just adding bureaucracy. And that won't stop people who don't care for bureaucracy. The nutters will still keep their guns at home and make them public once they flip."

Well I simply disagree. I think alot of the shootings are not pre-med, and alot of the tragedies that occur with school shootings are guns laying around the house, or with easier access than they should. If you store them someplace off site with a wait period before acquiring them, you have a totally different acquition opportunity.

"Are there not more planned violent crimes than there are nutter flipping out? How many violent crimes have been stopped by (legal) gun owners and how many people were killed by flipped nutters?"

Well at least in our country, it is statistically more likely for people to be injured by their own gun, or injure themselves than use their gun for their self defense purpose. When one looks at the prevalence of violent crime, it probably far exceeds people flipping out. Which is another reason we should have guns warehoused with armed guard, illegal for more to own, and reduce the gun culture. Making them more difficult to acquire would drive up the price, pricing many criminals out of the market.

"The ratio of rampage/population in Europe is far, far from the one in the USA. It won't make the problem disapear, but it can help solve part of it."

I agree, more could be done, to stop these kinds of tragedies, maybe I'm not educated enough, but it seems like it is an accepted thing, people are going to die daily of shootings because other people get depressed or pissed and have guns. Thats bullshit in my opinion. Instead of forgetting about the thousands of funerals and people laid to rest because we have done nothing. Why don't we do something, change the conditions of the situation. I don't see to many Presidential candidates lining up to make a staunch change and ask responsible citizens to turn in their guns for the majority of the year.

"If the schools really cared about making things safer for kids, gun safety courses would be part of the curriculum, just as sex ed and drug awareness."

I agree, but gun safety assumes everybody is interested in guns and owns a gun. Which isn't true. Making education on guns more prevalent wont solve the problem either. We have plenty of daily education from the news media about shootings nationwide every few weeks.

"What happened after Harris and Klebold shot the intelligence out of our public schools? Many schools got rid of their rifle and shotgun clubs. I wonder why that same logic isn't used with sex ed when the pregnancy rate goes up?"

Interesting point. However, I was under the impression that gun crime has actually gone down, and only it's coverage in the media has accelerated because it is a story that gets a lot of coverage, hence people's mindset that shooting others is the ultimate way to get or get back at someone. Nobody thinks, stabbing strangers, or kicking their ass, is the way to go, it's all about sneaking into a public building, shooting as many people as you can, leaving an awful mess, broken lives and broken communities, and then realizing that what you have done, solved nothing, and ended your life, and you end up taking you own.

News Flash : More guns is not a solution.

"The fact is, guns aren't the problem. They aren't even part of the problem. If they were, then there would be the most killings in areas where there are the most guns."

Right, easy access to guns is the problem.

"What we need to be doing is looking at the differences in our society between the time there weren't so many shootings and now."

If you are talking about 1700's when the 2nd amendment came to bear, and today, lots more people have guns, we also live in higher stress, faster paced lives, inside urban environments rather than rural, more peaceful communities. The need to carry guns is only exacerbated by the fact criminals have guns right? I would argue that carrying guns only makes you a criminal at a higher rate, when you do something crazy than just dealing with your problems or ducking when being shot at in the rare situation that you are attacked with a gun.

If many fewer people had a gun, or had economic or physical access to guns, the gun crime problem would be a lot harder to justify carrying guns as a solution to.

No Dan, I'm not talking about the 1700s, I'm talking about the difference between now and when I was in school. Back then we brought guns to metal shop class to learn how to fix them. When a friend of mine built a Civil War era cannon to scale, that actually fired. When we made throwing stars and knives. When students who drove pick up trucks had a rifle an a shotgun (and maybe even an ax handle) openly displayed in the rack in the back window.

I'm talking about actually looking at the problem instead of making knee jerk reactive political decisions that do nothing against the problem whatsover.

When I tell that to people nowadays, they just say, "well, it is a different time now". How is it different? The guns aren't any different, so how are they the problem?

Ok, who here has statistics on how often nutters flip in Europe (per population) and in the US?

I only see the news and it seems to me like the flipping nutters are well organised: one in the US, one in Germany, one in the US, one in Finnland and so on.

Of course, here in Europe we have the occasional land war add to the victims.

Germany has gun control, but nutter access to guns is apparently still possible. The one advantage I see in gun control is that it gives government the power to act in advance. But that won't work with the nutters, only with organised militias. And we can always make THEM illegal, not this one precise act of their group.

That may well be but doesn't concern me. I don't own a gun and I wouldn't buy one. If somebody buys a gun and manages to injure himself, more power to him. That doesn't concern me.




Yes, but what about the number of legal gun owners preventing crimes? How does it compare to nutting away?

We have already found out that violent criminals cannot be stopped by gun control (they are criminals, not prone to following laws, they already buy their weapons illegaly). I agree that nutters probably can be. But for each nutter we prevent, how many legal acts of using guns to defend against violent crime would we prevent?

I'd rather risk the odd nutter than risk that nobody with a gun will be on my side against a violent criminal, if the second number is much higher than the first.

Technical terms:

"nutter": legal gun owner who will flip

"to flip": acting out a weird phantasy that requires the killing of other people and taking one's own life

"flipping nutter": a nutter in the act of flipping

"to nut away": the process of becoming a nutter and flipping