Since we are talking about some measures of gun control,

[Cleita]

in addition to banning assault weapons and high capacity ammo clips, how about banning keeping weapons in civilian homes, where they can be stolen or non-owners can gain access to them? It seems that in many European countries, it's required that privately owned weapons be kept in a weapons depot where they are under high security, you know like your safe deposit box in a bank. It seems that shooting ranges could keep and rent these facilities in communities where they operate.

[Recursion]

1. Assault weapons aren't automatic.

Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934.

No weapons at home is a non-starter for people who live on a farm and use guns to kill snakes or coyotes. It might work in an urban/suburban setting.

[Cleita]

2. Sorry, I couldn't remember exactly what they are called even though I've been hearing

it all day. I meant in an urban/suburban setting. I know rural people need their guns about them because police response might be an hour away in an emergency.

[sanatanadharma]

9. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934...

...obviously a mistake in 2nd amendment interpretation that the gun-idolaters are frothing at the muzzle to change.

[Recursion]

12. No, there hasn't been any pushback against it that I know of

At least not in the last 50 years (gun control in the 30s was politically very different than today, and was tied up with Jim Crow, so it's hard to compare).

[baldguy]

22. I DON'T FUCKING GIVE A DAMN!

IT'S DESIGNED TO DO NOTHING BUT KILL HUMAN BEINGS! THERE IS NO FUCKING REASON IN THE WORLD WHY ANY INDIVIDUAL NEEDS THAT KIND OF FIREPOWER! EVER!

I'M SICK FUCKING GUN WORSHIPERS NITPICKING ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT TRIVIA! IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER! COMMENTS LIKE THIS PROVE GUN OWNERS WANT NOTHING TO CHANGE AND ARE HAPPY TO SEE THE SLAUGHTER CONTINUE!

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY, THEN JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

[Recursion]

23. Fine, we'll legislate from a position of ignorance again

Just like we did in 1994. Another fiasco that didn't do a single thing about crime.

[baldguy]

24. More fucking bullshit from you!

For what it did the AWB did work - in spite of what your pals at the NRA have to say. It had only limited effectiveness BECAUSE FUCKING GUN WORSHIPERS WATERED IT DOWN!

We need serious, hard gun control. And if you don't like it, if you find it onerous, if you think it infringes on you rights - GOOD! I'm glad you don't like it!

You want to preserve your supposed "right" to own a gun? IT'S TOO LATE! You should have dealt with the responsibility to promote security that goes with it. In this you have been woefully ineffective AND YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY! NOW IT'S OUR TURN!

[ManiacJoe]

32. OK, I will ask the obvious question:

What part(s) of the federal AWB worked well enough to be considered a success?

Seems like lots of folks like to make the claim, but no one seems willing to answer the question.

[Ikonoklast]

33. ? Assault weapons are very much so automatics.

Any nation fielding an true assault rifle issues it in automatic form; although three-round burst mode is the preferred method of fire now used by our military branches over full-auto, full auto is still used as an option by many countries.

Automatic weapons have not been banned since 1934, the NFA did no such thing, it imposed a tax upon manufacture, ownership and transfer of certain firearms and assorted related paraphenalia, and mandated registration by the owners.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

The NFA of 1934 was not an outright ban ownership of automatic-fire weapons, if it was, it would be a crime to own one.

http://www.gunrunner.com/NFA.html

There are plenty automatic weapons in private hands in this country, somewhat on the order of a quarter million.

[Recursion]

34. None of those are assault weapons

Assault rifles and assault weapons are mutually exclusive categories.

Yes, I was being simplistic with the NFA status; it is possible (just very expensive and takes forever) to get an automatic weapon. They are not available for general civilian retail purchase.

[derby378]

3. Not a chance, but I'll meet you halfway

I've always been intrigued by the idea of a civilian armory - a central repository for weapons, supervised by law enforcement, where ordinary folks like you and I can stash our weapons if we're unable to store them at home.

Right now, the closest thing I can think of to this concept is dropping off your gun at a pawn shop. It's very secure, there's armed security and surveillance because of the sheer amount of merchandise, and if you want to redeem the gun from pawn, you have to go through another background check.

An armory would serve as an attractive alternative to pawn shops, especially since many pawn shops refuse to handle firearms. Fees for storage can be used for mental health screenings, school safety, or whatever the voters decide during the bond referendum. And when you check the gun out, the police administer an NICS check on the spot. If it fails, you can't check out the gun, and it could become the property of the police department unless you can prove your innocence pronto.

[Recursion]

5. I've liked the civilian armory idea too

Villages used to use churches, of all places, for that.

[Agony]

4. every time I need my gun I can't run down to the weapons depot...

I do like your proposal in a separate thread proposing national service (well ordered militia training) on some schedule as a requirement for gun ownership. A weekend a year or something.

Cheers,
Agony

[Cleita]

6. If you live in a city or suburbs, I can't imagine why you would need your

gun that urgently. I live in the country but close enough to neighbors and emergency services that I don't find I need anything like a gun immediately, so please explain why you would need your gun so urgently if you aren't living in a very rural setting with emergency services far away.

[Agony]

13. I don't think that your idea for an armory is a bad idea just not a one size fits all solution.

I am a farmer, when I use a gun it has never been because I needed the police to respond with firepower. I suppose I could use a compound bow or crossbow?

Again, your idea for service requirements for gun ownership is a good one. As a volunteer firefighter in my community I would LOVE it if more people participated in community or national service... volunteer or otherwise. We are always stressed from not enough people power. It is Amazing what you learn doing volunteer service.

If urban or suburban areas were to have armories available.... great.

Cheers
Agony

[spin]

14. Because if I have a home intruder I may not have a chance to call the police or if I do ...

they may take too long to respond.

I live in a home which was once a hotel. We often have visitors or temporary roomers which are people we are trying to help. At times a strange noise has woke me up in the middle of the night. The wisest choice would be to stay in my bedroom and call the police but the noise might be caused innocently by an individual in the home. The police do not appreciate stupid calls.

So I slip on a pair on shorts and drop a .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in my pants pocket. I then leave my bedroom to find the source of the noise. So far it has been something simple like a person who has dropped an object in the kitchen. I just say hello and get myself a glass of water and return to my bedroom. They are unaware that I am armed so I don't scare the shit out of them.

But there is always the slight possibility that I might encounter an intruder. If so, I have a means to defend myself if I am attacked. Obviously if I do determine that I have a home intruder I will call 911 if I can get to a phone. I may not have that chance. But even if I do the response time where I live is five to fifteen minutes and a lot can go wrong in that period of time. I live in a small town in north Florida with only a few police officers and sometimes only one is on duty and may be busy elsewhere. The Sheriffs department may respond but they too are understaffed and spread over a large county.

You may disagree with my reasoning which is fine, but you won't change it.

[Cleita]

15. I hope when you do run into an intruder who can do you harm that you really

know what you are doing when you point that weapon at him. It's not like in the movies and you can be disarmed and shot with your own gun. Good luck.

[spin]

18. I understand that and you are right.

Far too many people buy a firearm for home defense and never take the time to learn how to use it proficiently. Even target shooting does not prepare you for a close up life and death encounter.

I've enjoyed shooting handguns mainly for target shooting for years but when at the range I always practice some self defensive shooting.

[Cleita]

25. What I really had to ask myself was did I really want to take another life

and I was told by instructors to shoot to kill because there is nothing worse than a wounded bad guy going after you. I decided for me it's not that easy for me to kill any one, so I take other precautions that don't involve the use of weapons at all. I have been robbed at gunpoint twice in my lifetime and I think the fact that I didn't have a gun to shoot back kept the criminal in a calmer state of mind. The police tell me that armed robbers do it as much for the thrill as the haul so they are more dangerous than burglars who are mostly after your stuff and will not hurt you if you don't confront them.

[spin]

7. There is no doubt that firearms are used for home defense. ...

You can read about such incidents often in local newspapers but they rarely make national attention.

The result of your idea would be an increase in home invasions as criminals would have little reason to fear honest law abiding citizens. Of course the criminals would have firearms and criminals do not obey laws.

Also considering that there are over 300,000,000 firearms in the United States and this is a very large country, the amount of money to provide the facilities and security to guard them would be better spent on providing more security for gun free zones and better mental health care for those who need it.

[Cleita]

10. I wasn't talking about taxpayers paying for this.

It would be up to the gun owner to pay the rent or membership or whatever would qualify him for a place to store his guns. I don't expect the government to pay for car insurance but the car owner is required to have it by law. It would be the same for firearms. If you don't want to pay for storage, then don't own guns.

It seems there are better ways to secure your home without having an arsenal and also if you do have a home invasion at least your guns won't fall into criminal hands.

[spin]

16. While your idea is worthy of some consideration, I doubt that it can ever become law ...

at a national level. If it did it might be overturned by the Supreme Court. It might be possible to pass such a law in some states like Illinois but I feel that is also unlikely.

But I might be wrong.

[Cleita]

17. I would rather it were done on a local or state level.

Localities differ and they need to put in laws that are suitable for their needs. I would definitely want urban areas to adopt such laws. When you go to the rural parts of the country it gets fuzzier.

[spin]

19. I doubt that it would fly in states like Florida where I live where probably 50% of the homes ...

have at least one firearm inside and over 800,000 residents have concealed weapons permits. I might pass in Illinois or cities like New York.

[upaloopa]

8. One main reason for owning a gun is to defend your home.

[Cleita]

11. Wrong. Right wing thinking right away here.

Unless you are living out in the middle of Montana and far away from any police response, you absolutely don't need to defend your home with guns. As a matter of fact it's a good way to get killed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Why not? There is no right to police protection.

[Union Scribe]

21. Ya know, the person you're replying to has been a staunch

supporter of gun control here. To accuse them of right wing thinking on the subject is nothing short of ridiculous.

[commonsensevoter]

27. Wrong.

Even in small towns, police response time is slow. An armed robber could break into your house, kill you and take what they want in 10 minutes. Response times are not within 10 minutes. Thats all the time it takes for the armed robber to accomplish these things. If you have a gun, he breaks in and you confront him with this gun, you can stop him and that will be one less person breaking into houses.

[Cleita]

29. This is what home invaders do. They want your stuff not you. They will break in when they think

you are not at home because they don't want a confrontation with you either. The best thing to do is stay out doors and hide somewhere if you come home and find that there may be a home invasion going on, call 911 and wait. They will hurt you if you get in their way so it's best not to. Robbers on the other hand do it half for the thrill so they will pick public places like restaurants to hold up or banks or other places like jewelry stores and they too will hurt you but most likely, if you don't resist or point a gun or letter opener at them, you will survive.

Now are you really prepared to kill another human being, even if you think he's a bad guy? If you are a normal person, probably not. So why would you want to shoot somebody? Now as far as a sicko like the mass murderers who go someplace just to kill as many people as the can before they take themselves out, there is really no way your little 38 is going to be of any use.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Care to guarantee that?

[Cleita]

37. It's what the police have told me.

Take it up with them.

[former-republican]

36. That's not home invasion that's burglary

[Zoeisright]

39. Wrong.

Handguns are 43 times more likely two kill a member of your own family than an intruder. Less than 1% of defensive gun uses results in a kill. Pull your head out of your ass.

[Zoeisright]

38. Completely fucking wrong.

Are you really that gullible and stupid?

[Superbot]

28. In my old neighborhood breaking and entering was a major problem

I purchased a home defense shotgun. Of course I would have never used it unless my life was threatened. I'm glad I don't live there any more, but I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners wanting that extra security. But that's just me.

[hack89]

31. Unconstitutional per Heller

The SC said that mandated trigger locks for guns while in a home were unconstitutional because it prevented the owner from using his gun for self defense.

If it renders the gun useless for self.defense it is unconstitutional. Your idea does exactly that.

[former-republican]

35. Let me think about

no