Here's a gun safety idea that would have stopped the Sandy Hook killer dead in his tracks

[derby378]

A civilian armory.

I've always been intrigued by this concept - 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.

If Lanza's mother insisted on keeping her firearms, she could have housed them at the local armory, and she wouldn't have been killed with the same gun that was used on all those children and teachers at Sandy Hook. And Lanza himself could have been intercepted and possibly given the therapy he needed to get past his rage and live a fairly normal life.

Some of you asked what sort of gun-control initiatives I'd support, and this would be at the top of my list. That way, everyone has a secure place for their weapons, the local government gets much-needed funds, and we don't have to deal with so many shootings resulting from madmen stealing guns.

Your thoughts?

[Kber]

1. I think Britian does something similar, actually.

[guardian]

13. Oh boy. Let's import some of those genius British laws

Like requiring one to be 18 years old to buy a butter knife.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/

[Chorophyll]

38. Works for me. nt

[slampoet]

40. NYC has required the same for spray paint and markers for over 30 years.

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

many cities have similar laws.

Have you noticed how well that worked? Didn't solve it, but a lot better than the 70's.

[Nye Bevan]

71. Funny how you feel the need to reference UK *knife* laws

in a thread about gun control.

I guess you have no problem with UK *gun* laws.

[Remmah2]

55. They also tried gun confiscation at Lexington and Concord.

It sort of went the wrong way.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. That is exactly my Plan B if a total gun ban ever failed.

[WinniSkipper]

14. If?

Move plan B to plan A then

[AlexSatan]

3. It would never fly

One concern of gun owners if gov't confiscation.

This would collect the guns in a few places the owners couldn't access, making it easy for the gov't to collect them from eveyone who follows the law.

Obviously, law breakers and those who have them illegally wouldn't check them in.

[derby378]

5. Points taken. However...

(1) Never underestimate the stupidity of the American criminal. I've seen crooks try dumber things than storing a stolen gun with law enforcement. Instant arrest and confiscation.

(2) The armory would be voluntary, but perhaps law enforcement could come up with incentives that could persuade us to store our weapons there. Sure, there would be a fee and subsequent NICS check for withdrawal, but perhaps it could be offset with an offer for gift cards redeemable for groceries, a coupon to the local amusement park or state fair, or something. The armory needs to be seen as a community institution in order to work.

[Cleita]

8. Here's my incentive. Keep your guns in a state approved armory or pay a fine or

even go to jail if you don't get it. I get the same options for my car insurance. I have to have insurance if I want to drive otherwise I'm in deep doo doo with the authorities.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Oh, now it's voluntary? With maybe a Starbucks gift card as incentive?

Hmmm. Good "solution".

How about we make it a federal crime to buy, sell, or possess one of these- with one of those 20 yr mandatory minimum sentences we used to reserve for dangerous hombres, like chemo patients with a pot plant in the yard:




That's my starting point.

[AlexSatan]

21. If it was voluntary

It would pretty much be empty.

A) store gun in house

B) pay money to put gun in a place that you have to drive to and you can only access it at certain times and have to take time for pysch evals.

Seems like and easy answer to me.

[derby378]

23. Do you have kids? Mischeivous pets? Caring for someone with Alzheimer's?

There are many reasons I can think of that would make an armory attractive - but it's the reasons I cannot think of that lead me to think this might be the way to go.

Naturally, your mileage may vary.

[AlexSatan]

26. Yep

Fortunately, the cats have not yet grown opposable thumbs. And if I thought they were a risk to the kids at all, I would have them in an accessible safe or locked. The shotgun is locked and under the bed. Only I know where the key is.

You can get a safe for a pistol for about $50.

[Bobbingsworth]

61. Better Incentive

Use of police ranges.
Training opportunities like weapon retention or CCW refreshers.
Good opportunity for citizens and cops to get together.
Good opportunity for cops to learn who the hot heads and disturbed people with guns are.

People would probably still keep a weapon or 2 at there home or on their person but you wouldn't be able to steal a small arsenal from them.

[Cleita]

6. Then maybe they would rather have their guns taken away from them all together.

This could be a solution for both sides of the issue. Otherwise, you will see what happened with tobacco. Now the anti-smokers want to ban smoking even outside in the air and frankly everywhere. I'm not a smoker, but I believe everyone has a choice of their poison as long as they aren't harming others. This will happen to the gun ownership crowd if they insist on no change whatsoever. Oh, that old canard about law breakers is what I've been hearing about this issue in various disguises for decades. The less access lawbreakers have to guns the less they will break the law. As it is now, we make it easy for them, like taking candy from babies.

[AlexSatan]

22. Except that we know that will never happen

No way they would get enough support for an amendment.

If you prove you can keep something like illegal drugs out of the hands of criminals, then the claim of keeping guns from criminals may have merit. Good luck.

[Cleita]

4. I just suggested this on another thread.

It's kind of clear to me that a lot of problem is the weapons falling into the wrong hands because they haven't been properly secured in the homes of the owners. Removing them from the homes into a place that is professionally run like your bank, where you keep your safe deposit box, makes it harder for someone whose off his meds to get his hands on such weapons.

[derby378]

7. Hi there - I've been on your thread...

...and my idea, as stated above, is to make the armory voluntary, but give people incentives to use it. If it were involuntary, I don't think it would fly with enough folks.

And yes, the idea of a central location, professionally run, would prevent someone like Lanza from stealing his mom's collection.

[Cleita]

9. As I said above, I don't get to voluntarily decide to have car insurance if I

want to drive. I can voluntarily not own a car. It's the same with a gun. If you own one, then you must store it as the law states. If you don't like it, don't own a gun. It's very simple. Voluntary will not be effective.

[derby378]

11. I think it all depends on how you sell it

Enough people are wary enough of the "Thou Shalt" approach that I think it would endanger the chances of a successful armory - but then again, perhaps this also ties into shutting down Reagan's "Government Is The Problem" mindset. I have to give Obama credit for chipping away at that monolith, piece by piece.

If you encourage people to use the armory instead of forcing them to, I think you'd see more success.

[Cleita]

16. I wish I had your faith in your fellow gun owner's intelligence, but having lived

rurally around people who had guns with them 24/7, I've seen a lot of stupid, including storing loaded handguns under small children's beds. Now most of these people just hunt because they have to and I believe this is why we haven't seen even more tragedies than we saw last week. However, in urban/suburban settings, I don't think we have the luxury of hoping they will do the right thing.

[Remmah2]

58. If we can't expect people to do the right thing.............

.....how can we trust people who work at government to do the right thing?

[Cleita]

63. Well, we can't always but we must always try or we might as well call this country the

United Sates of Somalia. Republicans of course don't like the government to work when they are in power. It's suits their purposes. Remember, our other mass murderer George Bush, did it legally and by proxy, and we keep trying to change that and we must. To not do so and to not work for a government that works is unAmerican and unpatriotic. If you are going to hang around a progressive message board, then try to make sense with your talking points instead of repeating something that originated from the Heritage Foundation.

[Remmah2]

69. I'm tired of irresponsible adults in general.

It doesen't matter weather they're leaving their guns, bongs, pills, power tools or porn magazines out. It's a dumb thing to do.

Peace sister.

[AlexSatan]

24. But you don't have to buy insurance

Most, if not all, states allow people to just prove they have the financial ability to cover accident costs and then you do not have to buy insurance.

And cars certainly are not a right specified in the Constitution.

[Cleita]

29. Yes, and a person like me who lives hand to mouth on Social Security and

most others who live paycheck to paycheck are so able to have that financial ability.

The Constitution does not secure you a right to gun ownership. This is the big lie the NRA tells everyone about the 2nd Amendment. It's just not true. It specifies an armed militia that could be like the National Guard, not every jackass in the world running around pretending he's Rambo and even so there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent armories.

[AlexSatan]

33. I didn't say you had the ability

I merely pointed out that your claim was wrong.

As for the Constitution, the SCOTUS disagrees with you as does 2/3 of Americans.

And history does not support your claim. The PA Constitution of 1776 said

"the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

Alexander Hamilton spoke of arms in the hands of the citizen (not the standing army) to protect their liberties.

Noah Webster:Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason: "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

Madison :"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Note the math: assuming 100th equals 25,000 men. Assumes the population numbers 2.5 million and the number able to bear arms is 625 ,000. On the other hand the militia numbers half a million. This means 80% of the men able to bear arms would be in the militia. And where would they get their guns? We know from the Second Militia Act of 1792 that the militia members had to supply their own.

So it is pretty clear the intent was for those able to bear arms, to have their guns already.

[Cleita]

36. My claim is not wrong. The majority of us have to buy insurance and that is a fact.

Very few people, even those who can post a bond for it, do.

As far as the guns those framers of the Constitution had in mind to have at the ready, they were muskets. Good I'll allow you that. It's what's in the Constitution.

[AlexSatan]

41. And what was their purpose

As their foes weapons changed, so would that of the people.

[Democracyinkind]

12. If combined with mandatory insurance, rates could be lowered for those who use the armory

I like the idea (obe among many).

2 possible objections apart from inconveniencing gun owners):

1- Impractical for rural areas - where this would be most needed.

2- Possible high cost plus the tricky question of who burdens that costs.

[derby378]

17. I don't think insurance by itself would pass Constitutional muster...

But if the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, that could be a powerful incentive.

[Remmah2]

56. Bad idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2018924

[Kalidurga]

10. Now that sounds like a well regulated militia...

are you sure the founding fathers intended for us to have one of those?

[derby378]

15. I'd like to think they wouldn't be opposed to the idea

And it would give police a break from too many reports of stolen weapons.

[Shrek]

18. It would nullify the ability to use a firearm for self-defense

It's not like you can ask an attacker or intruder to wait 15 minutes while you visit the armory.

[Cleita]

19. Trust me. You aren't going to have enough time to get your weapon

out of your gun safe and loaded either. You will just be providing said intruder with a new weapon. The only way that works is to have a loaded weapon by your couch or night stand and that's exactly against all the rules of gun safety and how little children shoot their siblings accidentally.

[AlexSatan]

25. Really?

Tell that to her

[Cleita]

27. We are talking about YOU not Okla. woman. n/t

My gym trainer, who has a black belt in something, can take down most of the big guys, but most of us can't. Get real and get serious.

[AlexSatan]

30. Oh my bad.

I thought is said Cleita, no Cleo. I did not realize you could see the future. Since you can, please tell me the exact circumstance in which I would possible want/need a CCW.

And please provide next week's Powerball numbers as well while you are at it.

Do I need to provide lots of other examples where people had time and were able to defend themselves with their gun? There are lots and lots of them out there.

http://www.news9.com/story/19858704/12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-23/phoenix-teen-shoots-intruder/55782484/1

http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-Gun-toting-granny-sends-burglar-running-148085495.html

[Cleita]

32. Everyone of those incidents could have ended so badly for those would be victims.

My questions is why are those kids home alone? Why are there guns they can get their hands on? What if they decided to play with the loaded guns instead? Surely, there are other ways to secure your home and put your kids somewhere safer until you can get home.

[AlexSatan]

35. But they didn't.

Are you willing to sacrifice those innocent folks who saved themselves in the name your political agenda?

And clearly there wasn't somewhere safer. I can provide examples of people of all ages doing it. A lot of elderly folks protecting themselves as well.

Clearly the kids had been trained to handle the guns responsibly. That is the way it was in our past and still is on many farms.

[Cleita]

37. No wonder we're in trouble with this kind of mind set. n/t

[Clames]

46. Biometric safes designed for quick access.

Designed for a single handgun, can be secured near a bed or closet. Quickly opened by the person who has registered his/her finger prints to it. No, shouldn't trust you since you have not kept up on current technology.

[Cleita]

47. No I haven't. I haven't owned a gun in twenty years, nor will I in the future.

I find there are other solutions to safety problems other than blowing someone's head off just in case I think he might do me harm.

[JoDog]

60. Aren't those cost prohibited

for the majority of people? I know they are for me.

[Clames]

77. Less than $200 for small, single handgun models.

Others you can code to a credit card and just swipe for access. Any credit card you have.

[gollygee]

28. The people I know who are into guns

would think it was a conspiracy by the government or the UN or something to confiscate their guns. There's some paranoia in this group - not among all of them, but among the ones most likely to cause trouble with their guns.

[Cleita]

31. I think all people who think owning and keeping a loaded gun in their houses

for protection are already paranoid to begin with and probably shouldn't be allowed guns because of that paranoia.

[RantinRavin]

64. I keep a fire extinguisher in my house as well

Does that make me paranoid about fire?

[Cleita]

65. That comparison is plain silly.

If your kids got hold of the fire extinguisher there wouldn't be the chance of tragedy that a loaded gun would present.

[RantinRavin]

68. I don't have any kids in the home

But your post wasn't about childen or their safety, it was saying anyone with a gun in the home for protection is paranoid.

[Cleita]

72. It is and if you examine all the circumstances of why people want a gun you will see that.

I know that there are some bad neighborhoods and people feel like they want protection, but a gun should be the very last resort in security, especially if there are children in the house, and quite frankly a shotgun will do the job. You don't need anything more complicated. So I find all this talk of glocks and schlocks pure paranoidal bull shit. Also, are you prepared to possible kill another human being? Ask yourself that.

[RantinRavin]

74. In defense of my own life, absolutely

A firearm is always to be considered the last line of defense.

First step is always to call 911 if possible!

Second step is to lock yourself in a room inside the house and make sure the 911 dispatcher knows exactly where in the house you are. Not just a room name, but where in the house that room is located.

Once you are in the room, never peek out the window. The arriving officers do not know you from the intruder and things can get bad real quick, and the arriving officers may be plain clothes and you mistake them for another intruder.

I somewhat agree that a shotgun is the best firearm to use, but not for the reason you are thinking. Nothing is more unmistakeable than the sound of a pump shotgun being chambered.

If and only if the intuder breaks into the room you are located do you think about the use of deadly force.

Now, back to why I only somewhat agree to the use of a shotgun. At the close range of an indoor defense setting, the pattern of projectiles out of a shotgun would never have a chance to open. Basically you would be sending out one large mass. A shotgun can be difficult to maneuver if you are trapped in a hallway or other small room. So in some cases a handgun would be a better choice of weapon.

[Cleita]

75. Ask yourself this. Why is Nancy Lanza dead?

Apparently, all her survival guns and ammo to protect her life, didn't. Her own guns were used against her. That should be lesson enough about the folly of keeping loaded weapons in your house. They do not protect you for the most part and there is a high probability they would be used against you.

Now, maybe Nancy would have gotten an axe to the head or met another kind of violent death at the hands of her son. But she made it so easy for him and it would have been much harder if not impossible for him to break into the school and kill those children if he hadn't had access to her arsenal.

[rrneck]

34. There's a million storage joints out there. nt

[Ilsa]

39. I think a central armory is a good idea.

Ownership is maintained and availability is there if the national guard can't complete its mission.

[Initech]

42. Yeah imagine a central weapons cache in the wrong hands.

[hack89]

43. 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.

[derby378]

76. How so?

You have a small cache of weapons. Out of concern that they might be stolen (and you don't have enough room at home for a gun safe), you store most of your weapons at the armory. You keep your Glock or 1911 at home, as well as your favorite hunting shotgun. Meanwhile, the rest of your firearms are safe and secure at the armory, and you can withdraw them at any time if you so choose.

How does this violate Heller?

[hack89]

79. As long as it is legal to keep guns at home

and if the armory is voluntary then it should be legal.

However, I can't see how most local communities would be able to bear the cost of such a facility - it would be a magnet for criminals and would require constant and expensive security. In a time where towns are closing schools and libraries because of a lack of money I can't see how people would be willing to spend that kind of money.

[Remmah2]

44. How about locking them up in a friend/relatives safe.

During my brothers hostile divorce I was the custodian of his firearms. His gun safe was empty and neither of the two had access. Six months after he settled into his new house he got them back. County sheriff thought that was pretty cool.

What happens if some criminals opt to steal the contents of the armory? They rob banks and jewelry stores don't they?

[Cleita]

48. Really? Whens the last time you read about a military base being robbed or

burglarized for weapons? I think an arms depot could learn how to do it from them.

[Remmah2]

54. Not so fast there...................

Would we be creating security or opportunity?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/27-rifles-stolen-from-california-military-base-atf-didnt-tell-public-for-two-weeks/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/17/tip-about-stolen-tractor-leads-to-stolen-army-grenades-assault-weapon/

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/166264/

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/11/30/3644528.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan-sold-nypd-guns-support-drug-habit-prosecutors-article-1.1114064

http://gothamist.com/2012/07/13/east_village_cop_accused_of_stealin.php

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Stolen-Va-Police-Cruiser-Found-in-Md-183698751.html
(The police usually keep guns in their cars.)

[Cleita]

62. Where from hell have all you guys come from?

You seem to have all your links all lined up like you've been doing this for years. You link to what are inside jobs. You know employees have been embezzling from banks for years as well. This doesn't mean that for the most part weapons aren't secure and it doesn't seem any of the weapons stolen were used to kill first graders. Honestly, I never seen so much NRA shit here on DU.

[Remmah2]

66. The assumptions you made were disproved.

That's all.

I would fear an inside theft of firearms more than an external one.

[Riftaxe]

45. Entrust bureaucrats with the safe keeping

of firearms that are worth several thousand dollars each?

What could go wrong....

[Cleita]

49. Hmm. I guess the Pentagon would like to hear you say that.

Besides no one said that the government would do it. They would be private businesses, like banks, that follow certain guidelines set up by the law. Don't tell me you free enterprise types would be against that?

[Riftaxe]

50. I somehow doubt the UCMJ code

and penalties will apply to whatever congressman's nephew is in charge

[TheKentuckian]

52. Questionable gone completely to pot.

Propping up yet another corporate fleecing syndicate acting as a gatekeeper while arresting self defense capability.

Fucking twisted, everything is an excuse for an extraction scam and who on? Poor and working class folks.

A uniquely fascist idea, take power from the people and vest it to some greedy scammers as we speak acting in concert to crush the people.
I think the proposal went demented right there.

[Cleita]

53. Oh, fer chrissakes, the proposal has merit and needs to be debated as

one facet of a possible solution, but when assholes come along and trash any sensible idea before the details can be worked out then you get the stupid dysfunctional system that children are being murdered by today and it could have been prevented. Those twenty little babies would be alive today if the shooter hadn't had access to those high powered rifles and high capacity clips, which his mother shouldn't have had access to either.

[TheKentuckian]

73. I trashed because it morphed in to a scheme to move more power to the corporate sector

from the individual citizen in an effort to appease "free enterprise types" that the poster portrays gun owners as, which we certainly are not though I guess the real target is "free enterprise" types like New York Fascist, Mike Bloomberg.

Everything becomes an extraction program and it is poor and working folks in the crosshairs

Don't think I haven't noticed this whole plank as a DLC/Turd Way crown jewel either.

I suspect because the pot won't boil over as easily as we are shock doctrined to death.

If something has merit then it will hold up to criticism.

[HooptieWagon]

51. I think some gun clubs and ranges offer storage.

In a secure locker, for a fee.

[TransitJohn]

57. This is pretty much standard on college campuses.

I know that the University of Wyoming police department does this, as you can't have weapons in residence halls.

[JoDog]

59. This thought

has been rolling around in my mind for the last few days, too. I think there are many people around the country who would take advantage of "off site" storage of firearms, perhaps for hunting guns in other seasons or when children are visiting the home, etc.

[ileus]

67. If it were 100% secure and insured I'd store 98% of mine there.

It would be nice not having to worry about my collection when I was away. I'm looking at the safe right now over the net...safe and secure, for now....It only takes a thief 4-10 minutes.


I'd keep at most 4 or 5 depending on the season at home for hunting and 2-3 for defense.

That would make room in my safe for other valuables and documents.

[Vattel]

70. Interesting idea.

One could make it illegal to keep multiple guns in a home. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't entail the right to keep or bear more than one gun, does it?

[Cleita]

78. The right to bear arms when it was written meant one musket.

That's what they have a right to nothing more.

[CJCRANE]

80. Eventually biometric activation should be compulsory.

I.e. a weapon that can only be used by the owner.

I know the technology isn't 100% ready just yet, but if we have cars that can drive themselves nowadays I'm sure it won't be too long before we have guns that recognize their owners.

[jeff47]

81. How about storage at the armory, or in a safe at home with periodic in-home inspections? (nt)

[4_TN_TITANS]

82. Gosh, I was thinking trigger locks with a well concealed key.

[rustydog]

83. You go to the repository because you wan to go to the gun range.

You go to the local mall, city park or jimmy john elementary instead and take out some kids....