I solved the gun control problem.

Great Debates
1

Now to be fair, I’m fairly certain my idea is not unique, however I feel that it is a fairly good solution for limiting access to firearms while still allowing access to the general public.

Before I get started, I want to point out that I am not implying that I solved the issue of gun violence. That is a separate debate. Furthermore, my use of the word “solved” in the title was just to get people to read my ideas and debate the merits of them, so don’t be a nit-picker.

The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings “armories”.

At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let’s call these clubs “militias”.

Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership. Another condition of membership is regular and mandatory training.

All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times. If a member wants to use a firearm off premesis, they would be allowed to check out certain weapons. Possible reasons for checking out a firearm include: registered organized shooting events, or hunting. (I’m not really sure what guns are useful for outside of shooting things or killing things. Cross-country skiing practice?) Well-trained members of this militia may even be allowed to check out firearms to assist the police in protecting the community in the very unlikely event they are nearby a situation which requires their training. Ammunition would also have to be checked out, and all spent shell casings and unused ammunition must be returned to prevent diversion of ammunition. This has the added benefit of recycling spent casings. Otherwise, all members would be allowed to use all other firearms on premesis.

As for implementing this plan, existing guns could be grandfathered in, with laws allowing voluntary donation of firearms to licensed armories. These laws could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out.

I feel like after a few decades there would be a significant reduction in the availability of firearms, correlating with a decline in gun violence. As stated before, this plan doesn’t solve the problem of gun violence, but it does effectively curb the availability of guns which in turn lowers the instances of gun related crimes.

2

Well, gosh, we could solve all our apparently intractable political debates this way!

Let’s move on to abortion:

"Pro-life" version: Women who are pregnant should just carry their babies to term and then give birth to them.
"Pro-choice" version: We should just all agree that it’s totally the woman’s choice whether or not she gets an abortion.

See? Easy!

3

Wow, you seem like an accomplished master-debator.

Unfortunately this thread is about gun control. If you would like to talk about abortion you can certainly start a separate thread.

Maybe next post you can add something productive to this discussion.

4

“Regular therapy”, really? I’m a bit surprised you didn’t add in there that gun owners will be required to wear a scarlet letter. This whole thing is a dumb idea that would be opposed by the NRA, Republicans, and many gun owners. It is not politically viable in today’s political climate. It holds absolutely no appeal for me as a gun owner, and if it ever got any serious momentum, I’d oppose it vociferously.

5

What seems bad about regular therapy to you? Therapy is not indicative of a mental health problem, but it can help identify them sooner. And according to republicans, many people who commit gun violence are mentally unstable. This is a solution to reduce the amount of mentally unstable people with access to firearms. Unless of course, republicans don’t actually want a solution to the problem they invented.

Of course the idea would be opposed by the NRA and republicans. They oppose all solutions that aren’t sell more guns.

What is the basis of your opposition? Is it because the plan would be ineffective, or because it doesn’t fit your ideology? If it’s the former, than why? Also, if you have any better ideas, now would be the time to post them.

6

Actually, I was thinking an American flag armband would get a sizeable amount of Trump’s base on board.

7

I don’t want it mandated as a necessary step to exercise my RKBA.

:rolleyes:

It sounds like it would take away my ability to defend myself and my family, so thanks but no thanks, I think I’ll pass.

8

I suppose there are arguments to be made for mandatory military service, or even military service as a requirement to get certain rights, so I’d start with those and if it reduces gun violence as a result, I’d consider that a happy side-effect.

9

Defend them from who?.. Ze Germans?

10

From liberals coming to take his guns, of course.

11

That’s enough of that.

AgingLiberalD, we pride ourselves on being able to debate without making ad hominems or other forms of personal attack. If you feel you must, please do so in the BBQ Pit. That’s what it’s there for.

12

This is an awesome idea. The political climate in America is definitely ripe for such a solution to be implemented, and it will no doubt be trivially easy to accomplish. I mean, the political will is there, on both sides of the aisle, for sure. And Americans don’t generally feel that firearms are useful for self-defense; everyone knows that a true gentleman carries a rapier, and for citizens of common stock, machetes and axes will suffice. There certainly aren’t enough gun advocates to raise much of a public hue and cry about this proposal; and those that exist, are far too strapped for cash to make their voice heard.

In summation, I think this is an excellent idea. I think, in fact, that the Democratic Party should adopt this as an official platform, and campaign hard on it for the next few years. The voting public will definitely see the light, and it’s a sure thing that Donald Trump will be voted out of office and replaced by a Democratic president.

13

Do you have figures on how good mental health therapists are at predicting who will be violent, and how effective therapy is in reducing violent incidents? Especially for people who don’t show any symptoms of mental illness.

Could I check out my weapon if I wanted it to defend myself or my home?

The Second Amendment guarantees two things - the right to keep, and the right to bear arms. If I am required to turn my rifle in to an armory for them to keep, that appears to violate the “keep” part, and if I have to get permission to check my weapon out, that would appear to violate the “bear” part.

Keep also in mind that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people, not the states nor the federal government, to keep and bear arms. It also says that a militia is necessary to a free state. There are already two kinds of militias in the US - the organized militia, like the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 (cite). So that part is taken care of.

Gun violence has been decreasing in the US for several years, so you will also need to show the necessity for this kind of regulation. Whatever we are doing now, seems to be working, despite some recent incidents. So that also is a burden needing to be overcome when you go to prove that what you suggest is effective, and necessary.

Go ahead and prove it. I don’t want to be that guy who says we can’t debate gun control.

So, [ul][li]a cite showing that mental health therapists can accurately predict who will be violent in the general population[/li][li]a cite showing that therapy reduces violence when required for the general public, and[/li][li]an explanation on how requiring me to store my guns under government control does not violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

PS - Welcome to the SDMB.

14

So this seems like a ‘solution’ where the gun control and anti-gun folks get everything they want while the pro-gun side gives up basically everything they have currently and for no apparent gain. I realize that to liberals who are anti-gun this seems a fair trade, but I seriously doubt many on the pro-gun side are going to be too keen.

I’m assuming you are using all this contrived language because you plan to re-reinterpret the 2nd as a collective right and this will make it fit.

You left out the part where " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"…you seem to be advocating in your solution a pretty heavy infringement.

So, for the privilege of having their weapons taken from them and put in ‘armories’ that they can only access when they are there or under very limited circumstances they have to also qualify to be in the club and they have to jump through these hoops as well to qualify. Who is paying for this btw? Have each member to pony up for background checks and ‘regular therapy’ as well as training? All that costs money. Of course, since the idea is to make things as difficult as possible for…um, I guess we can’t even call them gun owners anymore, so…members? Since the idea seems to be to put up barriers and make things as difficult as possible there probably won’t be that many people who are willing to jump through all these hoops and pay for the privilege, so it’s most likely a win-win for you and your side.

Existing guns (all 360+ million of them) will still be out on the streets? I seriously doubt more than 10% would be donated, unless that’s a subtle way of saying you plan to do similar things to your clubs to encourage people to ‘donate’. I see you’ve put the hooks in with ‘could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out’, so I’ll assume that’s part of the plan.

I’m not seeing it unless you are going to get very draconian on your grandfathered in guns…which, based on the rest of your OP I’d guess is part of the plan anyway. I know you put a lot of thought into this, but sadly I don’t think you know much about the subject or your opposition side or even the politics involved in even attempting what you are proposing. Simply put, it won’t work unless you become God King of America and can just push through the legislature by fiat and your gods-given authority.

I also have my doubts that, even if you managed to put it in place it would really have that big an effect on lowering gun violence in the US. You might drop the number of gun murders a few thousand a year (say, from ~11K to ~7-8K) but my WAG is we’d simply go from ~5K non-gun related murders to ~7-8K. I don’t think it would have much effect on suicides, which are the majority of deaths caused by guns in the US.

15

Unfortunately, such an idea would never pass, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about well-regulated militias, just that gun control of any form is absolutely prohibited.

16

Naw, you got that wrong…the Constitution ONLY talks about a well-regulated militia and never mentions whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That’s why the OPs plan will work so well…there is nothing in there protecting the right of the people, only militias!

17

Just the opposite - the idea doesn’t fly because of what the Constitution does say. Would you care to address that?

Regards,
Shodan

18

Who’s gonna pay for it?

19

I said the idea wouldn’t fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it’s the opposite, that the idea wouldn’t fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.

20

Dude, you joined the board to post this crap? This is a left-leaning (by US measures) board where your (and my) lefty politics will find plenty of friendly support, but your solution is laughably one-sided and decidedly unclever.