# I solved the gun control problem. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2018, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181 "2018-02-20T08:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/201 "2018-02-22T14:08:49Z")
> [@MacLir](#): > > It is generally believed that the Second Amendment was to prevent tyranny on the part of government, such as they had experienced as colonists of England. ☹ That is not believed generally. It is believed widely, yes, among those looking for a rationalization, but falsely nonetheless. The Constitution includes extensive discussion about the need for \*suppressing \*insurrections, but nothing whatever about facilitating them. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/202 "2018-02-22T17:08:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not claiming it is. I accept and live with a great many limitations on the RKBA already. It’s cute how you folks talk in code. If the RKBA is so limiting, I’m surprised you don’t get an AK-47 or AR-15. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/203 "2018-02-22T17:50:17Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It’s cute how you folks talk in code. If the RKBA is so limiting, I’m surprised you don’t get an AK-47 or AR-15. :rolleyes: 😕 ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/204 "2018-02-22T18:13:23Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved. > > But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It’s hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment. > > I’ve heard this argument before, that there’s no means by which people could be disarmed at this point. That’s true under current circumstances. But under a repeal situation it would just be a matter of being willing to pay the price. > > The reason such standoffs seemingly function - Waco, the Bundy stuff and so forth - is that the government, in the persons of law enforcement and the military - has decided the goal isn’t worth the price. The minute that calculus changes the guns will be taken and a lot of people will die quickly. After that collecting the remaining guns - from those who like them but aren’t willing to die for them (doubtless later referred to as summer soldiers and sunshine patriots) - will be a simple matter of administrative headaches. Yeah people say that. But real life isn’t a board game where military members don’t have their own ideas. We’d have a Syrian situation with very nasty partisan warfare. Especially since military and their families live in the community instead of sheltered at an isolated base. The armory idea is intriguing but I don’t see how going to the armory for self defense purposes is workable. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/205 "2018-02-22T18:15:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That is not believed generally. It is believed widely, yes, among those looking for a rationalization, but falsely nonetheless. The Constitution includes extensive discussion about the need for \*suppressing \*insurrections, but nothing whatever about facilitating them. You miss the context and political philosophy in which the constitution was written. The document exists in a larger reality, one in which might does make right. Thus the civil war. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/206 "2018-02-22T19:40:38Z")
Please. The notion that the writers wanted to establish a way to violently overthrow the government they were establishing is just silly. Not only did they establish military forces for the express purpose of \*suppressing \*insurrections, among other purposes, they established a \*parliamentary \*way to chuck the whole thing and write a new one if it became clear it just couldn’t be fixed. You respect context, you say? The Second exists in the context of the rest of the Constitution. The second half of its one sentence exists in the context of the entire sentence. The whole thing matters. You can’t blithely dismiss the parts you don’t like, which appear to be most of it. ---
**Author:** ![Hiero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Hiero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiero)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/207 "2018-02-22T20:41:08Z")
> [@AgingLiberalD](#): > > Of course the idea would be opposed by the NRA and republicans. They oppose all solutions that aren’t sell more guns. :dubious::smack: Okay, first off, this is not true. I’m a Republican and NRA supporter, but I would be fine with it being harder to obtain guns. But even with therapy, the armories won’t stop someone from killing someone. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/208 "2018-02-22T21:22:37Z")
1. Why is it the “let’s make our laws just like those of every other developed country” line never gets trotted out in the context of abortion? Funny. 2. in addition to the many other problems with the OP’s plan, there is the fact that within a couple decades every tool and die shop, most machinists, and many mechanics and auto parts suppliers are going to have as standard equipment a 3D printer, which will also be capable of cranking out guns. No registration, no record, nothing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/209 "2018-02-22T21:25:28Z")
1. Most of the civilized world \*does \*have pretty much the same sort of abortion laws we do. 2. Yes, people determined not to be law-abiding citizens will not abide by the law. They would certainly have a harder time doing so without big companies mass-producing the things. Nobody is claiming or expecting that all guns will magically disappear. If you’re just trying to make excuses, you’re not doing it well. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/210 "2018-02-22T23:36:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Please. The notion that the writers wanted to establish a way to violently overthrow the government they were establishing is just silly. Not only did they establish military forces for the express purpose of \*suppressing \*insurrections, among other purposes, they established a \*parliamentary \*way to chuck the whole thing and write a new one if it became clear it just couldn’t be fixed. > > You respect context, you say? The Second exists in the context of the rest of the Constitution. The second half of its one sentence exists in the context of the entire sentence. The whole thing matters. You can’t blithely dismiss the parts you don’t like, which appear to be most of it. The context was in a revolutionary age where rights were considered intrinsic to people and not a sheet of paper. The sheet of paper was meant to delegate power to a government from the people in order for stability and efficiency. The piece of paper isn’t some mythical thing that can prevent people from a future revolution. Of course, a government, like any other institution composed of power hungry people, is going to act in a way to preserve itself. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/211 "2018-02-23T13:19:43Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course, a government, like any other institution composed of power hungry people, is going to act in a way to preserve itself. And NOT by providing a means for itself to be violently overthrown? Glad we agree on that. Wish more of us did. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/212 "2018-02-23T13:32:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 😕 Confused by _your own code??_ Holy shit, who’d’a thunk? :eek: 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/213 "2018-02-23T17:21:56Z")
The first amendment has some common-sense restrictions, like not shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded venue. The second amendment should surely have some common-sense restrictions too, like not selling assault rifles to people with mental disorders. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/214 "2018-02-23T17:36:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And NOT by providing a means for itself to be violently overthrown? Glad we agree on that. Wish more of us did. Well, the Constitution isn’t a government, now, is it? The Constitution is more of a template and instruction manual on how the people and the states are choosing to delegate power, for the sake of efficiency and utility, to a central government. The whole Constitution itself is a constraint on power explicitly and implicitly. Unfortunately, much of the implicit part even when referenced explicitly in the 10th and 9th are conveniently forgotten. Though it is interesting that the left have discovered the 10th lately. So, in the context of the Federal government not being its own creator. Which it isn’t. And the Federal government not the source of its own sovereignty. It isn’t. Then the right to self defense, even against a tyrannical government, even if only in theory, makes a lot of sense. Now, the modern problem is that weaponry is very rapidly lethal and that normal forms of deterrence do not work on the suicidal. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/215 "2018-02-23T19:48:35Z")
> [@AgingLiberalD](#): > > Thank you for your valuable contribution. I will carefully consider your opinion and update the plan if necessary. Would you suggest crutches, or a stroller? Neither. Instead of complaining about guns and coming up with “solutions” that screw over legal gun owners, how about coming up with a plan to get the mental cases off the streets? ---
**Author:** ![AgingLiberalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@AgingLiberalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AgingLiberalD)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/216 "2018-02-25T05:45:24Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > Pick the country with what you think has the best mental and physical healthcare in the world. I don’t care which one. Are people safe from home invasions in that country? Safe from muggers, rapists, serial killers? Even if you assume we can create some kind of fantasy world that’s never existed yet without criminals, in the short term saving your life with a gun is a lot more practical. If you are asking me to pick a country that has solved the issue of crime, you’re out of luck. Please refer to my cite showing a correlation with access to health care and crime. Obviously crime will exist, if not forever then for a long time. Most likely nothing will make you safe from criminals, and that includes your gun. Instead of just one country, here are the countries with the best healthcare in the world according to business insider: > **[The 16 countries with the world's best healthcare systems](https://www.businessinsider.com/healthiest-countries-in-the-world-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T)** > > The Legatum Institute, a London-based research institute released its 10th annual global Prosperity Index in November. And here is a list of the countries with the lowest crime rates: > **[Which Countries Have the Lowest Crime Rates](https://www.toptenz.net/10-countries-lowest-crime-rates.php)** > > Wars in the Middle East and eastern Europe. Terror on the streets of North America. Riots, violence, spiraling murder rates… sometimes, it can feel like the planet is going crazy. Confronted with all this mayhem, many of us want nothing more than to... Using that data, one could reason that improved access to mental health care and the lowering of crime rates are linked. I have nothing more to say about your irrational fears of muggers, rapists, and serial murderers. It’s clear you don’t understand how these crimes are typically committed, and assume you’ll have the training and ability to shoot them if they ever try to mug/rape/murder you. So many of them don’t ever get shot it’s almost as if they actively try to pick victims that can’t or won’t shoot them. ---
**Author:** ![AgingLiberalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@AgingLiberalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AgingLiberalD)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/217 "2018-02-25T06:01:48Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Originally you seemed to want to find a reasonable solution, but now you’re just drifting into the absurd. > > You want some entity, as yet unnamed, to build and run literally thousands of armories across the country. > > You’d like the military, to now use funding appropriated for the military to training hundreds of thousands of people in how to use guns across the nation, because you’ve determined that military funding is a waste of money anyway. > > And you’re just ignoring the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. > > Do I have that about right? If you’re no longer serious, why should we be? All I’ve been getting is “can’t” and “won’t”. Pretty much nobody took this seriously from the beginning. The idea is that people would work together to fund and operate everything. I wasn’t really intending on debating the legality issues, but rather whether or not the plan would actually work if applied. I was also expecting people to improve on it, so maybe great debates wasnt the best board to post on for this. ---
**Author:** ![AgingLiberalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@AgingLiberalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AgingLiberalD)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/218 "2018-02-25T06:14:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I must not have made myself clear. What is your evidence that mandatory mental healthcare for “those who want to use guns safely and legally” causes them to use those guns even more safely and legally? > > Both your cites, AFAICT, talked about mental health treatment for convicts and addicts. What I would like to see is evidence that mental health treatment helps reduce violence among everybody else. > > Felons and drug addicts are currently precluded from owning guns, in many states. What is your evidence that mental health treatment improves outcomes for everyone else? > > Regards, > Shodan See my cites showing that countries with increased access to medical care also have lower crime rates. Do you agree that people without mental illness sometimes seek therapy? If so, one could infer that therapy helps those that are not mentally ill. ---
**Author:** ![Claude\_Remains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Claude\_Remains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claude_Remains)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/219 "2018-02-25T06:39:33Z")
“The Shooter’s Bible”… Really? ---
**Author:** ![AgingLiberalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@AgingLiberalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AgingLiberalD)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181/220 "2018-02-25T06:50:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I see. So, you care what other countries do wrt what you think the US should do then? You think, for instance, that we should emulate what other countries do wrt alcohol consumption, tobacco use, or even toxic waste in their environment? Perhaps you feel strongly about what other countries do wrt free speech or the lack thereof? > > I didn’t say I didn’t know what other countries do (which would be ignorant), I said I didn’t care, because, you know, I DON’T LIVE THERE. And they don’t vote HERE. If I ever emigrate to another country (a distinct possibility) I will care what they do at that point because I’ll be a citizen…and I won’t give a fuck what you folks here in the US do because, again, I WON’T LIVE HERE THEN. > > At most you could make a case I’m not sensitive, but ignorant? I’d say what I think of your logic and knee-jerk post but this isn’t the pit so I’ll just move on. > > Um…ok. Yeah, you do that. Because I’m sure the same exact problem that plagues us today will still be relevant in a century or so, and certainly on geological timescales. You seem to know quite a bit about that history stuff, to be sure… 😛 > > Project much? Man, that’s a lot of straw AND a lot of smoke up my ass without any substance. You haven’t explained why anyone would jump through the hoops you are vaguely proposing for the privilege of having someone keep their guns for them and limit their access, you are projecting why you would do such a thing. Especially in light of the fact that there will be all of those guns that are here today. > > Cutting to the chase since you’ve decided to move away from being even marginally civil, your plan won’t work. It’s crap. For all the reasons folks have tried to tell you. But the base reason is that your plan has that grandfather clause you put in. You don’t seem to get this, but most of the people in America today who want a gun have one already (actually, in most cases they have many guns)…or they are in their families (i.e. they want a gun because folks in their families exposed them to guns). Since you need it spelled out, there aren’t going to be a huge number of folks who don’t have a gun today who will want one after you put your master plan into effect…they will already have guns or know someone they can buy or trade for a gun, and so they will have a choice…jump through all those hoops you are talking about or, you know, just keep and use the guns they already have in the way they already do. And there will be hundreds of millions of them out there. I know, it’s a big number, but there are more guns than people in the US…while there is only about 30% of the population who are gun owners. Even as the population rises there will be a lot more guns than people who want them, so they won’t need to buy new ones if it means they have to jump through your hoops to do so. > > Let me give you a real world example of this. In Cuba, if you had a car already you could keep it. However, if you wanted a new car you had to jump through a bunch of hoops and regulations, as well as fees, to get a new one. So, the result was…Cubans have a lot of cars from the 50’s or before that they keep going by hook or by crook to avoid jumping through all the hoops. And cars? They are a lot harder to keep going than guns are. > > Well, you probably used similar logic to the above, so I’ll grant you that you thought about it. While I’m puzzled how someone couldn’t make the connection I’m not puzzled that you can’t so I’ll just leave it there. Whatever helps you sleep at night. My only question is, was there any incentive for people to turn their cars in to the government? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-solved-the-gun-control-problem/809181.md?page=12)