Would this work for gun control in the United States?

Question

What if they set up government controlled buildings where they stored people’s guns in the buildings. Then to be able to use your guns that were being stored by the government you would have to check them out and you would be given a time that you would be allowed to have the gun checked out for. If they didn’t return it on time the lawsnforments would come to retrieve the gun and you would be given a punishment (a ticket, limited access to guns, jail time, etc) For weapons that are considered very dangerous and weapons of war, you would permanently (not be allowed to check them out) store them in the building and only in times of crisis, that required a gun, you could retrieve it. If people didn’t like these rules because they felt they were losing money, the government could offer a brief time period in which people would be allowed to sell their guns to the government.

Answer 1

That is the worst idea ever. It would satisfy nobody.



ATF statistics have consistently shown that the two largest sources of illegal guns, from which the lion's share of gun crimes are committed, are from straw purchases (a legal person buying a gun for someone who cannot legally own one) and corrupt firearms dealers who flat out ignore the law.



Yet the ATF, state, and local law enforcement have not made these a priority in enforcement. They do almost nothing to stop them. Sting operations would make enforcement against them fairly easy. But law enforcement has consistently declined to do so. All we need to do is enforce those laws and the number of illegal guns on the streets will dry up rather quickly.



Second, we have a problem with state and federal entities that are choosing NOT to get serious with contributions to the NICS database from which gun background checks are done. This database is what keeps people who have committed serious crimes or have serious mental illnesses from buying firearms. NO ONE disagrees with background checks. NRA members polled support background checks by 70-80% depending on the poll.



But the NICS database is only as good as the data states and agencies contribute, and many don't contribute at all, and many others contribute partial or badly outdated information. Just get these entitites to contribute to NICS. Congress has a bill that has passed the House and Senate Judiciary committee, but Democrats are threatening to prevent it because they want the political issue for November more than they want to actually pass a bill that would make a difference like Fix NICS.



And finally, we just need to PAY ATTENTION. Studies of spree shootings show that spree shooters generally aren't master criminals. They are disturbed individuals who ALMOST ALWAYS talk to someone or brag to someone about their plans in advance. Too often these statements are ignored, assumed to be a joke, or if law enforcement is told, law enforcement frequently drops the ball. It's not rocket science...if someone talks about their plan to shoot up a school or public place, take it seriously.

Answer 2

Not in the America I'm living in. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Answer 3

NO!!! Nobody is going to have time to check out a gun when they are being killed.



In the US the police AREN'T responsible for your personal safety and they have NEVER BEEN!



"Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone"



By LINDA GREENHOUSE JUNE 28, 2005



WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.



The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed."



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html



"In the only book devoted exclusively to the subject, Dial 911 and Die, attorney Richard W. Stevens writes: It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.





But this doesn’t apply to just the wild, upside down world of California. Stevens cites laws and cases for every state — plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada — which reveal the same thing. If the police fail to protect you, even through sheer incompetence and negligence, don’t expect that you or your next of kin will be able to sue.

Don’t look to Constitution for help. “In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”"



http://disinfo.com/2010/03/the-police-arent-legally-obligated-to-protect-you/



This is the reason law abiding citizens are allowed to be armed and to use those arms for protection. There are only 900,000 cops in the US divide that between 3 eight hour shifts and you have about 300,000 cops protecting 320 MILLION people. There is NO POSSIBLE way for the police to protect you on a good day and when a hurricane Katrina or Sandy come by forget it. A good portion of the police are worried about their families first.



Here are some other cases of the state LEGALLY ignoring individuals safety.



South v Maryland, 59 U.S. (How) 396; 15 L.Ed. 433 (1855).



Parker v Sherman, 456 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. 1970).



Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."



Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).



DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).



Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).



Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).



Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."



Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

Answer 4

That would violate our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Answer 5

pound sand.

Answer 6

Please tell me you're trolling.



That said, I think Australia uses some variation of your proposal. An individual's guns (if they jump through all the hoops necessary to even get one) are kept at another facility and must be checked out.



To answer your question, no.

Answer 7

That's not gun control, it's gun confiscation with limited visitation rights.



No thanks.

Answer 8

I think that is a very bad idea. It violates the 2nd amendment. People can't defend themselves from criminals or animals.



Your updated idea is still bad.

Answer 9

Sounds like Australia to me. It works there!