In a big, sturdy safe.

at least some form...........

if not is it okay to let mentally ill/felons/little Johnny on his 5th birthday go out and buy all the guns they need?

If you say no - then you are for gun control.

Now we just need to apply commonsense and stop with the stupid arguments. No one is taking away anyone's guns - what is happening is they are trying to use commonsense and logic and halting the sales of some types of weaponry.

And yes gun safety and the correct use and storage of guns is something that needs discussion. A while back there was a break in into someone's house near me - the perp had seen all the guns on display - nothing was put away, or held securely - just asking to be taken, he came back and helped himself to everything.

I think everyone is for some form of gun control as you pointed out, the big disagreements are the degree of control and it covers the entire spectrum. I don't spend a lot of time here on DU, I will lurk and post for about a week or two and then leave for several weeks, mostly due to the rhetoric and in my opinion, fanatics that think everyone who dares disagree or question their beliefs is obviously a conservative (or gun nut in this particular debate). I agree with most of the gun control ideas presented, especially closing the background check loophole at gun shows.

I have a 357 that belonged to my dad and became mine when he died. That's the only reason I own a gun, I can think of many better things for me to spend several hundred dollars on. It does have a trigger lock on it (my first purchase) and is also locked in a safe along with the bullets since it seems kinda dumb to have the bullets somewhere else should I ever have the unfortunate need of them. I do enjoy going to the shooting range once or twice a year and make sure I can still hit what I'm aiming at and shoot off a box or two of bullets.

I have my list, others have theirs. There is a very wide range of viewpoints.

Glad to read that your inherited firearms are locked up. Many times they are not since the people with them did not choose to be gun owners.

Guns are a tool, and are even more dangerous than a sawzall. But lots of idiots don't control either.

Thanks for your post!

Not just feel good, do nothing laws like Feinsteins AWB, but laws that will actually make a difference without unreasonably impeding on the lawful gun owners.

that keeps guns away from criminals and crazy people and adequately protects gun owner rights. I've yet to see such a law proposed, or anything that comes close.

At least not one that is reasonable. You have to trample somebody's rights in order to get what we're after.

We used to keep everyone with the slightest hint of a mental disorder locked in an asylum or mom's attic their entire life. You can't do that anymore, not saying we should.

That's why something wholly to your disliking is going to be shoved down your throat (or up your ass, depending).

30,000 deaths and many times that in casualties is not acceptable to anyone but gun fetishists who have way too much emotion invested in a chunk of steal and plastic.

Abdicating all responsibility for change is the most cowardly, selfish and foolish thing a gun owner can do.

#1 - Improve mental health reporting and make it a bigger part of NICS background checks.
#2 - Make NICS available to private sellers on a voluntary basis. Today if I sell a gun to someone else, I am not even allowed to do a background check. I'd bet that 99% of private sellers would use the system if they were allowed.

Granted, this is not a complete solution either, but it would achieve a large part of what we want, without trampling anyone's rights. It doesn't give the emotional satisfaction of sticking it to the gunnies, but it would be more effective than anything else that's been proposed.

The one thing everyone should realize is that things take time. Ten years for Mothers Against Drunk Driving to achieve a meaningful reduction in deaths, the same for seat belts/auto safety devices and AIDs education. None of this infringed anyone's "rights" or conveniences.

It's a very emotional and deadly serious topic with no easy answers.

there's no solution without somebody losing. My choice would be the ones losing would be the ones with assault rifles.

Even if we agree that "assault" rifles are the problem, you'd have ban them, and every weapon with similar capabilities (including non-scary-looking but just as deadly hunting rifles). You'd have to make possession a crime and violate everyone's 4th amendment rights by searching everyone's house for such weapons. Anything short of that is a non-solution.

or small safes are the best option. Personally, I've seen accidents happen as people tried to put the trigger locks on, not realizing the weapon was loaded and doing something stupid. Others here have talked about the ease with which they can be defeated. There's just too damn much handling of the firearm. IMO, the magazine should be removed, the chamber checked and both stored in locked safes. It's simple and fast and is part of the normal routine the owner would go through in the evening anyway.

In addition, for any home that has a large collection of firearms, I'd like to see a security service. Homeowner's insurance would decrease with it to compensate for the cost, especially if the collection is valuable and insured. Same thing with insured jewelry in the home. Multiple ways to get that paid for.

Theft of firearms is an issue since small safes not bolted to the floor can be carted away.

I'm a gun owner and I strongly support teaching proper gun safety and am for reasonable changes to regulations that could actually result in reducing the number of deaths but we also need to have some perspective.

There are 300 million people in this country and something like 180 million guns. The number of annual deaths attributed to gun accidents, per the CDC (2010), was just over 600. While any accidental death is certainly a tragedy, that is an exceedingly small percentage, given the number of guns in this country.

Comparatively, there are about ten million swimming pools in the US and approx. 3,700 people drown every year. From a risk/reduction standpoint, maybe calls for increased levels of "Pool control" would be a better utilization of public resources?

Sturm-Ruger 10/22, Mossberg 570, and a Glock 22. They stay in the gun locker 99% of the time. Both the shotgun and the carbine are tac'd out with nylon stocks with pistol grip and pic rails. the carbine is scoped and the gauge has a flashlight mounted, so I get the appeal. I really do. what I don't get is the stubbornness of some folks unwilling to compromise on magazine capacity and gun registration. I believe their should be mandatory range tests, where if you pass, you would receive a license. that license would need to be renewed, every four years. insurance probably isn't a bad idea either.

Would it decertify someone that had trouble holding their firearm steady and safely? Should a doctor be involved?

Should it also include regular time at the range to ensure that the person can handle the firearm? Maybe even under some stress situations? I'm wondering if it is possible to replicate firearms that match what they possess so they don't fire ammo but has the recoil and be able to determine marksmanship? Have a mix of the two with real ammo used 2 or 3 times a year. I imagine the real ammo would be needed to account for sighting purposes.

Should there be different types of licenses? A license that is only valid for firearms for the purpose of protection in the home? A license for firearms used for hunting and protection?

I have a concern about more elderly citizens with firearms that have either physical or mental deficiencies. How many of them are in an environment which might be dangerous? Or are they mostly in nursing homes or senior communities?

I do think there should be regular gun range shooting of some sort to maintain some experience.

the ones i bought are a mossberg pump-action shot gun that is for home defense and was once my dove hunting gun back when i hunted. The other is a semi-automatic 22 caliber squirrel gun (which my daughter and I just occasionally use for plinking cans, we don't really hunt squirrels.)

The other three are; a really cool Remington model 94 rifle, a really, really cool Benelli 12 Gauge and a German Luger.

All of these are kept in paid, guarded storage, with the exception of the Mossberg pump, which I keep in a locked closet with a trigger lock - secure enough for my comfort but accessible quickly enough but for all but the most sudden and dynamic of intrusions.

so, to answer you question, yes I support gun control - particularly universal background checks and banning (phasing out, practically) high capacity magazines.

The Bazooka is, ah, actually I don't remember. But it's somewhere I can get at it in a home invasion emergency. I should probably find it.

Anywho, I just wanted to share that I too am a responsible weapons owner. And I can proudly say that I have not had more than a couple accidents. Safety First is my motto. My son Damien has been handling firearms since he was four, because I believe early instruction is the secret to safe weapons ownership

Oh! Just typing that reminded me... the Zooka is in Damien's room. He was instructing his imaginary friends in gun safety. Good kid, but lonely. I think some of the other kids pick on him, but I told him he needs to stick up for himself. If I'm sober I'll tell him again when he gets home from school...


(NOTE: the above is sarcasm)

Or just colon sarcasm colon

All acquired in California, the state with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. None of my guns could be considered "extreme" and none of them are in any danger of being banned. With that being said, I have more than enough firepower to defend my home, survive the zombie apocalypse, and if I ever hunted (I'm a vegetarian), hunt.

I don't know why anybody needs those insane mass killing machines. Actually I do know, because they're cowards. I've always been pro-gun control. The bottom line is, nowhere in the second amendment does it say anything about guns. It says "arms." Arms in 1787 could only mean a few things, muskets and bayonets. Today it could include anti-tank missiles and nuclear weapons. Most gun nuts have no problem with those being restricted, but crap their pants at the idea that their precious AR-15 could also be considered too dangerous for civilian use.

They openly accept restrictions on certain things but not others, and use the second amendment as their defense. The thing is, if the second amendment functioned as they say it does, then there should really be no restrictions on ANYTHING. Not AR-15's, not tanks, not grenades.

However, since most people, even most gun nuts, can actually see that that would probably be a bad idea, they don't have a problem with banning those. But not their precious AR?

The point is, almost all of us agree to some restrictions. The hypocrisy of gun nuts is that they fail to acknowledge that they believe in restrictions too. They just don't want their precious little man-toy AR-15 to be among them.

I should also add that I have always, and always will, keep my guns locked up in a safe that is bolted to the floor, and I think the overwhelming majority of gun owners should also.

being the only ones allowed to have the heavier firepower (expanded clips, etc.). Limited clips for personal ownership. And maybe some sort of limit on the number of weapons owned by any one individual. With all the requisite training and safety courses and background checks of course.

Laws around accidents need to focus on proper storage and storage education. If someone gets a hold of your gun, it's negligence on the owners part. If it can be demonstrated that the owners negligence allowed the gun to be used in an accidental/unintended discharge, there must be consequences. Granted the discharge probably resulted in human tragedy or property damage, but he gun owner is ultimately responsible for any discharge of their firearm.

There are of course many shades and variations of negligence. But the point is safe secure storage must be a legal requirement, and if there is any indication that mandated storage was not being practiced there are grounds for prosecution.

I am a proponent of some kind of national/federal level safety qualification course with refresher classes when permits and licenses are up for renewal.

Gun owning non-NRA members.

The "REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!" ranting is useless, ignorant and counterproductive.