The details could be argued endlessly. Reaching agreement on how to regulate the presence of guns in a household is conditional upon certain things. Here are some examples just for a discussion starting point:

• You're a manic depressive on lithium, you own guns, no problem. You go off your meds and there's an incident. The police remove the guns from the house.
  ​
• You're the father of a normal family, you own several guns, no problem. You and your wife have a fight, the police are called. The police remove the guns from the house.
  ​
• You own several guns, no problem. You have a party where a fight breaks out and the police are called. The police remove the guns from the house.
  ​
• You own several guns, no problem. You assault someone at work. The police remove the guns from the house.

Is the "one incident" threshold too low? Should it be two incidents? Three? Since some types of incidents are more serious than others, how should that factor in? Lots of things to discuss.But the important thing is reaching agreement with the gun people that some people shouldn't have guns. Some people shouldn't ever have guns, and some people go through periods when they shouldn't have guns.Once that is agreed upon then it is axiomatic that there must be due process in place by which people can acquire guns and by which guns can be taken away. This means background checks for *every* gun acquisition, including gun shows, personal sales, and even gifted or bequeathed guns. Naturally this would require universal gun registration.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix garbled second sentence.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

I'm also advocating universal registration (when I mentioned it later in my post you agreed), so in my scenario due process would allow the police to remove all registered guns in the house, probably to be returned after a specified period. If due process resulted in charges being filed then the time of the guns' return might depend on the legal outcome. Presumably if any registered gun wasn't turned over by the residents then the police could search for it. The owner would be required to file a report for any missing registered gun. If a search for registered guns was made necessary and an unregistered gun was found then it would be confiscated.But I don't think the specific proposals about registration and regulation matter much at this early stage. The main obstacle to progress is getting the gun side to accept that registration and regulation is a good thing. A secondary obstacle would be getting the gun side to accept that making guns more widely available just makes it more likely that they'll end up in the wrong hands, meaning both criminals and people who just shouldn't have guns for whatever reason. Before someone should have a gun they should have to demonstrate proficiency of use as well as proficiency of decision making. This wouldn't be just decision making in threatening situations, but also decision making about gun storage and about not cleaning guns with a bullet in the chamber and not ever placing a gun in a child's reach and on and on.Gun registration is often compared to car registration, but the nice thing about cars is that they're big and constantly driven around in public where the police can observe certain things, like whether your plates have expired, whether it has an inspection sticker, and whether your driving passes muster. Guns get stuck in drawers and closets and cabinets and are eventually forgotten. "My gosh, I put that gun there when Billy was 3 and could never reach that high, and then as he got older and taller I never thought about it again, and I guess he took it."--Percy

My scenarios only included initial incident and final result. Between the incident and the removal naturally there would be legal proceedings.--Percy

As I said, I only intended to list incident and final outcome. At the end of my Message 4799 I mention due process: "...there must be due process in place by which people can acquire guns and by which guns can be taken away." I imagine the particulars of the fight would be relevant (was anyone threatened, hurt, or even sent to the hospital, did anyone pull a gun or fire a shot), as would whether this was an isolated incident or just the most recent in a series. But you're the legal eagle here - you tell us.But regardless of the details, before true progress on gun control is possible there must be agreement on certain basic principles: That guns are not an effective means of self defense, that not everyone should own guns, and that gun ownership is a right that should be accompanied by requirements of appropriate behavior enforced by law.--Percy

I wasn't making a proposal. I've been resisting getting into the details about gun control because I think it's necessary to reach agreement on basic principles first, but in response to prodding by Hyroglyphx I threw out a few things for, as I said at the time in Message 4799, "a discussion starting point." So I should always anticipate what details you might ask about before you ask about them? If you're looking for a detailed legal discussion, I'm not your guy.--Percy

Yes, I understand, but I have to amend this a bit. It might be more accurate to say, "It's never a surprise when people don't anticipate details that were never intended nor even thought of at the time." Being as how it was "a discussion starting point," this makes perfect sense to me.Thank you for trying to nag me into a greater ability to anticipate which of my replies to other people will draw your attention so I can add more detail slanted toward your interest in things legal. --Percy

The "again" portion of this thread's title is once more proving its aptness. On Sunday in Idaho Kyle Odom shot an evangelical pastor in the head and back and fled the scene. Yesterday evening he turned up at the White House, where he was arrested by Secret Service agents. According to Idaho authorities, Odom has a history of mental illness.So how did he ever get a gun?Silly question. Anyone who wants a gun can obviously get a gun. All the fault lies with the pastor for not packing and not keeping a close eye behind him.Odom made his manifesto public. I've only read the excerpts in this Washington Post article, but it clearly shows a mind unraveling and descending into mental illness.Odom was very intelligent, very capable, very educated. He graduated from the University of Idaho and entered a PhD program at Baylor, but soon dropped out as his mental illness took hold.The question for homeowners out there with guns in the house: What guarantee do you have that you or someone in your family or circle of friends won't descend into mental illness and before the seriousness is recognized take your gun and begin shooting people? If your gun is under one lock and your ammunition under another then that's great, but then obviously the gun is not for home defense.--Percy

My lack of detail was intentional, because it wasn't a proposal. I called it a it a starting point for discussion, and you keep ignoring that. Here's what I said originally in Message 4799: And Hyroglyphx didn't find my post unacceptable. He responded in Message 4800 saying there was only one point he disagreed with, and not because I failed to mention due process: Back in Message 4806 you said, "You should be telling us what you mean before." Hyroglyphx understood my reply well enough, and I can't be expected to anticipate that you would read it too and not understand. Will you never call an end to this badgering?I'm guessing not and will await your response. --Percy

Disagreeing is fine. Persistent pestering is badgering. I'm just defending myself against unfounded accusations. Stop making the accusations and I'll stop responding. Besides, your being bothered by my supposed lack of clarity isn't in any way related to the topic. Send PMs.--Percy

Of course he added detail that I didn't. That was the whole idea of outlining a discussion starting point. Your objection is that I didn't mention due process, but I did. From Message 4799: You're just wrong. Stop clogging up the thread. Send me a PM.--Percy

As if this really needs to be explained, in the context in which Ringo used the idiom "every day" it means "regularly" or "steadily," not daily, monthly or even annually. It's similar to when "all the time" is used idiomatically.You always do this - if necessary I can define "always do this" for you as used in this context. Could we just get on with a discussion of what Ringo actually meant instead of what you want to accuse him of meaning? He obviously meant that the suspension of constitutions is not an uncommon occurrence. If you think he's wrong, that the suspension of constitutions *is* an uncommon occurrence, then argue about that. You have his Wikipedia list of suspended constitutions - take a look and use that as a basis of discussion.--Percy

Uh, no, it wasn't. Or is this another case of everyone but you understanding precisely what was meant? How does this from your Message 4845 even make sense: So it's both a figure of speech *and* "a gross exaggeration." At least be consistent about whether to stick to your original (and wrong) literal interpretation. I'm just hoping it's enough for you. If you're "content" to actually discuss the topic now, wonderful.--Percy

It wouldn't be accurate to characterize Hitler's rise to power as occurring because "hardly anybody objected." Hitler became a compromise chancellor in early 1933 after no one succeeded in gaining a majority of votes in parliament. He used the position of chancellor (and the burning of the Reichstag) to consolidate further power. After that he used his control of the police as well as violence and intimidation to extend his power, culminating in a law giving his cabinet the right to enact laws without parliamentary approval, and effectively making Hitler dictator.Over the course of time the inadvisability of overtly objecting to the Hitler regime became evident, and so if in later years it seemed as if Hitler had most Germans' enthusiastic support, especially after Germany's economic revitalization after 1935 and the successes in the early years of WWII, it doesn't mean that not enough Germans opposed his rise to power. The concerns raised during his early political years were in the end completely borne out and then some. We in America must heed Santayana at this critical time, but now I'm drifting off into the Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread, so I'll stop.But I can't resist saying a little more about WWII. The blame for the totality of German defeat and the destruction of Germany is often blamed on the allied insistence on unconditional surrender. Understanding that surrender meant war crime trials for all top ranking Nazis and many lower level party members, almost all levels of German leadership saw no course but to fight on to the very end, hoping for allied discouragement if there should be a major German military success, or for new military technologies to come on line that could change the course of the war (aircraft, bombs and rockets), making it possible to end the war with Germany maintaining autonomy and retaining some its territorial gains.But that would have been a horrible conclusion because it would have left Jews in German territory at the mercy of the concentration camps. News of the extermination camps had begun leaking out of Germany since early in the war, but they hadn't been much believed and were probably not given much credit when the allies made their demand for unconditional surrender. Whatever instincts drove this demand, they were very good ones.--Percy

I guess it doesn't matter if you want to continue believing something wrong about German history in a thread about gun control, but if you want to make a point about how a constitution is not a constraint on government you would be better served to provide examples that are actually true. If you don't then people might conclude that your views are as mistaken as your history.--Percy

I'm trying to find ways in which we can agree. Is "they didn't object" a bit of hyperbole? If so then I have no objections. I just wanted to make clear that Hitler's rise to power was not tacitly accepted by the German people. This is from the New York Times from March 5, 1933:

quote:

---

GERMAN VOTE ENDS ONE-SIDED CAMPAIGN

---

Hitler Regime Has Spared No Suppression, Though Insisting It Will Stay Anyway.

---

MAJORITY FOR IT LIKELY

---

Reichstag Fire Is Capitalized -- Socialists Predicted Nazi Ruse Week Before.

---

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHAULL.
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

​

BERLIN, March 3. -- No stranger election has perhaps ever been held in a civilized country than that in which the German people will reluctantly be going to the polls again when this dispatch is being read.

​

It is strange because the dominant forces therein have announced in advance that if the result is unfavorable to them it will not affect their tenure of office. It is stranger still because the most extraordinary measures have nevertheless been taken to insure that the outcome shall be to their liking.

​

It is difficult to portray for America the length to which these measure have been carried. It would seem there like a bad dream. The Opposition's meetings have been suppressed, its press has been gagged, the drilled and semi-disciplined "troopers" of the party in power have been armed and entrusted with supervision over their political opponents, the regular police have been placed under partisan control with new orders that can only be interpreted as the closest to official incitement to violence that a civil department could issue, the headquarters of the most aggressive factor int he Opposition has been closed and the hated flag of its political enemies has been hoisted over it, just as an army might signalize its capture of an enemy fortress.

---

Hitler did win the vote, gaining 44% of the popular vote and a 52% majority in parliament (see the New York Times for March 6, 1933).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Font face.