General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[ChainLegacy]

I think the proposals make some sense, and I'm especially in favor of mental health checks for gun owners (the question is how to properly implement this, but we'll see). The only thing that really had me raising an eyebrow was the study on video games and media... I suppose it is worth looking into the psychological link, but I cringe to think of all the soccer moms feeling justified in their stupid crusades against video games now. I feel so removed from that debate because I don't really play games anymore, but I still side firmly with gamers against such idiocy.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

It seems the idea is that those with violent mental health risks would be reported by the medical profession and the data used for rejection during a background check. So you are not suppose to be mentally evaluated when you want to buy a gun; but if there was a red flag caused by an existing medical report you will fail the background check.

This works in conjunction with ensuring private gun-sales will also require background checks, closing that loop hole.

Finally, there is also the idea that the last registered gun owner is legally liable for what the gun ended up doing. So if you own a gun, it is your duty to make sure it is secure and not fall into the wrong hands. Common-sense stuff really.
(So this deters people trying to sell guns or transfer ownership off the books)

[Vexx]

I'll just say it briefly, one needs to stop talking when one doesn't understand the topic of firearms and go read. Also ... look to see who is funding or pushing a study before getting excited and quoting it. A study funded by an anti-gun group will likely have played games with the statistical data to get the results they wanted going into the study. There have been very few studies done by truly neutral data analyzers.

My poster child example is one that the Brady group put out in the '90s that had to count *everyone under 25* as a "child" to get their numbers. It also included gang members engaged in criminal activities at the time of shooting. But "child" is a loaded word designed to make the casual reader think of cherubic little pre-pubescents gamboling in the park.

Most of the items on Obama's list are long overdue rational ideas (like closing background check loopholes and improving mental health vectors). The "media study" is a waffle crap thrown to soccer moms - there is already a mountain of evidence that show no causal links or even *reduce* violent tendencies (because you get to channel it in a virtual world, imagine that). The magazine cap is a bone thrown by people who don't understand firearms design. Perhaps lower cap mags can be re-designed to be as reliable as the standard mag - we'll see.

[monir]

Replaced "Debate" with "Discussion" from the title of this thread.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Still, I don't understand why Obama is so sheepish. He could have gone much further.

Naw, I don't think you really understand the political dynamics between pro and anti-gun control camps in the US, quite a few of his proposals have little to no chance of passing the legislature as it is, putting out proposals that are even more to the extremes will likely just backfire on him.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

(But the NRA will howl and whip their members into a frenzy opposing every single little one having to do with weapons; All to sell guns, of course)

These type of comments are little more than broad generalizations and certainly not helpful. There is no need for the NRA to whip anyone into a gun buying frenzy - the threats of potential bans (and for NY, a realized one) is what's driving the panic buying.

smart gun stuff

It was tried by a few police departments IIRC, and was never adopted due to reliability issues. Also, unless you're talking about new designs that are fired electrically, it's going to be a retrofit, which will be rather easy to remove. Firearms are inherently simple devices, they're not space rockets. Also, I fail to see how it'd prevent suicide - if they can go grab their gun to shoot themselves, I'm pretty sure they won't have any trouble picking up their ring on the way.

Mexico...70% of siezed guns were traced back to the US!

As Vexx already pointed out, there are few unbiased "studies" on the subject from either side, but I'll just point this particular one out for example.

What you may not realize is that the 70% figure actually was referring only to seized guns that had serial numbers, and were submitted by Mexico to the US for tracing, and were successfully traced, I'm sure you can start to see how that can be a problem.

For example, in 07-08, Mexico submitted approx. 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing, about 6,000 were traced, and about 90% of those were from the US. And of course, the news headline soon read that "90% of guns in Mexico are from the US!!!".

Except it's only true if you don't count all the guns that weren't successfully traced, and were never submitted to the ATF for tracing in the first place due to them obviously not from the US to begin with. In 07-08, the total number of firearms recovered by Mexico was approx. 29,000, you do the math.

Studies and statistics are helpful, but be mindful of how they're done and presented.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Finally, there is also the idea that the last registered gun owner is legally liable for what the gun ended up doing. So if you own a gun, it is your duty to make sure it is secure and not fall into the wrong hands. Common-sense stuff really.
(So this deters people trying to sell guns or transfer ownership off the books)

That will never happen, at least not in any western criminal justice system that are based on the common law principles. Ideas like this may sound good on the surface for some, but I doubt they truly grasp the legal ramifications.

For starters, this requires a national registry, which is anything but a guarantee (IMO it's very unlikely to happen). Second, this would require a massive expansion of the definition of criminal negligence, far beyond anything ever seen before, and will have ramifications beyond gun-related incidents, let me demonstrate a few possible scenarios:

1. You own a gun, you have it stored in a safe at home. You decide to take a 2 week vacation to Japan with your wife, during which your house was broken into and your belongings stolen, including your gun, which was then used in a robbery-homicide(or insert your crime of choice here) a few days later. You come back from your vacation, BOOM, you get arrested at the airport and charged with murder/negligent homicide.

2. Bob loans a car to his buddy Fred for a week while Fred's car is in the shop for repairs. 3 days later Bob gets charged with vehicular homicide under the expanded definition of criminal negligence, after Fred got into a fatal accident after having a few too many drinks.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll just say it briefly, one needs to stop talking when one doesn't understand the topic of firearms and go read.

I agree 100%, I'm all for differing viewpoints and honest debates on the merits of various policies, but when it seems like most people and media outlets don't actually know what it is they're talking about, it's very frustrating.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

2. Bob loans a car to his buddy Fred for a week while Fred's car is in the shop for repairs. 3 days later Bob gets charged with vehicular homicide under the expanded definition of criminal negligence, after Fred got into a fatal accident after having a few too many drinks.

Cute, but since you are NOT suppose to casually loan a gun to your buddy for a week, I fail to see how it is relevant.

As for having your gun stolen... Well, the key is to report it missing. I guess you are arguing that you are not responsible for the people who died because your guns were lost. That it is not your fault that your possession was taken from you and used for its intended purpose. I say existing laws made it clear that no one is ever automatically liable in such a situation, only that you did what you are legally expected to do to the best of your ability to secure your weapon. Really, the government isn't going to check everyone's house. But they WOULD check the gun storage arrangements after the theft.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Cute, but since you are NOT suppose to casually loan a gun to your buddy for a week, I fail to see how it is relevant.

Read through my post again. You're only looking at the surface without looking at the legal underpinnings, which is the important part. The point wasn't that lending a gun is the same as lending a car (though legally there is no difference), but rather what kind of legal impact your proposal would have.

As for having your gun stolen... Well, the key is to report it missing.

And just like what I laid out in my scenario earlier, what happens when you did not have a chance to report it missing?

I guess you are arguing that you are not responsible for the people who died because your guns were lost. That it is not your fault that your possession was taken from you and used for its intended purpose. I say existing laws made it clear that no one is ever automatically liable in such a situation, only that you did what you are legally expected to do to the best of your ability to secure your weapon. Really, the government isn't going to check everyone's house. But they WOULD check the gun storage arrangements after the theft.

First, I would dispute your use of "intented purpose" here. Murder or any other criminal enterprise is certainly not the reason why I purchased my firearms.

If you meant existing law as far as the US goes, then you're very wrong, both in fact and in application, as such laws vary greatly from state to state. While I don't have the numbers right in front of me, I'm pretty certain that the majority of states does not require you to store your weapon in any particular way.

As for what I'm arguing for, in this case it's actually... well, nothing really. I'm merely pointing out why your proposal isn't realistic given the broad legal ramification.

[DonQuigleone]

I think people should be held liable if a gun they own is used in some kind of crime. Every gun should be registered to a particular individual, and legally they should be the only ones allowed to use the gun (or someone else in their presence).

There should be a simple set of laws defining under what circumstances a gun is considered "secured". If you keep your guns under these guidelines, you should be immune from prosecution.

If you poorly secure your gun, and it's stolen and used in a crime, then you should have to pay some kind of fine (reduced if you report it stolen before it's used).

If you're found to be knowingly illegally selling guns, it should be an imprisonnable offense, especially if you know they are involved in crime (at which point you can be charged for accessory for whatever crime they commit).

People have the right to own a gun, but they do not have the right to trade guns (just as you can own/buy alcohol, but only an off-license can sell it).

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll just say it briefly, one needs to stop talking when one doesn't understand the topic of firearms and go read. Also ... look to see who is funding or pushing a study before getting excited and quoting it. A study funded by an anti-gun group will likely have played games with the statistical data to get the results they wanted going into the study. There have been very few studies done by truly neutral data analyzers.

I get the impression this may be aimed at my post, and if I am wrong, please let me know. But...

The New England Journal of Medicine? The US library of Medicine? The National Institute of Health? The American journal of Epidemiology? News-Medical.net? The FBI!? I wasn't aware of of these peer-reviewed journals presenting factual data, were biased in some way. I'm sure if they were biased or there was something wrong with the data, then someone could use that to counter the each individual study. But in the science world, until a journal is countered, it remains a valid data point. But I'm also aware there are those who want to attack a paper's conclusion, without actually reading the paper. A form of ad hominem, if you will. But I suppose it is easier to just declare that any evidence or data that disagrees with me, must be biased, and thus I can dismiss it without really addressing it at all.

Well, that would be easier, but I'm a scientist, and so I go where the data leads. We can quibble over numbers if you like, but so far the data seems to indicate that there is a much higher risk of death in a home that has a gun, vs. one that doesn't.

Originally Posted by kyp275

These type of comments are little more than broad generalizations and certainly not helpful. There is no need for the NRA to whip anyone into a gun buying frenzy - the threats of potential bans (and for NY, a realized one) is what's driving the panic buying.

During the run up to Obama's election, and during his first term, the NRA constantly beseiged it's members with messages that Obama would take their guns away (despite Obama saying he had no plans to). During the Romney/Obama election, the NRA continued the message, saying that his first term non-addressal of guns was all a big plot to lure people into a false sense of security, because Obama would take away their guns in his second term. And even then, it took not one, not two, but three gun massacres (one that involved children), before he even started talking about possible gun regulations.

And gun sales have never been higher. And you want to believe the NRA hasn't been whipping people into a frenzy? Perhaps you don't remember Wayne LaPierre's speech prior to Obama getting re-elected. Fortunately, Jon Stewart covered it. The relevant bit is about 2 minutes in.

It was tried by a few police departments IIRC, and was never adopted due to reliability issues. Also, unless you're talking about new designs that are fired electrically, it's going to be a retrofit, which will be rather easy to remove. Firearms are inherently simple devices, they're not space rockets. Also, I fail to see how it'd prevent suicide - if they can go grab their gun to shoot themselves, I'm pretty sure they won't have any trouble picking up their ring on the way.

Fortunately, technology moves ever onward. The smart guns I am talking about, would be newly designed ones, and thus not a modification kit. The ring would be like your wedding ring, in that you'd never take it off. So someone wanting to use your gun for ill, would first need to know that it is a smart gun (thus eliminating the danger of people stealing it), and would need to somehow get your ring off... a tricky situation for those depressed enough. I was suicidal once, and bought a gun (walked into an Arizona gun shop, and 30 mins later, walked out with a weapon I was going to use to kill myself). Had there been any major obstacles, I would have never even got that far.

Anyway, under my thought plan, it would take a decade, at least, to fully and gradually swap out all handguns for smart handguns. Any new hand gun sold in the US would require smart gun technology. And the gov't would gradually trade your old guns for smart guns.

What you may not realize is that the 70% figure actually was referring only to seized guns that had serial numbers, and were submitted by Mexico to the US for tracing, and were successfully traced, I'm sure you can start to see how that can be a problem.

For example, in 07-08, Mexico submitted approx. 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing, about 6,000 were traced, and about 90% of those were from the US. And of course, the news headline soon read that "90% of guns in Mexico are from the US!!!".

Except it's only true if you don't count all the guns that weren't successfully traced, and were never submitted to the ATF for tracing in the first place due to them obviously not from the US to begin with. In 07-08, the total number of firearms recovered by Mexico was approx. 29,000, you do the math.

Studies and statistics are helpful, but be mindful of how they're done and presented.

So, you admit that many, many guns in Mexico, come from the US? Because even if we take your spin on it, that still leaves nearly 6,000 guns from the US that were seized in crimes. I'm sure those nice Mexican people who were killed with them, probably might have preferred those guns NOT be there. I wonder how many people those 6,000 guns killed.

Well, it's not like the criminals cared much. Who cares if their guns get seized? They can simply walk into an Arizona gun shop, and walk out with another one in 30 mins, then travel back across the border.

So, despite what quibbles we may have over numbers, I'm glad we're at least in agreement that thousands of guns used by criminals in Mexico, are bought legally in the US. I'm sure that makes the Mexican citizens who were slaughtered by them, feel much better.

[kyp275]

Let me raise a few counters,

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think people should be held liable if a gun they own is used in some kind of crime.

Under what legal basis/principle would you base this on? I know no other precedent when one can be held liable based on nothing BUT ownership.

Every gun should be registered to a particular individual, and legally they should be the only ones allowed to use the gun (or someone else in their presence).

What happens then when a wife/husband, gf/bf, or other family members etc. used the weapon registered to their significant other in a self-defense situation then? for example, the recent case in Georgia where the mother of two shot the intruder when he went after them hiding in the attic. The gun she used was most likely under her husband's name, as she didn't know too much about firearms.

People have the right to own a gun, but they do not have the right to trade guns (just as you can own/buy alcohol, but only an off-license can sell it).

While I agree that the background check loopholes should be closed, I disagree with your assertion that people doesn't have the right to sell their weapons.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

During the run up to Obama's election, and during his first term, the NRA constantly beseiged it's members with messages that Obama would take their guns away (despite Obama saying he had no plans to). During the Romney/Obama election, the NRA continued the message, saying that his first term non-addressal of guns was all a big plot to lure people into a false sense of security, because Obama would take away their guns in his second term. And even then, it took not one, not two, but three gun massacres (one that involved children), before he even started talking about possible gun regulations.

And gun sales have never been higher. And you want to believe the NRA hasn't been whipping people into a frenzy? Perhaps you don't remember Wayne LaPierre's speech prior to Obama getting re-elected. Fortunately, Jon Stewart covered it. The relevant bit is about 2 minutes in.

Sigh, just because the NRA may be yammering away with their propaganda piece, it doesn't mean that it's what driving the market reaction. As you claim to be a scientist, I would hope you would know that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. In this particular case, the panic buying started practically immediately after the Connecticut shooting, as everyone understood the implication and inevitable political action that will follow. The NRA on the other hand stayed silent during the first couple weeks, so how exactly was it whipping up the frenzy?

Fortunately, technology moves ever onward. The smart guns I am talking about, would be newly designed ones, and thus not a modification kit. The ring would be like your wedding ring, in that you'd never take it off. So someone wanting to use your gun for ill, would first need to know that it is a smart gun (thus eliminating the danger of people stealing it), and would need to somehow get your ring off... a tricky situation for those depressed enough. I was suicidal once, and bought a gun (walked into an Arizona gun shop, and 30 mins later, walked out with a weapon I was going to use to kill myself). Had there been any major obstacles, I would have never even got that far.

Anyway, under my thought plan, it would take a decade, at least, to fully and gradually swap out all handguns for smart handguns. Any new hand gun sold in the US would require smart gun technology. And the gov't would gradually trade your old guns for smart guns.

For your plan to work, it would require quite a bit of advancement in technology, on top of a mandatory trade program. All I can say is, good luck with getting something like that passed and funded.

So, you admit that many, many guns in Mexico, come from the US? Because even if we take your spin on it, that still leaves nearly 6,000 guns from the US that were seized in crimes. I'm sure those nice Mexican people who were killed with them, probably might have preferred those guns NOT be there. I wonder how many people those 6,000 guns killed.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too buddy. You can't simply go out and say the US is the source of the problem as it's the majority supplier of illicit weapons in Mexico, and then still claim that it's still the source of the problem when it's pointed out that the US is NOT the majority supplier. You know what happens when you magically cut off those 5,000 guns from the US? the cartel simply buys more from the same place where the got the other 24,000 guns from. The root problem in Mexico isn't the guns, it's the drug trade and the money and corruptions that it brings with it.

And really, the point I was trying to make is that you should be careful when looking at and using statistics because of how easily it can be misrepresented, pulling a "So you're telling me there IS a chance!" routine is really missing the point.

[Ithekro]

Considering a fair number of gun owners are collectors...they aren't going to turn in their guns willingly. It be like having to trade in a vintage figure from an older anime for a newer figure because the newer one can keep track of if you are into loli or not. And it might not be from the same anime even because they don't make stuff for that series anymore.

There are a lot of guns out there already and many are collectors items (rare in some cases). Other are everyday common guns that are more or less generic. But how are you going to get someone to turn in their weapons for new weapons for the newer tech, if the older weapon is a collectible piece?

[Kaijo]

Obviously, not all guns would need to be. I'm only focusing on handguns, for one. Antiques and collector's items could be made exempt as well. As far as getting people to trade in... I'd probably put in a 10 year limit. 10 years from the date of the law going into effect, handguns (that lack special exemptions such as the one above), would be illegal. You either have a smart handgun, or a regular shotgun or regular rifle (not requiring smart gun technology for those). And during that 10 year period, the government would trade your old gun for a smart gun (if you can prove you bought it legally).

It's not a neat and clean and simple and quick fix. Going after "assault guns" or rifles, though, is a quick and simple tactic that is just plain ineffective, though. If we want to really address gun violence and cut down on the number of gun homicides, we need to deal with handguns. Canada, Australia, and the UK got serious about it, and they've cleaned out their countries and have very little gun crime or death. It is possible. If we don't want to go the ban route, then we need to be open to compromises. My idea is one such compromise (not the only one; just a starting point, really).

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Canada, Australia, and the UK got serious about it, and they've cleaned out their countries and have very little gun crime or death.

I always find this idea rather precarious. Why is it that deaths by guns seemingly so much worse than death by other means? You hear people arguing for gun controls keep pointing to the decrease in gun crime/death after stricter controls were enacted, yet never talked about the overall crime/death statistics. Was there any similar massive reduction in violent crime/deaths in those countries after the gun control laws were enacted?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Under what legal basis/principle would you base this on? I know no other precedent when one can be held liable based on nothing BUT ownership.

Duty of Care. For instance, if a child wandered into your garden and injured themselves, you would be held legally responsible. If your garden had dangerous objects, you would have to prove you took reasonable precautions against a child coming onto your property. If you knew that a particular child regularly wandered into your garden, and still kept the dangerous objects in the open, you'd have no defense whatsoever.

Likewise, if you were licensed to own dangerous chemicals (say for use in explosives, or poisons) then if a child somehow ingested it and killed themselves, you would be held legally responsible.

The same also applies for adults, though not as stringently as for children (for instance, if you recklessly endangered a guest in your home, he could sue you, EG let's say you had them unknowingly sleep in a room you knew was lined with asbestos, but if the person knowingly drank from a bottle labelled poison, it wouldn't be your fault).

Under Common Law, you owe a duty of care to anyone who comes into contact with your property. If your property damages another person, you are responsible. If your dog mauls another person, you're responsible. Likewise, if your gun injures another person, you're responsible.

What happens then when a wife/husband, gf/bf, or other family members etc. used the weapon registered to their significant other in a self-defense situation then? for example, the recent case in Georgia where the mother of two shot the intruder when he went after them hiding in the attic. The gun she used was most likely under her husband's name, as she didn't know too much about firearms.

Simple, have the gun registered to more then one person. If the husband wants his wife to be able to defend herself with the gun, he should take that precaution. Otherwise he should keep the guns under lock lest his children accidentally use them...

While I agree that the background check loopholes should be closed, I disagree with your assertion that people doesn't have the right to sell their weapons.

You should have to sell to, (or through) a licensed vendor. You shouldn't be able to sell your gun to any guy off the street, otherwise it renders background checks pointless.

[Yahiro]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I always find this idea rather precarious. Why is it that deaths by guns seemingly so much worse than death by other means? You hear people arguing for gun controls keep pointing to the decrease in gun crime/death after stricter controls were enacted, yet never talked about the overall crime/death statistics. Was there any similar massive reduction in violent crime/deaths in those countries after the gun control laws were enacted?

This is a good point, there of course are other killing records and things like that. Now I can't really speak well for those countries, but in mine we've got strict gun laws, and there is rarely any gun related incidents. In contrast though we do get stabbings, beatings, and drownings as a means of death. The only thing missing from our records so far (and I hope the trend continues) is mass killings of any kind. Could a lack of guns be the reason for that or a countries' disposition? I'm a bit perplexed on that matter.

[Kyuu]

Referring to this list of Obama's proposals -- of which, some have been mentioned on this thread before:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90F15620130116

To you gun people (or anyone else for that matter) -- is anything on this list deemed unreasonable?
NOTE: Anything on the matter of "inconvenience" does not qualify. For example, gun registration and licensing, you can easily deal with that in the same manner has having a driver's license. Likewise, your right to owning weapons are not infringed.

Case in point, cars, drugs, and alcohol (and a bunch of other things) have the ability to kill (even though they're not designed for that purpose). Because of the risk of death, these things ARE indeed regulated. By the same logic, guns MUST be regulated -- because they are specifically designed to kill.

Rights are rights. However, even Free Speech is subject to regulation. Try saying the "F-word" or showing porn on national TV. Not gonna happen.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by kyp275

1. You own a gun, you have it stored in a safe at home. You decide to take a 2 week vacation to Japan with your wife, during which your house was broken into and your belongings stolen, including your gun, which was then used in a robbery-homicide(or insert your crime of choice here) a few days later. You come back from your vacation, BOOM, you get arrested at the airport and charged with murder/negligent homicide.

2. Bob loans a car to his buddy Fred for a week while Fred's car is in the shop for repairs. 3 days later Bob gets charged with vehicular homicide under the expanded definition of criminal negligence, after Fred got into a fatal accident after having a few too many drinks.

I think you are kind of obscuring the matter. There are already laws in place that prevent an owner from being charged for crimes committed on their property or with their property, and their are laws in place that hold you accountable for the actions performed with your property or on your property.

For example, if a drunk were to somehow steal your parked and locked car and get into an accident resulting in someones death, then you would not be held accountable (negligent) even if it was your property that killed someone. Alternately, if you parked your car outside a bar, left the keys in the ignition and the door open, and then walked away for hours, then I imagine you could be held as negligent under the law. As long as you show your due diligence in the prevention of possible injury, then you cannot be held accountable for what other people do.

The same is true with guns. If you leave a loaded gun lying around (outside a school playground or simply in your home) and someone is injured, then you can be held negligent.

So please, do not obscure the issue.

edit: I guess Don already raised this point. You're not always responsible, though .

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Rights are rights. However, even Free Speech is subject to regulation. Try saying the "F-word" or showing porn on national TV. Not gonna happen.

I think the usual example is "Shouting fire in a crowded theater".

I agree though, treat guns the same way you treat any dangerous things, like explosives, or Poison.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

tort law

I see what you're getting at, though I do want to point out that these are strictly civil liabilities, not criminal ones as were suggested/implied by other posters, that's a big difference.

As far as that goes though, I'm not sure how that's any different from how things are already with wrongful death suits etc. Though it's worth pointing out that tort laws in the US is a giant pile of mess, and again varies state-by-state, and not at all uniform.

For example, here in Michigan, used to be that people can sue supermarket/stores etc. if they slipped and fell in the parking lot during the snow/icy season, but that was changed with the "Open and Obvious" , with the new law pretty much saying "tough luck", as it says people should have the common sense to see and avoid the danger.

Not to mention that these type of tort claims are under the jurisdiction of states, I'm not certain if there's any legal basis for a federal statute, which is something your proposal would require I think.

Simple, have the gun registered to more then one person. If the husband wants his wife to be able to defend herself with the gun, he should take that precaution. Otherwise he should keep the guns under lock lest his children accidentally use them...

But at that point what would it really accomplish? other than extra paperwork for gun owners? Frankly all you'll see is a lot more people setting up trusts and register their firearms to it instead, which is what many already do with suppressors.

You should have to sell to, (or through) a licensed vendor. You shouldn't be able to sell your gun to any guy off the street, otherwise it renders background checks pointless.

I would think a system similar to selling cars, where there is a title transfer where the background check can occur, would suffice. I see no reason to require a mandatory middle man.

Originally Posted by james0246

I think you are kind of obscuring the matter. There are already laws in place that prevent an owner from being charged for crimes committed on their property or with their property, and their are laws in place that hold you accountable for the actions performed with your property or on your property.

For example, if a drunk were to somehow steal your parked and locked car and get into an accident resulting in someones death, then you would not be held accountable (negligent) even if it was your property that killed someone. Alternately, if you parked your car outside a bar, left the keys in the ignition and the door open, and then walked away for hours, then I imagine you could be held as negligent under the law. As long as you show your due diligence in the prevention of possible injury, then you cannot be held accountable for what other people do.

The same is true with guns. If you leave a loaded gun lying around (outside a school playground or simply in your home) and someone is injured, then you can be held negligent.

So please, do not obscure the issue.

edit: I guess Don already raised this point.

I think you missed the context of my post, which was in response to Vallen's idea that there be strict criminal liability that automatically holds the owner liable for the action committed by another, at least that's how I interpreted his post at that point.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I see what you're getting at, though I do want to point out that these are strictly civil liabilities, not criminal ones as were suggested/implied by other posters, that's a big difference.

Actually, criminal negligence can lead to imprisonment. If you leave a loaded gun lying around where children often frequent, you can be charged with negligent endangerment of a child, and if a someone dies due to your negligence, you can be charged with negligent homicide. So, it's not simply an issue of torts.

Originally Posted by kyp275

I would think a system similar to selling cars, where there is a title transfer where the background check can occur, would suffice. I see no reason to require a mandatory middle man.

All cars made in the United States are known to the government, and all titles must be shown to the government, and all cars must have insurance, and to buy a car requires a credit check, and often a criminal record check, etc. There are multiple middle men involved in any car purchase, even if you are simply buying a vehicle found on the side of a road with a buyers number soaped into the window shield.

Why shouldn't we do the same thing with guns?

Originally Posted by kyp275

I think you missed the context of my post, which was in response to Vallen's idea that there be strict criminal liability that automatically holds the owner liable for the action committed by another, at least that's how I interpreted his post.

And, I explained the general instances where you were correct and where Vallen was correct. There is already a pre-established middle ground that you ignored or did not know about.