Got my vote.
Yes. No exceptions. I would also prosecute the military if they allowed weapons to fall into the hands of criminals.
I haven’t decided whether gun negligence should be a felony or misdemeanor, with the exception for guns acquired by children that hurt themselves or others. That is definitely a felony with mandatory jail time for the gun owner.
I fail to see why the lives of children should be higher priority than the lives of adults. Negligence is negligence.
Keeping a loaded gun in my sock drawer is irresponsible? Where should I keep it exactly, in my basement locked in a safe?
If some tweeker is hard up for a fix and decides to break into my house in the middle of the night while I’m sleeping, a locked up gun or an unloaded gun isn’t going to do me any good.
I guess I could always cuss him out or maybe try to talk some reason into him instead.
I don’t have any kids living here, it’s just me and my cat, and my cat isn’t nearly smart enough to figure out how to shoot a gun.
Oh and where I live (Franklin County, MO.) this is no exaggeration about the meth heads. This county is one of the largest producers of meth in the country. Look it up.
Shame I don’t have my own political party. “Which way to America”, as the poet says?
Then I would suggest that keeping a loaded gun in your nightstand isn’t very bright idea either. If they break into your house when you aren’t there, where is the first place they are going to look for a gun?
In safer neighborhoods, it might not be that risky. It’s up to the gun owner; do you feel lucky?
It’s always amusing when the “Compromises” that pop up in the Gun Debate threads on the boards usually involve something pretty similar to Australian gun laws, isn’t it?
The thing is, the shooting culture in Australia is, as you note, based exclusively around target shooting, hunting, and historic arms collecting- whereas, in the US, it seems “Self-Defence” (ostensibly) comes at the top of the list, followed by “Hunting” at No. 2.
They’re not interested in what “Foreigners” have to say on the subject, basically.
Not really. We US gun owners often see attacks on our rights and realize that there are many who would love nothing more that to see those rights look something similar to the way that yours have become. I’m sure that some put up a fight in your homeland at one time but it was too little too late.
I like my AK’s, my AR’s and my semi auto pistols without barrel length or caliber restrictions or registration or licensing. My guns, just like yours were, are not a threat to anyone and don’t need to be locked up at the local club. The fact that people thousands of miles away in another country are content with what they now have as opposed to what they have lost, baffles me. I’m glad that you are happy.
I’d vote for all of those, but I don’t think they’d do much. Any change of the prison system without a major change to drugs laws just won’t do much I don’t think. But that’s a whole different topic really.
I’m sure that will be very important the day that most Australians can vote in US elections. Until then, Australians opinions aren’t really all that relevant to US laws.
So all I have to do to fix certain issues in politics is break into Glenn Beck’s house, grab his gun, and shoot a kid? Wow. That’s like saving the world in one easy step!
You didn’t answer my question about ‘private sale’ ‘private gift’ situations. I may have overlooked it, but it does matter in regards to your ‘closing the gun show loophole’ situation.
I’m all for holding the person responsible who actually is responsible. If a person negligently leaves his gun where someone can steal it, then the superseding criminal act of the theft of the gun makes his negligence no longer the proximate cause of the harm.
In other words, the thief’s fault for stealing, and then using the gun is so much greater in comparison that you no longer consider the gun owner’s minor fault for leaving it where it could be stolen.
But you go one further than that. You wouldn’t even create any type of standard that a gun owner could follow to avoid liability. At a minimum, we should at least set a standard of what a reasonably prudent gun owner would do to secure his gun, and if he follows that, then he is off of the hook.
Strict liability is absurd. Would you propose it for other constitutional protections? If I write an article critical of Obama and some nutcase reads it and tries to kill him, am I strictly liable under your theory?
What is the constitutional basis for creating a federal crime here? Or pissing all over the power of states to deny concealed carry?
and the fourth thing is somebody who whines about it without actually contributing anything that makes a point.
Precedent has already been set since 1934 with the way NFA weapons are treated. Break those rules by owning an illegal machine gun or DD and you have committed a federal crime.
The suggestion is in the spirit of compromise, and hypothetical anyway. Relax.
I’d support those measures. I have no issue with keeping registration information private, I only want it to be available so that we have a legitimate record of responsibility to refer to. After a certain grace period there should be no excuse to be in possession of an unregistered, or illegally classed weapon if you are stopped by police. Since I would support deregulation and automatic issuance of concealed carry in exchange, only those unable to acquire a license or those trying to dodge the law would do so. Either way they should be heavily punished. with time, it should help make the numbers of firearms in criminal hands much smaller.
As to liability in general, FearItself, I think you are going way too far without demonstrating a solid rationale for your position. While I agree that guns are a unique piece of property, (both legally and physically) I cannot see how making an owner totally liable for stolen property washes. There is no real way to completely secure any piece of property from a sufficiently determined thief. You can cut into a safe, and bash those little table side boxes with a sledgehammer until the welds fail. Securing firearms is primarily done for two reasons: To prevent a thief from stealing valuable property, and to prevent accidents. The danger aspect is really secondary despite the loud protests of many in the gun enthusiast crowd. Gun safes and trigger locks are measures to prevent children and drunks from making poor choices.
I propose a compromise that owners are held strictly liable unless they report the weapon missing to the police. It is the unreported thefts, and the lack of a chain of custody in certain sale types that are helping the supply to criminals.
ExTank, I’m one of those chuckleheads. I live alone with my wife. We rarely entertain, and never have kids over. I’ve got one revolver. Even if I was to secure it in a lockbox, the thief would certainly steal the entire box. I’m not seeing how that makes one irresponsible. Now if we were to entertain frequently, or have children I’d certainly secure it better to keep them safe. As is, I see no logical reason to limit the functionality of the weapon I keep for home defense.
Right - but you have failed to show the federal government has the right to force a state to allowed concealed carry. Such a right is far from inherent in the Second Amendment.
I was replying to another poster regarding compromise ideas. I have no desire to argue the finer points. My suggest forces mandatory training and testing which is what so many cry for. Take it for what it’s worth.
Frankly, I agree with Ex-Tank in that “compromise” has earned gun owners absolutely nothing positive for the last 76 years.
And Fear Itself is a good example of how anti-gun people will never be satisfied.
I’m sure you have a greater knowledge of these things than me, so is there a possibility that compromise might have otherwise been replaced by a total loss on the side of gun owners? I mean, even a terrible compromise, followed by further compromises, might be better than no compromise at all. I honestly don’t know whether that’s the situation, though.