I apologize if I am being obtuse, but I really don’t understand the meaning of your comment.
ETA: I see you edited it. But we all pay taxes for schools. So we should all pay taxes if we decide to have public funding for domestic violence programs, suicide programs, and the like. Why only gun owners who have no special contribution to these societal problems.
In your opinion would society be better off is everyone knew how to handle, care for and use guns properly?
Or is society better off with only a few knowing anything about the same?
“If a gun is stolen or lost, the owner of the firearm would be considered liable until the theft or loss is reported to authorities”*
That isn’t the question here. This thread is not about Gun control laws in Western Europe, or whether gun control is a good thing or whether everyone knew how to handle, care for and use guns properly. It is about San Jose’s new law.
Too many of these threads drift off the subject into suicide, pools, auto registration and “gun deaths”. (mea culpa)
Can we keep this one on track?
But as I noted upthread, the article isn’t clear about what being “considered liable” means when in the same paragraph it notes that only accidental uses are covered. It cites nothing, but I guess it can be presumed that if my gun is stolen, I fail to report it, and the person who stole my gun accidentally shoots himself, then I could, maybe, possibly be held liable, although in any jurisdiction I was a victim of a crime and not a contributor to the injury. I think the article is just quoting some mid-level San Jose bureaucrat who doesn’t know what in the hell he is talking about.
I wonder who’d be liable if a guy stole a gun and shot the owner with it.
Not without further context, no.
If that was the justification no, I don’t think that would be right. If, however, the party wanting the new law is arguing from a point of public safety their argument should be heard. And they should have to produce some sort of evidence or proof that their rules would, in fact, improve safety without imposing undue burden or act in a discriminatory manner (making fees so high only the very wealthy could exercise that right, for example).
Backyard swimming pools are, in fact, subjected to additional requirements in some areas, such a mandatory locked fences of a specified height.
Kitchen knives? Can’t carry them on airplanes unless they’re checked baggage so that already applies. A kid carrying one to school in a backpack in many jurisdictions can be subject to very strong penalties.
I disagree with the veracity of your last sentence.
Other than that, well, lots of people who don’t own guns don’t want a safer society with guns at all. So why shouldn’t the pro-gun side show their opponents both their commitment to their ideal and their willingness to educate others in order to overcome opposition?
How? I own guns. I don’t commit suicide or domestic violence or am untrained or have mental health issues.
The Constitution takes that possible solution off the table just like it makes random home searches or the elimination of jury trials a no go. If people really want that, they can amend the Constitution.
Why have you never answered my questions? I’ve answered yours.
Do you think society would be better off if everyone was educated on gun safety, use and maintenance?
Marginally. Again, gun accidents are exceedingly rare. But if we assume that, yes, society would be better off, then society should pay. Not gun owners who haven’t contributed to that problem at all. Just like your school tax example. I see your argument going against yourself. Surely only people with children in school should pay school tax under your proposal, but they don’t. Society pays because society benefits. Why is this law different?
Again, I disagree with the veracity of this statement.
We can all agree that everyone being able to read is better for society but we don’t all agree that everyone knowing about guns is better for society.
It’s fairly easy to make an argument in favor of reading but apparently somewhat more difficult to make a successful argument regarding guns. So why shouldn’t the folks who are making that argument put their money where their mouth is?
Then I’ve misunderstood you. If these programs are not good for society, then why have them at all?
ETA: And therefore, no need for the tax.
So you don’t want to take the opportunity to educate people on guns and thus have data that shows that it would contribute to a safer society?
That seems like a losing strategy to me, but okay.
I’m not sure what you are driving at. If there is to be public funding of “educat[ing]” people on guns, then that is a societal benefit that should be paid for through general taxation. If, as I thought you claimed, that “everyone knowing about guns” is not better for society, then it shouldn’t be funded.
What I object to is requiring only people who own guns to fund programs that they are not even tangentially related to, for the sole purpose of a middle finger to gun owners. I own a gun, so why do I, and not a non gun owner have to fund a not yet named liberal non-profit for mental health? My gun doesn’t give anyone mental health issues.
We all pay taxes for schools because we all agree that it is better for society.
What part of “not everyone agrees that knowing about guns would make society safer” is eluding you?
Nothing. Therefore there should be no public program that educates people about guns. So it follows that nobody should be paying for a non-existent program.
What am I missing?
Again: that seems like a losing strategy to me.
Thanks for the conversation.
Are you claiming that unfettered weapon ownership has no social cost?
More or less, yes. They’ve addressed the root causes related to the situations that make notable numbers of people think “The solution to whatever is making me angry right now is to hurt or kill many people”.
I don’t live in the US so can only speculate as to why you haven’t introduced universal health care and decent social security frameworks, but whenever the topic comes up there’s usually someone coming along with a variant of “Why should I pay for some random’s medical problems or laziness?”
The answer is because that’s how you get a society where people don’t think the solution their plight is to hurt or kill other people in an explosive outburst or psychotic episode.
That is not what is being asked. The question is, “Why, simply because I own a gun, am I being asked to pay for these ancillary things which benefit society and have no or tenuous at best connection to gun ownership, when it benefits all of society?”
It’s really the opposite of the question you posit. The proposal would be the equivalent of making only parents pay school taxes, or only men pay domestic violence taxes. The argument that I have consistently made is that IF this is a societal problem, which I disagree that it is at all but assuming it is for the purposes of the thread, why should everyone not bear that burden through general taxation?