Again with the “nothing can be done, it’s just too hard” shit, huh?
Lumpy, let me get this straight. You’re condemning a convicted felon for having a gun, but you’re defending the system that allowed him to get it and will continue to allow other convicted felons to easily get guns, which you will likewise condemn. Is that about right?
What difference does that make to the woman who got shot? Is it acceptable or excusable because a criminal from the lower class shot her and not an insurance salesman?
What do you not understand about supply and demand?
First, require registration as a condition of sale; then make the registered owner responsible for how the gun is used. If they loan it to someone else, they better know that the borrower is trustworthy. If it is given as a gift, the registration should be transferred, so that the original owner can be freed of responsibility – if it is resold, again, transfer registration. If it is stolen, well, the owner fucked up and may be unable to fully escape being at least partially responsible for how it is used.
Most guns start out in the legal market; having more control over that will reduce the black market. It will, obviously, not solve gun violence: there are other indirect causes that need to be addressed; but it will make gun owners more careful.
If only we had a way to track where these guns used in crimes were purchased, we could trace them back to gun shops that allow large scale straw purchases. I’m thinking a law like this would be ideal from the police viewpoint, responsible gun owners, and congress critters. If only we had a law like that?
(or funding to implement that law!)
It’s already against the law, no new useless laws required.
I’m asking how exactly do you propose to keep guns “out of the wrong hands”, short of banning them? And what do you propose that wouldn’t amount to making the misuse of guns illegaler?
Agreed. Why do people fail to comprehend that every gun starts out as legally and responsibly owned? Addressing the situations where legal and responsible ownership ends should be simple.
Gun owners (unless they commit the crime) should not share responsibility for the crime - but they do demonstrate irresponsible gun ownership if it was loaned, stolen or illegally transferred. In that case, they should lose the ability to purchase any other gun for some period. In extreme cases, the right to own any guns should end.
Must you insist on banning guns completely?
This probably belongs in the Positive Gun News thread. America, with our god-given 2nd Amendment, does not suffer criminals lying down. Wasn’t there a bad defensive pass-interference by Smith in 2009 that the refs ignored?
In a gun-crazed country, the innocent wife would have been killed also, but in God’s Great America, the American patriot showed restraint – Bravo!
DGU - one death.
As Lumpy will no doubt pop in to say, the shooter was probably a convicted felon with an illegal gun. Therefore, it has no bearing on the gun debate.
Is that how gun stats are collected and passed on now?
Do you really imagine that you can get rid of guns? Seriously? Oh I’m sure you envision a decades-long process of “weaning” America off guns; but how well did that work for alcohol, heroin and cocaine? Do you really think a perpetual “War On Guns” could ever be a success? Or that the very effort wouldn’t have drawbacks?
I don’t fear getting rid of guns, because that will never happen. What I do fear is banning guns- all the drawbacks of guns and none of the benefits. There’s a difference between solving a problem and beating a problem with a stick.
Just look at the entire damn rest of the world for your answer.
Like what, that gun owners would suddenly stop being “law-abiding citizens” and form a militia that would kill enough cops to prevent any legal restrictions from being enforced? Is that it?
Then you can stop the strawmanning and deal with fears of reality, not of your fantasies.
TBCF, not always. When people, especially gundamentalist types, speak of DGU, they include situations in which the nasty guy had the gun point at them, saw the gun or learned that a gun was in attendance and therewith fled or stood down. It may even reach “there was this scurvy-looking dude, and I am sure he wanted to mug me, but he saw I had a gun”.
Apparently Smith had just had dinner with a New Orleans police officer whom the murderer had sued several years ago. I guess it’s just a coincidence.
Mexico, where it’s almost impossible for a civilian to legally own a gun. 'Nuff said.
No, like women, African-Americans, gays and even Jews bitterly protesting that they’ve been made helpless against assault and murder. Like another huge multi-billion dollar-a-year law enforcement bureaucracy playing whack-a-mole with an uneradicable black market of suppliers and traffickers.
YOU, talking about reality?!? :rolleyes:
The ironic wordplay in a gun rights advocate being a fatalist is a joy to behold.
Stop, yer killing me, Lumpy.
I have long been an advocate for licensing and registration but holding the victim of theft responsible for crimes committed with the stolen object is nucking futz absent some gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
What other area do we attach this sort of liability?
Do we hold car owners responsible if their stolen car is used by a drunk driver to run over a bunch of orphans?
Do we hold the owner of explosives responsible if their explosives are stolen and used to blow up a marathon full of runners?
But you want to hold gun owners responsible for things that a thief does with their stolen gun? 
It really just sounds like you want to make gun ownership onerous.