I take it back, I was thinking locks. I still think it’s absurd.
The next year? The next decade? The next century?
To a large extent, the probability of a gun eventually killing innocents will be determined by how long the gun lasts before becoming unserviceable. It depends on how well the gun is maintained, but guns made for killing people are now made from corrosion-resistant materials, and can last for centuries. During that time they will be passed from owner to owner until one of them uses it in a crime.
Historical data about now-antique weapons, if that’s what you were going by, doesn’t apply because they were more subject to corrosion.
How about this for a compromise? You can have your AR15. And it can have a 30 bullet magazine. But every magazine, of any size, will henceforth be manufactured by a March 2013 technology 3D printer. Deal? Didn’t think so.
If future 3D home printers can print a wide variety of metals, there will be issues. When the technology gets to the point where a non-gunsmith can produce a complete, fully functional, and reliable gun, I’m reasonably sure there will be tight regulation.
You can think absurd. Me, I think responsible gun owners. A significant percentage of the illegal “street” guns were stolen, sold, “loaned” to a buddy, given to a relative with zero responsibility or traceability.
You want a weapon, well it’s up to you to secure it. That’s personal responsibility. The gubmint won’t get involved in how to secure it because frankly the government will do a crappy job with loopholes or non-practical solutions. Let the free market work it out. Your firearm is involved in a crime and you failed to report it stolen, then you’re culpable with legal penalties. Maybe free market insurance will spring up to meet this new need.
This appears to me to be an eminently reasonable solution. IMHO this will improve our current situation of illegal guns and a firearm murder rate 4x the nearest reasonably comparable developed nation. Sure, it sucks compared to the zero responsibility system that is currently in place.
Appreciate you answering.
There is a difference here and in what Fear Itself was saying, which I found absurd. You stated that you must report theft and if you do then you are not culpable. Fear Itself made no such distinction and even if your firearm is stolen and you report it you are still culpable.
Like I said earlier, I’m not against mandatory reporting of stolen firearms per se, but people like Fear Itself make me oppose universal license and registration simply because it could be used as a tool to push for more penalties and restrictions.
I think Loviscek’s problem is that she carried her firearm onto campus. SCOTUS recognizes the state’s ability to restrict your right to carry in particular places, like churches and schools.
Good gun safety is one thing. Holding someone accountable for the crimes of another without a hook (like felony murder) is unheard of. Its beyond cruel and unusual, its nucking futz.
So being the victim of a crime makes you a criminal? Even if I kept my gun in a 90 minute rated gun safe that was bolted to a cement floor, if someone steals that gun and kills someone with it I am held responsible? Am I responsible for the murder?
Yes.
Depends on how well they are maintained. I have a few guns that are almost a century old and fire just fine. They tend to be rifles and rifles tend not to be used in homocide (not even AR-15s).
Machining a lower receiver can be done in a metal shop by a reasonably skilled metal worker today. Its just illegal to manufacture a gun without a license. Are we now going to require a license to manufacture gun accessories?
What sort of penalties? You mention insurance so I am now thinking you may just be talking about a fine. And I am fine with that as long as there is a reasonably long period of time for you to report your stolen gun (say 72 hours after discovery of the theft).
It’ll never happen.
Again, personal responsibility. You own a gun, you secure it. If it’s stolen, you report it within whatever is legally defined as the deadline. If you report it, then it is no longer your legal responsibility (don’t confuse me with saying you’ve got unlimited liability. You report it, legally then your liability is done). If you don’t report it, then there are legal penalties.
Honestly, if it were up to me, I’d be inclined to rule if your firearm gets into the wild and you fail to report it (within the legally mandated timeline), then you’ve proven yourself to not be a responsible owner and a lifetime ban seems reasonable. Plus whatever criminal penalties would apply. And of course, being America, if your personably traceable firearm wasn’t reported and ended up being used in a crime, then I’m sure there will be a national industry of lawyers out there ready to sue the pants off of you. That would probably propel private insurance coverage options. One upshot would be a lot less “leakage” of legal firearms onto the street. YMMV.
Oh, well, in that case, sure. You want to fine me $X for failure to report a stolen gun in some reasonable amount of time if that gun is subsequently used in a crime, then OK.
Because this is America, you can’t sue someone for being the victim of theft. Reporting a stolen gun does nothing to prevent a crime committed with that gun. The entire point behind rules like the one you are proposing is not responsible gun ownership, it is to uncover possible straw purchases or illegal gun sales. If THAT is your objective then a fine equal to the street price of the stolen firearm (or perhaps some multiple of that street price) is all you need to dissuade this sort of leakage.
Permanently denying someone of their constitutional rights because they failed to file a report with the government is unreasonable on its face.
This analogy fails in that drugs are generally illegal to possess as well as to purchase.
I think most law enforcement people would agree that legalizing or decriminalizing possession of drugs would indeed make busting people for selling drugs much more difficult if not impossible.
Nice try, though.
Is this serious, or am I being whooshed?
This is crazy. You know that, right?
So, everything gun strokers hate, but cannot logically rebut is crazy, right?
No - but some proposals are.
My firearms are in a locked house, in a locked safe. The ammo is stored separately.
For a firearm to be stolen, the thief would first have to break into my house, and then would have to break into my safe. They would then have to track down where my ammo is stored.
You appear to have stated that even though I have put in all of the above provisions - you want me to be held criminally liable if one of my firearms is stolen and used in a crime.
That is crazy.
You want to be immune from accountability if you fail to secure your weapon and a child kills himself with it.
That is crazy.
I should not be held accountable if a thief breaks into my home, then breaks into my safe, then ransacks my home and breaks into my ammo storage, and then commits a crime with the now illegally acquired firearm with ammo. Ditto if the thief is a child, or of the thief then hands the firearm over to a child.
I am not responsible nor accountable for the crimes committed by others.
As a responsible gun owner, should you bear any accountability for keeping your weapon out of the hands of children and criminals?
Is there any way that you’ll stop ignoring the rest of what he’s said in the last two posts?
I ignore his protests about being held responsible for the crimes of others, because I never advocated that.
Your words:
If I have secured my collection, why should I be held responsible for what happens after the crimes of (in my case) breaking and entering (gaining entrance to my home), destruction of property (gaining entrance to my safe), grand theft (value of my firearms and ammo)?
Now, if I leave an unsecured loaded revolver out where a child finds it and uses it - that is already covered in the law.
You appear to be advocating that the proof of failure to secure is met simply by the fact that someone has my gun.
If you wish to restate that more clearly (perhaps I have misunderstood), please do so.
Alternatively, if I read your argument correctly, there is no step I can take to secure my collection to secure it that would satisfy you. I would assume that if someone is torturing my wife until I give them the combination to the safe, then you would STILL find my liable for whatever is done with my firearms.
Certainly there can be some standards. To fly, I have to put my firearms in a locked case for example. Ammo must be in a different bag, and in the manufacturer’s box. I do not consider those rules to be outlandish or crazy.
How about in your home? What standard of security is reasonable, and how should it be enforced?