Gun Control 7

[BLU-RAY]

That was actually something I was thinking of, during this- some sort of provision that if you resell your gun to anyone except an authorized dealer, you (as the original/registered purchaser) can be held liable for any damage done with it.

I feel like this betrays my lack of knowledge of the gun market, though, because presumably if you resell your gun, you'd have to perform all of the checks that an original source dealer would have to do, right? And someone involved would be legally responsible for making sure that the permitting and licensing were up-to-date and transferred to the new owner?

I dunno. I went to a fair-type thing out here a few months ago that basically was a big fair, but with all the rides removed (so just fried food stands intact), and then a bunch of people selling stuff; and a large fraction of the stuff was basically a gun show. Lots of people just walking around with guns.

[DaveSumm]

You simply want people to live by your standards. You would take away the right of someone in pain to end that pain. This is becoming a very bizarre form of dictatorship by the proletariat.

How can we take away a right that doesn't exist already? Suicide is a crime. I can't understand why you think that any slight changes to the law are suddenly an unacceptable infringement to your liberties: what about the thousands upon thousands of things that are already crimes? Why do you not see your inability to legally buy drugs as a dictatorship? Or are you advocating an entirety lawless society in which you're free to purchase anything you please?

Something's are illegal because they're dangerous. Some are arguing that guns might just fit into that category, that there's really nothing special about guns because ultimately, they're just another tool made by humans to kill humans. How about in 1000 years time, which particular lasers will be deemed own-able by you? Which shall fall into the category of 'illegal', and which shall you deem a God-given right that you're entitled to own?

[Seli]

So if the shooter is careful to aim only at humans and not anything else, that could lead to financial damage, he has nothing to worry about? ;)

Seriously, though. I'm afraid people that decide to massacre innocents don't usually care about potential financial responsibility of their actions. But perhaps it could help prevent them obtaining guns from the hands of people who do care.

I was actually thinking of civil court cases by the surviving relatives. Perhaps even the bill from first responders.

The idea is not about those shooting incidents, they are too rare to easily legislate against, what can help against gun violence is more incentive for responsible ownership.

[Sturn]

more likely that gym teacher misses assailant, gets killed while trying to reload, assailant loots gym teacher's firearm, now has four guns instead of three.

Possible? Sure. More likely? Complete bull.

[Howdyphillip]

Something's are illegal because they're dangerous. Some are arguing that guns might just fit into that category, that there's really nothing special about guns because ultimately, they're just another tool made by humans to kill humans. How about in 1000 years time, which particular lasers will be deemed own-able by you? Which shall fall into the category of 'illegal', and which shall you deem a God-given right that you're entitled to own?

You'll have to pry my laser pistol from my cold, dead hand !!!!

(God, I always wanted to say that...)

[3CityApache]

Possible? Sure. More likely? Complete bull.

The idea that teachers should be armed scares me to death, actually. The way I see it, it would only result in:

1) The attacker making sure he kills the teacher first, and then getting an additional gun.

2) More killings, by teachers who just happen to lose their temper at last.

3) More killings, by students who snatch the gun from the teacher or steal it from the place where the teacher keeps it (if the whole idea was to have even a remote amount of sense, it should be kept handy, not locked up in some kind of safe, right?)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I've never understood the rational behind making suicide a criminal act. If someone completes all elements of the crime there is no one left to hold criminally culpable. It's like executing someone twice for two murders.

[Sturn]

How about this for a compromise, no constitutional gun right violations as far as I can tell.

0) no new gun regulation, free ownership (as far as is possible nowadays) for responsible gun owners

1) mandatory registration of all weapons

2) the registered owner of a weapon is responsible for all financial damages resulting of use of said weapon

#1 I think does very little if anything to stop a massacre.

#2 This can already be possible in a civil court. However, it needs to not say, "all financial damages", since the actual shooter of the weapon should at least share some responsibility (most? all?).

[Sturn]

The idea that teachers should be armed scares me to death, actually. The way I see it, it would only result in: (my emphasis)

1) The attacker making sure he kills the teacher first, and then getting an additional gun.

2) More killings, by teachers who just happen to lose their temper at last.

3) More killings, by students who snatch the gun from the teacher or steal it from the place where the teacher keeps it (if the whole idea was to have even a remote amount of sense, it should be kept handy, not locked up in some kind of safe, right?)

I agree with some of what you said, especially #2 and #3. But why are you saying #1 can happen without giving 4) Teacher kills attacker and ends the rampage even a chance?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sturn,

It's a "strict liability" theory. We have those for design defects in maufactured goods today. The element of causation for damages is removed. Causation is presumed. All the plaintiff has to show is the manufacuter desiged the product, that the design was defective, and that the Plaintiff was injured.

In this circumstance in suppose a planitiff in a survival action would have to show the ownership of the weapon, its loss or theft, and that the owner failed to take action to report is bein loat or atolen to the police thereby allowing it to be used to kill another.

[Sturn]

I've never understood the rational behind making suicide a criminal act. If someone completes all elements of the crime there is no one left to hold criminally culpable. It's like executing someone twice for two murders.

You can be found guilty for assisting in any crime. So, assisted suicide is made illegal by making suicide illegal.

Making it illegal probably cuts down on acceptance of the act. If suicide was completely legal, it then seems more accepted by society.

In the end, the suicide statute is most often just used to categorize an incident for investigation and statistics. The State and law enforcement, who are required to investigate and report on suicides, need to put something in the statute block at the top of the report (sad as it is).

[Lord O' Bones]

Just out of curiousity, since you are so focused on personal protection, how many times has your place been broken into, over what time period?

Three times myself, but the only time I was home I had a vicious towel, so that was all right.

[Sturn]

@Ser Scot

I completely agree with the idea that a gun owner who was reckless somehow should share some of the blame if his weapon gets used wrongly by someone else. What I had a problem with was the part about, "responsible for all financial damages", when the shooter should be the most responsible. Perhaps that is not what Seli meant?

Edit: I need to drink coffee first.

[Seli]

#1 I think does very little if anything to stop a massacre.

#2 This can already be possible in a civil court. However, it needs to not say, "all financial damages", since the actual shooter of the weapon should at least share some responsibility (most? all?).

Nothing bar the most draconian and unworkable rules will actually stop a massacre, so it is probably better to have a stick that promotes responsible gun ownership.

That was perhaps a bit extreme, but a system where only a shooter is responsible and the registered owner not does not quite work as a stick. Of course I have no idea whether there is precedent for a legal structure like this, I believe some car-owner insurances work that way, but that is a far cry from the idea I proposed.

[Lord O' Bones]

Seriously, I am on the side of stricter gun control. And always have been.

But the specious arguments being made here merely kow-tow to the gun proponents. (And calling them gun-nutters does nothing to advance your point BTW).

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that we shouldn't have guns in schools or on the street carried by average Americans. Why would you want to live that way? But the idea that a competent gun user with a weapon during a shooting wouldn't have saved more lives is patently absurd. If you feel this way I suspect your are living in a fantasy land.

Can we move on to the way that the abyssmal way we treat the mentally ill and how actual bullets work, please?

Sorry. Another thread? I don't think so. This is intrinsic.

[3CityApache]

I agree with some of what you said, especially #2 and #3. But why are you saying #1 can happen without giving 4) Teacher kills attacker and ends the rampage even a chance?

Ok, you're right, I didn't make myself clear. I do believe of course, that in some insignificant number of cases this could actually prevent a tragedy. I just believe the opposite would be much more common.

[lupis42]

How about this for a compromise, no constitutional gun right violations as far as I can tell.

0) no new gun regulation, free ownership (as far as is possible nowadays) for responsible gun owners

1) mandatory registration of all weapons

2) the registered owner of a weapon is responsible for all financial damages resulting of use of said weapon

This will probably need some additional rules to sort out the details, but seems workable if people can get past the registration aspect. It does not punish responsible firearm owners, nor should it punish self-defence (although that is one of the things that need to be sorted out).

Edit: of course this would not have prevented the recent massacre directly, but it is intended to act on causes not on symptoms.

Would you be willing to consider, as part of 0, the elimination of some really pointless/confusing existing gun regulation? Because I think it's possible to get (at least some) of the trust needed for a real compromise if the advocates of new restrictions demonstrated a willingness to remove old/failed restrictions, rather than talking about how each new restriction is another step towards the ultimate goal of a total ban.

[lupis42]

I feel like this betrays my lack of knowledge of the gun market, though, because presumably if you resell your gun, you'd have to perform all of the checks that an original source dealer would have to do, right? And someone involved would be legally responsible for making sure that the permitting and licensing were up-to-date and transferred to the new owner?

Depends on local laws - all interstate sales must go through a dealer (with paperwork, whole 9). Within state, it varies. MA, for example, allows a limited number of face-to-face sales a year, but requires both parties to have a current FID/LTC - effectively, you can't sell it to anyone who can't own/buy it, and you can't buy from anyone who can't own it either.

ETA:

Also worth noting is that the NCIS system is only available to dealers and law-enforcement, so a private seller can't use exactly the same checks.

[sologdin]

I've never understood the rational behind making suicide a criminal act. If someone completes all elements of the crime there is no one left to hold criminally culpable. It's like executing someone twice for two murders.

clinically dead, but revived by medical science, maybe?

[Serious Callers Only]

A regular cadaver synod