ITA. That’s really the source of the problem. But that cat’s not going back in the bag.
I don’t think there’s a good solution that’s palatable. Tighten up who ‘can’t’ have guns? Require everyone to take a gun safety course? Those both make sense, but probably couldn’t get implemented.
I think creating a safety of culture in the US wrt guns is also a cat that’s not going back into the bag.
That goes back to my primary idea – once you own a gun, you are responsible for what happens with that gun (regardless of who uses it) unless/until transferred through some registered mechanism that includes a background check.
If a bad guy steals your gun and does a bad thing with it…you bear some responsibility for that bad thing.
That would really suck…but that potential suckage would provide a significant incentive for gun owners to exercise greater care in securing their firearms when not in use, and in taking extra steps to retain their firearms when carrying (including, perhaps, carrying less frequently).
In the city where I grew up, since the pandemic there’s been a big problem with car break-ins, and the working theory has been criminals seeking guns to steal.
I realize that this sort of thing would be easier said than done, and resistance by some gun owners to the notion of being criminally liable for stuff that happens after a gun has been stolen from them would probably preclude such a measure…but it would go a long way towards reducing availability of firearms to folks who probably shouldn’t have them.
They tried a gun registry in Canada. It was a complete disaster. Do not recommend.
I like this idea, but there would need to be some exceptions so that a law-abiding gun owner doesn’t spend his life in prison because someone broke into his house while he was on holiday in Europe. Perhaps a civil fine if the gun theft is reported in a timely fashion. That would deter people from leaving unsecured guns in their cars, while still giving them an incentive to report thefts from their cars to avoid criminal prosecution.
Any chance the government can drain one or two lakes, run a metal detector over them, and compare the models and serial numbers of any guns found against the guns people claimed to have lost there? Then anyone who’s caught in a lie goes to prison. You wouldn’t need to do all the lakes, just a couple to scare everyone, then some amnesty program for the other liars.
How about a program where Canadians trade their now-illegal guns to Americans for similar but legal models? The Canadian government would only need to make up the difference in market value.
Disgusting
As I mentioned above, I’d ban guns with interchangeable magazines. But, what do we do with the IM guns already out there? People can keep them. They can take them to their graves in their cold dead hands if they like.
They cannot sell, trade, lend, give, or bequeath them. The gov’t won’t take your guns away as long as you want to be the sole user.
Note, however, that anyone below age __ when the law is passed can’t legally own an IM gun. They can’t buy, trade, borrow, or receive a gift of an IM gun so they have no legal means of acquiring IM guns. I expect a lot of our gun violence, particularly criminal violence, comes from young people. So this law would have a quicker impact on criminal use than on other uses.
Its a joke. The guns arent actually in the lake. Theyre under the floorboards.
Haha! Gotcha govt!
Its what happened the last time the canadian govt required registration. Many guns went unregistered.
I’m okay with this. If you want to own a deadly weapon, deal with the consequences.
I don’t think you could prove they were lying just because you failed to recover the gun. Maybe a scuba diver recovered the gun between the “boating accident” and the drainage thing. No one can prove that didn’t happen.
To say nothing of the cost involved in draining the lake. Or just claim it was lost in a Great Lake or an ocean. There’s no draining those.
I think NRM understands that, and is trying to prove that the lying liars were lying.
But I think proving something didn’t happen is a taller order than NRM is suggesting.
If you “lose” a deadly weapon, you should be punished. No one cares if it’s an accident.
Similar to accidental manslaughter.
Are you mansplaining? I feel like you’re mansplaining. Which is very gender confusing for me.
Now I’m confused. Were you mamsplsining in your post and then deflecting by accusing me of mansplaining instead?
America needs to treat gun culture like car culture. All users of a gun need a license issued by the state, all owners of a gun need insurance against accidents and misuse, all guns have a serial number similar to a VIN, older guns can get a GIN when insured, etc.
I’d be OK with the law recognizing good-faith attempts to secure firearms as a defense.
If you’re vacationing in Europe, and someone breaks into your home, breaks into your locked gun safe, and the break-in is reported to the authorities… that’s a reasonable defense.
If you’re vacationing in Europe, and someone breaks into your home, opens your unlocked desk drawer, and walks out with the pistol you kept there… you should bear liability for what happens with that pistol.
The second gun is clearly less secure than the first, but if it’s in a locked house then there was some effort made to secure it from strangers.
I do think that within the framework of the 2nd Amendment there is room to hold gun owners more accountable for failing to secure their guns in a reasonable way.
We have a right to keep and bear arms. That doesn’t translate to a right to leave a loaded gun on a table right next to an open window when you’re not even home, IMO. (That’s extreme, of course.)
As an actuary, I also want to solve all our real world problems with insurance.