LaserGuy wrote:I don't have a problem with this. This is more or less how I interpret that law to be read, but I'll grant that there may be some language in there that may lead to a more stringent interpretation. IANAL, so I'm just going with what I can see and what makes sense.
Gun advocates view the law extremely differently. This is a common approach by anti-gun folks, describing laws as safety things that just so happen to accidentally impose large costs, liabilities, etc onto gun owners.
This is why I made the comparison to anti-abortion folks. They use a similar strategy, in which they push safety regulation that just happens to, in practice, put burdens on the system in an attempt to destroy it. After a few such attempts, one can naturally expect the other side to scan any further proposed "safety" regulations proposed by the banners very critically for any possible abuse.
Tyndmyr wrote:If someone steals your car and you haven't yet noticed it, you are not liable for the actions of the thief.
In many states, if you are negligent in a way that could foreseeably lead to the car being stolen (say, leaving it idling unattended), then yeah, you can be liable. I would imagine if you didn't report the car stolen for an extended period of time and it was then used in the commission of a crime, beyond a certain point the police would likely be looking at you as an accessory or accomplice.
Nor is your roommate borrowing your car, and causing no damages, something that would cause you to be liable for anything.
If you give express permission for someone to use your vehicle, you as the owner are generally liable for damages it causes or any infractions (tickets, etc.) that are incurred on it (may vary state-by-state to some extent but that seems to be the consensus of Page 1 Google results).
You are ignoring the differences that are inconvenient to your argument.
Normal liability is a thing, regardless of car or gun. This is creating a new, far more stringent standard that would apply only to firearms.
Actually, my intended point is that regulations on personal property for public safety reasons are 1) very common, 2) not considered particularly problematic or burdensome. Guns seem to be a weird exception where even the most trivial or straightforward attempt at regulation is met with extremely vigorous resistance.
Many of those equivalent laws already exist.
"You aren't allowed to drive while drunk". Well, using a gun while drunk is also a crime. Even if you get a concealed carry license, you'll notice it comes with restrictions, and influence of drugs or alcohol is an obvious restriction. This is explicit, in addition to the usual negligence charges that come up if one does stupid things to hurt others while drunk.
In addition, you are banned from even purchasing a gun if you are a habitual drunk. So, the standard is more stringent than it is for vehicles, not less.
This is what makes your point ridiculous. It's everyone's point when making that comparison, but the fact that someone makes it immediately reveals that the person does not understand extant gun law.
The anti-gunners mispotray the conflict as over stuff such as this, using the phrase "common sense" to describe basically all their proposals. But in practice, there isn't any conflict over if drunks should have guns. They shouldn't, and everyone's been on board with this for forever. It's wholly noncontroversial, and is not an accurate portrayal of the gun rights issue.
Legally purchased firearms are statistically extremely safe, and that's not the route most criminals use to acquire them.
Virtually all guns used in crime started out as legal guns at some point, rather by definition. I suppose it's possible that there's some criminal enterprise is just straight up manufacturing their own, but it's probably easier just to buy them via a proxy.
if you'd like to look at how crime guns are acquired.
2004 had 11.4% acquisition from retail, pawn shops, flea markets or gun shows. 37.4% from family/friends. Mostly not purchased, at that. 40% from criminal street sources.
Various numbers are tossed around depending on location. At one point, in Chicago, it was claimed that only 3% of criminals got their guns by purchasing them legally. That particular study is small, and only interviewed those in prison, so there may be sampling bias, etc. Areas other than Chicago may also exhibit different patterns. So, while I'm not holding up any one particular study as perfect, overall, it's obvious that very few crimes are being committed by those who purchase firearms legally.
Adding additional restrictions to retail/pawn/gun shows can only possibly affect a small amount of crime. You need to work on the criminal gun dealers(high overlap with drug dealers, incidentally), and on folks who are willing to provide firearms to their family/friends who are into crime. Both of those are already highly illegal. You can add harsher punishments if you like, but I think you'll hit diminishing returns there. At a certain point, adding another year on to the potential jail sentence doesn't matter. Someone who'll risk a decade in prison( a single count of straw purchasing) will probably risk a dozen years. Better enforcement is the logical conclusion if you want to actually reduce crime.
Yes, I suppose you could argue that banning legal gun sales altogether would limit the supply. That, of course, is exactly the thing the NRA and kin do not want. It isn't advocating for safe sales, it's choking out legitimate use altogether. It's also nigh impossible. The US has about as many guns as it does people, and guns last nearly forever.
It's one million if you define home invasion as a burglary with someone present, and a quarter of that if you only count those with threats of violence.
I think both situations can be reasonably considered a risk, as any particular instance of the former can easily become the latter, and the resident doesn't have a good way to know in advance which it'll be.
Even a quarter of a million is a pretty significant amount. Given the number of households in the US, that gives a fairly decent chance of experiencing such a scenario in your life. They're not distributed evenly, either. If you have the misfortune to live in a high crime area, it becomes less about if you will experience crime, but when.
Sure, a gun won't help in all of these, but a desire to defend oneself is reasonable in the face of such risks.
I mean, there are a lot fewer house fires(about 358k/yr) than there are home invasions, and alarms don't fix all house fires, but you still ought to change the batteries in your alarms.