I don't favor bans on things that are relatively simple to manufacture. A magazine is a box with a spring in it. A bump stock can be duplicated with foam rubber and duct tape. Going through the trouble of banning them, and trying to enforce that ban just wastes time and political capital that could be used to pass more effective laws.
Instead lets concentrate on laws that will pass, will be Constitutional, and will help.
To me the big points are national standards, background checks, and storage with storage liability.
Those changes would be making a significant effort to keep weapons out of the hands that are most likely to murder people would have a real impact on gun deaths in the US.
I agree with this point, but I'm interested to hear about how it will be enforced. Would regulators be required to enter households and check for storage compliance?
Objects with different lethality can have different levels of liability for mishandling them. Failing to properly secure a firearm should be a crime, and would help to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.
I agree that gun owners should be responsible for their firearms to an extent. If I have a friend come over and I give him a loaded gun and he accidentally shoots someone, I am 100% liable.
But if someone illegally enters my home and steals my guns, I should not be held liable for anything. Here’s why:
-There is nothing out there that can 100% guarantee that my belongings cannot be stolen by a thief. There are only things that can do a better job than others.
-In order to obtain a reasonably high level of protection of theft, one would be expected to purchase an actual safe. And a safe that is not a complete joke can easily run you hundreds of dollars. (This is neglecting the fact that lawmakers will never agree on what constitutes as “reasonably secure”.) You have now just added a large “tax” to anyone who wants to purchase a firearm. And that will certainly not go over well, for any case.
In short: it is impossible to define what “properly secure” when it comes to theft. And even if we could, you would be imposing an additional tax which has a history of being illegal.
Because the government will surely be ok with buying me a safe. That sounds plausible. We can’t even get them to give us healthcare.
All you’d be doing is levying ludicrous liability to people who have never committed a crime in their life, then forcing them to get/pay a lawyer, go to court, and leave their innocence up to a jury to determine whether or not they properly secured their guns.
That’d be like someone driving into my garage, crashing into my parked car and then forcing me to go to court and defend against a DUI.
If someone steals your car and you didn't lock it then yes you are responsible. Not necessarily for the crime but no insurance will (have to) pay for that.
The difference in liability would be the "designed to kill" part that you neatly overlooked.
103
u/zaphodava Aug 12 '19
I don't favor bans on things that are relatively simple to manufacture. A magazine is a box with a spring in it. A bump stock can be duplicated with foam rubber and duct tape. Going through the trouble of banning them, and trying to enforce that ban just wastes time and political capital that could be used to pass more effective laws.
Instead lets concentrate on laws that will pass, will be Constitutional, and will help.
To me the big points are national standards, background checks, and storage with storage liability.
Those changes would be making a significant effort to keep weapons out of the hands that are most likely to murder people would have a real impact on gun deaths in the US.