This doesn’t sit well with me for a plethora of reasons. I think instead second hand gun sales should have to be transacted at an FFL with full background check much like first hand.
3 Likes
I believe they can be sued over that. See: warning labels.
Can she not be now?
Nothing like more government involvement.
I’m not totally sure. I don’t think currently people can sue and win in circumstances like you are advocating. It’s besides the point though. You advocated it. I’m asking about your beliefs to flesh out what you are in favor of and what limiting principals you have.
Again, I didn’t say anything about winning.
I believe anyone should be subject to civil suit for anything. I think we should have reasonable judges and juries. There are also remedies for frivolous lawsuits.
Sounds like a good way to make a lot of lawyers rich, for everyone else to loose, and not solve any problems…
3 Likes
It would solve a big problem of not permitting people to refuse sales for any reason whatsoever.
Strict background checks and waiting periods seem like a good option to me. We live in a society of guns. Even if you outlawed fire arms on a mass scale there are sooooo many already here only the bad guys who are already getting them illegally would have them. The waiting period is an attempt to prevent guy reaction use of a firearm for vengeful purposes. Maybe longer waiting periods too? Hell I dunno.
1 Like
Cars and pillows are meant for, marketed and used for utilitarian, neccesary, nonviolent uses.
Many guns are marketed as hyper efficient human killing weapons. When they get used as such illegally I think the manufacturer/marketer should be open to some form of liability.
Tacticool gravy seals with GIJoe fantasies collect arsenals of tacticool gravy seal type weapons. Street racers kit out their cars like it’s Fast and Furious. Both types of people are more likely to act out their fantasies when they have the full “costume” , and the marketing has told them acting it out is what they are purchasing the costume for.
Separately, we have a problem with catalytic converter and precious metals thefts. Poor/addicts needing cash. If our govt did no-question gun buybacks at greatly inflated prices, how many illegal guns would come off the streets in exchange for a big cash windfall?
1 Like
Used gun prices would sore as a side effect (why sell it to your neighbor when you could get top dollar from the government). Manufactures of guns would see this and raise new prices as well. I believe high gun prices have reduced gun crime in certain areas. Australia I think is an example?
I do think @blshaw has some practical ideas. Longer wait for semi auto weapons, require used guns to go through a dealer.
I think different charges for a crime with a gun present is a good idea. If you rob the store with a gun it should be a longer sentence than if you rob the store unarmed IMO. They do this currently, but I think as far as economic incentives it has somewhat worked (the incentives make sense that they would work). Maybe the punishment differential between crime and crime with gun needs to be increased?
Much to the dislike of many of my NRA friends, I would also be quite OK with requiring licensing to purchase a fire arm. Getting my CWP was a process. It wasn’t all together difficult but it took a course, registration with ATF, finger printing, background checks etc. I don’t think many 18 years old could navigate that with ease and it may deter the ‘wackos’ from easily purchasing and using a weapon. Nothing would stop them from taking their parents weapons which is the case in many of these situations.
1 Like
You’re limiting principal is advertising language? Of the industry or are you advocating it be manufacturer and gun specific? If you used a gun advertised for hunting they wouldn’t be liable? If a car is advertised using speeding/racing/reckless driving in advertising, they should be liable for deaths?
I’m not totally opposed to this, but in general I don’t like the government meddling in rights. We wouldn’t let the government us tax dollars to pay people to not speak freely, or to not vote, and I don’t think it’s a great idea for bearing arms either.
There are proposals to punish parents that don’t do a good enough job at keeping guns from their kids (in the case that that gun is used for a shooting). I am not opposed to that (I don’t think)?
Yep. Woodgrain stock with 10rd clip marketed as a family hunting rifle to spend fall days with F&F playing gin rummy in a deer stand wouldn’t be liable. But a black/camo AR-15 with rails and laser sights with a banana clip marketed as a tactical weapon which makes you a dangerous warrior not to be trifled with would have some liability.
Or more importantly no liability for the AR-15 sold without advertising, or marketed for home defense?
1 Like
Do you have an example of this type of advertisement?
2 Likes
Warning labels. “Intended to be used only for defensive purposes.” Hell, make purchasers sign an agreement at the time of purchase.
That…seems like poor advertising.
And do you guys think this would reduce mass shootings? or is this just about justice for families?
For me, it’s about reducing government control of firearms and commerce.
Edit: want to reduce mass shootings? Restrict access. Stick crazy people in institutions.