Best suggestion yet?

[happygeek]

why we regulate certain things a lot but not guns.

What do we regulate like guns? There's no laws on the mere possession of a car I'm aware of, and anybody can buy one. There's no laws on the mere possession of alcohol in my home that I'm aware of, and anyone over 21 can buy it without so much as a background check or a 1 bottle a week limit. Heck, there's no law I'm aware of that says I can't give a bottle of booze for Christmas to my cousin with 10 DUIs.

 

[Warp]

or why we regulate certain things a lot but not guns

If you think guns are not heavily regulated, you don't have a darn clue what the heck you are talking about

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Sawdeanz:

Let's change it up slightly and see what you think of it.

Let's assume I'm a bad guy with a brick. I see a cop helping someone who was in a car accident, walk up, hit him on the back of the head with the brick, and take his issued sidearm and go on to kill 6 people with it.

is it reasonable for the families of those 6 people to sue the cop, his estate, and the city government according to your scheme? If not, how does this change if we turn the cop into a CCW holder, or a sleeping grandma who succumbed to a baseball wielding intruder?

It won't fix anything, but it will make owning guns harder for the law abiding, but not address those who misuse them (who are generally judgement-proof anyway.)

 

[Warp]

Sawdeanz:

Let's change it up slightly and see what you think of it.

Let's assume I'm a bad guy with a brick. I see a cop helping someone who was in a car accident, walk up, hit him on the back of the head with the brick, and take his issued sidearm and go on to kill 6 people with it.

is it reasonable for the families of those 6 people to sue the cop, his estate, and the city government according to your scheme? If not, how does this change if we turn the cop into a CCW holder, or a sleeping grandma who succumbed to a baseball wielding intruder?

It won't fix anything, but it will make owning guns harder for the law abiding, but not address those who misuse them (who are generally judgement-proof anyway.)

In other words, it will be just like virtually ever other gun control law we already have

 

[MedWheeler]

In post 16, sawdeanz appears to be seeing the light.

 

[hso]

There's no such liability on legally held dynamite or other explosives so the idea that you'd be held responsible for the theft of a gun like dynamite is based on a false premise. Further, there's already a civil court avenue to make gunowners financially liable as well as possible criminal prosecution when firearms were too easy to get by someone in the home who is recognized as dangerous to get their hands on them so the idea that there's not routes to both civil and criminal punishment for gunowners is a false premise.

The majority of firearms used in crime are not stolen from law abiding citizens, so there's another false premise.

You can't relate the acts of mass murderers to "normal" criminals so looking at ineffectual gun control myths applied to day to day criminals as an answer for the unrelated problem of mass murderers is based on yet another false premise.

There are too many false premises in the article and conclusions to make it useful.

What do we need to do to prevent mass murders? We need to look at the root causes behind these people's behavior instead of the tools and apply careful analysis and thoughtfully develop solutions to address the root cause of the particular incident instead of using an incident to trot out the pet complaints and twist the facts to support the course of action.

It is easy to throw someone to the wolves if it advances you and it is someone elses "baby".

 

[Texan Scott]

I've said it before....

If someone steals a gun from me and kills another with it, I am the VICTIM of his first crime, not accessory to his second.