Stop blaming the guns.Originally Posted by SpankyNek
|
|
Stop blaming the guns.
I'm not.
I refuse to believe that selling a gun to a person that would have been denied a firearm in a retail setting should result in no liability or complicity in the seller, though.
The other aspect not considered is say you do sell the gun for cash but you sold it 5 years before the law is passed. The person you sold it to has since sold it again for cash. The person he sold the gun to uses it to kill somebody a couple of years later and after the new law is passed. The cops run the serial number and you're the last purchaser of the gun. You say you sold the gun but can't remember who you sold it to and have no records of the sale and the guy who bought the gun who used it to kill doesn't know who he bought it from. Are you going to held liable since you have no records of the sale, you've filed no police report for the gun being stolen, etc?
In the above scenario, I don't believe there would be liability found. These examples start to dwindle as we get down the timeline.
My opinion. Guns should be titled, like vehicles.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
Man I hope not . . . a trip to the DMV is painful enough for some folks. We don't need more bureaucracy.
Yet that is not a significant enough notion to have title eradicated.
Owning a vehicle is not a constitutional right.
The following users like this post: OUfanINtulsa
Nor is owning a firearm, rather possessing one is guaranteed.
Also something about regulation
seriously?
"keep" means "possess" ......not "own"?
also something about shall not be infringed...
Neither is equating gun ownership to car ownership a significant notion for requiring it.
What is the first definition of regulate in the dictionary? What makes you think that the first definition isn't the intended meaning of the world instead of the second?
Edit: I suppose I should clarify since multiple sources provide multiple responses to which definition is "First"
The word I'm targeting is descriped as "working properly" or "sharpened" or "tuned"
Is there any way that the meaning could be a "well tuned" militia.. instead of a "goverened"?
It could be, if you look at he reasons why land and vehicles are titled. It legally defines ownership for two basic reasons, to settle discrepancies when ownership is in question, and sets liability.
Why would these tenets be misplaced re:guns?
Should we title everything we own that might cause harm to someone or a dispute over ownership might happen?
Should I title my grill?
I had to title my knuckles
The following users like this post: 87sooner
If it comes closer to eliminating taxpayer burden we should look into it. It solidly rests liability with the individual which, I believe, both sides would like to see.
If establishing title for grills ended up costing society less in terms of lives and treasure, it should be considered.
Do you believe titling guns would reduce gun deaths and injuries?
Is the use of a gun treated the same as driving a vehicle?
Maybe well down the road. Practically, it would set ownership in a fashion that might coerce individuals to make more prudent decisions when considering the accessibility of weapons to non owners. Which could (probably would) lead to a reduction in those two areas, but it could very well take a while.
Creating a new level of bureaucracy is your way of eliminating a burden to taxpayers?
In what sense...criminal or civic use?
Just like requiring liability insurance and a license to drive a car has coerced folks into always maintaining the legitimacy of the two requirements.
It could be. I would presume that declaration of ownership has saved society a ton of money comparatively when speaking of property and vehicular titling. Just the legal action presented with the dissolution of such contracts would result in a mind boggling figure.
It has certainly made the person on the title more involved in the upkeep of those requirements as they are personally liable.
As a car owner (I presume) do you not feel more compelled to ascertain legal change of ownership to another individual upon sale knowing that you could be financially responsible for any incident occurring with said vehicle?
In any sense.
You can legally be 16 to drive a vehicle by yourself during a specific set of hours . . . you can't legally possess or use a weapon without supervision at 16.
While the dates differ, there are age limits on both (for legal use) and both have illegal uses as well.
Good points . . . but that is what is wrong with society. Let's blame the owner rather than the person (if not the owner) at the wheel . . . . who doesn't hang their keys on a hook by the back door on a regular basis? Should everyone who does this be at fault if someone grabs them and then proceeds to wreak havoc on the roadways? Not in my opinion. The person at the wheel should bare sole responsibility.
Which is responsible for more unintentional injury/death for those under 18-19?
I agree with you here, and the court would probably agree as well. In some cases, though, there is a reasonable expectation that you should secure your vehicle (you may incur more responsibility if you leave your unlocked car running in the mall parking lot, for example)
I just wish people would properly secure their firearms, then liability would never be in question.
It depends on how we look at it, I guess. In total number, automobiles for sure. However, if we are talking about the rate of such an accident when an unauthorized person utilizes either one I would bet guns close the gap quickly.
So do I . . . but requiring registration of firearms won't fix this. While "stupid" might qualify for the purchase of a gun or car they're still "stupid".
You are not making much of a case here. Which to me means that you admit that there is no way to enforce this. I have several firearms that were either given to me or that I bought from friends. How am I to held liable if there is no existence of a paper trail that would lead to my name? Is the original owner who sold the weapon 10 years ago going to be held liable?
After investigation probably not (pretty much the same scenario as now)
However, if your gun was originally purchased after enactment, it would depend upon the wording of the statute....probably finding you liable if you did not report a change of possession.
The government would have no idea that I even owned any such weapon because it would have never been titled in my name.(sorry misread your post). What about the millions of weapons already in civilian hands? Does everyone go down to the local government office and have every weapon they own titled in their name if this were to be enacted? How many do you think would go and do this? How do you enforce this? As I asked before do you have random serial number checks at local gun ranges? Do police go door to door and search your house for firearms and check those in your possession against the national database?
What if someone who sells their weapon to another individual removes the serial number "just in case". Can't track those anymore. There are far too many holes in such legislation for it ever to be effective and be anything more than a huge waste of money and time.
Most weapons are registered, but as you stated, here are millions that are not. Time will take its toll on these weapons though due not only their age, but because of technical advancements. How many 70+ year old guns do you own? Probably not very many. The percentage of these guns would eventually decline, although they would never go away.
If you knew that your guns, if stolen, could never be returned to you without a holding of proper title, would you take them in for the paperwork?
I believe possession of a firearm with an altered serial number is already a crime.
It may be but if someone is already committing a crime by selling to another without a background check do you think they care? Has anyone ever checked any of your serial numbers?
I would not
Just once...repair work.
The following users like this post: Fahooglegods
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
