The stricter the gun laws, the safer the children

[LS1Z28]

Guess what, you can sue the owner of the car if the thief steals it and smashed into you and bolts. I have seen it happen where the person in the accident's insurance company goes after the original owner's insurance. This is why all cars have good alarm systems intalled now but still, the insurance goes after the owner because they did not safeguard their car.

I think the same structure can be applied to guns that are stolen. If you own a gun the secure the fuck out of it so it does not get stolen. Your homeowner's insurance should cover gun theft protection and you should have to pay.

https://accident-law.freeadvice.com...en-and-involved-in-a-hit-and-run-accident.htm
If the car was stolen, you are not liable for any accidents the criminal got into, since you were not "at fault." The criminal/driver did not have your permission to drive the car, so you are not responsible for what he/she did. That doesn't mean the other side may not try to sue you, but if you can prove theft, you'd have a good defense.

You can be sued for anything, but you aren't at fault from a legal standpoint if someone steals your car and causes an accident.

 

[UsualName]

Not arguing that at all. Just saying it doesn't address the problem, which is gang murders and killing in inner cities. You go "hey, look at all the deaths children suffer at the hands of firearms" and then get pissy when it is pointed out that those deaths are almost all because of gangs and inner city violence, which your suggested solution would not impact to any real degree. I suppose I could simplify it in a pop-up or coloring book if you find yourself unable to grasp this.



Never violated any law apart from the occasional speeding ticket during my life. Maybe ripped the tag off a mattress or two. What about you? Own firearms?



You do a positively amazing job of pointing out your own flaws and accusing others of them...exactly. Its like some part of your subconscious is lashing out against your conscious brain in an attempt to be recognized.

It absolutely addresses the only thing you care about, gang related murders, as well as other murders, suicides and accidental deaths with guns.

These regulations reduce the number of illegal guns on the streets along with preventing people who should not own a gun from getting a gun.

You choose to ignore the positive effects of mild regulation, such as reduced child deaths, and argue that a background check is somehow a gun grab that goes after law abiding people.

It’s completely absurd.

 

[UsualName]

https://accident-law.freeadvice.com...en-and-involved-in-a-hit-and-run-accident.htm
If the car was stolen, you are not liable for any accidents the criminal got into, since you were not "at fault." The criminal/driver did not have your permission to drive the car, so you are not responsible for what he/she did. That doesn't mean the other side may not try to sue you, but if you can prove theft, you'd have a good defense.

You can be sued for anything, but you aren't at fault from a legal standpoint if someone steals your car and causes an accident.

Ahh, but can gun manufacturers be sued for anything? Anything at all?

 

[UsualName]

This is the point I think a lot of people don't understand. 80% of gun homicides are gang related. Less than 20% of guns used in crimes are obtained legally, and most sources show that less than 10% of guns used in homicides are obtained legally. I'm not against things like background checks & showing ID to purchase a firearm, but laws like this do very little to address the real issue.

The real question that should be asked is "How do we stop gang violence without committing civil rights violations?"

This is wrong. This thread started with a study that showed mild regulation like background checks and id requirements reduced child deaths up to 35% over a five year period.

Mind you, other studies have shown similar findings with the broader population.

 

[UsualName]

THANK YOU

I have no idea why this is so hard for UsefulIdiot to understand. If you present a survey whose sole purpose is to point out that "increased laws and regulation lead to less deaths in children", and then you try to argue that, specific, point, you end up looking like a jackass. Most children who die from guns die from gang related violence which will never be solved with increased laws and regulation. It's not that regulation and smart gun laws curb overall gun violence, they do!

This is wrong. The study showed the opposite. Read it.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This thread started with a study that showed mild regulation like background checks and id requirements reduced child deaths up to 35% over a five year period.

The results of the study seem likely to have been the product of unsupportable adjustments made for various unexplained factors. How else could Chiraq, with its astounding homicide rate, be held up as a model?

 

[UsualName]

The results of the study seem likely to have been the product of unsupportable adjustments made for various unexplained factors. How else could Chiraq, with its astounding homicide rate, be held up as a model?

The results seem nothing like what you say.

 

[constitutionman]

I'll agree in part. There are still some loopholes out there, and we need a better system in place for mental health. Most states have laws in place against selling firearms to the mentally ill, but this is difficult to enforce due to privacy laws.

I'll disagree on moving the age to 21 to purchase a firearm. Many young adults move out on their own at 18. If you move the age to 21, they won't have any way to protect themselves for 3 years.

I think if you are not mature enough to buy beer legally, you shouldn't be able to own a gun.

I personally think we need a system similar to what we have for a driver license for firearm ownership. a national registry system.

1. a complete background check (including mental health) for any type of purchase commercial or private. plus mandatory firearm safety training.
2. annual firearm reregistration. (simple online check)
3. renewal of your background check every 5 years. (including mental health) plus mandatory firearm safety training.
4. Minimum age to legally purchase a firearm should be at least 21.
5. anyone with more than 5 handgun/shotgun or any weapon classified as an Assault Rifle requires an annual background check. (including mental health)
6. much more stringent CCW requirement. similar to what is required in LA and NY and not what we have in FL.
7. tiered level penalty system.

 

[LS1Z28]

Ahh, but can gun manufacturers be sued for anything? Anything at all?

No, federal law prevents this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.

This is wrong. This thread started with a study that showed mild regulation like background checks and id requirements reduced child deaths up to 35% over a five year period.

Mind you, other studies have shown similar findings with the broader population.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the study says anything about reducing gun deaths. It says that adolescent gun deaths were 35% lower in states with the most stringent gun laws in comparison to the rest of the country. It would be interesting to see what the adolescent gun death rates were in those specific states prior to the implementation of these laws. That would give us a better idea of how effective these laws actually were.

 

[Cuddles]

No, federal law prevents this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.


You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the study says anything about reducing gun deaths. It says that adolescent gun deaths were 35% lower in states with the most stringent gun laws in comparison to the rest of the country. It would be interesting to see what the adolescent gun death rates were in those specific states prior to the implementation of these laws. That would give us a better idea of how effective these laws actually were.

Men are just more effective at killing themselves, but I don't think being suicidal makes you any less lazy (driving to a high place), or less prone to avoiding pain (tying a noose)