“Republicans don’t care how many Americans are killed by guns”

Yes, I can see how someone that does not think very deeply would see it as such.

 

There are three things that you can do to drastically reduce deaths caused by people using guns. And not one of them require addressing guns at all.

Education
Mental Health
Economic

Reform and improve ALL of those things and you will reduce ALL violent crimes. Not just those caused by people using an inanimate object. If you really cared, as you say you do, then you would address the root causes instead of going for peripherals which affect those that are innocent in a negative way.

 

So if you loan your car to a friend and they kill someone in it, should you be held responsible?

 

The insurance on that vehicle is responsible and in some cases the owner is liable and may be sued.

 

If they don't have a license, yes.

 

Many insurance companies in the US will not pay on an unlisted driver. Yes, you can be sued....for Civil Actions (i.e. compensation), but the owner is not criminally responsible unless there is negligence involved.

 

And if they are licensed?

 

Then the analogy doesn't correlate to what I was saying about loaning out a gun.

 

You are attempting to appeal to emotion. It's not working.

Also, nice strawman with the 'incel' quip. Is what passes in your high school debate club?

For those of you who don't know, someone who denigrates your rights by sarcastically putting half quotes around the word is an authoritarian who is not to be trusted. If he is willing to go after one, he is willing to go after all.

 

Sure it does. You said: "There was an incident here in Colorado where a police officer loaned his personal weapon to a friend, and that friend killed someone with it. The cop should be liable for that murder as well."

The fact that he was a police officer is irrelevant. He loan out his personal firearm and not his police issue. You did not say whether they person he loaned it to was trained or not. Are you saying if the "friend" had a conceal carry licence then the police officer is off the hook? I'm just trying to figure out whether he should be responsible for loaning out something that could kill or maim others (no matter the item or person borrowing)....or whether he should be responsible because a gun was involved....or because he was a police officer.

 

Manufacturing a gun from scratch will never be profitable on any scale, given the risks. Nobody is going to pay 20k for a simple handgun or rifle. Even then, there will be unique manufacturing details that would lead feds directly to the manufacturer.

 

Gun registration renewal would likely only have to be done at years 1, 2, and 5. Maybe at year 10 at most. After that you get beyond a reasonable time to acquire for an criminal.

Of course once the gun is sold, the registration clock starts again.

 

Nothing. Her kid never should have had access.

There are always going to be exceptions, but in a case like that someone (husband, friend, counselor) needs to step in and sound the alarm. Idiot mom should have had her guns stored elsewhere.

 

Most insurance companies will absolutely pay out.

Should people that loan their gun to others be allowed to be sued? Should they have insurance? And should they be required to report all sales just like people in your example have to do?

 

So these children were not murdered by people exercising the right you have said “I don't care, it's not my problem” in response to?

Or is your position that only mentally ill people are the ultimate victim?

 

The license equivalent in this case is whether the friend passed a background check. There is no indication the officer ran a background check on his friend prior to giving him the gun.

Regardless, there are many other points of disanalogy that we have to ignore in order to compare this to loaning a car to someone. For instance, a gun's sole purpose is to put a bullet in someone or some thing, or at least make that threat clear. A car's purpose is anything but harm or the threat of harm. So I suggest finding a different tack.

 

Actually the guy was known rather well and prior to this he had had no violent episodes. Even cops knew him and never suspected. No one knew that this was going to happen. There was no indication that it would.

 

“Republicans don’t care how many Americans are killed by guns”


Absolute silly asinine claim to make. This kind of over the top hyperbole gets us nowhere.

 

I am not the person pulling the trigger in these atrocities, therefore, I will accept no restrictions upon myself for something I did not do. I am saying that the violently mentally ill are dangerous and need to be looked at much more closely than they are at the present moment. I am tired of having to constantly defend my right because of these nut jobs who haul off and shoot innocent people.

(Note: Not all mentally ill would do this sort of thing, probably the vast majority wouldn't (hence the word 'violent'). I am sick and tired however of the ones that do and put my right (and hobby) at risk)

 

if they care what are they doing about the issue?

 

That is literally what the implications of this thread is, Republicans (of which I can likely safely assume you are one) do not care enough about the victims of these crimes to add even a single additional step in their guns.

It is next to impossible to differentiate between the two.

Here is a simple question...

Would you be ok with a national gun registration — including secondary sales — along with stricter mental health screenings of it would have prevented these shootings?

 

He was diagnosed with mental health issues at a very early age. His mother, a gun nut, thought that it would be great for such a sick kid to have access to over a dozen guns. He had an obsession with mass killers for YEARS. This didn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what could happen.

Mentally ill people should not have guns. Period.

 

Do you expect the criminals to comply with a national gun registration?

Would you allow a no notice inspection of your home and property to insure that all of your guns are registered? Otherwise, the law would be unenforceable.

 

An extra step I can deal with, but as soon as bans are on the table, all my willingness to negotiate becomes a hard "No". And if there is going to be an extra step, we want something in exchange, we've been taking steps back since 1933 and have gotten nothing in return.

I would be ok with expanded background checks and mental health screening. National registration is a hard no because of what happened in Australia and due to the fact it simply won't work.

 

Her kid killed her to gain access.
How do you suppose you prevent this?