Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gun Responsibility Act of 2013 (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Clearly defined, registered, legal transfers (5+ / 0-)

    must terminate liability. If not, what is your justification for vetting buyers and registering the firearms in the first place?

    As far as I'm aware, "cradle to grave" is a concept applied only to hazardous waste, not to any consumer product, even dangerous ones.

    It would be more intellectually honest simply to propose making civilian possession of firearms illegal, and probably no more difficult to accomplish.

    •  to avoid "sham" transactions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If the seller can remove all liability, then they have zero motivation to ensure that the legal sale will ensure that future victims can be compensated.  In fact, they would be motivated to sell the gun to a random street person then "borrow" it back, thus avoiding ownership liability.

      The owner creates the hazard and the liability when they acquire the gun.   It's absolutely unacceptable for them to dump that liability onto me and others in society by signing the gun over to a judgement proof person.

      If you want to be sure you've discharged your liability, just ensure that the new owner has posted a bond to cover any future liability.  Or melt the gun down.  Your choice.

      But I'll be damned if I'll continue to pay for your negligence.

      •  If guns are registered and transactions recorded (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        you have already eliminated any possibility of sham transactions. This, together with requiring all buyers to be approved through NCIC pretty much eliminates your scenario.

        All that is needed for this to work properly is a real registration database with unfettered access by all law enforcement professionals, rather than our current deliberately crippled system.

        Proposals of high bonds, huge insurance amounts, etc. do one thing and one thing only: ensure that only wealthy people own firearms. Among the many reasons why this is a bad idea is that you really screw over one small group of people who can be said to really "need" firearms - subsistence hunters like some of the Inuit in Alaska.

        I'll also note that no other country, even among those with otherwise very restrictive laws, has seen fit to do what you propose.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site