02-25-2018, 01:57 PM
I'm against making a gun owner responsible for anything done with a firearm that is stolen from him. Is a car owner to be charged with something done with a car stolen from him? I am also against a gun maker being liable for misuse of a product they manufacture. I am very much FOR a gun maker being responsible for injuries or deaths caused by a defect in one of their products.
In my view, I am very much for banning any semi or fully automatic rifle designed as a military weapon. Ban any rifle that has, or has available, after market or OEM high capacity magazines. That would still leave bolt action single shots (which may hold 4-5 rounds in a fixed magazine), lever actions, pump actions, or small capacity semi autos available for hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc.
Guns like the ever popular AR-15, whose design purpose was to kill a large amount of people quickly and efficiently (there just is no other way to say this) should not be in civilian hands.
Tom's idea of insurance for gun owners is worth looking into. But, if it is too expensive, then firearm ownership may not be an option for poorer citizens.
You can, right now, as far as I know, sue Remington for a defect that causes injury or death. You should not be able to, however sue Remington for someone killed in a robbery or other crime. It's not up to the maker to decide who qualifies to buy their firearm from a gun store. That is up to the state and the feds, and they better start doing their jobs better. If a gun store sells a gun without performing whatever background check is the state and federal law, then they may be liable for that misused gun and whatever crime the original owner does with it.
These are my opinions. As a shooter for 50 years now, and as a gun owner that used a firearm in self defense once (no shots fired), I'm entitled to my opinions. Your mileage may vary.
Jon in Keaau/HPP
In my view, I am very much for banning any semi or fully automatic rifle designed as a military weapon. Ban any rifle that has, or has available, after market or OEM high capacity magazines. That would still leave bolt action single shots (which may hold 4-5 rounds in a fixed magazine), lever actions, pump actions, or small capacity semi autos available for hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc.
Guns like the ever popular AR-15, whose design purpose was to kill a large amount of people quickly and efficiently (there just is no other way to say this) should not be in civilian hands.
Tom's idea of insurance for gun owners is worth looking into. But, if it is too expensive, then firearm ownership may not be an option for poorer citizens.
You can, right now, as far as I know, sue Remington for a defect that causes injury or death. You should not be able to, however sue Remington for someone killed in a robbery or other crime. It's not up to the maker to decide who qualifies to buy their firearm from a gun store. That is up to the state and the feds, and they better start doing their jobs better. If a gun store sells a gun without performing whatever background check is the state and federal law, then they may be liable for that misused gun and whatever crime the original owner does with it.
These are my opinions. As a shooter for 50 years now, and as a gun owner that used a firearm in self defense once (no shots fired), I'm entitled to my opinions. Your mileage may vary.
Jon in Keaau/HPP
Jon in Keaau/HPP