Felons in prison can't purchase guns. Sounds good to me.

that can cause deaths like cars. I'm a gun control advocate and I don't think that would be fair. But if a state has something like a gun safe law and a kid gets his parents unlocked gun and injures or kills someone, then there should be repercussions for the parent's lack of, literally, gun control.

you have to re-register it, otherwise you'll be be charged for the parking tickets (at least until you can prove who you sold it to).

If you leave the keys in the car that gets stolen, you can be held partially liable for damages.

and quickly as possible.

Cars are not designed to kill. People do not buy cars to kill. Murder by car is not a problem in the US.

Cars must meed strict safety requirements. They require registration and there are criminal penalties for misuse of a car.

If anything, the argument is opposite. We require strict regulations for other dangerous products, it's not fair that guns are excluded.

hollow steel tube, how they're uses is up to the human using it.

Are these guns designed to kill:



Are these designed to kill:



Or is this handgun designed to kill:



To address your other points.

True, cars aren't designed to kill, but they sure are doing a bang up job of killing thousands of humans every year.

Firearms also must meet strict safety standards, while not all states require registration, there are strict penalties for the criminal use of a firearm.
Firearms aren't exempt from strict regulations, quite the opposite, there are strict regulations and laws for the criminal use of firearms.

it's like arguing cars are for racing. Not really.

I proved him wrong.
A firearm is designed to propel a projectile down a hollow steel tube, how it's used is up to the person holding it.

You understand you can't go back and rewrite history, no?

How a firearm is used is up to the person holding it.

that it isn't happening fast enough, go out and kill people for sport.

we need a law where the owner of a gun that is used in the crime would be charged with a felony.

That is the OP. That is the context of discussion. It isn't your fancy guns. It isn't about how the NRA would be inconvenienced and cry and cry over the hardship. The weak NRA. They won't even agree to keep their guns out of the hands of criminals.

Seen it many times here.
BTW, I graduated top of my class, joined the Army, went to flight school, graduated top of my class, 2 combat tours in Vietnam flying slicks and snakes.

OCS after Vietnam, college courses during my more than 40 years in the Army, commanded a squadron of Apaches during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I am well educated, well traveled, speak 4 languages fluently and can get along in 3 others.
So your petty insults mean nothing to me, I have a thick skin.

What you propose would never pass constitutional muster, but if you want to believe it would, that's your perogative, just don't think that the rest of the American public would believe as you do.

..mess to write such a law.
"I carried my gun to the firing range...I remember tripping on the curb when I left my car and I suppose that's when the gun slipped out of the holster"
Officer: "No excuse, you're going to jail anyway"

"Somebody broke into our house, found the lockbox on the top shelf of our closet that had our pistol in it."
Officer: Yeah, while that pistol was used in a crime. You're charged with...etc"

My point being, you'd have to make 749 exceptions if you wrote such a law. It-just-ain't-going-to-fly.

On Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Look, if you didn't drop out of school to study guns, you'd understand that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7238774

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This whole post is a personal attack. "If you didn't drop out of school..."

This makes DU suck more.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:48 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Stop with the insults. If you can't argue a point without being a dick don't bother posting.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think pro-Gun arguments on DU should be against the TOS. Accordingly, I am not voting to hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

I never said that, I said, and it's true, how the firearm is used is determined by the user of said firearm.

The function of a firearm is to propel a projectile down a steel hollow tube under pressure, HOW it's used is up to the user.

but it is funny to watch you try to deny it.

where one cannot foresee the actualization of the designed intent.


This is a fork. I may use it to scratch my ass but that is not its intended purpose. Nor is it intended to be used to stir paint. Nor is it meant to be used to stab people in the arm. It does all those jobs reasonably-well...but the intent of the designer as to its use is not some vague concept to either user or designer...it's meant for eating food with. It's function is not, in the strictest sense, to stab or to rake/scratch or to mix a vague anything.

Just the same, the purpose of a firearm...whatever other utility one may implement it towards...does not negate the intent of the design in the general sense, which is as a weapon to kill or injure.

a firearm is designed to propel a projectile down a steel hollow tube under pressure, how it's used is determined by the user of the firearm.
Not all firearms are made for killing, I've posted pics proving that.

It only matters what the intent of the designer of firearms (not this firearm, or a specific firearm), as an overarching concept, invented them for.

It wasn't target shooting any more than it was to propel a projectile down a hollow tube under pressure for no explicit intended purpose. Intent of designer is intrinsic to the design and the function of an object, whether that object is a fork or a gun or a sprocket.

In fact, the end-user's intended use is entirely irrelevant to that.

The intent of the design of a firearm in the general and abstract is not to propel a projectile down a hollow steel tube, no matter how many times you assert such...the intent in design of a firearm is as a killing weapon.

Intent matters as much in the designer as the end-user.

I posted pictures of firearms that weren't designed for killing, but more to the point, a firearm is designed to propel a projectile down a steel hollow tube under pressure, HOW it's used is determined by the user.

1.) You need to learn the meaning of the words "in the general sense." Hint: exceptions do not disprove the intended purpose of a type of object in the general sense or the purpose it was designed for in the general sense. The most common intent of both designer and user is the sole intended purpose of an object in the general sense. (I'm sorry you don't grasp this but it's as simple to understand as Platonic forms...something even 2nd graders intuitively understand.)

2.) Repetition does not make fact. this will be as false the thousandth time you say it as it was the first time: "a firearm is designed to propel a projectile down a steel hollow tube under pressure, HOW it's used is determined by the user." Intent of an object is a function of design and cannot be ascribed solely to the end user to negate responsibility of the manufacturer or designer.

But thanks for pointing out what I already know.
And, one more time, oh, never mind, I've gotten my point across, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

gets stolen and then used to shoot someone, then you are liable for that death as a felony.

So simple - even the NRA can understand.

Firearms are designed to propel a projectile under pressure down a steel hollow tube, how it's used is up to the person holding it.

NRA spews here? Penny a post? Two pennies for a fancy gun pic?

you start with the NRA talking points meme. It's pure comedy gold.

And you still haven't cited that law.

Too bad NRA can't pull the barrel out of its behind to understand the context of the OP.

Instead of ranting on a chat board, contact the NRA and ask them.

Where?
Have proof of your claim?

to hunt and kill something, or to defend yourself, or to attack and kill some other tribe?

They were not designed for sport. They may now be used for sport by some people, but the original intent of a gun was to kill whatever it was shooting at.

Just like the car mentioned above. Originally designed to get people or things from point a to point b. Now they are used for racing or for demolition derbies or other things, but their original purpose of design was transport. They were never designed to kill people (although tanks have been used that way)...

And if you are as smart as you claim to be, you'd understand this.

I said they were designed to propel a projectile under pressure down a steel hollow tube, for what purpose they're used is up to the person using the firearm.

Don't make my laugh. Most gunners need their ARs, hi-cap mags, etc. Very few are into guns like that, unless they fancy themselves as a sniper or something.

at least my SD ones were...


Others were made fun time at the range or competition, and some for hunting.

Most people with guns use them, if they use them at all, to hunt. Animals to eat, btw. You have no conception how rural people augment their incomes with gardens and hunting.

There is a fundamental lack of justice in your attitudes. I know there are many who hold similar ones, but I think you are all either totally ignorant of reality for tens of millions or just willfully ignorant.

You types, more than any other, have handed Congress over to the GOP.

Every time you push something like this, you are fueling the belief among millions that the liberal leadership would be very happy if they just ate shit and died. That is not an exaggeration.

What they see out of such rhetoric is:
1) Bloomberg will still have his squad of bodyguards with what amounts to machine guns, because this sort of thing does not apply and never has applied to "important people".

2) Criminals will still have guns.

3) The law-abiding person who shoots a deer to feed his family won't.

4) Terrorists will.

In the south, this is also a very emotional issue for many black people, because gun control in the south has its roots in racism.

Throw the book at them. Straw purchases are, recent research shows, one of the largest vectors of firearms into the hands of criminals, just behind street trafficking (and a lot higher than stolen guns). It's a serious problem that contributes enormously to gun violence.

discuss what to do with cars. Until then, we should focus on guns.

If you have a family member who has access to safe -- you are the owner of gun you pay the penalty for not securing it.

That's the responsibility that should go with owning a gun It's not a toy. It's not a car. It's designed to kill in the most efficient and easiest manner possible.

You really are delusional if you think any court will go along with that crap.
If your firearms are secured in a safe, and a burglar breaks into your home, breaks into your safe, steals your firearms, you think the home owner should go to jail?
You're blaming the home owner for the actions of the thief?
What makes you think this is justice?

Get real. Crime victims have been punished enough with having something stolen from them. And you want to blame the victim for having his/her gun stolen?!

I find it interesting how many people are sure their gun is going to get stolen or lost such that they think they are the victim unlike the 100,000 dead and maimed every year because of too many unregulated guns.

Again, please cite the law that says that.

Where do you get that number?
According to the FBI's UCR, the number is about 34,000 a year, of which 2/3rds are suicides.

for now we are talking about guns and the NRA maggots who won't pay for or take responsibility for the hobby slaughtering people in USA like a 3rd world war zone.

Have a link for that?

his bull**** number, lol

Guns will kill more people then are on the planet today. That's scary.

Some of the most vile anticonstitutional complete nonsense I've read lately...

I have no problem if they arrest the gun owner that commits suicide with his/her own gun.

... so they come first right?

You need to divide that by 8

If your car is stolen and used in a crime and the resulting car chase kills 3 pedestrians, you should get life with no parole.

Of course the only way police would know who owned the gun most recently would be for a complete registration trail from mfg to confiscation. Would suck if the original owner had sold/traded the firearm 10 years before and it had changed hands 3 more times.

spewing bullshit NRA talking points that perhaps someone so diminished in intellectual ability that they shouldn't have access to a gun would agree with.

So until such time that NRA can prove that we have a murder by car problem, join me in telling the NRA - FUCK YOU.

And fuck you very much also

Some in the us would say the basis for justice is our Constitution....without which we would have no justice...

And now I see yoy pulling out the ol' "I can't answer the hard questions about my disjointed and bizarre outrage so I'll just get kicked out of my own thread"....seen it many times before...

and they can't acknowledge their own responsibility for the $200+ billion a year that tax payers have to pay just so the gun nuts can enjoy shooting up the place.

proposing blatantly unconstitutional laws and expecting the rest of us to agree with you, and when we don't, you all but accuse us of being members of the NRA.
This is comedy gold.

Of what they speak...that virtually every single 'we otta' 'reasonable restriction' stated is ridiculous..If you actually believe this silliness may I suggest a constitutional law class at a community college...just the entry level class will do...

Pure comedy gold.

Everyone who gives a shit constantly insists on the impossible and completely disregards the possible ..

if they aren't smart enough to secure their weapons, they shouldn't have them in the first place.

just a little while ago it was 80,000 now it is a 100,000

what bulllpuckeys are you being fed, lol

Felony if your gun is used in a crime is extreme unless there is clear negligence. That said, there should certainly be a charge for failure to report a stolen gun. Responsible gun ownership has to mean keeping an inventory and from time to time auditing your stockpile, and reporting missing firearms. If a gun turns up in a crime and you hadn't reported it missing, there should be consequences. We need real title recording and transfer. For those who claim this adds too much bureaucracy, well fuck you.

As I stated in a thread above, yours is the only workable answer to accomplish what the OP defined.
Owner liability for their personal property causing harm. Hard to prove liability if you cannot prove ownership.

So, if a 70 year old lady has her gun stolen from her (it was her husband's gun in the bottom dresser drawer where her late husband's underwear was still there) and she did not notice because had stopped fondling her late husband's underwear two years earlier,) should she get 20 years if that gun is used to hold up a liquor store?

A guy in Florida got 20 years for firing a warning shot because his dayghter's boyfriend got violent.

Sometimes these absilute gun laws don't work without some leeqay by the judge or prosecutor.

she should serve time. 20 years? Where did you get that?

I edited from hysteria just in case you aren't an NRA plant. So many NRA types here show up after every slaughter.

and the gun is in her dresser, she is the owner.

Are confined to an Internet forum and nowhere near actually having to administer justice.. jfc indeed...

The fact that there is an objection to noting which guns you have from time to time and reporting any missing guns to law enforcement is completely beyond belief.

That's a high bar? Keeping track of your guns?

This is what we're dealing with, people. "Responsible gun owners." Well, where are your guns? "Fucked if I know! Tra la."

What a fucking joke.

a true patriot would have no problem with what I am proposing. Only a traitor or person who is preparing for a war of some sort would object to these reasonable requirements.

Instead, gun owners want to shift the burden of their foolish behavior onto society at large. Now that's the kinid of socialism the NRA wants.

If I ever find one that was stolen I would of course report it to the authorities. But some people posting want a firearm owner to know where it is at all times, so I guess to please them I need to sit and stare at the safe 24 hours a day.

In Japan in order to have a firearm I have heard you have to go through quite a bit of paperwork, a background check, mental health screening, have the gun safe, provide a schematic of the house where and where the gun safe is to the police, etc. Just being able to implement the gun safe, background check (for all guns), and mental health screening would be a good start.

My point is that there are no absolutes. The lady in my scenario shoild not be prosecuted.

Only 10% to 15% of guns ised in crime are stolen from lawful gun owners.

get a lesson and a permit and safeguard the fucking thing. seriously.

the widow (usually older) does call the local police department and ome of the officers gives her a fair price for the weapon.

the husband had an old 38 revolver he bought 40 years ago and put it in the dresser... hasn't touched it in decades and when he passes she leaves his stuff where it is... its found we she also passes and they clean out the house... happens more then you think...

That's the whole point. People are careless gun owners, and that should change.

where she belongs

stop leaving loaded ones around for kids to pick up and kill their siblings with. Wouldn't that be awesome?
Incremental change for a safer society - it's not a difficult concept for most people. Why are you so against it?

I'm just pointing out the repercussions of what you're proposing...

did I say that somewhere.... doesn't seem like something I would say...

An excellent reason to track every firearm manufactured in this country from manufacture through each and every owner. If we can do it for vehicles, why not for firearms?

Gun owners should be required to get insurance.

Let the private insurance companies decide who is at the most risk for gun deaths and injuries.

It would not be a violation of the constitution to require gun owners to have insurance. In fact, it would just be a good capitalist move to make it happen.

A gun owner without insurance would have their guns confiscated until they can get proper insurance.

Discuss.

I suggest a 24 hour window for reporting a stolen weapon. If the weapon isn't reported as stolen and is used by someone else in the commission of a crime, the registered owner is on the hook as an accessory to the crime. This would encourage gun owners to be responsible in keeping track of their weapons, maybe even leading to fewer guns "inadvertently" packed in luggage when the owner goes to the airport.

Put little "well-regulated" into that citizen militia. Maybe a couple weeks' worth of annual training per firearm at the owner's expense, just to be sure their weapons are maintained in good working order.