| Thanks for sketching out the proposed policies in more detail! That's a lot more productive. Now, to tackle them in reverse order: > as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible. There is no concrete benefit for law-abiding citizens above the system we already have in place here. Like, it's not immediately obvious that the proposed changes clearly make things better (unlike, say, requiring seatbelts in cars). > you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable. This fails (badly) to account for firearms that have been stolen. See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e... If you want to make the argument that "gun owners need to keep better track of their guns"...it's their property, so that should be their choice. We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others). > Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate Again, it's unclear that there is good reason or precedent for regulating the transfer of property here. > you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. One could make the same argument about requiring people to cc the NSA on every email they make to people outside the continental US: just because it's happening doesn't mean we should set legislative precedent. > Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. There has been a lot of work in the last few years to try and restore that right, actually. This makes sense given the arbitrary enforcement of non-violent felonies. It's hardly assumed that felons (given our current judicial system) have any moral obligation to be unarmed. > You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows. Why, exactly? What is the purpose of this? What benefit or supposed safety do we get from having this? And if the benefits are so great, shouldn't we just make this near-mandatory training during schooling, as we do with driving? |
Comeon that's a terrible false equivalence and I am sure you know it. I can possibly use just a blunt pencil to kill someone, but a gun makes it orders of magnitude easier (even if the intent was not to kill).
If false equivalence are acceptable, let me throw you another one. Why throw hissy fits about nations that have or are building nuclear arms capability. As a third party it is legit to feel unsafe unless you have skin in the game, unless you have demonstrated to some satisfaction that you can handle the capability responsibly. But NPTs are no way as nuanced as that, even hypothetical capability is enough to legitimize a hissy fit and worse: crippling sanctions.
I think its fair trade, if you are not willing to take liability of not being able to secure your gun, you don't get to keep it. If it gets stolen etc, its fine if you alert law enforcement within an actionable window. If something bad is done with your gun you have to convince a judge that you took all reasonable precautions.