That's why liability is a good answer. The government doesn't have to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens at all. Liability is all about responsibility something you seem to think gun owners don't need to be because of the 2nd amendment.
What is common sense about allowing the government to continue to impose controls that they haven't proven will work? That sounds like stupidity, not common sense. I have already said on this forum that their obviously needs to be a limitation somewhere. What is the purpose of continuing to move that line? "Assault rifles" account for an extremely small percentage of gun crime. Why target them? If you keep allowing them to move the line, for what seems like no good reason - again, where does it end?
What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that I should be liable for any crime that occurs with a gun that someone steals from my locked gun cabinet? I'm all for gun responsibility and education - I think it should be part of a normal high school education.
If you fail to report it stolen in a timely manner and/or failed to properly secure it, then yes you should be liable. "With great firepower comes great responsibility".
I think that would be very difficult, maybe impossible to monitor but I don't find it unreasonable. How do you prove someone didn't have their guns locked up?
Are you actually arguing that a jury of peers can't decide liability and responsibility based on facts presented by both sides? Do you believe criminals and people incapable of rational decision making have a right to carry deadly force?
Very difficult to prove and prosecute, but if someone were to, say, inadvertently admit to the police that they failed to lock-up their gun when reporting it stolen, then they should be held liable for whatever comes out of that gun's barrel. Plus, in terms of public safety, I'm more concerned about the (less responsible gun owners) who are stupid enough to admit they failed to properly care for their gun despite facing liability than those who would hide their mistake. It's harsh but owning a gun isn't child's play and anyone who isn't responsible enough to properly own one should be disallowed (if possible or the situation arises).
If someone breaks into your kitchen, steals your chef's knife and stabs someone in the throat with it, should you be held liable? Again it begs the question why are you focusing on the object? Where do you draw the line?
What facts are going to be available? If a person has their guns stolen and they weren't locked up they can just lie and say they were locked up. What facts are going to disprove that? You seem to be talking to me like I don't understand that gun ownership requires responsibility. Obviously it does. I don't know how many crimes are committed with stolen guns but it would be an interesting stat to see. My guess is not very many. What we do know is that most gun crimes are committed by people who already have a police record.
Don't laugh, in the UK they're trying to ban certain kitchen knives because they can be used as a weapon. You see quotes like "No one needs a knife like this." http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...-ban-on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/
Oh obviously that is what I was saying. I put about as much thought into my response as your post required.
It is something good to look at and keep in mind but all that means at the end of the day is that the type of gun control they are using in Britain isn't working to stop violent crime in Britain. It certainly can't be used to say that the types of "gun control"(a vague, blanket label) we are looking at for the US wouldn't work in the US.
Show some facts that prove it would have a major positive impact before you impose more controls. They honestly can't even correctly enforce the existing gun control laws and they want to add more. Your response to the kitchen knives comment seemed to imply that guns serve no purpose and I think many people incorrectly believe that. Guns can and should serve as a means of self protection for responsible law abiding citizens. The media never makes a big deal about all the stories of people using guns to stop the bad guys. They only make a big deal when a bad guy goes off.
Facts might be a filed police report. A crime committed by a family member and witnesses who say he lent him the gun and no police report was filed. Facts might show the gun was used in several crimes many that took place before a report the gun was stolen. You can't honestly tell me you believe in responsibility with rights if your not even willing to take personal liability. Without liability there is no real responsibility. With no real responsibility you claim of responsible gun ownership is a fabrication.
I never said I wasn't I just question the how realistic enforcement would be. I also wonder how many gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons, just because I am ignorant on that detail. I also DO disagree about personal liability in terms of requiring insurance for gun ownership.
I'm not going to get dragged into a long argument on this but I think it's pretty obvious that legal gun ownership leads to many more homicides in the western world. We can just look at homicide rates in countries where guns are legal and not legal and see that this is true. In 2011 there were 72 Police Officers shot and killed in the line of duty in the US. Since 1900 there have been 67 Police Officers shot and killed in the line of duty in the UK.
You need to do these types of comparisons by the number of people. Also, why use just police officer homicides? I think you should also do it per police officer.
