http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/2...didnt-stop-him-from-buying-gun/?intcmp=hpbt3# And so it appears once again that existing laws should have prevented this psycho from buying a weapon. People will cry for more laws, but the real problem is lack of enforcement of existing laws. I don't know how the government could possibly fail us.
I think it's time to remove government from the equation. gun and ammunition manufacturing is a huge industry, and yet they are free to put weapons and bullets into the market to fall into anyone's hands without any responsibility with who becomes the end user. these are tools designed specifically to kill. they aren't being misused when they are used to commit crimes, they are being used properly when done so. being illegal to commit the crime doesn't mean the tool has been used improperly when they are used. there is no reason that these huge industries should be free to profit off of the tools they make but not be held responsible when they are used properly to hurt and kill. the government can't handle this problem? no problem, let private business find the solution to the proliferation of weapons in society. let them start getting hammered with multi-million dollar judgements for victims and I bet they will find some solution to the problem.
And the sportsmen, competition shooters and hobby shooters will be the one to pay the price for this? No thanks. Why do the innocent have to carry the burden of criminals being criminals?
you can't say you're removing government from the equation and use court cases as the solution. the courts are run by the government and it's legal to sell guns.
I am discussing removing them from the policing of who guns are sold to, not from the court cases that will determine whether the private business is negligent in their oversight of who they are sold to if made responsible.
Look there are 310 million guns on the streets in the US. Most gun users are very legit and want tougher rules and better background checks. Just having Universal background checks which would include gun shows: that's about 6 million guns right there. If it takes a little longer and a better and more thorough system: any questions the prospective gun buyer has to wait a few extra days maybe. Some of these lunatics like the Charleston guy might have been denied ownership like he should have been. It's not going to affect legit people who want to buy a gun legally. At worst you might have to wait a day or two longer. In other words if any questions you don't sell the gun until everything is cleared up. Not all of this is on the feds but some is. It's on local courts and jurisdictions too. But to me the only way to accomplish change is for the US gov to be in charge of it. Nobody is saying citizens can't own guns. But there has to be some sanity when you're dealing with lethal weapons.
playing hockey is expensive, that's the price I pay for the recreation I choose for my son to play. the cost of gun oversight should be a cost of doing business for gun manufacturers, not something that they get for free or get to be removed from. and just like any business that cost gets past down to the consumer who can then choose whether it is worth the cost to continue to participate or not. that doesn't make them victims, it makes them consumers.
ok. I think an obvious problem with that is that they'd have to rely on the government to keep proper records. in this case it was a judge failing to document in the state database that caused the system to fail. so how does that fall on the manufacturer? it's incompetence in the government official, which is completely unsurprising.
hockey isn't expensive because of legislation, simple supply and deman i accept. people calling for legislation that will raiise prices for activities they disagree with at best hate at worst bothers me. if i thought hockey equipment companies should have to pay for all hockey related injuries would you be willing to pay those extra costs? concussion from a puck in the head? pay up puck company. torn acl? looking at you skate company. heh you were using the euipment for what its meant for right?
Gun manufacturers are against better background checks. Of course it would lower the total volume of guns sold if more people who shouldn't own them were cut out of the marketplace. They are not for the good of society they are for the bottom line. This is why private industry should not be regulating themselves.
the equipment isn't intended to cause injuries, that's simply an unfortunate repercussion of playing sometimes. unlike a gun, which is a tool that is intended to shoot a projectile into a target, human or otherwise. plenty of legislation raises the cost of consumer products for end consumers -- food legislation, toy legislation, apparel legislation. why should gun manufacturers be exempt from legislation that could cause the price to increase? the first question I think you need to answer is why should gun manufacturers not be the party responsible for oversight of where and who their products are sold to?
same reason anheiser busch isn't being sued for every high schooler who drives his/hers car into a tree trashed on prom night. personal responsibility. a lost concept in this country,for sure. the gun company is as responsible for mass shootings as ticonderoga is responsible for all those test i nearly failed. when do we start blaming the people who did the crime and not everyone semi connected to it?
New guns that are manufactured should have the owner's DNA lock on them. Old ones should be aggressively removed from circulation as often as possible. This isn't hard to figure out, the issues are just being clouded by the most potent issue lobby in the US today. You can also DNA lock ammunition so that it will not work except in the gun it matches. Time to get all of this done.
The same type of extra cost all the mandatory safety features in cars have. When you have product that is a severe public health hazard it's incumbent upon you to secure it as much as possible.
The government never does anything right, and I am steadfast in my belief that the government should be aggressively de-funded so that it never will. You want fries with your squirrel?
