I'm sorry @jd43@, but believing that the total removal of firearms from the country is in my best interest is not something I believe. I'm sorry that you've decided to block me as I've only posted a satirical video, and in actuality tried very hard to understand an opposing point of view as shown in my other post. You are of a very well-represented point of view on Hubski: that firearms should be completely banned. This is in complete opposition of a 50 year trend in the US during which that viewpoint has decreased. Source. Being pro-gun on Hubski places me firmly in the online minority, but I am fine with that because I believe in my right to own them, and understanding what other viewpoints look like is a part of moving the conversation forward. I am trying to frame my point of view on gun legislation which would move more toward your goal than mine, but having a hard time finding other moderate thinkers with which to find compromise. Your actions do not help that situation. I am sorry that you have direct and tragic memories of firearms, but mental illness is at fault in the case of your father, and not the implement he chose to carry out his wishes. I have been respectful of opposing viewpoints, and hope that you will contribute more to the conversation instead of putting your fingers in your ears.
Something like 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides. You often hear the line that if access were restricted to guns, killing oneself becomes more difficult and thus less likely. There is some evidence for this being true. For example, the suicide rate among Israeli soldiers is reported to have decreased by a significant amount after they were disallowed from bringing their weapons home on the weekends. However, in broad terms, the US and UK (which I think are good comparables) have very similar suicide rates (about 12 per 100,000) despite their varying rates of gun access. If I were advocating for gun control, I would focus on making it easier to hold gun manufacturers civilly liable for accidental deaths. Wikipedia says that there are around 500 accidental gun deaths per year in the US, which makes it far higher than, say, GM's recent ignition switch debacle (sure it's a fair point to say that accidental gun deaths mean that the gun worked as intended but in the wrong circumstance, although surely that's not always the case, as in misfires that are hanging, for example, where even experienced people could make a mistake). If I make a product, I'm responsible for what it does to people. It's frustrating to see gun manufacturers exempted from this law (as a citizen, I mean, independent of my stance on guns, I don't like it when free passes are given to one industry over another for political expediency).
That's a really interesting case with civil liability. Especially when you consider that, if I was a gun manufacturer, I would immediately blame failing maintenance for the hang. There are just so many little conditions that have to be just right for a manufacturer to be liable for something like that, but, from a fairness standpoint I wouldn't mind seeing that go into place. Just seems like the right thing to do. Even if it does end up that a lot of people who were accidentally shot get a lesson on why you should clean your firing pin and use the prescribed ammo in court.
Should is irrelevant. People shouldn't spill on themselves. It didn't absolve McDonald's from a lawsuit over the temperature of their coffee. Engineers all try to design for the dumbest possible use case. With guns, they aren't trying to meet that standard, and lawmakers have done their best to shield them from all liability. It's nonsense.
From today's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-gun-store-trial.html
Badger Guns was ordered (pending appeal) to pay nearly $6 million to two police officers shot by guns illegally sold to a straw buyer. The owner's son took over the store, implementing a variety of changes: But there are also signs laying out strict rules for would-be buyers: “Must be 21 to enter. Proper ID required.” “No cell phones allowed.” And for the droopy-drawered set of possible customers: “Pull your pants up or don’t come in. Try to have some decency and respect. No one wants to see your underwear.” The rules are serious, Schwarz said: Staff members “will ask you to leave” if you show up with a cellphone. The policy is designed to prevent straw buyers from texting photos of guns to friends outside.Mike Allan’s first move was to adopt a members-only model that requires customers to register with the store and to pay a membership fee. Would-be buyers must also demonstrate proficiency with a firearm....
I think so. Providing a dangerous tool to an unqualified person can be a kind of reckless endangerment to the public. This can be a difficult judgement call (a car is dangerous too), so you might get better results on a legal-case-by-legal-case basis than trying to apply general rules. The coffee-gun analogy is a bit strained, because of the difference in "worked as designed" outcomes. Also, the famous coffee lawsuit is an interesting story, and not a very good example of the need for tort reform in my view. The customer asked for $20,000 to cover expenses, and McDonald's offered $800, then it went to court. Interestingly, McDonald's was already printing warnings on the coffee cups at the time.