General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bad News for the NRA - people are fugging serious [View all]libdem4life
(13,877 posts)If someone steals a car (gun) and has a fatal accident (suicide/murder) ... licensed or unlicensed, expired registration or not, drunk or sober, and if the car was not reported as stolen, legally the owner would be liable ... same for his/her weapon. Also, there is Uninsured Motorist (uninsured or stolen gun/owner) insurance which is another source of revenue/coverage which at worst, would avail the victim's family. The action may be pursued against the shooter's estate, as there is often a life insurance policy if not personal/family funds, and if a minor, the parents.
In the end given the cost of purchase, licensing, registration, high-priced ammo, liability insurance for the life of the weapon, not even a criminal would be nearly as likely to chance even "suicide by police"...which describes most of the mindsets of the most psychotic...just envision "going out in a blaze of glory". Kind of hard to do with just a "little" gun or a hunting knife.
I doubt under these rules, Nancy Lanza, or any normal but paranoid person, would have purchased/hoarded multiple weapons of protection/murder. Yet, her estate and life insurance payout will likely bring a tidy sum of money to comfort her family. How many 6-year old's lives were insured and famies financially comforted?
In any case, I argue not for banning or even too much controlling other than increased costs for purchase, upkeep, financial responsibility and liability. There would be many fewer gun crimes based on the high cost/liability/responsbility...even for "criminals". And the criminal punishment, absolute minimum prison time of some number of years to max of life. The added space in jail needed could be accomplished by letting out and not further pursuing non-violent pot users.
I believe that we, as a nation, would soon determine by default, just how many weapons are truly needed for personal/family protection or hunting.