Originally Posted by Fish
Would that be logical in any other situations? Say like, if I were promoting a law that said if you left your car unlocked, and someone stole it and ran over somebody, you would be held responsible? Would that make sense? Considering that we don't we enforce that type of thing with any other dangerous device, I'm saying no. Because when you get down to the basis of it, you're punishing one person, for someone else's actions and intents. That leaves a huge gray area in the middle where you have to quantify responsibility between 2 guilty parties.
Well, it seems that if for instance you and the wife go out of town and your teenager gets into the liquor cabinet, you would be held responsible for whatever went down, even if it was the stupid kid misbehaving.
I dunno. I don't like it. It's not something you could enforce until after the fact, unless you want the cops allowed to just waltz into your house to see if your guns are "secured".
that and the other comments in this thread make me say no, I would not support this. Too many other variables.
I have no problem registering my guns. Coming up with a law so toddlers can't accidentally shoot themselves is ridiculous. As far as the Sandy Hook psycho...he was what, 20 years old? Probably could get around any security she would have had. I suppose it would have worked in that case if she had them in a safe locked away, but then they are useless for self protection.
IMO...bad shit happens. You can't make a law to prevent that.
We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse...
Die Donks, DIE!!
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 44...crap...45 years...