Spock wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=Spock]
[quote=kj]
>>If you fail to secure your firearm and it is used to kill someone then you should face felony murder charges.
I'm not sure that would work too well, but perhaps something along those lines. kj.
If through your neglect your gun is used for a crime this should be your fate.
A few stiff sentences would send a very clear message to the careless and irresponsible.
The responsible gun owners who use a gun safe and trigger locks have nothing to worry about.
If it worked as well as seatbelt laws, it'd be fine with me. Of course, I use trigger locks, so it wouldn't change my life in the least (I like that). kj.
I fail to see the equivalence with seatbelt laws, please enlighten us.
I never said nor implied seatbelt laws are equivalent to gun laws. I only asked they be equivalent with respect to efficacy. Seatbelt laws do work. One reason is that it is an easy law to enforce. Another is that car manufacturers have made it easy to comply (it is probably easy by nature). Would your gun laws be as easy to enforce, in a universal manner? Would they be as easy to comply with? I don't think so, so I doubt they would be as effective. But if they were, I'd say fine. If they are another gun law that isn't enforced, I'd say "why bother?". And compliance is key to any law's effectiveness (prosecution doesn't necessarily affect subsequent compliance).
What if gun manufacturers made guns with built-in trigger locks? Or were required to include them with every sale? What if the government had trigger lock give-aways? That would make compliance easier, in much the same way seatbelts are easy to use (they're built into every car). kj.