"Disincentivization" as a method of slow removal from the populace is actually something that I am seeing a lot of the ideas tied to. I hadn't heard the liability policy idea, and honestly that sounds just stupid to me, although it would have the effect the anti gun people would desire.
I am a gun owner and I do think the term assault weapon is meaningless. I also think that universal background checks sound like a good idea. Limiting magazine size seems unenforceable in an age of 3d printers, so I don't see the point to that.
I guess where I have a problem is that I am always presented with the argument that any new laws will only impact legal gun owners because criminals don't follow the law. To me, the only logical conclusion to that idea is that no gun laws have any impact on criminal use of guns, and therefore all gun laws on the books are useless and we should just repeal all of them and have a complete free for all. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
As with most of these kind of issues, I think that enforcing the existing laws would go a long way, but in order to do that, we need to start looking at the companies doing the selling and make the penalties for noncompliance real. Perhaps, if a gun seller knowingly fails to follow proper background check procedures and the gun they sell is used in a crime, force liquidation of the company, proceeds to go to the victim, and apply the sentencing of the criminal to the person that sold the gun as well. Might be a tad draconian, but as Carlin says, if you want to stop the drug trade, start publicly hanging a few of the white upper class bankers that do the money laundering. |
