Yes, I am. And I think that police officer was wrong. You keep control of your weapon, period. There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house. You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen. But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes. The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane. I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't. There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them. I see that as a compromise.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use. Which is why I am pro-training. If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.
Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.
More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.
Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).
Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do. We need to be practical. It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker. And most humans are moving targets. I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you. However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.
Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person? To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained. Same thing with most home invaders. I'll take my odds with a gun versus without. That's a choice I should be able to make.
Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home. Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes? That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership. Will the same logic apply to police officers? We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.
Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms. Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
I like your idea and you can compare a gun to a car. If your child takes your car and causes damage with it, you are responsible for that. If you car was stolen you are not liable for any damages that may be caused HOWEVER, if you leave your car in a state that makes it easy to steal (unlocked for example) then you may be liable depending on jurisdiction, and you certainly wont be getting full insurance payout in that case.
If your gun is used incorrectly, you are liable. If it is stolen and you still took all necessary steps to secure it, then I would forgive liability, but if you left it sitting out on the table with the front door unlocked, you are irresponsible and at least partially liable.
I think there's a lot of room for having a common-sense dialogue about things like this... IF everyone comes to the table in good faith.
That's a pretty big if, however, especially these days.
Which is sad. I think there's so much suspicion on both sides of the aisle that no one wants to give even one millimeter, for fear that the other side will take everything
away from them. Let's be honest, in the current climate, we're in a situation where both sides feel like they have to protect themselves from the evil other, instead of seeing the other side as decent people who are honestly concerned. And they justify their fears with slippery slope arguments. Which, of course, as intelligent people, we all know are a logical fallacy.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
In reality, there's a range of viewpoints, and plenty of room for dialogue. But it is all too easy for people to jump from someone's point A, and conclude that they also must believe B, C, D, etc. Because they're evil, or stupid, or ignorant, or choose your own derogatory and dismissive label.
If you own a gun, you need to be responsible for it, because it is a deadly weapon. That much seems absolutely clear. And honestly, anyone who would say, "If I leave a loaded gun on the table at a food court in a mall and some kid kills another kid with it, I'm not liable," is being completely unreasonable. That is one extreme, but the vast majority of people do not think this way. Likewise, there's another extreme, whereby someone says, for example, "If you have an unloaded gun in your house, in a locked safe, with the bullets and magazines stored in another location, and someone breaks into your locked house, hits you over the head and knocks you unconscious, then breaks into your locked safe, finds your bullets, steals them, and goes and kills someone with it, you are still liable." The vast majority of people would see that as being completely unreasonable. And both of those examples are extreme enough to essentially be straw men argument, in my opinion.
So, if we want to make any ground at all, it's important to turn away from those arguments, and stop tilting at those windmills, and work in the in-between toward common sense and logic. In good faith, and assuming good faith of the other person as well.
I'm not optimistic that it will happen. But it is the way to begin.