Gun laws-why bother?

Lordy, we need some new topics.  I don't own a gun, husband has several.  I'm not opposed gun ownership if people keep them locked away from their little kids and their teenagers, use them (the guns) responsibly, etc. 

An article in our paper gave some stats on firearm applications and illegal ownership.

Anyone who goes to buy a gun from a licensed dealer must fill out a Firearms Transaction Record.  This asks questions to rule out selling to anyone legally prohibited from getting a firearm:  felon or fugitive, dishonorable military discharge, "mentally defective" (per the courts), etc.  Also, a person cannot buy a gun on behalf of another person.

Would anyone lie when filling out this form?  Duh.  Doing so and being found out is punishable by "up to" 10 years in prison and a $250K fine.   But apparently the common practice is "Lie and try."

Here are some reasons to lie and try.  A report from the GAO last year said 112,000 people were caught falsifying on their application.  Yea, good catches.  But wait. These were referred to the ATF&E, who referred just 12,700 of those cases to field offices for investigation.  Of those, the Justice Department prosecuted...wait for it...12 cases, one for every 9,333.  A report from Chicago said "The vast majority of crime guns...were possessed by adults who were not the original purchaser..." and were legally [per requirements of the Firearms Transaction Record] barred from gun ownership.

Hmm.  

I don't think it is a case of why bother. It is more of a case that we need gun laws that are actually effective. For example, there is no legitimate reason why someone should be able to own a military grade AR-15. 

Well, in the '90s poor old DonDiego could never come up with a legitimate reason why anyone should be able to own a Furby, . . . but that didn't stop it.

But, perhaps firearm ownership is a more significant issue.

n.b.  DonDiego researched the term "military grade" so as not to err in differentiating between the AR-15 and M-16 and found the term "military grade" is essentially nothing more than a marketing term employed to sell things that are, in fact, not "military".                                         

Ref:  Military Grade

So, . . . OK, . . .

"The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers."

Ref: wikipedia

In short, the AR-15 is not a military rifle.  

The M-16 is a military rifle.

The primary distinction is that the AR-15 is semi-automatic and the M-16, which the AR-15 is designed to look like, is fully-automatic. 

The Federal prohibition on ownership of fully automatic weapons is already established:

"A private citizen [in the USA] can lawfully own a machine gun [that is a fully automatic gun] only if:

1. the possessor isn't a "prohibited person",

2. the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and 

3. their relevant state law does not ban that firearm 

Such aurtomatic weapons are registered with the Federal Government and tracked from lawful owner to lawful owner - permission must be obtained prior to transfer of these types of firearms and the ATF keeps logs of all currently registered National Firearms Act firearms."

Ref: Automatic Weapon Ownership

So, essentially, the Federal Government has already put in place significant restrictions on ownership of "military grade" automatic weapons.  Those who own them legally have already been vetted; those who own them illegally, . . . well, heckfire ! . . . they are violating the Law ! ! !

Ownership of a prohibited firearm is not based upon what it looks like, but specific functions.

Sigh, Don, the way to fix this issue then is to remove gun manufacturer's special shield against liability for manufacturing dangerous products like the AR-15.  

DonDiego does not know what "issue" Mark is endeavoring to "fix".

Gun manufacturers are already liable for defects in their products, . . . pretty much like manufacturers of automobiles and microwave ovens.

He supposes the "issue" might involve consideration of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  There is sufficient documentation of the various viewpoints of the 2nd Amendment to be found elsewhere; no need to clutter up the LVA Fora with them, . . . again !

Deficits in their products not when their product is used to commit mass murder like the Las Vegas shooting. They get a free pass.  No other manufacturers do. The standard those manufacturers face is if they should have been able to foresee that their product could be used in a criminal act especially when the gravity of harm from such act is great.  If a jury says they should have, they can be held liable.  See; Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Mark writes: "Deficits in their products not when their product is used to commit mass murder like the Las Vegas shooting. They get a free pass.  No other manufacturers do." 

Actually neither the manufacturer nor the dealers retailing firearms "get a free pass".

The Hillary addressed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in a Democrat Party debate on 7 October 2016:

"Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability.  They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.  They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued.  There will be no consequences."

She was wrong then and Mark is wrong now.

See Politifact's clear explanation as to why The Hillary's claim is false.

Actually neither the manufacturer nor the dealers retailing firearms "get a free pass".

In Mark's version of the government controlled world every daily movement would be governed by a law. Brushing one's teeth, combing one's hair, how many squares of toilet tissue one could use per bathroom visit. The list goes on and on. With all of these laws, no one would be responsible for their actions. A world without responsibility, actions completly dictated by laws - Mark's world. Asinine.

Actually, you are wrong. I am not saying what Hillary said.  What I am saying is gun manufacturers/dealers have a unique shield from liability that other manufacturers and providers of services do not. If a car manufacturer designs a car with a front end that slopes downward injuring pedestrians to a greater degree than more mainstream frontends, pedestrians that are injured as the result of that design can sue the auto manufacturer even though it wasn't the manufacturer's intent to design a car that maimed pedestrians.

On the other hand, if someone one designs a gun that is literally a killing machine (like an AR-15) that is designed to take down as many humans as possible in the shortest amount of time possible inflicting maximum damage, a victim that suffers horrific damage because of the killing machine cannot sue the gun manufacturer.  Now don't get me wrong, if a mass shooter in the midst of his killing spree suffers physical harm because the gun misfires and ends up killing him,  his family can sue the gun manufacturer for his injuries/death even though his victims cannot sue for their injuries.

Use the Las Vegas Shooting as an example. Who do you think the victims of that event should be able to sue?

They can sue MGM for merely providing the venue of the concert and the hotel room to the shooter, but they cannot sue the manufacturer of the weapon or the dealer that sold the weapon to the shooter.  In what world does that make sense?  You can see why MGM is trying to claim that they are not in the hotel business or venue business at all but rather the business of providing antiterrorism services.  They are searching for a liability shield like the gun manufacturers have.

Bob, that is a ridiculous comment given that I am actually arguing to eliminate a law. It is your precious princesses in the gun industry that have the government intervening on thier behalf.  Asinine!

Must be a democrat thing. Can't remember who said (or did) what, where or when.