lpnmajor wrote:
That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping dangerous items, like Lions, in private homes. There has to be some common sense applied every time. For example: One is more likely to die in a vehicle accident, than by any other means, but we can't ban automobiles - so we try to make them as safe as possible, enforce safe driving rules, etc.
We have had the technology to produce safe firearms for many years, but the NRA ( through Congress ) has blocked ALL attempts to make it the law of the land. There are "add on" devices that render a firearm inactive, if the owner is not the one handling it, the same is true for newly manufactured weapons. Any child ( or criminal ) gaining access to a weapon not belonging to them, cannot make it fire. Let's call this the "seat belt for firearms".
Now, if we can agree that traffic rules, seat belts, brake lights, turn signals and airbags are necessary for safety - why do we argue against such rules and devices for the #2 killer in the US, firearms?
That's why we have laws prohibiting keeping danger... (
show quote)
"Strictly liable" is my problem. People whose homes get broken into shouldn't be victimized again,
if they've taken reasonable measures to secure their homes and/or weapons.
And, since we're on the subject, going out in public in an auto is inherently dangerous to everyone around you, all the time.
That law abiding person's firearm (or TV, for that matter) isn't a threat to anyone who isn't already committing a crime. Lefties just want to get done through the courts what they can't do through legislation.