Right now New York and California are trying to hold manufacturers accountable for the use of firearms in shootings rather then putting the blame on the person using the gun. This means if a Glock is used in any context that Glock could get sued, or Beretta, or Smith and Wesson. Just like if a Ford kills someone in an accident then Ford should be sure rather than the person behind the wheel. You get the idea. Recently California had a law passed demanding microstamping of firearms.
The issue is that there are no gun companies with the tech to put them on the tiny firing pin and even if they did, within just a single range session the stamp would be worn out and unrecognizable. For this reason California will unofficially be banning guns because they won't be letting the import of firearms without the technology which is 100% not feasible for manufacturing or distribution. So that means that people who want protection from criminals won't get a firearm, at least legally. Since the police can take several minutes to arrive on up to a few hours due to travel distance and understaffing, then if something happens and someone is raped or killed because they were defenseless then shouldn't people like Gavin Newsom and the State of California be sued going by the same logic?
Not only this but sometimes you are suddenly awoken and the intruder is already coming up the steps. You don't have time to dial 9-1-1 but you could pull your piece from the nightstand. I'm genuinely curious what realistic alternatives you have when criminals who will still have weapons up to and including guns get the drop on homeowners and then they are unable to bring the "great equalizer" to bear. As someone who survived 2 home invasions BECAUSE I had a firearm which immediately deterred the cowards who WERE ARMED with a knife and a gun I would like to know why my life is less important.
The issue is that there are no gun companies with the tech to put them on the tiny firing pin and even if they did, within just a single range session the stamp would be worn out and unrecognizable. For this reason California will unofficially be banning guns because they won't be letting the import of firearms without the technology which is 100% not feasible for manufacturing or distribution. So that means that people who want protection from criminals won't get a firearm, at least legally. Since the police can take several minutes to arrive on up to a few hours due to travel distance and understaffing, then if something happens and someone is raped or killed because they were defenseless then shouldn't people like Gavin Newsom and the State of California be sued going by the same logic?
Not only this but sometimes you are suddenly awoken and the intruder is already coming up the steps. You don't have time to dial 9-1-1 but you could pull your piece from the nightstand. I'm genuinely curious what realistic alternatives you have when criminals who will still have weapons up to and including guns get the drop on homeowners and then they are unable to bring the "great equalizer" to bear. As someone who survived 2 home invasions BECAUSE I had a firearm which immediately deterred the cowards who WERE ARMED with a knife and a gun I would like to know why my life is less important.
Most Helpful Opinions