Here in Cali, the Attorney General lists all weapons legal for sale in Cali. They must have certain features such as safeties and chamber indicators to name a few. Each state could do the same if it wished.
If a weapon blows up in someone's hands, the manufacturer can be sued, due to defective product laws. However, if the weapon functions as designed, they cannot be sued.
Eliot Roger, the former Santa Barbara City College student stabbed three men, shot two women and one man, and ran over 13 people. I don't know the brand of knife used, but should the knife maker be sued? How about BMW for making the car he used to injure 13 people? Why should firearms be held to a different standard? I would be interested in hearing logical reasoning on this, not simply a bunch of logical fallacies as so often happens with this subject.
What needs to be done is to treat firearm crimes very, very harshly. Not just use a gun, go to jail. Make a gun crime two strikes rather than one. Let multiple counts multiply the result. Use a gun on more than one person, go to jail for life with no parole.
That strikes me as fair. The life the shooter's victim knew has been shattered, maybe ended. Let the shooter's be shattered so as well.
Please keep in mind that our Senators represent their states - - and Vermont has the most relaxed gun position in the nation. How could you expect Bernie to go against the wishes of those he represents? I very MUCH prefer his reasoned stand on almost all subjects to the set in beach sand rigidity of Senator/Secretary Clinton. If she wins the nomination, I most likely will not vote for her, as Cali will not soon be carried by a (R) person. If, by some miracle the election here is close, I will vote for her; but that is about as likely as Bill being re-elected for a third term.
= new reply since forum marked as read