Exactly this.
Fear Itself is making some crazy statements, but they’re just vague enough that he can dance around them and back peddle and accuse others of putting words in his mouth.
Just say what you mean, man.
Cite for me saying that?
What’s the “accountability” that you speak of? A $100 fine? A decade in prison?
Does this “legally responsible” definition you won’t identify change based on how unsecure the gun is? Do I get punished less if my gun was in a safe than under my pillow?
The only way you have avoided making crazy statements is by running away when I ask you questions.
I am willing to negotiate the penalty. What I am interested is if you think they should be liable for even the minimum accountability.
If you are OK with the government enforcing whatever level of security you agree to with inspections and approved gun safes, I guess that would work. My way is much less invasive, and puts the responsibility where it belongs; on the gun owner.
You said if a gun was taken in a robbery, the gun owner was not responsible. Pardon me if I conflated that with burglary or theft. Are gun owners responsible for guns stolen in burglaries or thefts?
I think the responsibility belongs with the criminal, but I am just a little different from you in that way.
So it is not inaccurate to say you feel gun owners have no legal responsibility to show due care in preventing their guns from falling into the hands of criminals or children.
Why don’t you answer one of my other scenarios first. Every time I have responded, you have danced around it.
Here is what I get from you:
A gang breaks into my home, puts a gun to my wife’s head and threatens to kill her unless I open my safe. I open the safe and they take my collection. They then kill my wife any way, and me as well.
My 10 year old son is hiding under the bed and sees all this.
The gang then goes onto kill more people during a bank robbery.
In the Fear Itself world, you would want to take money from the estate of my orphaned 10 year old, because I failed to secure my firearms from all possibilities.
Or would you like to actually respond to my posts instead of coming up with more scenarios?
I have not once said that. Try again.
The only question I can find from you, that I assume you are referring to was something you asked of Algher, not me.
But I’ll answer: I’m fine with reasonable laws that can vary state to state. In ME it’s illegal to lean your rifle on your car. I think that’s a bit silly. But if you wanted to talk about a law that said a rifle couldn’t be loaded in a car that would seem reasonable.
In the home it gets trickier. A loaded shotgun might be perfectly safe without being locked up, like say high out of reach and not visible. I don’t think it’s reasonable to have black and white definitions for this. You probably would need to have more of a “prudent” or “reasonable” rule.
If you leave a loaded handgun in the room with children playing and one of them picks it up and shoots himself, then yes I think you should be criminally responsible in addition to sued for everything your worth. But if a teenager breaks in and picks the lock on your gun cabinet then you should be innocent of any wrongdoing.
In short, I think we could and should have thoughtful, rational rules based on what’s reasonable, even if that’s hard to exactly define. Sort of the opposite of your crazy approach.
Since I am not seeking to fine irresponsible gun owners, you orphaned child owes nothing.
Then what DO you want to do to your insanely expanded definition of so called irresponsible gun owners?
He’ll never answer that question. It’s been two pages and he’s at least realized that when your in a hole its best to stop digging.
It is only the existence of boring conference calls that keeps me coming back.
Hmmm maybe I am the crazy one…
Yet you keep avoiding any definitive statements about the legal responsibility of gun owners to prevent their guns from falling into the hands of criminals and children.
I want irresponsible gun owners to go to jail. I think 72 hours is appropriate if their gun is used in a crime or in the possession of an unsupervised child, longer if anyone is hurt or killed.
I have posted multiple times about laws I am fine with. Current liability and criminal laws are fine with me. I see no need or reason to adopt your expansion of liability law to predetermine legal liability regardless of how the firearm is taken from the owner.
Its very generous of you not to require things that would be unconstitutional for you to require but imposing strict liability for being the victim of a crime is kind of crazy. Its one thing if you impose a higher standard of care when it comes to guns around children, its an entirely different thing if someone steals your gun and then gives it to a kid.
So being a victim of a crime can make you a criminal?
You don’t talk for society. We have a constitutional right. If society feels we no longer should have that right, then society can repeal the second amendment.
You are not asking for responsibility, you are asking for a guarantee. Noone is responsible for the criminal acts of others unless they are cooperating with the criminal in some way (see felony murder).
Not when it comes to the criminal acts of another. We already have concepts like criminal negligence, recklessness, and endangerment, if you can apply these concepts then fine but you are creating a whole new legal concept just to persecute gun owners. Probably unconstitutionally at that.
If you want to make straw purchasers liable for the criminal acts that are eventually committed with the gun then I can see the illegal straw purchase as a jurisdictional hook for imposing liability on the straw purchaser (right now its just a flat 10 or 20 years).
Victims of crime always bear the risk of being a victim of crime. Unless the gunowner was complicit in the crime (by being a straw purchaser) or was criminally negligent, I don’t see your point.
Negligence can reach the level of criminal negligence but I don’t think keeping a loaded gun on the nightstand reaches that level.
I don’t see where anyone said this. Are you creating a straw man?
For people who take prudent precautions I don’t see how you impose any liability other than the deductible for the firearm insurance.
I got a bunch of stuff from some guys in North Carolina. I think they were basically furniture manufacturers owned by gun nuts. You can get a bedframe where the headboard bedposts can hold a shotgun (with a biometric or puzzle lock on each). You can get a grandfather clock that has a stainless steel false back that can hold pretty much anything. They had stuff you could build into a vent or in between the joists in a room with an unfinished ceiling (like your boiler room or your attic).
It just makes a shotgun that much more secure.
They had similar stuff for handguns with more pop-up features. I think they’re out of business now. They made good sturdy stuff with steel rebar and real wood veneer. It was a bit pricey but it wasn’t that much pricier than good furniture would normally cost.
But that is what your rule would do isn’t it?
I think the word you are looking for in the tort context is negligence and in the criminal context, “criminal negligence” “criminal recklessness” and “child endangerment”
I want a unicorn.
Police chief left gun unsecured, teen used it for suicide.
I would have preferred a jail sentence, but the willingness to prosecute a police chief signals a change towards how we hold gun owners accountable for negligence.