logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Making gun owners more legally liable for their guns, own em if you got em, but lock them up?
CruisingRam
post Dec 24 2012, 12:03 PM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Mrs P flowers.gif talked of her grandmother owning guns and how she should not be held responsible if someone broke into her home and stole those guns out of the attic. A fair argument, since I too believe that the thief is the one being the bad guy here. But it poses an interesting question. If you own dynamite, or radioactive material used for industrial x-rays (I don't think the public in general knows how much radioactive materials there are in industrial use day to day used to examine welds in buildings, it is Iridium 192 that is the most common non-destructive testing material) you have very strict laws on securing those items, as they are tools, but can be dangerous tools and abused in the wrong hands. Guns can be argued, are tools. Potentially dangerous tools like dynamite and industrial radiographic materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_radiography

If you want to know about some dangerous tools listed above, but with a very, very safe history.

All tools in our society that are potentially dangerous in the wrong hands have strong regulations as to thier use and storage. Oddly, except when used by trained personel such as LEO or the military, there are little to no regulations regarding storage and usage of these "tools". hmmm.gif

There is a 28 page pamphlet as to the storage regulations for Iridium 192:


http://www.georgiaepd.com/Files_PDF/techgu...cb/radiogra.pdf

112 page manual for the storage and keeping of dynamite:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf

If you store dynamite in your home, in the attic, with nothing but the front door lock (sometimes we forget to lock our doors as well) or Iridium 192 unsecured, but stored in the attic, you will get in some trouble. Now, you won't be held responsible for murder neccesarily if those items are stolen from your home, but you will most likely lose a lawsuit as to your negligence for not storing-securing them better.

Considering there are very few assaults, if any, with dynamite these days ( in fact, the worst school mass-murder in history was with dynamite, the Bath township massacre- it is much harder to buy dynamite and much better regulated than when these murders occured) and none with Iridium 192, and they are both very heavy regulated as to storage and safe-keeping, should we require gun owners to abide by the same set of regulations regarding storage and safe-keeping?

Should an owner of a firearm be held responsible to regulations as to the use and storage of thier "tools"?

Should, say, Mrs P's grandmother, or myself, who owns numerous firearms, be held responsible for lax storage of our firearms should someone steal them and harm others with this "tool"- similar to someone owning dynamite or Iridium 192 would be?

Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
33 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Dingo
post Dec 24 2012, 01:09 PM
Post #2


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?
Up to a limit, and that would include bullets, I think they should be held financially liable even if they were placed in a "secure" location. If you can't supply real world security then you shouldn't own them. I would exclude manual advance rifles if their loss was reported in advance. The emphasis there is on hunting, not people killing. It goes without saying that all gun owners should be licensed and their guns should be registered, and even their bullets should be coded(A link for skeptics) with a background check and clip and revolver limitations. How about 6 before reload.

It's time conservatives stop blathering about "individual responsibility" and start owning their words. I'm tired of the carnage and the government costs and public loss of freedom to move and live that their specialized definition of personal freedom inflicts on the rest of us.

I spent time off and on on my uncle's cattle ranch where a lot of killing was done, both wild and domestic. Manual advance rifles were quite sufficient for all those activities.

This post has been edited by Dingo: Dec 24 2012, 06:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Dec 26 2012, 06:35 PM
Post #3


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?

should criminals who use illegal firearms be held financially responsible for the damage they do and be forced to work off the debt in long jail sentences? Should you be held responsible if your car is stolen and kills or injuries someone?

QUOTE
Dingo
It's time conservatives stop blathering about "individual responsibility" and start owning their words. I'm tired of the carnage and the government costs and public loss of freedom to move and live that their specialized definition of personal freedom inflicts on the rest of us


Its time for liberals to stop trying to paint all legal gun owners as bad over one tragedy and realize that 99% + of gun crime is in areas where lax enforcement allows it to continue.

want to stop gun crime and illegal guns - enforce the laws and keep those using or selling illegal guns IN JAIL for decades.......but I know Dingo it soooo much easier to just blame all the responsible gun owners..... wacko.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Dec 27 2012, 03:10 AM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 26 2012, 02:35 PM) *
Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?

should criminals who use illegal firearms be held financially responsible for the damage they do and be forced to work off the debt in long jail sentences? Should you be held responsible if your car is stolen and kills or injuries someone?

QUOTE
Dingo
It's time conservatives stop blathering about "individual responsibility" and start owning their words. I'm tired of the carnage and the government costs and public loss of freedom to move and live that their specialized definition of personal freedom inflicts on the rest of us


Its time for liberals to stop trying to paint all legal gun owners as bad over one tragedy and realize that 99% + of gun crime is in areas where lax enforcement allows it to continue.

want to stop gun crime and illegal guns - enforce the laws and keep those using or selling illegal guns IN JAIL for decades.......but I know Dingo it soooo much easier to just blame all the responsible gun owners..... wacko.gif

Oh, but I have no problem with it. Ban all removable, spring-loaded magazines. Allow only tubular magazines on rifles/shotguns and only cylinders on pistols, both with a maximum of six rounds, including the chambered round in rifles/shotguns.

Nothing goes semi-auto. You will have to work a bolt action, a lever action, a pump action, or a single-action revolver. Existing dual-action revolvers would be okay, since the heavy trigger pull renders them useless in that mode for anything but making noise. If not, it makes the killers work extra hard to burn up their six cartridges.

Existing semi-auto rifles and pistols will suddenly become single-shots without the spring-loaded, removable clips mrsparkle.gif

The buyback program would pay people twice the going value of pre-owned clips. If they aren't submitted for the buyback, getting caught with them would mean forfeiture of firearm(s), vehicle(s), house(s), cash and credit. You'd have to start from scratch and get put on a magazine hoarder list, published locally and nationally. You'd be able to use Google Maps to see what perps are in your neighborhood.

But no slammer time. Isn't that nice?

Also, former semi-automatic rifles would be able to be converted to tubular magazines, since there is no real engineering difference between assault rifles and hunting rifles. Owners would get a voucher to get the work done by a certified machinist and certified gun smith. The voucher would cover about 25% of the cost.

Slap-slap, problem solved, and in a quite conservative manner (perp lists and vouchers, draconian punishments). Everyone qualified (no felony and so on) could still bare arms, conceal-carry, and so the Second Amendment lives on.

Just not like now.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Dec 27 2012, 03:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Dec 27 2012, 09:53 PM
Post #5


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 26 2012, 09:10 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 26 2012, 02:35 PM) *
Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?

should criminals who use illegal firearms be held financially responsible for the damage they do and be forced to work off the debt in long jail sentences? Should you be held responsible if your car is stolen and kills or injuries someone?

QUOTE
Dingo
It's time conservatives stop blathering about "individual responsibility" and start owning their words. I'm tired of the carnage and the government costs and public loss of freedom to move and live that their specialized definition of personal freedom inflicts on the rest of us


Its time for liberals to stop trying to paint all legal gun owners as bad over one tragedy and realize that 99% + of gun crime is in areas where lax enforcement allows it to continue.

want to stop gun crime and illegal guns - enforce the laws and keep those using or selling illegal guns IN JAIL for decades.......but I know Dingo it soooo much easier to just blame all the responsible gun owners..... wacko.gif

Oh, but I have no problem with it. Ban all removable, spring-loaded magazines. Allow only tubular magazines on rifles/shotguns and only cylinders on pistols, both with a maximum of six rounds, including the chambered round in rifles/shotguns.

Nothing goes semi-auto. You will have to work a bolt action, a lever action, a pump action, or a single-action revolver. Existing dual-action revolvers would be okay, since the heavy trigger pull renders them useless in that mode for anything but making noise. If not, it makes the killers work extra hard to burn up their six cartridges.

Existing semi-auto rifles and pistols will suddenly become single-shots without the spring-loaded, removable clips mrsparkle.gif

The buyback program would pay people twice the going value of pre-owned clips. If they aren't submitted for the buyback, getting caught with them would mean forfeiture of firearm(s), vehicle(s), house(s), cash and credit. You'd have to start from scratch and get put on a magazine hoarder list, published locally and nationally. You'd be able to use Google Maps to see what perps are in your neighborhood.

But no slammer time. Isn't that nice?

Also, former semi-automatic rifles would be able to be converted to tubular magazines, since there is no real engineering difference between assault rifles and hunting rifles. Owners would get a voucher to get the work done by a certified machinist and certified gun smith. The voucher would cover about 25% of the cost.

Slap-slap, problem solved, and in a quite conservative manner (perp lists and vouchers, draconian punishments). Everyone qualified (no felony and so on) could still bare arms, conceal-carry, and so the Second Amendment lives on.

Just not like now.

...and what exactly do you accomplish with all of this? I see nothing more than feel good laws with nothing that actually makes anyone safer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Dec 28 2012, 12:35 AM
Post #6


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Considering there are very few assaults, if any, with dynamite these days ( in fact, the worst school mass-murder in history was with dynamite, the Bath township massacre- it is much harder to buy dynamite and much better regulated than when these murders occured) and none with Iridium 192, and they are both very heavy regulated as to storage and safe-keeping, should we require gun owners to abide by the same set of regulations regarding storage and safe-keeping? No.

Should an owner of a firearm be held responsible to regulations as to the use and storage of thier "tools"? No. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is unclear?

Should, say, Mrs P's grandmother, or myself, who owns numerous firearms, be held responsible for lax storage of our firearms should someone steal them and harm others with this "tool"- similar to someone owning dynamite or Iridium 192 would be? Regardless of how many different ways you frame the question, the answer remains "No." Other than as a right recognized under the 9th and 10th Amendments, we do not have a right to dynamite and/or Iridium 192. Furthermore, unsafe storage of those items presents risks even without any criminal intervention. Firefighters get downright testy when the building they're going into go "ka-blooey" on them.

Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault? hmmm.gif this is a tough one...

hmmm.gif thorny question here ...

hmmm.gif so many emanations and penumbras to consider ...

hmmm.gif

hmmm.gif

No.

Should a publisher be held financially and criminally liable if she publishes the names and addresses of registered gun owners, and the weapons are subsequently stolen?

The point of this notion CR is proposing is to reduce the number of firearms in private hands. It is intended to infringe, to make the risks of ownership of firearms too onerous. CR has simply come up with a somewhat more novel method, although it must be admitted that the previous attempts by the gun controllers to drive gun manufacturers out of business with civil tort suits based on "misuse" of their products bears an uncanny resemblance to this concept.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Dec 28 2012, 01:31 AM
Post #7


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Dec 27 2012, 04:35 PM) *
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


Using the definition of infringe that you posted before, i.e.:

QUOTE
in·fringe
[in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

verb (used without object)
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.


I would say that requiring a gun owner to store her firearms safely, and in a way that prevents access to unauthorized people, does not infringe on her right to *bear* arms. It might infringe on her right to store arms as she wishes, but that right is not enumerated in the Constitution. Neither is the type of arms allowed.

I'm not one for banning guns. But neither am I for unfettered access.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Dec 28 2012, 05:50 AM
Post #8


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Dec 27 2012, 08:31 PM) *
I would say that requiring a gun owner to store her firearms safely, and in a way that prevents access to unauthorized people, does not infringe on her right to *bear* arms. It might infringe on her right to store arms as she wishes, but that right is not enumerated in the Constitution. Neither is the type of arms allowed.
Define specifically what storing firearms safely constitutes. Also, define "prevents access to (I assume you mean "by") unauthorized people". What is the standard you are going to use to determine whether or not these criteria are satisfied? How do you propose to enforce these conditions?

btw, the right to "store arms" as she wishes is quite handily covered under "keep".

QUOTE
I'm not one for banning guns. But neither am I for unfettered access.
We haven't had "unfettered access" in this country since at least the 1930s, if not sooner. Incidentally, could you clarify how fettering access is not an infringement? Just curious.

*****************************************************************

I would like to point out that gun control's foundation in the United States is deeply racist. Just an FYI for those of you who are gung ho to jump on the control bandwagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Dec 28 2012, 08:12 AM
Post #9


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Dec 27 2012, 04:35 PM) *
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is unclear?

What part of its being subordinated to "A well regulated militia" don't you get? If the Founders had meant the individual right to ownership was their clear intent they could have said so without qualification. Seems kind of obvious except to the gun obsessed. But fortunately for you guys you have agenda driven partisans like Scalia and company to muddy the waters. Citizens United, appointing a loser president, stomping on community efforts to reduce crime, all just part of a days work for right wingers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Dec 28 2012, 12:26 PM
Post #10


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Dec 27 2012, 04:35 PM) *
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Considering there are very few assaults, if any, with dynamite these days ( in fact, the worst school mass-murder in history was with dynamite, the Bath township massacre- it is much harder to buy dynamite and much better regulated than when these murders occured) and none with Iridium 192, and they are both very heavy regulated as to storage and safe-keeping, should we require gun owners to abide by the same set of regulations regarding storage and safe-keeping? No.

Should an owner of a firearm be held responsible to regulations as to the use and storage of thier "tools"? No. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is unclear?

Should, say, Mrs P's grandmother, or myself, who owns numerous firearms, be held responsible for lax storage of our firearms should someone steal them and harm others with this "tool"- similar to someone owning dynamite or Iridium 192 would be? Regardless of how many different ways you frame the question, the answer remains "No." Other than as a right recognized under the 9th and 10th Amendments, we do not have a right to dynamite and/or Iridium 192. Furthermore, unsafe storage of those items presents risks even without any criminal intervention. Firefighters get downright testy when the building they're going into go "ka-blooey" on them.

Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault? hmmm.gif this is a tough one...

hmmm.gif thorny question here ...

hmmm.gif so many emanations and penumbras to consider ...

hmmm.gif

hmmm.gif

No.

Should a publisher be held financially and criminally liable if she publishes the names and addresses of registered gun owners, and the weapons are subsequently stolen?

The point of this notion CR is proposing is to reduce the number of firearms in private hands. It is intended to infringe, to make the risks of ownership of firearms too onerous. CR has simply come up with a somewhat more novel method, although it must be admitted that the previous attempts by the gun controllers to drive gun manufacturers out of business with civil tort suits based on "misuse" of their products bears an uncanny resemblance to this concept.



Apparently you have never seen firefighters get downright testy and sometimes have to move away and not fight the fire at all when there is a bunch of ammunition just laying around the house. rolleyes.gif

I believe you forget the "well regulated" part a lot when you are quoting the "infringed" part.

I believe allowing you to own all the firearms you want as long as you store them properly and safely doesn't infringe on anything. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, so, as with the freedom of speech issue, your right to own firearms stops where it threatens my safety.

Forcing you to store your firearms in a reasonably safe manner- i.e.- fire safe, under lock and key, is not too onerous of a "regulation".

Firearms are clearly more dangerous to the general public than dynamite or Iridium 192, there being on the maginitude of several thousand times deaths by firearms than by dynamite or Iridium 192.

If a person does not store dynamite securely, and a thief steals the dynamite ( Lee Malvo actually shoplifted his bushmaster- still hard to believe that the store didn't have better loss prevention that allowed someone to shoplift an expensive gun) and that dynamite is used in a crime or irresponsibly, the owner of that dynamite will most likely face some negligence cash payouts.

I believe gun owners can be held to the same standard, and victims should be able to sue gun owners that don't store thier guns and ammo responsibly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Dec 28 2012, 02:30 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2012, 07:26 AM) *
I believe allowing you to own all the firearms you want as long as you store them properly and safely doesn't infringe on anything. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, so, as with the freedom of speech issue, your right to own firearms stops where it threatens my safety.


Firearms owners are already held liable for negligently keeping a loaded pistol where it is accessible to unsupervised minors, for example. The onus is already on the owner to store his/her firearm properly and safely.

There is a general common law rule of non-liability for harm resulting from criminal acts of third parties not reasonably foreseeable. Or perhaps we should blame the owners of automobiles for injuries sustained (whether accidental or intentional) in the event their auto was stolen. The stealing of an automobile is equally, if not more, foreseeable than intrusion into one's home.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 28 2012, 02:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Dec 28 2012, 03:12 PM
Post #12


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 28 2012, 06:30 AM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2012, 07:26 AM) *
I believe allowing you to own all the firearms you want as long as you store them properly and safely doesn't infringe on anything. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, so, as with the freedom of speech issue, your right to own firearms stops where it threatens my safety.


Firearms owners are already held liable for negligently keeping a loaded pistol where it is accessible to unsupervised minors, for example. The onus is already on the owner to store his/her firearm properly and safely.

There is a general common law rule of non-liability for harm resulting from criminal acts of third parties not reasonably foreseeable. Or perhaps we should blame the owners of automobiles for injuries sustained (whether accidental or intentional) in the event their auto was stolen. The stealing of an automobile is equally, if not more, foreseeable than intrusion into one's home.


I am not in total disagreement wtih that either- you leave your keys in the car, and it is stolen and used in a crime, I don't mind some civil actiong being allowed either. If the person has to go to some heavy effort to steal them, such as opening a fire safe or hot-wiring your car, I think that liability should be waived.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jan 3 2013, 01:12 AM
Post #13


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Megan McArdle does an excellent job of examing the concept of mandatory insurance for gun owners. And she's more charitable regarding the motivations of most who are advocating it than they deserve.

Should People Be Forced to Buy Liability Insurance for their Guns?

QUOTE
Novel gun control ideas continue to percolate through the commentariat. The latest idea is requiring liability insurance for gun owners, which seems to have first been suggested by John Wasik blogging at Forbes. Reihan Salam, one of my favorite thinkers, says it's an idea seriously worth considering. I too have been mulling this since it started making the rounds, mostly because I've been spending a fair amount of time thinking about insurance for the book I'm writing. In the end, I think it might be a fine idea to help a small number of people, but it wouldn't do what proponents are imagining in terms of controlling criminal behavior. Mostly, it would be a way to compensate some victims of gun accidents. Below, I elaborate the reasons why I think this is the case.

...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 9 2013, 03:16 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2012, 10:12 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 28 2012, 06:30 AM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2012, 07:26 AM) *
I believe allowing you to own all the firearms you want as long as you store them properly and safely doesn't infringe on anything. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, so, as with the freedom of speech issue, your right to own firearms stops where it threatens my safety.


Firearms owners are already held liable for negligently keeping a loaded pistol where it is accessible to unsupervised minors, for example. The onus is already on the owner to store his/her firearm properly and safely.

There is a general common law rule of non-liability for harm resulting from criminal acts of third parties not reasonably foreseeable. Or perhaps we should blame the owners of automobiles for injuries sustained (whether accidental or intentional) in the event their auto was stolen. The stealing of an automobile is equally, if not more, foreseeable than intrusion into one's home.


I am not in total disagreement wtih that either- you leave your keys in the car, and it is stolen and used in a crime, I don't mind some civil actiong being allowed either. If the person has to go to some heavy effort to steal them, such as opening a fire safe or hot-wiring your car, I think that liability should be waived.


You would compare breaking and entering, and then rummaging through the belongings in someone's home to jumping into an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition? I don't think that is a reasonable comparison. I believe that illegally breaking and entering into another's domicile is, in itself, "some heavy effort".

A closer comparison would have the bar raised to breaking and entering the car, then expecting every car owner to employ 'the club', which requires the use of a key to unlock the stearing wheel, or get ready to encure criminal penalty for "foreseeable" gross negligence. As a gun owner, (as I said) I am already responsible for damages related to reasonably foreseeable events regarding improper storage of my firearm. The solution you suggest would make ownship of a fire arm virtually pointless for defensive purposes. I'd have easier access to my son's baseball bat or the kitchen knife. If a person has to go through loops to unlock his/her sidearm to the point it would dissuade even an intruding criminal from stealing, it has lost all practical value as a defensive weapon in an urgent emergency situation.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 9 2013, 03:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Jan 9 2013, 04:18 PM
Post #15


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Considering there are very few assaults, if any, with dynamite these days ( in fact, the worst school mass-murder in history was with dynamite, the Bath township massacre- it is much harder to buy dynamite and much better regulated than when these murders occured) and none with Iridium 192, and they are both very heavy regulated as to storage and safe-keeping, should we require gun owners to abide by the same set of regulations regarding storage and safe-keeping?

I think society could benefit from clearer definitions regarding storage. I think it is very doable as it would keep the firearm on the premises of the house because of the inconvenience factor restrictions would have on moving and carrying in the public sphere.

And at the risk of repeating myself, for those insisting on attaching singular meaning the second amendment remember Should an owner of a firearm be held responsible to regulations as to the use and storage of thier "tools"?

The interpretation was up in the air since day one. It took the relatively recent District of Columbia vs. Heller decision to clarify that individuals outside of a militia can own and operate a firearm. By overturning it, the option to restrict firearm use similar to that of a controlled substance of a drug law becomes feasible.

Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?


That is entirely reasonable. Getting there might take a bit of doing. Legislatively you'll have to make the discussion about controlled use with statistics which unfortunately the advocates will resist. Advocates will either discount the numbers or say the numbers were manipulated. You'll have to be thoughtful on presenting the arguement around persons lost to violence because any attempts to ban assault weapons will invoke the ire of people incorrectly applying treason charges to you as they did with Senator Feinstein. The petition itself is evidence of the level of confusion around firearm ownership.

I'm sure there are statistics somewhere detailing the number of crimes committed with stolen firearms. Attaching responsibility of ownership beyond immediate possession will be controversial. Everyone could benefit from a higher standard if said firearm is treated as a controlled substance/tool. Without the controlled usage restrictions, I can't see how the courts would level penalties in a way that would be enforceable.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Jan 9 2013, 04:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 9 2013, 04:50 PM
Post #16


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Trouble @ Jan 9 2013, 11:18 AM) *
I think society could benefit from clearer definitions regarding storage. I think it is very doable as it would keep the firearm on the premises of the house because of the inconvenience factor restrictions would have on moving and carrying in the public sphere.[b]


You seem to be conflating carrying with storage with this premise. The two are not the same, and would have to be clearly delineated in any legislation.

QUOTE
That is entirely reasonable. Getting there might take a bit of doing.


Depending on party power and the ability to the Constitution[s], anything is technically possible. Since we lose children to suicide by cyberbullying, a case could be made to censor the internet. Since more lives are lost due to medical malpractice than to firearms, a case could be made to nationalize and micromanage healthcare.

20 dead children should warrant such discussions, no?

QUOTE
Legislatively you'll have to make the discussion about controlled use with statistics which unfortunately the advocates will resist. Advocates will either discount the numbers or say the numbers were manipulated. You'll have to be thoughtful on presenting the argument.....


This I agree with, but the manipulation is committed by both sides of this argument. Firearm ownership is far higher in rural areas, yet firearm violence is far higher in urban areas, and that violence is rarely committed with the scary looking black rifles framed as "assault weapons".......though they find themselves at the forefront of the debate somehow. That violent crime with firearms is a people problem, not a gun problem is unilaterally lost on one side of the fence.

QUOTE
Everyone could benefit from a higher standard if said firearm is treated as a controlled substance/tool. Without the controlled usage restrictions, I can't see how the courts would level penalties in a way that would be enforceable.


I'm open to the discussion of some level of culpability if a firearm is stolen and used in the conduct of a violent crime, but depending on your intent, I'm not open to state regulation of "controlled usage".

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Jan 9 2013, 04:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Jan 9 2013, 06:34 PM
Post #17


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?

No, I don't think so. After all, we would never consider such liability in the following scenarios:

1.
Criminal walks into unlocked home, finds jewerly in a lovely lacquered box on top of the dresser in the walk-in closet, steals it, exchanges it for a gun, then commits a mugging at the point of said gun.

2.
Criminal opens door of unlocked car with keys in ignition and engine running, steals it, exchanges it for a whole bunch of guns, then he and his "crew" hit a bank at the point of said guns.

3.
Criminal picks wallet out of someone's pocket, exchanges the cash and/or credit cards inside it for a gun, etc. ...

'Far as I'm concerned, once the criminal act of theft (whether directly of the gun itself or the indirect means to acquire one) has occurred, only the criminal should be liable for any crime(s) committed with the gun(s) thusly acquired.

I'm not talking about a scenario whereby the gun owner leaves his gun on top of the nightstand, his or someone else's kid finds it, starts playing with it and accidentally shoots himself or someone else. For the simple reason that the kid didn't commit a criminal act when he picked up the gun from the nightstand. That's a case of pure negligence on the part of the gun owner, and he should most certainly be liable for it.

And I'm not talking about a scenario whereby the gun owner forgets to pick up the holstered gun that he had earlier removed from his belt and set down next to him on the diner banquette where he had just had lunch, then someone else simply finds it, takes it and later commits a crime with it. That's also a case of pure negligence, and in a public setting no less, on the part of the gun owner, for which he should also most certainly be liable.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Jan 9 2013, 06:38 PM
Post #18


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 9 2013, 10:50 AM) *
You seem to be conflating carrying with storage with this premise. The two are not the same, and would have to be clearly delineated in any legislation.


As the question pertained to storage and safekeeping, stiffening up legislation involving the movement of arms seemed a very natural way of segueing as to how they are stored. An attitude change around firearms is required for if we only focus on storage, we are addressing only half the problem. Same idea different perspective.

QUOTE
Depending on party power and the ability to the Constitution[s], anything is technically possible. Since we lose children to suicide by cyberbullying, a case could be made to censor the internet. Since more lives are lost due to medical malpractice than to firearms, a case could be made to nationalize and micromanage healthcare.


Sure you could make the arguement of gun mortality verses everything else but the usual criteria for breaking the camel's back is an assessment as to how preventable any given mortality is. If the death was deemed preventable, either rightly or wrongly then there will always be public outcry to limit or restrict actions relating to the mortality which in this case is firearms related.

QUOTE
20 dead children should warrant such discussions, no?


Actually no given the degree to overshoot on whatever counter measures are considered. Also, I have doubts that the bulk of data collected on firearm violence is accurate as many legislators realize that the more data that is collected the greater the chance the Second Amendment will change. IE so reporting is usually understated.

QUOTE
This I agree with, but the manipulation is committed by both sides of this argument. Firearm ownership is far higher in rural areas, yet firearm violence is far higher in urban areas, and that violence is rarely committed with the scary looking black rifles framed as "assault weapons".......though they find themselves at the forefront of the debate somehow. That violent crime with firearms is a people problem, not a gun problem is unilaterally lost on one side of the fence.


The instinct to kill is always present in a certain segment of the population, and steps to decrease the lethality of what's at hand will always pervade the courtroom. Treating the problem strictly as a people issue will not go far enough. Once the access issue is considered you'll need good evidence. My prior statement may seem contradictory about needing evidence and and then discounting it, but while admitting it insufficient we should be compelled to get better quality data to show that one is not dictating from an emotional center. 20 dead children is an emotional land mine. Bills fashioned from this have about as much chance of being taken seriously as the long gun registry had up in Canada.

QUOTE
I'm open to the discussion of some level of culpability if a firearm is stolen and used in the conduct of a violent crime, but depending on your intent, I'm not open to state regulation of "controlled usage".


Unless one treats a firearm as an anti-tank shell the proliferation from the home is going to happen. That mindset automatically implies rigid storage and disposal guidelines answering the first part of this thread. Without making transport of firearms an, "oh my look at that" experience there will be no cultural adjustment in limiting the number (and reasons) for carrying a firearm in whatever capacity in the public sphere. Without a controlled usage aspect, I'm at a loss as to what can be done. Ideas?

This post has been edited by Trouble: Jan 10 2013, 12:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Jan 9 2013, 06:45 PM
Post #19


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent





Should a gun owner be held financially liable if his/her guns are stolen if they are used in a crime, and were not reasonably secure, say in a firesafe or vault?

Let me get this straight...a lawful gun owner has his guns within his home and a criminal burglarizes the home and steals the guns and uses them in yet another crime and the person who legally purchased and possessed the guns for home defense is liable. Really? Who thinks this stuff up? How does the gun owner have any control over the actions of someone else? I do not see any reason why a gun owner should be held financially liable or any other liability for that matter. I don't know what a law like this would accomplish...maybe someone can shed some light on the basis for such a line of thinking. Just another way to ignore the problem and attack law abiding citizens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jan 10 2013, 01:07 AM
Post #20


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2012, 07:26 AM) *
Apparently you have never seen firefighters get downright testy and sometimes have to move away and not fight the fire at all when there is a bunch of ammunition just laying around the house. rolleyes.gif
Sure I have. Well, actually, I haven't SEEN it with my own eyes, but I'm well aware of it. Of course, they do the same thing when confronted by a bunch of cans of lacquer or enamel, or gasoline, or a scad of other unregulated products "just laying around the house", many of which pose a greater risk than most ammunition.

What happens when you let some pyromaniacs loose on 400,000 rounds of ammunition.

A cursory Bing search shows two men injured by cows, one firefighter injured maybe by ammunition cooking off in a fire, and one knucklehead seriously injured when he took a welding torch to an anti tank round in order to turn it into scrap metal. Yes, an anti-tank round. And a welding torch. More info on the injury to the firefighter in Thousand Oaks:

QUOTE
Police blocked off a large area around the home so no one would be injured. “Nobody’s concluded that it was the ammunition that caused the shrapnel that injured the firefighter because there were other things exploding as well,” Buschow said. Buschow said the ammunition had been stored in three metal, military-style ammunition cans, which were kept inside a metal footlocker. “It was actually stored better than probably 90 percent of people would store their ammunition,” Buschow said.


In short, the probability of someone, even a firefighter, being injured by ammunition is insignificant. Seriously, think about it. If even 20% of households have firearms, that would mean that @ 20% of household fires would involve ammunition.

How many firefighters have you heard of that have been injured by ammunition cooking off?

Firefighters AND civilians are far more likely to be injured by BBQ explosions than they are by ammunition, unless of course someone is shooting at them, which kinda moves it out of the realm of "stored", eh?

QUOTE
I believe you forget the "well regulated" part a lot when you are quoting the "infringed" part.
Not at all. I'm simply going with the original meaning of the term "well regulated", which is a very different beast than what the term means today.

QUOTE
I believe allowing you to own all the firearms you want as long as you store them properly and safely doesn't infringe on anything. You don't have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, so, as with the freedom of speech issue, your right to own firearms stops where it threatens my safety.
In case you haven't noticed, you CAN yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. You suffer the consequences AFTER you do it. What you're proposing is akin to putting a lock on everybody's mouth when they go into a theater (not necessarily a bad idea mind you) in order to prevent them from yelling "fire". Heckuva thing though if an actual fire breaks out.

QUOTE
Forcing you to store your firearms in a reasonably safe manner- i.e.- fire safe, under lock and key, is not too onerous of a "regulation".
Really? So, you believe that the difference in time between grabbing a pistol from under the pillow as compared to going to the safe and opening the safe isn't "onerous"?

QUOTE
If a person does not store dynamite securely, and a thief steals the dynamite ( Lee Malvo actually shoplifted his bushmaster- still hard to believe that the store didn't have better loss prevention that allowed someone to shoplift an expensive gun) and that dynamite is used in a crime or irresponsibly, the owner of that dynamite will most likely face some negligence cash payouts.
"most likely"? Please, find some instance that is comparable, because I doubt that anything other than the grossest of negligence would expose the dynamite owner to a successful suit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

33 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 22nd, 2018 - 08:34 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.