A court should decide just how much assets should be forfeited. All, more than all, some, or none. Just like in any other civil trial.
āUnluckyāā¦ in what way?
IMO, thatās gonna be a pretty offensive word to use from a particular teacherās perspective.
I mean there are plenty of guns not being used to shoot at other people. I donāt think anyone should have a problem with those guns and their owners.
Iām not entirely sure what i mean. Some of it is that holding people personally responsible is not a substitute for systemic regulation. And people should not necessarily be responsible if they are unwittingly involved in an outcome that could have been prevented by that kind of regulation.
As an analogy, most people do not drive with their hands at ā10ā and ā2ā on the steering wheel at all times, even though that is probably best practice for driving. But to my knowledge, that doesnāt in and of itself create liability for the driver.
So if i own a hunting rifle, and live without children, and keep my house locked but do not keep my guns in a safe, and my teenage nephew steals the rifle and uses it to kill somebody, i donāt think i should be held to special standards of liability because i didnāt keep my guns in safe. Even if i did, was the safe high end enough? Should i have not told my nephew the combination? And so on.
But again, iām not exactly sure what i mean.
Some of these suggestions start to sound like they are designed to punish gun owners.
1 Like
Well we donāt hold the alcohol manufacturers liable for drunk driving accidents. I donāt see that it makes any more sense to hold the gun manufacturers liable unless their product malfunctions despite proper storage and maintenance and that malfunction results in death or injury.
But furnishing a weapon to someone who uses it in commission of a crime (including leaving it unlocked in your house and someone with access to your house steals it) should probably be a crime and there should certainly be civil liability.
Fixed, for accuracy.
There would have to be some nuance there.
Holding gun owners responsible would have to go along with requiring them to design guns so that they are harder to use improperly.
For example, i have read that it is very technologically feasible to make guns that only fire for certain people. Then we could hold them liable for those features working properly.
Or we could require them to make guns that do not work with illegal extended magazines (weād have to make the magazine illegal first.)
Right, but what standards does the court use? It sounded to me like legislation would establish additional responsibilities for gun owners. That could become punitive regardless of judicial involvement.
Thatās an interesting question, whether the ālocked safe in a locked houseā safe-harbor thatās been proposed ITT would be vitiated by the fact that:
- The thief is a relative of yours
- He claims you gave him the means to open the safe
- Forensics show the safe was not forced open
Your post also raises the specter of a certification program for safe models that are sufficiently secure.
Yeah, I think even now gun manufacturers can be held liable for product malfunctions. (Assuming proper care, maintenance, storage, etc.)
NO you should not have. End of story. Period.
3 Likes
My idea comes from a couple of places:
First, consider just how many gun incidents there have been where part of the story has been the shooter getting a hold of a gun when the shooter shouldnāt have been able to. Iād like to see gun owners take a few steps to reduce the frequency of such things happening.
Second, in some places there is currently an epidemic of car break-ins and thefts allegedly driven by people looking for guns to steal. Too many people keep pistols in insecure glove compartments, etc. Itās unrealistic to expect the law to imply a duty to keep firearms in properly-installed gun safes in carsā¦but itās a basic principle of gun safety that you donāt keep a gun in your glove compartment unless you can lock it.
Third, despite legislation, there are still loopholes where people who cannot legally posses firearms still are able to buy them. Iād like to close them, assuming the process to confirm eligibility is painless. (In CT, for example, the State Police have a mechanism to query eligibility status by computer or over the phone. While it could stand to be improvedā¦itās fairly quick and easy to work with.) I imagine private sellers of firearms might be more inclined to do the minimum checks if they face liability for what happens with the firearm if improperly transferred.
Itās not that complicated.
Treat the gun as a nuclear bomb.
Secure that shit.
Any accidents or theft is on you and you only.
Without harsh penalties, guns will continue to be kept recklessly, and stolen, and kids will get shot, and thoughts and prayers will continue to be heard.
At what age is it OK to tell him the combination? Under what circumstances? If he is 40 and owns guns himself, is that ok? what about if he is in high school but shoots guns competitively?
If he has mental health issues then probably i should not tell him the combination. But what is my duty to recognize that condition?
Itās all very speculative. But i think we need to start with the assumption that owning a gun is a reasonable thing to too, and that generally allow mature people access to those guns is reasonable too.
When i read this i think: nothing is more secure than a nuclear bomb. Even most governments are forbidden from having them by international treaty.
So saying a gun should be secured like a nuclear bomb is really to say: you shouldnāt really have a gun, but since we canāt keep you from having one, instead we will make the standards for keeping it so hard that itās basically impossible for most individuals.
If thatās what we want, then we should just outlaw guns. (I know we canāt do that, but we also canāt pass these other laws making people liable, so itās all just hypothetical anyway.)
Your part (2) and (3) make sense to me.
Thatās less true of part (1). Itās all very hypothetical anyway, but that category is where i read some posts that seemed more like a punishment for having a gun.
the first amendment doesnāt really stop you from having a nuclear bomb.
Owning a gun is the same thing, but with less severity.
With great severity, comes great responsibility.
Donāt assume the responsibility but still want weaponry? In jail you go. If someone dies because of your recklessness? Off with your head.
Some stats to consider:
(from https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf)
Iām looking at that 25% āobtained from individualā bucket, and possibly the 43% āunderground marketā.
My idea wouldnāt eliminate those avenuesā¦but it might reduce them somewhat.
Whenever you firmly believe that he wonāt shoot anything that youāll be held liable for,
Buy him his own fucking gun safe.
3 Likes
That starts to sound to me like strict liability for gun ownership.
One example where i find strict liability reasonable are these people who want to keep a tiger for a pet. I do not believe there is any reasonable reason to have a pet tiger, and it endangers people, so i am ok with strict liability for pet tigers.
While i can understand why some people would want to treat having a gun just like having a pet tiger, i donāt see it that way.
2 Likes
I agree with that in principle. On the other hand, i donāt think we should pass laws that expect individuals to act in too sophisticate a way.
To continue with another pet analogy: prairie dogs uses to be for sale as pets in the US. Then in 2003 they were responsible for spreading monkey pox.
Letās suppose we decide prairie dogs should no longer be pets. The way to do that is to tell pet stores they cannot sell them anymore, which is what happened.
If politically it is impossible to ban prairie dogs in pet stores, the solution in my mind is not to hold individuals strictly liable for any kind of monkey pox or similar damage that prairie dogs might do. This is because a reasonable person can look at a prairie dog, and think it is a safe pet.
To a lot of people, having a gun seems more like having a pet tiger than a pet prairie dog (or a plain canine dog.) But there are also a lot of people who grew up with guns, and who were taught to use them responsibly to hunt, etc. In other words, they are not the kind of people who want to take their guns with them to Chileās when they get dinner. To them, the gun is more like the prairie dog than the tiger. And i think that is a reasonable view too. Whatever laws limit the underground distribution of guns should consider this, in my opinion.