Gun owner paranoia---

[Weatherman2020]

owner of the truck liable also?

Truck?
Depends.

A court may be able to assign liability on a degree of negligence. Depends on circumstance.
In contradistinction to a firearm weapon it would not be 'strict liabilty'.

Meaning, if you as an owner of the uniquely high-lethality firearm/weapon then you are responsible for the harm it may cause.
So if you unintentionally shoot your hunting partner.....you are, to a significant degree, - liable. Period.

If you shoot at a car-thief and the bullet hits the paperboy bicycling by......you are, in a significant degree, liable.
Period.

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

Period.

You’re either an idiot or misinformed.

 

[Rigby5]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Democrats want to ban all guns. There's no paranoia to it.

You mean all guns to ordinary honest citizens.
They do not want to ban guns to corrupt thugs the dictators hire to extort and assassinate.

 

[Rigby5]

owner of the truck liable also?

Truck?
Depends.

A court may be able to assign liability on a degree of negligence. Depends on circumstance.
In contradistinction to a firearm weapon it would not be 'strict liabilty'.

Meaning, if you as an owner of the uniquely high-lethality firearm/weapon then you are responsible for the harm it may cause.
So if you unintentionally shoot your hunting partner.....you are, to a significant degree, - liable. Period.

If you shoot at a car-thief and the bullet hits the paperboy bicycling by......you are, in a significant degree, liable.
Period.

And if some burglar breaks into your Ford 150 and steals the SigSauer under your seat and then shoots the 7-11 clerk.....you are liable. Period.
(for a degree of the liability. Your liability does not alleviate the the thief /trigger puller of any liability for the murder, or the theft.)

The thing is: Guns are uniquely lethal compared to other tools that can be weaponized. Their lethality, portability, concealability, and ease of use.......burden the owner-of-record with any harm they may be instrumental in.

Period.

Logical but flawed because the principles are not applied universally, such as when police break into Breonna Taylor's house and murder her with 13 shots even though she had violated no law and was totally unarmed.

The fact police exist does not make you more safe because they are an additional threat instead of providing protection.
So then one has no choice but to be able to defend themselves, and the fact those arms can then also be stolen to harm others, is not relevant because illegal arms smuggled by drug dealers are already ubiquitous.

Your position of making everyone safer by controlling guns more would make sense if not for the police.
Police have made themselves a much greater threat to our freedom and survival with their draconian abuse of law like their War on Drugs. Clearly armed rebellion may soon become a necessity. And the War on Drugs has caused such a flood of smuggled weapons, that is makes any attempt at any degree of gun control to be ridiculous. That would just ensure the criminals were the ONLY ones with arms, and that would be MUCH worse.

 

[bendog]

Y'all come on down to Simmons Sportin Goods fer yer huntin' needs. (and yes the young lady hunts) LOL

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Well if there is no key in the ignition left behind then the car owner CAN NOT be held responsible, it is the thief who steals it and hurt or kill people. If there is a key in the ignition and the vehicle left unattended (making it easy for car thieves to steal) then the owner is in part responsible for the attack made by a car thief because the owner made it too easy for it to happen.

Vehicles are designed and made to move people and materials from point A to point B. It was never designed to use it to hurt kill anyone, that takes a conscious effort to make it become a weapon. Vehicles are not designed for the purpose of hurting or killing living things.

Guns are made for self defense, hunt animals or attack people with lethal intentions. It is designed to hurt and kill living things.

Owners are expected to be responsible for keeping their property secured in a manner that no one else can easily take it from you, then owners will have done their responsible part to make crime harder for others to commit.

People should be held responsible for their own actions. Thieves commit a crime when they steal. The person they stole from did not commit a crime. Does not matter what was stolen or how it was or was not secured unless the owner deliberately intended for the thief to take it. What the object was designed to do also doesn't matter as long as it has legal uses. Hunting, self defense, punching holes in targets, competition, collection, investment, and art are all valid reasons to own guns. It should be obvious that the more "secure" a weapon is the less useful it is for self defense or crime prevention.
So great, secure your weapons unloaded and locked up in a vault somewhere hidden and when a gang of thugs break in, kill you, rape your wife and children, and steal everything valuable you worked all your life for but don't get your guns you will have died a responsible citizen. Right? I don't think so.

The Gun owner is responsible for maintaining control of their guns which is why there are gun ownership negligence laws in existence for those who didn't properly secure it.:

Gun Owner Liability

What is Gun Owner Negligence?
Generally, gun owners have a basic duty to care for and store guns safely, and to avoid any reasonably foreseeable dangers.

If your gun is used in a crime or an accident you could be charged with negligence. Every state differs in their level of duty of care when it comes to gun ownership. For example, California has the strictest gun laws and states such as Texas have much more lenient rules.

LINK

======

Leaving a gun under a seat of a car or in the glove box (not secured) is likely going to be considered negligent if it was stolen and then used in a crime.

 

[Rigby5]

1. you tell us the owner of a stolen gun is responsible if its used in a crime
2. then so should the owner of an automobile that is stolen and used as a getaway car our causing a traffic fatality

1. Yes.

2. Depends on circumstance and if a degree of negligence is determined in a court.
Don't equate your Ford 150 with a Glock19. They are not the same. Their defining characteristics and intent of purpose is determinatively different.

Then how come the police who shot Breonna Taylor are not in jail?
There was nothing legal about what the police did.
The War on Drugs is not even fundamentally legal because drug laws are "nanny laws" attempting to proscribe the actions and values of others, and are not based on the sound legal principles of defense of the rights of others.
They had no evidence of Breonna Taylor violating any law or harming anyone.
Breonna Taylor was unarmed and in what is supposed to be the safety of her own home.
The police violated the principles of law when they got the warrant, they violated the principles of law when they came at night, they violated the principles of law when they busted down the door, and they violated the principles of law when they fired wildly at an unarmed person.

How then can you possibly support any laws restricting guns to average people, giving these monsters an monopoly over every decent person in the country?

 

[jbrownson0831]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

You are really so dense as to have to ask that question?

 

[bendog]

1. you tell us the owner of a stolen gun is responsible if its used in a crime
2. then so should the owner of an automobile that is stolen and used as a getaway car our causing a traffic fatality

1. Yes.

2. Depends on circumstance and if a degree of negligence is determined in a court.
Don't equate your Ford 150 with a Glock19. They are not the same. Their defining characteristics and intent of purpose is determinatively different.

Then how come the police who shot Breonna Taylor are not in jail?
There was nothing legal about what the police did.
The War on Drugs is not even fundamentally legal because drug laws are "nanny laws" attempting to proscribe the actions and values of others, and are not based on the sound legal principles of defense of the rights of others.
They had no evidence of Breonna Taylor violating any law or harming anyone.
Breonna Taylor was unarmed and in what is supposed to be the safety of her own home.
The police violated the principles of law when they got the warrant, they violated the principles of law when they came at night, they violated the principles of law when they busted down the door, and they violated the principles of law when they fired wildly at an unarmed person.

How then can you possibly support any laws restricting guns to average people, giving these monsters an monopoly over every decent person in the country?

Isn't the question more of how will any restriction make it more unlikely a crime will be committed by a person with firearm?

I can be ok with background checks. But I admit that's a very small improvement, if any. But still. If a state wants to mandate guns be locked up when the owner is not home .... legally they probably can. I got no kid at home.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Agee with you because you have hidden the firearms this makes it hard for criminals to know where they are. You shouldn't be held liable if they were found and used in a crime, you had done the responsible thing by keeping them reasonably secured and out of sight.

Guns in a vehicle are easy to find and stolen in seconds after entering the vehicle, because they will be in the glove box or under the seat, that is too easy for the criminal. The owner shouldn't be leaving them in the vehicle anyway for storage in that manner, that is really dumb. They will be held responsible for not properly securing a dangerous weapon from easy theft.

A few scenarios to your comment:

I am going somewhere, and in about ten minutes realize I forgot my wallet. I turn around and go home to get it. I'm out of the car for about ten minutes and when I return, my gun that I originally brought with me and put it my console was stolen. If that gun is used in a crime, should I be charged with a criminal act?

I want to go to some specialty store. It's about 40 minutes from where I live. I take my gun with me because it's starting to get dark. I park my car, walk to the business, and am met with a NO FIREARMS ALLOWED on the glass door. By law, it would be illegal for me to enter with my gun. So I do the legally responsible thing of bringing my gun back to my car and disarming. When I get done shopping, I return to my car to find a broken window and my gun missing. I immediately report it to the police. It's used by a thug to murder somebody a week later. Should I have been obligated to drive all the way back home, and all the way back to the store to prevent something that was not likely to happen in the first place?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Agee with you because you have hidden the firearms this makes it hard for criminals to know where they are. You shouldn't be held liable if they were found and used in a crime, you had done the responsible thing by keeping them reasonably secured and out of sight.

Guns in a vehicle are easy to find and stolen in seconds after entering the vehicle, because they will be in the glove box or under the seat, that is too easy for the criminal. The owner shouldn't be leaving them in the vehicle anyway for storage in that manner, that is really dumb. They will be held responsible for not properly securing a dangerous weapon from easy theft.

A few scenarios to your comment:

I am going somewhere, and in about ten minutes realize I forgot my wallet. I turn around and go home to get it. I'm out of the car for about ten minutes and when I return, my gun that I originally brought with me and put it my console was stolen. If that gun is used in a crime, should I be charged with a criminal act?

I want to go to some specialty store. It's about 40 minutes from where I live. I take my gun with me because it's starting to get dark. I park my car, walk to the business, and am met with a NO FIREARMS ALLOWED on the glass door. By law, it would be illegal for me to enter with my gun. So I do the legally responsible thing of bringing my gun back to my car and disarming. When I get done shopping, I return to my car to find a broken window and my gun missing. I immediately report it to the police. It's used by a thug to murder somebody a week later. Should I have been obligated to drive all the way back home, and all the way back to the store to prevent something that was likely to happen in the first place?

I never said it is a criminal act, it opening to a possible negligent charge for not safeguarding the weapon properly, it is a LEGAL responsibility to keep it under control and keep it out of the hands of criminal.

I have posted about Gun Owner Liability HERE

Your scenario doesn't make you a criminal at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree with a lot of what you say about PERSONAL Responsibility, guns that are stolen too easily because they were not properly secured such as your example if being under the seat of a car, that is pretty casual ownership of a dangerous weapon that can and occasionally has been used in crime and murder in various parts of the country. In such cases the owner should get a fine for failure for keeping the gun secured and out of sight.

However if the gun was stolen from a secured place, out of sight and hard to find, the owner shouldn't be fined or arrested for it at all if a criminal manage to find it anyway and use in a major crime. The owner did their part to secure it and keep it out of sight, then that owner who was being responsible for keeping proper control of the weapon isn't a liability to society.

It's pretty easy to forget your gun is in the car. I take mine when I'm going to family gatherings such as my birthday or Christmas. My sister always makes more than enough so everybody has food to take home with them after the celebration.

I've forgotten to take my gun with me from the car on a few occasions, because I normally don't take my gun with me unless it's after sundown, or I will be returning home when it's dark. My attention is diverted to getting that food to the fridge before it goes bad, perhaps carrying some gifts I got and trying to do it all on one trip. It's late, and I live upstairs. I don't want to be going up and down the stairs at 11:00 at night, especially if I had to get up the next morning for work. The gun was the last thing I thought of.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I agree with a lot of what you say about PERSONAL Responsibility, guns that are stolen too easily because they were not properly secured such as your example if being under the seat of a car, that is pretty casual ownership of a dangerous weapon that can and occasionally has been used in crime and murder in various parts of the country. In such cases the owner should get a fine for failure for keeping the gun secured and out of sight.

However if the gun was stolen from a secured place, out of sight and hard to find, the owner shouldn't be fined or arrested for it at all if a criminal manage to find it anyway and use in a major crime. The owner did their part to secure it and keep it out of sight, then that owner who was being responsible for keeping proper control of the weapon isn't a liability to society.

It's pretty easy to forget your gun is in the car. I take mine when I'm going to family gatherings such as my birthday or Christmas. My sister always makes more than enough so everybody has food to take home with them after the celebration.

I've forgotten to take my gun with me from the car on a few occasions, because I normally don't take my gun with me unless it's after sundown, or I will be returning home when it's dark. My attention is diverted to getting that food to the fridge before it goes bad, perhaps carrying some gifts I got and trying to do it all on one trip. It's late, and I live upstairs. I don't want to be going up and down the stairs at 11:00 at night, especially if I had to get up the next morning for work. The gun was the last thing I thought of.

Gun stolen from vehicles is the most common way criminals steal a gun.

 

[justinacolmena]

I had no idea there were no laws making it illegal for felons to have guns.
In which nation does this occur?

FYI - Joe will never get my guns. I keep them upstairs.

I'm a felon but not a convicted felon. Can I still have a gun? Or am I still considered a felon even without a conviction?

 

[9thIDdoc]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

and if someone steals your car, and drives it into a crowd, you're partially responsible for any deaths and damages it causes?

Well if there is no key in the ignition left behind then the car owner CAN NOT be held responsible, it is the thief who steals it and hurt or kill people. If there is a key in the ignition and the vehicle left unattended (making it easy for car thieves to steal) then the owner is in part responsible for the attack made by a car thief because the owner made it too easy for it to happen.

Vehicles are designed and made to move people and materials from point A to point B. It was never designed to use it to hurt kill anyone, that takes a conscious effort to make it become a weapon. Vehicles are not designed for the purpose of hurting or killing living things.

Guns are made for self defense, hunt animals or attack people with lethal intentions. It is designed to hurt and kill living things.

Owners are expected to be responsible for keeping their property secured in a manner that no one else can easily take it from you, then owners will have done their responsible part to make crime harder for others to commit.

People should be held responsible for their own actions. Thieves commit a crime when they steal. The person they stole from did not commit a crime. Does not matter what was stolen or how it was or was not secured unless the owner deliberately intended for the thief to take it. What the object was designed to do also doesn't matter as long as it has legal uses. Hunting, self defense, punching holes in targets, competition, collection, investment, and art are all valid reasons to own guns. It should be obvious that the more "secure" a weapon is the less useful it is for self defense or crime prevention.
So great, secure your weapons unloaded and locked up in a vault somewhere hidden and when a gang of thugs break in, kill you, rape your wife and children, and steal everything valuable you worked all your life for but don't get your guns you will have died a responsible citizen. Right? I don't think so.

The Gun owner is responsible for maintaining control of their guns which is why there are gun ownership negligence laws in existence for those who didn't properly secure it.:

Gun Owner Liability

What is Gun Owner Negligence?
Generally, gun owners have a basic duty to care for and store guns safely, and to avoid any reasonably foreseeable dangers.

If your gun is used in a crime or an accident you could be charged with negligence. Every state differs in their level of duty of care when it comes to gun ownership. For example, California has the strictest gun laws and states such as Texas have much more lenient rules.

LINK

======

Leaving a gun under a seat of a car or in the glove box (not secured) is likely going to be considered negligent if it was stolen and then used in a crime.

As you note different States and localities have different laws governing all sorts of things including guns. At the same time the base law that governs ALL Americans is defined in the Constitution of the United States. If State or local laws infringe on the right to keep and bear arms they are not legitimate laws. In the end it is the U.S. Supreme Court that defines the legitimacy of State and local laws as they apply to US citizens.

Theft from cars is an illegal act. Having something stolen from your car is not an illegal act. Being armed is illegal in certain areas. How is a legally armed individual supposed to enter such an area without leaving the weapons in their vehicle? Don't you think criminal types are aware of this and target such vehicles for that very reason? Do you favor laws that are criminal friendly?

Negligence is mostly a civil matter. Most anybody can sue most anybody for most any reason in civil court. Including negligence of any sort. Such suits aren't worth worrying about unless you are rich famous or grossly stupid.

 

[Chillicothe]

I go out for a family doing, somebody or some people breakdown my locked door to enter my home, steal my firearms ......... If they sell my gun to a gang banger, and he kills another gang banger over a drug sale, should I be held responsible because I didn't secure my guns........?"

Yes.

However if the gun was stolen .......... the owner shouldn't be fined or arrested for it at all if a criminal manage to find it anyway and use in a major crime. The owner did their part to secure it..............

Not in my scenario.
Because of the unique defining characteristics of a firearm/weapon you are strictly liable.....regardless of how well you guarded, hid, secured that tool.
YOU were the primary agency that brought that firearm/weapon into society. Accordingly, under strict liability you share....to some degree interpreted by a court....for whatever harm or damage that results from that weapon's use.
Period.

People should be held responsible for their own actions.

Indeed, and if that action is bringing that unique high-lethality tool into our society ...... then you bear part of the responsibility if things go wrong with your tool;

".....my gun that I originally brought with me and put it my console was stolen. If that gun is used in a crime, should I be charged with a criminal act?

As Sunsettommy has responded in pretty much the vein I would have....I'll simply say: You are responsible in some degree under the rubric of negligence. Not criminality, in my hypothetical argument.

It's pretty easy to forget your gun is in the car.............I don't want to be going up and down the stairs at 11:00 at night, especially if I had to get up the next morning for work. The gun was the last thing I thought of.

In my opinion, the poster pretty much illustrates the issue that our society is struggling with vis-a-vis the imagined freedom of ownership under the 2nd Amendment. It boils down to a desire for great freedom, with minimal responsibility encumbering it.

In the hypothetical scenario offered by the poster, he....no one else.....brought that easily portable, easily concealable, easy to use, and highly lethal tool/weapon into our society. And yet is so unmindful of it's potential he forgets it. Is so unmindful of it's potential to do great harm that he doesn't want to walk downstairs to secure it.

That's my argument in a nutshell.
IF you brought it into society.
You own it.
You own it's benefits.
You own it's harms.

Period.

 

[InspectorDetector]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Chicago. When you fascists gonna control that city and the illegal guns that are bought and sold each day?

 

[InspectorDetector]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

Chicago. When you fascists gonna control that city and the illegal guns that are bought and sold each day?

My suggestion? Before you worry about the right in this country - actually STOP the illegal selling and buying of guns in the black communities in this country. Until then? Shut the hell up.

 

[freyasman]

 

[freyasman]

 

[freyasman]