Mother of school shooter found guilty.

[Lord-Humungus]

Very simple, you have a gun safe where your unloaded firearms are kept when not in use with the ammo in a separate locked box. Only the safe owner has and knows the whereabouts of the keys. And this case is the reason why.

I bet the parent now wishes she was sensible with firearms.

That’s is stupid overkill

 

[Couchpotato]

That’s is stupid overkill

Its the standard in most of these states that have the storage rules.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

airplanemechanic is dead wrong. She failed to meet a reasonable parent standard.

10 years at a minimum.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

Its the standard in most of these states that have the storage rules.

No it’s not. What state requires guns in one spot ammo in another? Here in VA we have storage laws and they don’t require any type of safe

 

[Kilroy2]

In other words the 2nd Amendment is only for people who have enough money.. Nice. This feels like a law that would disproportionately affect people of color. It's clearly racist.

You seem to thing gun securing devices are expensive. Devices run from 15 to 50 dollars for trigger locks or a safe which comes in various sizes can cost from 60 dollars up to 5000 dollars.

so anyone can afford it. As long as the device secures the gun, they should be good in regards to this particular law in certain states.

They just have to take the issue seriously.

 

[Captain Caveman]

That’s is stupid overkill

It isn't because it greatly reduces gun incidents. Do you know how I know? I just posted the law here in the UK on gun safety.

Typical US school bus

 

[Couchpotato]

No it’s not. What state requires guns in one spot ammo in another? Here in VA we have storage laws and they don’t require any type of safe

Michigan

Michigan is missing several key gun violence prevention policies. See which gun laws Michigan has enacted.

everytownresearch.org

Virginia

Virginia has made great strides to reduce gun violence and has the 14th strongest gun safety laws. See which gun laws Virginia has enacted.

everytownresearch.org

According to this website quite a few states require it. They might be wrong I guess.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

Michigan

Michigan is missing several key gun violence prevention policies. See which gun laws Michigan has enacted.

everytownresearch.org

Virginia

Virginia has made great strides to reduce gun violence and has the 14th strongest gun safety laws. See which gun laws Virginia has enacted.

everytownresearch.org

According to this website quite a few states require it. They might be wrong I guess.

Not all gun owners would have to lock up their firearms. Case in point wife and I in VA have no minor kids at home so we are not required to have a safe or store guns in a certain way. The Michigan law does not require separate ammo and gun storage.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

It isn't because it greatly reduces gun incidents. Do you know how I know? I just posted the law here in the UK on gun safety.

View attachment 898639

Typical US school bus

Are you always a liar or is it just on the subject of guns when you can’t be honest?

 

[Chillicothe]

I didn't wade through all 10 pages of responses here.
But, I do concur with the jury. This was criminal negligence at the least.

The mother knew the kid was troubled. I've read the father bought the gun for the kid. But she took him to the gun range. The trigger-lock that came with the gun.....was still unopened it's original packaging. On the day of the shooting the mother was called to the school as the kid had been observed making drawings of shootings and writing 'blood everywhere'. She sat in the office with the kid in front of school administration. She did not tell the officials that the kid had access to the gun. Or that it might be in the backpack. She did not volunteer to take the kid home that afternoon. She left him there.

I concur wholeheartedly with the jury. Owning a gun is different than owning a car. Or scissors. Or a ball bat.
Owning a gun loads the owner with a big big pile of responsibility. She did not heed or respect that.

Since this tragedy Michigan has a passed a new law (I don't have all the details, just headlines).....but the law states that if a minor obtains one's gun by any action and causes harm with it.....then you, the owner of record, will be criminally liable.

That is a common sense law. If one has a gun(s) in their home, vacation home, pick-up truck....wherever ......and it is not properly secured and bad juju by a minor happens with it....well, that's on you.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

That is a common sense law. If one has a gun(s) in their home, vacation home, pick-up truck....wherever ......and it is not properly secured and bad juju by a minor happens with it....well, that's on you.

I would agree to a point, however if your gun is sitting on the seat of your car and someone walks buy and steals it and uses it for bad juju then it is not on the gun owner. He was a victim of a crime it’s all on the criminal

 

[Crepitus]

THE KILLING OF A HUMAN.

She DID NOT kill a human. Her son did.

What if she lent him the keys to the car to go pick up a pizza and he mowed down people at a rock concert? Would she still be guilty? This is a HUGE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

She participated.

This isn't rocket science Mang.

 

[Chillicothe]

I would agree to a point, however if your gun is sitting on the seat of your car and someone walks buy and steals it and uses it for bad juju then it is not on the gun owner. He was a victim of a crime it’s all on the criminal

Respectfully, I would demur on a couple of your points.

First, I am all for "strict liability".....meaning if ANY bad juju comes by anybody....from the gun of the owner-of-record then the OOR is on the hook for a significant share of the liability. That means.....even if it is stolen from the OOR. NOT all of the liability....after all, the trigger-puller bears the most liability. But the OOR is not home free whatsoever.

Anyway, that is not at issue in this Michigan case, nor with the Michigan law I briefly referenced.

If one's gun is sitting on the seat of the car and is stolen.......it is a theft by the thief, but it is negligence by the gun owner. It is easy to see why that would be.
It's a friggin' gun, for Chrissakes.
It is left on the seat of a car!
The owner ain't there to secure it.
Clearly, negligence.

The Michigan law ....I think....ain't a 'strict liability' situation as I describe above. I think the OOR in that case, is fairly well sheltered from liability if the gun is adequately secured. (I have no idea what 'adequately' would entail vis-a-vis the Michigan law.)

 

[Crepitus]

I would agree to a point, however if your gun is sitting on the seat of your car and someone walks buy and steals it and uses it for bad juju then it is not on the gun owner. He was a victim of a crime it’s all on the criminal

Lack of reasonable precautions would incriminate the owner.

 

[Crepitus]

She didnt provide it in order for him to shoot up a school.

If you buy your kid a car and he intentionally uses it to kill someone are you at fault for having purchased the car?

False equivalences are still false.

I just checked.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

Respectfully, I would demur on a couple of your points.

First, I am all for "strict liability".....meaning if ANY bad juju comes by anybody....from the gun of the owner-of-record then the OOR is on the hook for a significant share of the liability. That means.....even if it is stolen from the OOR. NOT all of the liability....after all, the trigger-puller bears the most liability. But the OOR is not home free whatsoever.

Anyway, that is not at issue in this Michigan case, nor with the Michigan law I briefly referenced.

If one's gun is sitting on the seat of the car and is stolen.......it is a theft by the thief, but it is negligence by the gun owner. It is easy to see why that would be.
It's a friggin' gun, for Chrissakes.
It is left on the seat of a car!
The owner ain't there to secure it.
Clearly, negligence.

The Michigan law ....I think....ain't a 'strict liability' situation as I describe above. I think the OOR in that case, is fairly well sheltered from liability if the gun is adequately secured. (I have no idea what 'adequately' would entail vis-a-vis the Michigan law.)

I would disagree the thief stole the gun so all the responsibility is on them. Do t take what’s not yours and this isn’t a issue

 

[Kilroy2]

Not all gun owners would have to lock up their firearms. Case in point wife and I in VA have no minor kids at home so we are not required to have a safe or store guns in a certain way. The Michigan law does not require separate ammo and gun storage.

You say no minor kids but just to clarify Michigan defines kids as Under 18. If you have children who are over 18 living in your home then gun locks would not be required.

Does mean that you can't buy a lock or safe.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

You say no minor kids but just to clarify Michigan defines kids as Under 18. If you have children who are over 18 living in your home then gun locks would not be required.

Does mean that you can't buy a lock or safe.

18 you are an adult so I would see zero reason to require gun locks or safes. In my personal opinion the age to require firearms be locked up is anyone under the age of when a person is required to purchase a hunting license, but that’s my opinion. It’s also my opinion that it’s a good practice to keep guns not in use in a safe or locked even if you don’t have kids.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Are you always a liar or is it just on the subject of guns when you can’t be honest?

Which is the lie, safer guns in the UK as the stats prove, or the sarcastic picture of a US school bus with the winking eye (did that bit of sarcasm clear your head at 33,000 feet?)

She wasn't a responsible gun owner, say paid the price. This conviction might make others buckle their ideas up, especially if more cases follow.

Are you annoyed she was found guilty?

 

[Chillicothe]

I would disagree the thief stole the gun so all the responsibility is on them. Do t take what’s not yours and this isn’t a issue

---------------------------------------------------------
Well, as I posted, I am a believer in 'strict liability'......you own the gun, you own the benefits of that gun, and you own the harms of that gun. Period.

Sure, it could be stolen out of your pick-up, even your bedside nightstand. But, if it is used to shoot the 7/11 clerk the owner of record bears a share of the liability for that harm. Period.

Guns must come with a higher burden of responsibility than say, vehicles, ball bats, knives. All of which can kill or injure. But guns are different. We all know that. They have a purpose. We know what that is and thus we assume the responsibility that they are secured for only that purpose.....and not allowed through negligence or mendacity to be used outside of that purpose. We own the gun. We know it's potential for harm. It's lethality. And, we chose to introduce it to our society, our community. Therefore, own a responsibility for its harms.

That is not to say that if some thief steals from the front seat of your F-150 and then kills his cheating girlfriend that the 'owner-of-record' is wholly responsible for the harm done to her. No. Rather, he shares in the liability. The trigger-puller bears most of the liability and needs be punished accordingly. But a degree of penalty must fall upon the OOR who failed to take enough measures to secure the weapon.

IMHO