Best suggestion yet?

[sawdeanz]

This is one of the best opinions I've read yet, and in my opinion is a good example of what we should be doing, that is, recognizing the arguments on both sides while offering legislation that might do something.
The writer recognizes that:

We do not merely support or oppose gun control; we must decide who can own which guns under what conditions. Developing an approach that balances responsible gun ownership and public safety is essential.

and suggests

If someone's child obtains his gun and kills another, the gun owner would be financially responsible to those harmed. If someone steals an unsecured gun and kills someone in a robbery, the gun owner would owe the victim compensatory damages. If the gun owner were grossly negligent (he left it lying next to a school playground, for example), criminal charges might be imposed.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/make-gun-owners-liable-for-harm/1267170

He introduces this by comparing it to how dynamite is regulated. He also suggests the method for this implementation is setting up an insurance system for gun owners to cover the cost of the liability.

Now if you look at my post history, you will probably recognize that I am in the camp that thinks more regulations won't help, however I also think the status quo won't stand for long and that we should be involved in the upcoming debates so that useless measures like AWB aren't passed. I don't agree with all of the article's suggestions, yet I appreciate that it at least has the benefit of emphasizing the responsibility of gun ownership to those irresponsible owners who make us look bad. It also has the benefits of secure storage laws without legislating how guns are stored (i.e. if your particular situation prevents burglary then you are safe, yet that risk is on you). On the other hand requiring insurance would restrict gun owning to the elite and almost certainly price me out of gun ownership. Lastly I understand in FL that it is already illegal to leave a gun within reach of a minor.


My question is what is your opinion of the articles suggestions? I would like to write to the author suggestions and evidence to make sure any measures would not severely restrict gun owners. I would also use ideas to draft letters to representatives that might include do's and don'ts when negotiating future legislative debate.

(Please stay on topic and don't accuse me of being anti-gun. If you have legitimate arguments for or against these ideas, present them politely as I am still evaluating it myself. Sorry for the long post)

 

[Sam1911]

Hmmmm, so where do you send the bill to Adam Lanza's mother? Can we haul her butt into court, or has she already been interred?




...

I'm a big proponant of trying to hold the antis to proposing things that are strictly relevant to the tragedy they're USING to push their schemes back into discussion. "Gun show loopholes," purchase restrictions, and (in this case, especially) safe-storage measures have NOTHING to do with what happend, so every time someone tries to introduce them into the conversation we aught to HOWL and point them out as lying and opportunistic jackals.

 

[sawdeanz]

Hmmmm, so where do you send the bill to Adam Lanza's mother? Can we haul her butt into court, or has she already been interred?




...

I'm a big poponant of trying to hold the antis to proposing things that are strictly relevant to the tragedy they're USING to push their schemes back into discussion. "Gun show loopholes," purchase restrictions, and (in this case, especially) safe-storage measures have NOTHING to do with what happend, so every time someone tries to introduce them into the conversation we aught to HOWL and point them out as lying and opportunistic jackals.

As a disclaimer I personally don't think any measure could have stopped Adam. His mother obviously trusted him with a gun, no evidence that his mental status played a part, and all the popular gun control laws already on the books in CT. Adam was a freak event noone could have predicted or prevented.

But as far as the number of guns that get into criminals hands via burglary, etc. would this suggestion help?

 

[Sam1911]

As a disclaimer I personally don't think any measure could have stopped Adam. His mother obviously trusted him with a gun, no evidence that his mental status played a part, and all the popular gun control laws already on the books in CT.

Then why are we discussing it? Why are we searching so hard for MORE ways to introduce restrictions and penalties if we admit ourselves that they are IRRELEVANT?

 

[Blondie]

My first reaction is there is no god given, constitutionally-enumerated right to dynamite (unlike bearable arms).

Insurance requirements open the door to making gun ownership cost prohibited. Further, we already have civil courts to allow people to be compensated for negligence or intentional wrongdoings. If someone wants to get an unbrella policy - good, go for it. But it should not be a law.

Blonde

 

[smalls]

So if someone breaks into my house and steals my guns, you want ME to be responsible for what they do with it?

That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard yet, with all these idiotic compromises.

You beat your own argument by saying it wouldn't have done anything to stop that guy.

 

[fdashes]

^^^^^^^^

 

[Isaac-1]

First off who can own a gun, if you say criminals and people with mental illness should not own a gun, where do you draw the line, vilolent felons, some guy that was convicted of being drunk and disorderly 20 years ago, or maybe 3 or more speeding tickets. The same stands for mental health, particularly in this age of treating nearly everyone as if they have a mental condition, go in to the doctor tell him you are having trouble sleeping, and walk out with a prescription for anti-depressants, when the real problem may have been sinus pressure. Now by this happening just once in many places you have to at least jump through more hoops of gun control legislation, in my state part of the CCW process involves a questionarire that asks "have you ever been prescribed medication used to treat a mental illness", that suddenly becomes yes, and to get a CCW you now have to get a doctors note saying that its ok. Now ask yourself this, were you ever given a Xanax to calm you before a medicl procedure, or a mood altering drug even paxil, ritalin or adderal, if yes, even if it was just one pill one time, at least in my state you have to check yes when applying for a CCW permit and then get a doctor to say he thinks you should be allowed to carry a gun.

For the second part , let me ask, do we do this with automobiles, you left your keys in your car it was stolen and used to commit a crime, the theif got into a 12 car pile up after stealing your sports car,.....Ok now it was locked, but did not have an after market alarm system, was the safe certified........

 

[mnrivrat]

But as far as the number of guns that get into criminals hands via burglary, etc. would this suggestion help?

Sorry - I have top say no , it would not help.

The person who commits the crime is responsible for the outcome. Making others pay is a good living for attornies these days, but does nothing to prevent crime.

 

[waterhouse]

What other property of yours are you responsible for if someone steals it? If someone steals your car and drinks and drives and kills someone should you face intoxication manslaughter charges?

It saddens me to think that holding me responsible for being the victim of property crime is seen as a good idea.

 

[captain awesome]

Best suggestion yet?
This is one of the best opinions I've read yet, and in my opinion is a good example of what we should be doing, that is, recognizing the arguments on both sides while offering legislation that might do something.
The writer recognizes that:

Quote:
We do not merely support or oppose gun control; we must decide who can own which guns under what conditions. Developing an approach that balances responsible gun ownership and public safety is essential.
and suggests
Quote:
If someone's child obtains his gun and kills another, the gun owner would be financially responsible to those harmed. If someone steals an unsecured gun and kills someone in a robbery, the gun owner would owe the victim compensatory damages. If the gun owner were grossly negligent (he left it lying next to a school playground, for example), criminal charges might be imposed.
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/colu...r-harm/1267170

He introduces this by comparing it to how dynamite is regulated. He also suggests the method for this implementation is setting up an insurance system for gun owners to cover the cost of the liability.

Now if you look at my post history, you will probably recognize that I am in the camp that thinks more regulations won't help, however I also think the status quo won't stand for long and that we should be involved in the upcoming debates so that useless measures like AWB aren't passed. I don't agree with all of the article's suggestions, yet I appreciate that it at least has the benefit of emphasizing the responsibility of gun ownership to those irresponsible owners who make us look bad. It also has the benefits of secure storage laws without legislating how guns are stored (i.e. if your particular situation prevents burglary then you are safe, yet that risk is on you). On the other hand requiring insurance would restrict gun owning to the elite and almost certainly price me out of gun ownership. Lastly I understand in FL that it is already illegal to leave a gun within reach of a minor.


My question is what is your opinion of the articles suggestions? I would like to write to the author suggestions and evidence to make sure any measures would not severely restrict gun owners. I would also use ideas to draft letters to representatives that might include do's and don'ts when negotiating future legislative debate.

(Please stay on topic and don't accuse me of being anti-gun. If you have legitimate arguments for or against these ideas, present them politely as I am still evaluating it myself. Sorry for the long post)

NO.
The gun owner is a victim just like everyone else. The CRIMINAL is the one who is accountable, no one else. This is another example of passing the buck like too many Americans try to do these days.

 

[Warp]

Hmmmm, so where do you send the bill to Adam Lanza's mother? Can we haul her butt into court, or has she already been interred?




...

I'm a big proponant of trying to hold the antis to proposing things that are strictly relevant to the tragedy they're USING to push their schemes back into discussion. "Gun show loopholes," purchase restrictions, and (in this case, especially) safe-storage measures have NOTHING to do with what happend, so every time someone tries to introduce them into the conversation we aught to HOWL and point them out as lying and opportunistic jackals.

Agreed 100%

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

So this author is suggesting that if my apartment gets burglarized while I'm gone, say at an Army training event, the burglar steals my property, costs me money in replacing things that were stolen or destroyed in the process, and puts me through the legal and emotional roller-coaster of dealing with a break-in.....I should be the one to pay for his future crimes against others???

 

[jmorris]

What other property of yours are you responsible for if someone steals it?

Two passengers riding in a stolen car that was involved in a wreck sue the car’s 91-year-old owner

http://projects.registerguard.com/w...ddie-car-hinnenkamp-crash-cunningham.html.csp


This one is more on topic

Man Steals Gun, Accidentally Kills Himself, Family Sues

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/poli...imself-estate-sues-owner-and-gun-manufacturer


I will say the above are civil suits and much different than what the op is talking about.

 

[ngnrd]

I wish people would stop looking for ways to kow-tow to the anti-gun advocates.

As far as I'm concerned, here's the best suggestion: There are already way too many gun laws already on the books. The Government needs to stop infringing on my right to keep and bear arms. Period.

 

[sawdeanz]

I suspected that the ideas wouldn't be popular here, but now I have some good info I can use to write the author, for example the notion that the same thing might already be accomplished though civil court procedures. I think I believe now this is not really a good idea, especially based on what captain awesome and mnrivrat said.

I'm a big poponant of trying to hold the antis to proposing things that are strictly relevant to the tragedy they're USING to push their schemes back into discussion. "Gun show loopholes," purchase restrictions, and (in this case, especially) safe-storage measures have NOTHING to do with what happend, so every time someone tries to introduce them into the conversation we aught to HOWL and point them out as lying and opportunistic jackals./QUOTE]

I used to believe this was a viable strategy, but aside from a few legislators this does not seem to be the case. I am seeing more and more from media and those I have conversed with that are using this incident to examine gun control in a much broader sense, including gun crime and culture in general. Like when people ask me why the movie theater shooter should have been allowed to buy so much ammo, or why we "need" 30 round magazines or why we regulate certain things a lot but not guns.

 

[Tim the student]

So, if someone takes what is mine without my permission - I should be liable for it? Um, no.

 

[OpelBlitz]

ngnrd and Sam1911- QFT.

 

[481]

Then why are we discussing it? Why are we searching so hard for MORE ways to introduce restrictions and penalties if we admit ourselves that they are IRRELEVANT?

Your point is eloquently made- better than I could've and believe me I HAVE tried.

Kudos to you, Sam.

 

[Frank Ettin]

FYI --

In the world of Internet discussion boards, "QFT" means "Quoted For Truth."

 

[481]

Thanks, Frank!

NOW I know....

 

[OpelBlitz]

To agree with two individuals I felt made good statements? I do!

ETA - Frank explained.

 

[wankerjake]

Blaming someone who has nothing to do with the crime i.e. a victim of THEFT, for example, is the same type of thing as blaming the 30 round magazine or a "high-powered military-type assault rifle" for the crime.

Holding somebody accountable for THEIR OWN actions would be ridiculous, after all.

 

[CharlieBT]

I'm with Sam as well. These are red herrings that would have altered nothing. The OP is championing strict liability for firearm owners, a concept that applies to tigers, lions, bears and yes dynamite. Despite more than a decade of trial lawyers' and politicians' efforts, the concept has not generally been extended to civilian firearms. It is a poor idea and confuses focus on the intervening criminal acts of the people whose conduct is at issue.

 

[9MMare]

Then why are we discussing it? Why are we searching so hard for MORE ways to introduce restrictions and penalties if we admit ourselves that they are IRRELEVANT?

Exactly.

They are proposing there here in WA St already, to hold gun owners more responsible if their guns are used to harm anyone (they're not saying 'to commit a crime....they are deliberately targeting kids who get guns and harm other people.). Misdemeanor if they just get hold of the gun, felony if they harm someone.

They are knee-jerk proposing a lot here, including trying to amend the state constitution to allow communities (i.e. Seattle) to create their own gun laws.