Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Gazi

Gun Control: It's about time

114 posts in this topic

I mean seriously, how do you hold someone accountable for owning something and not being able to prevent it from being stolen?

Even if it's in a big fuging safe and you're the only person with the combination, it can be stolen. That logic doesn't make any fuging sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean seriously, how do you hold someone accountable for owning something and not being able to prevent it from being stolen?

Even if it's in a big fuging safe and you're the only person with the combination, it can be stolen. That logic doesn't make any fuging sense.

If, hypothetically, this were the case then I would contend that if one demonstrated reasonable measures to secure the weapon were employed then said liability would be waived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean seriously, how do you hold someone accountable for owning something and not being able to prevent it from being stolen?

Even if it's in a big fuging safe and you're the only person with the combination, it can be stolen. That logic doesn't make any fuging sense.

there can be a middle ground between "fully liable no matter what" and "not liable under any circumstance"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I agree, but that's not what he said.

There's a difference with charging someone for negligence for, say, leaving a weapon on a seat of an unlocked car and having it stolen and used in a crime - and someone who has one stolen from their locked house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charging someone with "improperly securing a firearm" or "firearm negligence" would be fine, I suppose, but adding a penalty to the original owner if they happen to be the unlucky person to have a stolen gun used in a violent crime........eh. How does this person's "crime" of having a gun stolen become worse just because the person that stole it committed a worse crime than some other person who's gun was stolen and never used in a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fug yeah. Can we also hold pharmacies that are robbed for supplies to make meth, partially accountable for manufacturing methamphetamine!?!?!?

Like an aiding an abetting charge?

How about the owners of cars that are stolen and some innocent person is killed in the high speed car chase that ensues, when the police chase the perp down?!?!

why are you afraid to keep the subject on guns? that's something that's always baffled me. just say the word "gun" and the reply is "but cars but swimming pools but pharmacies but hammers!"

what are you guys trying to avoid about the subject that you can't talk about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the next time school kids gets shot up, then what?

This will prevent absolutely nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you afraid to keep the subject on guns? that's something that's always baffled me. just say the word "gun" and the reply is "but cars but swimming pools but pharmacies but hammers!"

what are you guys trying to avoid about the subject that you can't talk about it?

I'm not a gun person, necessarily. I don't own any guns, after all.

My point was, how can you rationalize charging someone with complicity that wasn't actually involved in the crime? You can charge them with improperly storing a firearm, if it can be proven that it wasn't properly stored, but you can't just go charging someone who's gun was stolen and used in a murder while ignoring charging EVERYONE who's gun is stolen and not used in any violent way.

You have to charge everyone who has a gun stolen with the same thing. The only effect this will have is a total elimination of people reporting gun thefts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like both of these ideas. but i would extend the line of liability to the owner of stolen guns, too. if you have a gun "stolen" from you that is later used to murder someone, you should have some liability. two reasons: 1. so many 'stolen' guns are really sold and just reported stolen. and 2. if it really is stolen, you still should have some liability due to your inability to handle owning such a thing without having it stolen. if enriched uranium is left laying around the pentagon cafeteria and someone takes it, it's not an 'oh well, hope nobody kills somebody with it' situation. there's liability involved.

Lol. That has gotta be the most rediculous thing I've read in the tinderbox and that's saying a lot.

Yeah, let's punish victims now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a gun person, necessarily. I don't own any guns, after all.

My point was, how can you rationalize charging someone with complicity that wasn't actually involved in the crime? You can charge them with improperly storing a firearm, if it can be proven that it wasn't properly stored, but you can't just go charging someone who's gun was stolen and used in a murder while ignoring charging EVERYONE who's gun is stolen and not used in any violent way.

You have to charge everyone who has a gun stolen with the same thing. The only effect this will have is a total elimination of people reporting gun thefts.

if they don't report the gun theft then guess who it points to as the last owner when it's used in a crime?

you're probably right in that it's not a realistic real world solution. but i don't think 'it was locked in my house' should be absolution of any responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites