View Poll Results: Should Failure to secure your guns properly make you liable to the same penalty?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    10 55.56%
  • No

    6 33.33%
  • Maybe...I'll answer in a post

    2 11.11%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
Thanks Tree30Thanks

Thread: Should Failure to secure your guns properly make you liable to the same penalties?

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,570
    Thanks
    23319

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    People who fail to adhere to manufacturers and indeed the NRA's recommendations for safe gun storage should be prosecuted. The information has been out there for years, so nobody can plead ignorance. The first half-dozen or so (with plenty publicity) should tighten things up a lot.

  2. #12
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,432
    Thanks
    31197

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I'm thinking of extreme cases where the gun owner does not exercise "Reasonable" efforts to secure his weapon.

    The Parkland shooting leaps to mind where the father gave the gun back to his son after a court took it away.
    Well, if the father actually gave the gun back to his son, then we are talking about an entirely different scenario. That is not failure to secure, but could arguably involve culpable mental state for charging the father with a separate crime. And creating such a public duty to secure in those circumstances, I have no problem with.
    Thanks from Friday13, Devil505, Blues63 and 1 others

  3. #13
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,432
    Thanks
    31197

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Using the Parkland scenario I would say yes....the same penalty as his shooter son.

    Make an example of the guy to scare others into being responsible or face heavy prison time.
    I don't think that is much of an arguable case unless the father knew his son was going to do it, and gave him the gun with that intent. Accomplice liability requires specific intent, whereas principal liability requires only general intent, so prosecuting the father would presently be much harder than the shooter himself.
    Thanks from Southern Dad

  4. #14
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    69,255
    Thanks
    33522

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Not in that case but if you don't even try to safely store your guns and have a teen with problems you should be more responsible.

    Case by case issue.
    Well, now you are changing the parameters of your initial statement.
    Thanks from Southern Dad

  5. #15
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    28,134
    Thanks
    9158

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As the actual shooter?
    I'd say no.

    I still think you should be liable for something... something serious enough to deter people from being careless. But, neglecting to put away your firearm, losing control of it to a burglar or someone in your household... is not equal to the other person leveling that firearm and shooting at another.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    15,120
    Thanks
    5577

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As the actual shooter?
    well, no. should a negligence penalty be considered - maybe, depending on the circumstances. it's a difficult question and this is one where one size definitely doesn't fit all. legally, it could be a nightmare to enforce or prosecute.
    Last edited by bonehead; 19th May 2018 at 01:57 AM.
    Thanks from Devil505

  7. #17
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    37,011
    Thanks
    7572

    From
    Shady Dale, Georgia
    Financial ruin from civil liability is a real possibility in these cases but not criminally prosecuted for the murders.

  8. #18
    SPOCK! Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21,131
    Thanks
    9043

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    No, not "as liable," but it should still be considered a crime if the gun is used in a shooting of another human. Also, there are different lengths a gun owner can go to secure their weapon. I think this should be case by case.
    Thanks from Devil505

  9. #19
    Retired Admin Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,131
    Thanks
    23956

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As the actual shooter?
    Not the same. But pretty severe.

  10. #20
    Retired Admin Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,131
    Thanks
    23956

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I'm thinking of extreme cases where the gun owner does not exercise "Reasonable" efforts to secure his weapon.

    The Parkland shooting leaps to mind where the father gave the gun back to his son after a court took it away.
    That was the father of the Waffle House shooter.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 104
    Last Post: 9th December 2016, 11:24 PM
  2. Private Police: They Carry Guns and Make Arrests
    By HenryPorter in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18th April 2016, 03:55 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 8th December 2015, 03:00 AM
  4. Wait! Guns DON'T make you safer?!?!
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 3rd August 2015, 05:13 AM
  5. More Than 6 in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer
    By mrmike in forum Current Events
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 9th November 2014, 07:48 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed