Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Strict liability -- help me flesh out my idea
Okay so I personally would support an assault weapons ban. I don't like guns period but as long as there's a second amendment I'm okay with hunting rifles and the like. But I also like the idea of making any offenses resulting from firearm misuse a strict liability crime. I'm an attorney and we studied this in law school-- many states have strict liability for pitbulls for example. You own a pitbull = you're responsible for anything that dog does. Period. So in the gun situation, if you own a gun, you're responsible regardless of who commits the act. This would maybe discourage gun ownership. And it would encourage gun owners to be ultra responsible since they're the ones ultimately on the hook. Thoughts?
Re: Strict liability -- help me flesh out my idea
I don't think it is an inherently bad idea. I think part of the process though is going to be fleshing out a precise and exact definition of what is considered an assault weapon. Technically anything could really be an assault weapon.
So, let's say Ms. Lanza, the mother who was murdered by her son LIVED in Newtown, CT. He stole her LEGALLY owned weapons and killed 26 other people in the elementary school. His mother should be responsible for that?
Or, you have a legally owned and registered hand gun and you are on your way home from a legal shooting range and have a car accident. A civilian first responder steals your hand gun while you're unconscious...and uses it to commit a crime. You should be responsible for that?
Or, a burglar breaks into your home and somehow manages to break through your security measures that lock away your weapons and steals them and later uses them to commit a crime. The absent homeowner abising by laws should face legal penalties? Let's say this person is a single parent. What becomes of their kid(s)? Social services?
And I could probably think of more examples, but I think the point is clear...
I get the dog thing. But it's a living creature subject to behave on its own desires and instincts. So, an owner who chooses to own this sort of dog has to be responible for its behaviors.
A gun only "acts" IF the trigger is pulled or if it is carried somewhere in the commital of a crime. A gun is a tool in the hands of its user. A dog is a living creature subject to act out on its own accord.
If the user of a gun uses it for bad than THAT user should be held responsible, not the legal owner of the gun.
I also want to add what a huge burden this would be on an already overloaded justice system. There are as many guns in ownership as there are citizens of this nation. We have bigger legal battles to fight than going after legally owned guns owned by responsible citizens...drugs, human trafficking, and child abuse would be some huge ones. I would hate to see resources moved away from these battles to fight an imaginary one on upstanding American citizens who choose to own weapons.
The battle should not be against legal gun owners.
Under this idea, yes, she'd be responsible. So I think she would have thought twice about not properly locking up her gun and she might not have taken her mentally ill son to the shooting range with her legally-purchased weapons. The pitbull example is just one example. We have strict liability concepts elsewhere in the law where culpability is imputed to a non-actor. It's not a new concept but its application to guns would be and I think it might be something to look into. The basic premise is: you want an assault weapon, semi-automatic weapon? Ok but you're responsible. If you want to play with fire own up to anything that results from it.
We have a similar work policy (yes yes I know it's a work policy, not a law, but it could be applied to the law): my laptop is my responsibility. If it gets hacked (even if it's a third party that I had nothing to do with), I am responsible. That motivates employees to keep their passwords protected, not travel with it unnecessarily in my car, etc.
Thanks for your questions--I'm still thinking all of this through.
In this nation we make a big deal about making sure someone is innocent until proven guilty and making sure that an innocent person does not go to jail or receve the death penalty for something they did not do. It's a huge thing to be convicted of a crime you did not do.
Sending someone to jail, or worse, for a crime they did not commit is pretty much the same.
I agree that her parenting choices were stupid and she was definitely a piss poor gun owner, but should she face life in prison or death for a crime her crazy son committed (if she had lived)? I still think no.
Should an off-duty cop be prosecuted if a bad guy gets ahold of his/her off-duty weapon and uses it in a crime? Carrying an off-duty weapon is a personal choice.
Should a retired/decorated military person be prosecuted for a crime if one of their weapons were stolen and used in a crime? Many former military still own weapons.
Should an FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer) pilot be prosecuted for a crime s/he did not commit if their weapon were stolen? Being an FFDO is a personal choice.
Again, the guns are TOOLS in the hands of users. Users should be prosecuted if these tools are used to commit crime.
And, anything can be used in an assult. Guns are probably most likely but if your kid stole a kitchen knife and stabbed a kid at school, should you go to jail? Under your premise, then yes, you should.
I understand your laptop example. But, life in prison and death penalty are a lot worse than job loss/fines. I'd guess your company isn't going to pay prosecute you if you made a mistake with your computer. Now, if you SOLD the data, then that's a different situation. But if you lost the data, that's different. Anyway, you wouldn't face jail time or death over it. It's not apples to apples.
I see your point. I think it's an interesting take on the big debate right now and I do appreciate your engagement on it and your polite response to my PP.
With what the OP is proposing, then Yes, ML, all those people would be liable.
I like the idea, but I don't think it would work. I think it would be a good idea to a point, but I don't think the criminal liability for the gun owner should be the same as the actual criminal. For example, if your gun is stolen to commit murder, I don't think you should be charged with murder. However, I can see charging someone with a misdemeanor and requiring them to take a certain number of gun safety classes and perform community service.
There needs to be a high level of personal responsibility for all gun owners. If you own a gun, you better be extremely careful with it. If someone else uses your gun in a crime, then yes, you should have some level of responsibility.
Instead of the gun owners, make the parents responible. If they can carry health insurance on the childern until 26, then they can be responsible for their actions until that age.
This could go for crimes besides gun violence.
lolwut? So what happens if you are not on your parent's health insurance? Are they still liable?
The sticky point is defining a "irresponsible" gun owner. What is "irresponsible?" If a person takes reasonable measures to lock away and store their gun, and it's still taken, then what? Or, if someone is in transit and has an accident and a gun is stolen (like in my PP), then what? Or if someone is assulted and sadly their gun is taken, then what? Are these people "irresponsible?" See my examples in the PPs. The fact is, crap happens.
Being liable for what other people do with your stuff isn't a new idea. Even for guns.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/127565/
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Gun-owner-charged-in-shootings-at-Ross-Elementary-1692198.php
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/02/charge-filed-poways-luke-lipscomb-case/
People with pools in their yards generally face liability for what happens in those pools, even if it happens without their consent.
Alcohol vendors can be held civilly liable for their patrons' drunken actions after being served (see 'dram shop laws/liability').
People should absolutely be responsible for what happens with their deadly weapons- to a reasonable extent. It should be demonstrable that you stored your weapons responsibly- i.e. you have a gun safe and it was clearly busted, not "but it was hidden in my sock drawer!". And if you have a firearm get stolen, you should absolutely be obligated to report it so as to limit your personal culpability in what may then happen with that weapon.
News flash: now that the government is mandating health insurance, should the federal government be responsible for kids on federal plans, or mandated ones, if they commit a crime? Under your idea - yes.
People at a young age, can and should, take responsibility for their actions and be held accountable for their choices.
Parents, some really good great parents, still have rotten apples. It happens. Making a parent responsible for a kid's crime makes no sense.
I didn't see this part of your post because I think it was added later but in any event, that's the point of strict liability - it wouldn't be burdensome to prove: you own the gun, you're responsible = period. No need to prove mens rea. That's what strict liability means. Now, we can have them be liable for a lesser crime but it has to be more than a slap on the wrist. There have to be real teeth, real consequences (jail time plus fines) for it to work. This isn't an imaginary problem, either, and while there are certainly many ills and injustices that need to be addressed, we cannot turn a blind eye to the staggering statistics on the number of people who die everyday by a bullet in this country. This is real and this is epidemic (gun deaths that is) and I really don't want my children growing up in a world where they have to worry about being hit with a bullet. They have a right to life and liberty. If people choose to own a gun that has the power to take away life, then they need to be on the hook, responsible and competent (see my posts above). With power comes responsibility.
This is what baffles my mind, everyone here realizes that guns aren't the only thing that can be used to kill right? I could kill someone with my bare hands if I wanted to. So if you own a kitchen knife, you obviously want to kill someone. I grew up around guns and my father owns many "assault" weapons and never once thought about killing someone. Difference is, I was taught about them: How to use them, treat them like they're always loaded etc. it's not the guns, it's the people.
Point is, if someone wants to kill they're going to. It doesn't matter if they use a gun, a car, a knife, a jump rope, etc.
Wrong. If someone wants to kill and can only get a hold of a jump rope, they won't be slaughtering 26 people in an elementary school. Even with a knife, you need closer range and better accuracy, and more time in between victims than just spraying bullets around a classroom full of 6 year-olds. It does matter what is readily available to whom.
But I do so love the "there will always be murder, so let's make it as easy as possible for the murderers" argument.
Read through my posts and hopefully you will understand my point. If not, I really can't help you but here's my attempt to unbaffle your mind: The sole purpose of a gun is to end another life. I think your hands, fists, knives etc. have other purposes. What other purpose does a gun have other than ending life? There is no other purpose. Objects that have the power and sole purpose of ending life require regulation. That's great you had a responsible parent -- my point is you should be required by law to do those things (i.e. safekeeping, training, background checks, tracking, all of it etc.) with sole-purpose killing machines that you choose to own.
And all of this too!
Yes, because I obviously believe that murder is awesome and we shouldn't try to stop it! Thanks for putting words into my mouth. FYI, the sole purpose of guns is not to kill. Otherwise, I wouldn't be competing at 3 gun shoots or trap shooting without killing people. It's pretty insulting and very ignorant to think that if you own an assault weapon then that automatically means you want to kill someone. I'm sorry if you've never been around a gun and they scare you, but I carry my glock everywhere and feel safer for doing so. Obviously, it's not the laws that are already in place that keep me from killing someone, it's my own common sense and moral values.
Gun control is a good idea when you first hear it, and then you actually think about it and realize that it's really not. Every one of those recent shootings were done by people who were not in their right mind, either mentally ill or on medication (or both), why not address this?
A government that doesn't trust its own nation is a scary thing indeed.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Like it or not, nations have used "gun control" as a way to kill its' civilians. You can make yourself feel better by thinking that we are civilized enough that our government wouldn't do that, but it's happened before and history likes to repeat itself. Also, our government has proved over and over again that they think they're better than the average joe by writing laws that apply to everyone else but them.
Also, what I was trying to say before comes across better with this quote: "gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
Oh and FYI when I got my concealed carry permit I had to have taken hunters saftey or a gun carrying class, I got my fingerprints taken and they did a background check. So it is already very well tracked. My point is that none of those things made me not shoot someone, it kept an honest person honest.
"When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them." And no one will be able to protect themselves...
First off, I apologize if I offended you. That wasn't my intention. I recognize that shooting a gun is a sport and that's nice, but the gun is a machine that is designed to kill, is it not? Even if it's just a sport, trap shooting, target practice, etc. -- isn't the design of the gun, etc. for the purpose of killing? I'm not saying that those who own guns want to kill...I'm saying they now have a machine/instrument/tool that allows them to do it. There's a big difference.
Your experience with guns is very different than mine. I respect your sport/hunting, etc. For me, it's a very personal story and one I don't like to share but I was carjacked a few years ago. You're right, guns scare the crap out of me because I had one in my face when I least expected it. And that's why I feel strongly about the issue. And, just in case you were inclined, please do not try to convince me I need a gun to protect myself. That might work for you and many others, but for me (and many others), I would not feel safer if I had a gun.
Thanks.
Once again:
No one is talking about outlawing guns. No one could be talking about taking away the guns you already own. Ex post facto laws, yo.
A government that doesn't trust it's own people is scary, and is probably not trustworthy itself. But what about when the people don't trust each other? Does the government then have an obligation to, just maybe, make it a little harder for thousands of its people to be murdered every year, by its own people? Why does Joe Schmo's right to own 30-round magazines and twelve assault rifles outweigh my right to not be shot in a movie theater? Or my kid to be shot at school?
And is it scary that the government doesn't trust its people enough to give them fully automatic rifles? Where exactly is the limit on reasonable possession of a firearm? Of any other weapon? Should anything readily available to the military be available to the average citizen? Can I go out and buy a howitzer now? Why is talking about reinstating a 10-year ban on assault weapons stripping away those precious 2nd amendment rights? Does that mean we didn't have them before 2004? Or does it just mean that people somehow found it in themselves to be contented with not owning assault weapons while still being able to own whatever the hell else they pleased?
What?
Concentrating on mental health is a great idea. Let's get someone on that.
Oh wait, we don't want to spend money on that either? Well f*@#.
I'm sorry that you felt like you needed to use that much sarcasm and condecension in your post.
"Why does Joe Schmo's right to own 30-round magazines and twelve assault rifles outweigh my right to not be shot in a movie theater? Or my kid to be shot at school?"
That's kind of a weird "right", to not get shot. But I understand what you're saying and there is in fact already a law (but of course not everyone follows laws) in place about murder. And actually it wasn't Joe Schmo, who followed all the laws and legally owns his rifles/magazines, who went into the theater/school. It was someone who wanted to kill so they found a way. Of course no on wants those terrible things to happen, but putting more useless laws in place will not stop it either, it will just create more laws for law abiding citizens. The fault here is not of the gun. It is of the person who chose to do it, maybe his/her mental illness, maybe his/her medication, maybe his/her lack of parental guidance/discipline.
Also, the government isn't "giving" people "assault" weapons. People are going out and buying them legally. If you don't want to own an assault rifle, then don't buy/own one. But it's really insulting saying that I shouldn't have one because you(general) don't understand/are scared of/ were never taught about guns. My grandpa, then dad and then myself and my sister will have all had these guns and none of us and none of our guns were ever used to kill anyone.
"What?
Concentrating on mental health is a great idea. Let's get someone on that.
Oh wait, we don't want to spend money on that either? Well f*@#. "
I'm trying to understand this one and its sarcasm. Do you or don't you think that's a good idea? Did I say anything about spending money on that? Maybe you can help me out with what you meant.
Hope you don't mind if I jump in here:
"actually it wasn't Joe Schmo, who followed all the laws and legally owns his rifles/magazines, who went into the theater/school. It was someone who wanted to kill so they found a way." I think the Aurora shooter had obtained his weapons legally but in any event I think this is the reason why gun control advocates want more regulations...maybe if restrictions were tighter, they wouldn't have had a mechanism at their fingertips to carry out their desire to kill. Maybe it would have been harder for them to get their hands on a weapon. Gun control advocates want people, even law-abiding ones, to have to meet a certain threshold in order to hold the power that a gun holds. We don't know the laws are "useless" unless we try and try harder. And in my mind if it prevents even just one tragedy from happening, it's worth it.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...? Or if we'd rather be technical about Constitutional rights and all, the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I do not find an epidemic of gun violence very conducive to domestic tranquility or the general welfare.
But why are guns the only place we use this logic? People want to drive cars unsafely, they will, but we still have seatbelt laws, speed limits, child safety laws, pedestrian laws... Let's not regulate something because the laws will just be broken? I mean, I guess we can trust the average citizen to drive at a reasonable speed if we took away speed limits. Can probably trust them to stop at intersections too without wasting money on electricity for stop lights.
Frankly, complaining that the "law-abiding citizen" now has more laws to follow is sickening to me. The law-abiding citizen wants to own a deadly weapon. It should be hard to get one. There should be strict regulations on properly acquiring, storing, and using it. And no matter what else we desperately try to blame for gun violence, the accessibility to the gun is still responsible for part of it. Every country in the world has people who are as f'ed up as we do and they see this kind of nonsense far less frequently.
But here is where I'm confused- you're changing your tune now. Are you saying that gun control laws are violating your 2nd amendment rights? Or that they're ineffective? Both? Make one case or the other. My post was about how absurd it is that people think gun control is a violation of an ill-defined amendment that gives no specifics about the type of firearm they might own, just that they have a right to own one(or several). Not whether the proposed legislation will actually work. Maybe it won't. I doubt the effects would be visible for years to come. What it won't do, however, is make the situation worse. When's the last time some good samaritan stopped a mass shooting with a 30-round magazine assault rifle?
And between 1994 and 2004, you could not go out and buy one legally. This is not a new concept. There was a reason for that. We somehow contented ourselves with all the other gun options out there and the government didn't take over the country.
Of course I think it's a good idea. But if there's one thing that's more threatening to our freedoms in this country than telling us we can't buy any type of gun ever invented, it's socialism. How else do you propose fixing health care if we don't make it actually accessible and affordable to everyone?
This is a whole other can of worms that we probably shouldn't start on this thread. I agree there needs to be a change, a big change. I don't agree with obamacare (I'm catholic so go figure lol), but I'm not helpful either because I don't have a valid/reasonable solution either...