General Gun Violence/Gun Control #2

[Laughing]

It is already widely accepted that gun-owners would be held liable for any issues that result from leaving a firearm unsecured.

And -- here on WS, we are expected to be victim-friendly.

Apparently now, if a thief breaks into a car & steals a coat or a CD, that thief is a criminal.

If the same thief breaks into a car & steals a legally held firearm -- now the owner of the car is a criminal???


Do you believe that a woman's outfit or gait excuses a rapist, btw?

@Cota332 , do you live in the USA? Some of the posters here hardest after my civil rights do not.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Cota332]

And -- here on WS, we are expected to be victim-friendly.

Apparently now, if a thief breaks into a car & steals a coat or a CD, that thief is a criminal.

If the same thief breaks into a car & steals a legally held firearm -- now the owner of the car is a criminal???


Do you believe that a woman's outfit or gait excuses a rapist, btw?

@Cota332, do you live in the USA? Some of the posters here hardest after my civil rights do not.

jmho ymmv lrr

Born and Raised in California

 

[DFWNF]

The point was that individual firearm owners are already being held liable if found that they did not take necessary measures to properly secure a firearm that ended up being used in an incident.

That is not enough imo. How much time do they serve? Do they get life sentences? Edited to post how much time do they serve.

 

[Cota332]

That is not enough imo. Do they get life sentences?

Just to be clear, are you advocating that firearm owners be incarcerated for life because of a crime that somebody else committed?

 

[Lexiintoronto]

That is not enough imo. Do they get life sentences?

“At least two people in Maine may have broken U.S. federal laws by helping a Nova Scotia man obtain two of the guns he used during the April 2020 rampage that left 22 people dead, a CBC News investigation has found — though it appears unlikely they will face charges.
[…]
A retired U.S. federal prosecutor said that's not entirely surprising. Margaret Groban said firearms offences rarely end up in U.S. courts unless the accused is considered a risk to the community.”

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6433463

This is my first personal exposure to Americans not being charged for a firearm offence that took place here. The Canadians who supplied ammunition to him were charged.

 

[DFWNF]

Just to be clear, are you advocating that firearm owners be incarcerated for life because of a crime that somebody else committed?

I have a question, do you mean a crime someone else committed with their unsecured gun?

 

[Cota332]

I have a question, do you mean a crime someone else committed with their unsecured gun?

Consider this scenario :
- *unwittingly drops my car keys while unlocking the front door to my house*
- an individual with ill-intentions happens to spot those keys, and subsequently steals my vehicle.
- While on a pursuit with police, the suspect then intentionally careens my stolen vehicle into a crowd, killing two people and maiming more.

Should I then be charged with murder because an opportunistic thief happened upon my keys, and decided to utilize it for misdeeds?

 

[Laughing]

Tell me who you believe is the criminal here -- the 2 men shooting at the homeowner, or the homeowner?

Seems that LA County has an issue with defending your home from intruders?

Dad losing gun permit after viral video defending family sparks outrage

The National Rifle Association posted a video to X on Friday where Vince Ricci spoke about the attempted robbery.

www.newsweek.com

The homeowner has a fence, in a gated community -- yet 2 trespassers crossed both and threatened the homeowner and a 5 month old baby.


What is your plan for stopping intruders from crossing fences to threaten homeowners with firearms?

The firearms held by the INTRUDERS are the problem.

The legally held firearm used by the homeowner protected the family & the home.

Still waiting to hear actual suggestions for legislation that would curb gun crime without carving on my civil rights, and the civil rights of Mr. Ricci, and the civil rights of many other taxpaying citizens.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Cota332]

“At least two people in Maine may have broken U.S. federal laws by helping a Nova Scotia man obtain two of the guns he used during the April 2020 rampage that left 22 people dead, a CBC News investigation has found — though it appears unlikely they will face charges.
[…]
A retired U.S. federal prosecutor said that's not entirely surprising. Margaret Groban said firearms offences rarely end up in U.S. courts unless the accused is considered a risk to the community.”

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6433463

This is my first personal exposure to Americans not being charged for a firearm offence that took place here. The Canadians who supplied ammunition to him were charged.

A great example that enforcing existing laws should have much higher focus than enacting new ones.

 

[DFWNF]

Consider this scenario :
- *unwittingly drops my car keys while unlocking the front door to my house*
- an individual with ill-intentions happens to spot those keys, and subsequently steals my vehicle.
- While on a pursuit with police, the suspect then intentionally careens my stolen vehicle into a crowd, killing two people and maiming more.

Should I then be charged with murder because an opportunistic thief happened upon my keys, and decided to utilize it for misdeeds?

I was speaking to unsecured guns. And yes imo and it seems obvious to me that if someone, including a child, shoots and or kills someone (a stranger, a child, sibling, themselves, an adult, any other person like a teacher, etc etc) with another person's unsecured gun it is their fault. I am not clear on the penalties for these offenses.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Still waiting to hear actual suggestions for legislation that would curb gun crime without carving on my civil rights, and the civil rights of Mr. Ricci, and the civil rights of many other taxpaying citizens.

jmho ymmv lrr

RSBM

I made suggestions, many of us have in this thread.

I’m guessing we’re all tax-paying, law-abiding citizens so it’s an equal playing field on this thread.

No one is suggesting that Americans lose your beloved guns. Your Second Amendment rights are not being threatened, imo. The call is for tougher gun laws and bans on weapons created for war.

If you’re a law-abiding, responsible gun owner then tougher gun laws will have very little impact on you. If you have an AR-15 or similar weapon it may be banned, but the good part is that less innocent people will be blown away in mass shootings because of the general ban, and you still have many firearms to choose from.

More firearms = more firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms. Reduction of AR-15 and similar assault weapons = less mass shooting deaths. I see no reason for an average citizen to have one.

Hopefully legislation related to storing firearms in your vehicles will = less illegal firearms on the streets that are used in crime. Common sense and requesting that people not store their firearms in their vehicles/secure them properly isn’t working, so maybe fines and loss of firearm privileges will.

You need a universal gun registry and regulations, imo.

Here we’ve banned many firearms and there’s a freeze on handguns at the moment. A hard truth is that killers and criminals are still going to get their hands on firearms and use them. We’re trying to make it more difficult to get them.

Socioeconomic conditions seem to play a part in gun violence here. We’re trying to address it. It’s messy and we’re trying to chart the path as we go, but I think our government has made some progress.

 

[Cota332]

I was speaking to unsecured guns. And yes imo and it seems obvious to me that if someone, including a child, shoots and or kills someone (a stranger, a child, sibling, themselves, an adult, any other person like a teacher, etc etc) with another person's unsecured gun it is their fault. I am not clear on the penalties for these offenses.

The scenario I depicted above pertains just as well to gun crime as it does to vehicular crimes - and it's an important point to make, as the only distinction is the medium used.

In regards to a gun-owner being held accountable for somebody else's actions, gun-owners are already liable. On the basis of negligence alone, gun-owners can be held both criminally and civilly liable. Meaning, not only is jail-time possible, but also a lifetime of crippling debt.

 

[DFWNF]

The scenario I depicted above pertains just as well to gun crime as it does to vehicular crimes - and it's an important point to make, as the only distinction is the medium used.

In regards to a gun-owner being held accountable for somebody else's actions, gun-owners are already liable. On the basis of negligence alone, gun-owners can be held both criminally and civilly liable. Meaning, not only is jail-time possible, but also a lifetime of crippling debt.

I disagree. I believe I have asked what are the penalties related to unsecured guns. ETA unsecured

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I think it odd that the article chooses to fixate on the AR platform, while an AR is less likely to be used in a mass murder event.

“
One set of statistics, from the Associated Press, USA Today and the Northeastern University Mass Killing Database, found that AR-15s have been used in ten of the 17 deadliest mass killings in the US that have taken place since 2012.
These incidents include the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that left 60 dead, as well as the Sandy Hook Massacre in Newton, Connecticut that killed 26 people - including 20 children.
Another database, kept by Mother Jones magazine, suggests that the culprit in the Louisville shooting was the seventh to use an AR-15 in a mass shooting in the last 11 months.”

AR-15: The lethal weapon at heart of US gun debate - BBC News

Owners call it "America's Rifle", while critics brand it the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

www.bbc.com

 

[Cota332]

RSBM

I made suggestions, many of us have in this thread.

I’m guessing we’re all tax-paying, law-abiding citizens so it’s an equal playing field on this thread.

No one is suggesting that Americans lose your beloved guns. Your Second Amendment rights are not being threatened, imo. The call is for tougher gun laws and bans on weapons created for war.

If you’re a law-abiding, responsible gun owner then tougher gun laws will have very little impact on you. If you have an AR-15 or similar weapon it may be banned, but the good part is that less innocent people will be blown away in mass shootings because of the general ban, and you still have many firearms to choose from.

More firearms = more firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms. Reduction of AR-15 and similar assault weapons = less mass shooting deaths. I see no reason for an average citizen to have one.

Hopefully legislation related to storing firearms in your vehicles will = less illegal firearms on the streets that are used in crime. Common sense and requesting that people not store their firearms in their vehicles/secure them properly isn’t working, so maybe fines and loss of firearm privileges will.

You need a universal gun registry and regulations, imo.

Here we’ve banned many firearms and there’s a freeze on handguns at the moment. A hard truth is that killers and criminals are still going to get their hands on firearms and use them. We’re trying to make it more difficult to get them.

Socioeconomic conditions seem to play a part in gun violence here. We’re trying to address it. It’s messy and we’re trying to chart the path as we go, but I think our government has made some progress.

Banning supposed 'Weapons of War' = People losing their guns.
What defines a 'Weapon of War' anyway? Perhaps, the better question is whom?

Firearms = more firearm deaths, sure.
However, Less Firearms (or accessibility thereof) = more deaths that are not firearm related.
Meaning that perpetrators will use any means necessary to meet the end they choose - as they have since the beginning of time.

There are already plenty of Federal-level (universal) gun regs on the books.

I'll happily say that storing a firearm in an unattended vehicle is a dumb idea (secured or not). That does not necessitate legislative action. Should we begin legislating that all residential kitchens be only accessible via a locked-door, to prevent children's access to sharp objects?

Education is much more important here. Especially considering the massive spike of first time gun-ownership within the past few years.

 

[Cota332]

I disagree. I believe I have asked what are the penalties related to unsecured guns. ETA unsecured

The penalties for negligence vary between state-to-state and oft depend on the severity of said negligence.

 

[Cota332]

“
One set of statistics, from the Associated Press, USA Today and the Northeastern University Mass Killing Database, found that AR-15s have been used in ten of the 17 deadliest mass killings in the US that have taken place since 2012.
These incidents include the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that left 60 dead, as well as the Sandy Hook Massacre in Newton, Connecticut that killed 26 people - including 20 children.
Another database, kept by Mother Jones magazine, suggests that the culprit in the Louisville shooting was the seventh to use an AR-15 in a mass shooting in the last 11 months.”

AR-15: The lethal weapon at heart of US gun debate - BBC News

Owners call it "America's Rifle", while critics brand it the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

www.bbc.com

One of the things that news companies love to omit, is that an AR is often only one of multiple firearms brought to a mass-murder event, and that in all the cases of mass-murder (in totality/not choosing specific incidents to highlight), handguns are by far the most common weapon used.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

One of the things that news companies love to omit, is that an AR is often only one of multiple firearms brought to a mass-murder event, and that in all the cases of mass-murder (in totality/not choosing specific incidents to highlight), handguns are by far the most common weapon used.

*caution: graphic subject matter related to the Washington Post article*

That fact is in most of the articles I’ve read. But the AR-15 was the choice of weapon used in the worst mass-shootings in the US in recent history. I was looking to see what the statistics were on which weapon has caused the most deaths, but it’s soul-destroying to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that the AR-15 caused most deaths and injuries, but I don’t want to google it anymore today.

I can’t imagine why anyone would defend the use of that type of weapon. Especially after I saw the Washington Post article and photos. What happened in Las Vegas. I couldn’t even tell what I was looking at in one photo with the field of victims. Then it struck me. I’m heartbroken. All the body bags in the Uvalde school corridor. And what, you won’t ban that weapon because it’s ‘your right’ to own it?

 

[DFWNF]

RSBM

I made suggestions, many of us have in this thread.

I’m guessing we’re all tax-paying, law-abiding citizens so it’s an equal playing field on this thread.

No one is suggesting that Americans lose your beloved guns. Your Second Amendment rights are not being threatened, imo. The call is for tougher gun laws and bans on weapons created for war.

If you’re a law-abiding, responsible gun owner then tougher gun laws will have very little impact on you. If you have an AR-15 or similar weapon it may be banned, but the good part is that less innocent people will be blown away in mass shootings because of the general ban, and you still have many firearms to choose from.

More firearms = more firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms. Reduction of AR-15 and similar assault weapons = less mass shooting deaths. I see no reason for an average citizen to have one.

Hopefully legislation related to storing firearms in your vehicles will = less illegal firearms on the streets that are used in crime. Common sense and requesting that people not store their firearms in their vehicles/secure them properly isn’t working, so maybe fines and loss of firearm privileges will.

You need a universal gun registry and regulations, imo.

Here we’ve banned many firearms and there’s a freeze on handguns at the moment. A hard truth is that killers and criminals are still going to get their hands on firearms and use them. We’re trying to make it more difficult to get them.

Socioeconomic conditions seem to play a part in gun violence here. We’re trying to address it. It’s messy and we’re trying to chart the path as we go, but I think our government has made some progress.

Bbm , I actually am.

One of the things that news companies love to omit, is that an AR is often only one of multiple firearms brought to a mass-murder event, and that in all the cases of mass-murder (in totality/not choosing specific incidents to highlight), handguns are by far the most common weapon used.

If it were up to me I would ban handguns too. And put in protections for innocent children and adults etc. And severe long jail terms and financial penalties for law breakers. And change legislation.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1725212315690115352