PF Question

If your gun is stolen and used in a QuickMart robbery, and the clerk ends up dead on the floor, what is YOUR liability?

If your 8-yr old gets into the gun safe and uses your gun to shoot the neighbor kid, what is YOUR liability?

If you gun is used by you to 'accidentally' shoot your wife in the head (also killing the fetus), what is YOUR liability?

If you are out deer hunting and accidentally shoot your hunting buddy through the lung, what is YOUR liability?

Is it "I am so sorry"?

 

For both civil and criminal liability, it would largely depend on whether you reported the theft to the police as soon as you knew of the theft.

That depends on whether the safe was properly secured or if the child had the ability to unlock the safe independently.

If it's "accidental" as in on purpose, that is voluntary homicide, possibly premeditated murder. If it was truly an accident, then it could be involuntary homicide or criminally negligent homicide. Depending on the state, you may or may not be charged with a crime against the fetus.

If it is truly accidental, there are a variety of different charges that could be brought, from negligent discharge of a firearm to attempted negligent homicide.

In both cases, the civil liability standard is different than the criminal liability. You could still be sued for wrongful death in the first case and for medical bills in the second.

 

It would be so nice if Liberals got off this anti gun kick. Guns have saved many more lives than they took. Guns aren't all about killing. My Brother and Son go out to the range and target shoot several times a year and it's a lot a fun. It's a right given us by our forefathers and a right we'll never give up in spite of how Libs feel.

 

I'm not anti-gun, but that's a stretch.

 

I put "accidental" in quotes for emphasis, not because I'm questioning whether it is or is not a real accident. What I'm getting at is that I think accidental shootings are a lot like highway collisions - nobody intentionally crashes their car into another but the civil penalties (and sometimes criminal penalties) to the person at fault can be pretty severe. The penalties for not keeping your gun (or your car) under total control should be just as severe.

 

How is this an anti-gun thread? These are honest questions regarding liability. In fact, I have seen questions in this same vein asked by people looking to acquire firearms. They want to know what the liability is, because some insurance policies may increase their premiums with a gun in the home.

Secondly, not all liberals are anti-gun. I support the right to keep and bear arms and I am probably more liberal than many here.

The only purpose for a firearm is to kill. Target shooting is practicing to kill.

Gun deaths in the United States between 2001 and 2013 dwarf the number of American deaths from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I have seen some sources that say that any one of those years had more gun deaths than either war has had in its entirety. I would source these for you, but am on my way out the door.

That does not change the fact that firearms, when employed outside of practice, have the capacity to kill.

The way the Founding Fathers put it, the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental and predated them and any and all forms of government. It was merely guaranteed to us by the Framers of the Constitution.

Also, given that, liberal-minded people would be in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. From what I have seen, many, if not most, liberals are fine with the right to keep and bear arms, and only insist that it be done so responsibly and within reason.

 

Because every question you ask is intended at demonizing the gun. Going to the shooting range is NOT practicing to kill. That would be like going for a ride in a car is "practicing" to kill since many more deaths are caused by driving. You may own a firearm, but your still anti-gun!

And the fact that you think that the founding fathers are the ones who gave us our rights just shows the willful ignorance of people to ignore that the Constitution recognizes that our rights come from a higher power than man or government.

The proper title to this thread should be "BS Question".

 

Guns haven taken many lives. Sometimes a life is taken to protect another. But thar doesn't change the fact that firearms are weapons. 99.99% gun owners are fine good people, but it only takes that .01 to cause a lot of death and damage, usually against unarmed folks to cause people to want some restrictions.

 

See above

- - - Updated - - -

Problem is the .01 % don't care about the laws.

 

It was the anti-gun left restrictions that created the unarmed folks in the first place.

 

But the problem is some don't even want background checks, that is foolish. FYI: I do not shoot every couple of months, I shoot every week, sometimes several times a week, even built my own little range. Yes, it lots of fun.

 

Well maybe and maybe not. Some are victims of crime and others accidents.

- - - Updated - - -

So people just don't own a firearm, for whatever reason. The 2nd amendment is not a mandate.

 

Indeed, going to the range is not practicing to kill. In fact, it is practicing to NOT kill, and ultimately not BE killed. Those who do NOT go to the range are the ones who end up shooting themselves because they have not become proficient with their firearm.

 

You mean reasons like how increased costs to own and use guns have risen so high that the very people who need to protect themselves the most are financially unable? Besides that, if they were able to arm themselves, the leftist anti-gun laws prevent them from being able to have them when they may need them, thus creating the unarmed crowd of potential victims.

No, it an individual Right.

 

The same as if your car was stolen and ran someone over in the street.

100% Liability

Anyone capable of having a gun, that would never happen. But liberals DO buy guns, so I'd say 100% Liability.

100% Liability!

 

You don't speak for me. I am perfectly and legally able to purchase a gun. I don't see how it would help me be 'more safe' than simply not inviting danger into my home or unto myself. I have no intentions of ever owning a gun and I don't feel less safe by not having a gun.

Guns for sport are one thing and that's fine. However, guns as the only thing that could ever possibly keep me safe is rhetoric.

 

The only question I asked in this thread was how this thread could be considered anti-gun when the questions within the OP were sensible questions i have heard from prospective gun owners.

I have not demonized the gun. I merely understand that the gun's sole purpose is to kill. Equating the automobile to the firearm is moronic. Automobiles, when used properly, do not kill, while a firearm will.

I am not anti-gun, I am against letting just anyone get a gun without having any training. I believe we should ideally have a system in the United States like they do in Switzerland. So with that, I am not anti-gun, and you are talking out your ass.

Did you even bother reading the rest of my post? I said the rights in the Constitution predated any form of government.

 

And you don't speak for the rest of us. This is not about you, other than you are the only danger in your home-- not the gun. Personally I support your ignorance and hoplophobia. As I see it, its a form on natural selection that leads to the "thinning of the herd", and I welcome the extinction of such ignorance.
Getting back to the thread, I pointed out the fact that you and your hoplophobic ilk are responsible for unarming the majority who want and need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights through useless and ineffective laws that have done little to decrease crime, and in many instances led to more crime, while causing the price of guns and gun ownership to rise outside the reach of the people who need protection the most. Congratulations on that!

That's your individual right. Unfortunately, so many hoplophobic people like yourself are so misinformed and ignorant and they want to force their fears on to the rest of us..

Guns were not invented for "sport". They were invented for survival and that is the reference and intent of the use of guns in the Constitution. "Gun use for sport" is the hoplophobic phrase used to appear objective in order to cover up their fear of guns and gun owners.

This is just more evidence of your ignorance. Most of your fellow citizens who own guns for protection have also trained in other forms of self-protection and know how to keep themselves safe and free from having to resort to lethal force. It is the hoplophobic who relies on rhetoric because they are void of logic and facts to support their fears.

 

Should be none. If someone steals your car and then runs over somebody, it similarly shouldn't be your liability.

That is my liability. I'm responsible for my 8 yr old's actions.

I should be charged with double involuntary manslaughter in that case.

Involuntary manslaughter, if he dies.

The only one of those situations that's even possible for me is the first one.

 

Whatever the law in your state says it is depending on the elements of crimes in statutes and caselaw interpreting. Morally, liability here should be 0, but prosecutors are a particularly unethical type of lawyer who abuse their power thousands of times a day all over the country, so who knows?

Once more, more detail needed. The jurisdiction, its statutes and caselaw, level of prosecutorial immorality, other factors. No idea what your point is here.

 

well, i'm sure i'll regret this, but i am a firearms aficionado. I enjoy shooting for target practice, accuracy & find it enjoyable. I hunt some, but shoot for fun, mostly.. targets, steel plates, trap.. i enjoy all these shooting sports. I reload, too, but mostly for economics.

I was not in the military, nor am i 'practising' to shoot anyone. I shoot 22s & other mild calibers that are not good 'killing' loads. Most shotgun loads are skeet loads, which are not a good man killer. I also shoot high powered rifle loads, 44 magnum pistol, & 00 buckshot. I have done so for decades, & have never shot at anyone, nor do i use human targets of women & children, like our 'new' military state is doing. I would be quite content to NEVER use a firearm as a defensive tool. ..but i will, if i have to. There are millions of americans like me, who are aficionados of shooting, & have never killed anyone or used a firearm in a crime.

Yes, a firearm has the capacity to kill, as does a kitchen knife. Swords, clubs, & knives have arguably killed more people throughout history than any firearm.. certainly by percentage of population they have.

Firearms were invented. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle. I prefer that common, law abiding citizens have access to firearms, if for no other reason than a deterrence to govt tyranny.

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless." ~Vladimir Ilich Lenin
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." ~Adolf Hitler
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. ~Mahatma Gandhi

 

Killing is a misuse of a kitchen knife, while a firearm's sole purpose is to kill. Have you ever heard the old quip that "vegetarian" is an old Native American word for "bad hunter"?

If you haven't noticed, the United States has a standing army, and has had one constantly since the 50s. The Founding Fathers opposed those institutions because they were inherently the tool of tyrants

Not that I am calling the United States tyrannical. You have no basis to claim that the United States has been tyrannical. The first act of any tyrant is to purge the population that he wishes to subdue of any dissidents and every purge has involved those dissidents no longer drawing breath. That has not happened yet, nor will it happen in the future.

You'll notice, if you look at who those quotes are attributed to, that none of them were Americans, let alone American politicians. Barack Obama has reiterated his support for the Second Amendment numerous times.

In fact, two of them were real tyrannical dictators that would not have tolerated a scintilla of the dissent that Obama has had to deal with without executing those doing the dissenting.

*counts to ten about thirty times*

Okay, you're still full of crap, I didn't post those questions, Phoebe did.

This thread is about simple and rational questions any gun owner should know the answers to.

Not everyone is rational. Many gun owners probably don't give a crap, then again, in my experience, birds of a feather do flock together.

I made no attempt at it. I have said multiple times since joining this site that the right to keep and bear arms is one that I support. I don't, however, see it as an absolute right. Firearms, due to their inherent danger, are tools that need to be used by trained individuals. Not just anyone should be able to go out and buy a gun. Especially if they've never even handled or fired one before.

My understanding of guns is quite deep, thank you very much.

The purpose of the gun is to kill, nothing more. Can a gun deflect the shot from another gun? They can, but it's unlikely, therefore there is no defense within the gun.

My bias is not clear to you, you are incapable of comprehending any bias I have since you cannot conclusively state what I have enunciated. In fact, you deliberately misattributed the words of someone else as mine in an attempt to paint me as anti-gun.

Again, spare me your intellectual inadequacy. An automobile's purpose is to convey the driver, any passengers, and any cargo, from one place to another. The purpose of a firearm is to propel a projectile at rapid velocity toward a target with the direct intention of causing harm to that which the projectile was aimed at. Since you cannot understand that, any rational person would have no choice but to believe that you are a danger to yourself and others.

You don't even know who the HELL I am. Who are YOU to tell me what I am and what I am not when you can't even properly quote me?

My anti-gun rant? I made no such rant. You are just rambling like a crazed old man.

Obviously enough to know that it's a smarter system than the system in the United States.

You quoted me first, if you don't remember. Have you escaped from a memory ward somewhere?

 

It just happened in Pennsylvania. I believe the guy was a gun instructor and a state trooper. He claims he was cleaning his gun and didn't realize it was loaded.

Glad to hear you say that. Most gun afficianados don't want ANY responsibility involving their guns. They call it an 'infringement'.

 

I asked the questions and I own a gun(s).

 

That has always been the convenient (and cheap) way out.