- Messages
- 33
- Reactions
- 24
does having a child or family member with a mental illness mean you no longer get to defend yourself or your family just because there is a very small chance said person might break the law?
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Poll: Parent leaves gun unsecured, child uses it in a crime, should the parent be held responsible?
- Thread Starter Joe Link
- Start date
does having a child or family member with a mental illness mean you no longer get to defend yourself or your family just because there is a very small chance said person might break the law?
Absolutely not. It does, however put you in a position where you may have to take more extraordinary precautions in keeping the guns out of their hands. That kid in CT had known psychological issues and the mother was taking him to the range, training him and keeping the guns in his room (apparently locked in a cabinet that was easy to defeat).
Being a gun owner does come with some responsibility. I'm not in favor of mandating responsibility, but rather voluntarily taking on responsibility. If you have a mentally ill person in your home, one that may be known to be violent, wouldn't you take extra precautions, beyond the normal ones, to keep a gun or other weapon out of their hands?
It's all about a judgment call. The reason I made the comment is that I can see what's coming next - they locked their guns up but the kid somehow got them anyway - so, if it turns out he was known to have a mental issue or was violent (we don't know that yet), then I'm sure the anti-gun politicians and lawyers will be asking those very questions - why did you have guns in the house at all? Why didn't you do more to prevent him from getting to them? The anti-gun groups in this area are going to go after these parents, I'm just sure of it.
- Messages
- 33
- Reactions
- 24
"take more extraordinary precautions." Isn't that the same argument anti-2A left makes against all violence. Clearly, to me, the CT instance is an example of not taking reasonable precaution. But there is never an argument to take "extraordinary" precautions.
As an obvious hyperbole (at least, I hope it is, lol).
The left: if your kid has a mental disorder your gun's should have a trigger lock, and be in a safe and that safe should be in a larger safe in a steel-doored room with no windows and have it's own security system independent of the one from the rest of your home.
The reasonable: Well, what's the point of owning the gun then, it's no longer a viable defensive tool?
The Left: EXACTLY!
Instead, I think, as a citizenry, we should recognized that we cannot out-extreme people that want to cause harm. And any attempt to out-extreme them will always make it more difficult to negotiate the encounters the bad guys cause because the bad guys will always go to a further extreme.
Gun control laws, gun-free zones, etc. These are all extreme precautions to the "do not murder" law. We keep stacking on "precautions" and bad guys are not only still bad but good people have a harder and harder time stopping them.
Use a trigger lock if your don't have a safe. Use a safe if you have reason to think your kid is a danger or you think a trigger lock isn't a reasonable safeguard against burglars. Beyond that, everyone's actions are their own fault and responsibility.
I'm not raggin on you etrain, I think your sentiment is a common one (and not bad in and of itself). However, I do think it is a emotional reaction to a bad circumstance that drives the left and anti-2A movement. Clearly none of us want these kinds of tragedies to happen. But we, as a society cannot keep pushing the definition of "reasonable" to the left.
"Your kid is on anti-depressants and has violent tendencies and you STILL OWN a gun?"
"Yes, They're in a keyless safe and only me and my wife know the combination."
"But you shouldn't have them!"
"Well, my kids has some seriosus issues and although we're getting the best help that Obamacare provides, he is still capable of violence. And I don't want my wife to be completely helpless if, God forbid, my kid turns violent on her."
"But what if she gets the gun to protect herself and your kid kills her anyway and now he has the gun?"
"Yeah, what if just stole some money and bought a kitchen knife..." blah blah blah.
It doesn't matter what precautions we take, bad people will always do devastatingly bad things.
As I stated, I'm not in favor (nor will I ever be in favor), of mandating responsibility. Like I said, it's a judgment call. If I had a person living in my house with a known mental issue, especially with violent tendencies, you can well bet that I'd be far more cautious with my guns, my knives, my medications, my drain cleaner, etc. I don't think that's a left issue at all - I want to keep myself and my family safe, period. If the threat lives in my house, then I have to make sure I don't accidentally arm the threat. That's where the judgment call comes in - what steps do I take to prevent arming them, while still keeping my weapon at hand for my own protection.
I don't think we're in disagreement, save for maybe how we're stating our opinions. To be clear, I've got no interest in passing any laws that mandate how I secure my guns - that's my call, plain and simple.
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
The question then arises- did the parents know about the mental health issues of their child and what did they do to treat it?
Adam Lanza had meticulously planned out his activities as an active shooter (Source) for about a year before he acted out his fantasy. He wrote it down, typed it out and printed it! I hold his mother solely responsible for the actions of Adam Lanza...those firearms should have been in a locked storage unit, not open and sitting around the house.
Take that into account...now read this next statement...
(Source)
Now knowing that...do you think Adam Lanza is responsible for the deaths of Newtown, or do you blame his mother?
Age, to me, is only a minor factor. I've known 15 year-olds more mature than 30-year olds and can even handle a firearm more respectfully and responsibly than most advid gun owners- so age is hardly relative, it has more to do with their upbringing and mental health state than anything.
- Messages
- 235
- Reactions
- 169
- Messages
- 33
- Reactions
- 24
I didn't know it was Reagan's responsibility to provide care to the mentally impaired. Is it your responsibility to pay for my kid's mental impairement? I don't think it is.
Some people don't have a choice. There are no more institutions where you can have them committed - so unless you have unlimited financial resources, it falls on the parent to watch over them. And in most cases, the parents aren't necessarily trained or suited to handling someone in that condition. I guess you could just put them out on the street, but all you've done is push the problem onto someone else. Besides, if he's a minor, the police may just bring him right back to you.
Who wants that in their home? No one. But it happens.
My simple response is this - I think we made a big mistake when we did away completely with institutionalization of some people. Some people will never be able to safely live in the general public. Some people need to be locked away for their own safety and the safety of others. And while that crosses into the discussion of their individual rights, I guess we have to ask - what about the rights of those that these folks are hurting and killing?
There is no simple answer, but I don't think we're better off having done away with institutions. I think it's time to take a long hard look at them again. If the concern is over patient treatment and living conditions, fine, set up some checks and balances to assure they're properly cared for. Either way, we all bear this burden in some way as we are all potential targets if we find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
I completely agree with you. Corrections, for example, is a dangerious place and some of it can be adverted. Mental Health offenders are like ticking time bombs...nobody communicates to any of us when they stop taking their meds or even who is mental health...we just have to figure that crap out on our own, it's not like they wear a T-Shirt or anything that says "I'm Mental Health"
You're right, there is no cut and dry answer- but there definitely needs to be some sort of check system...
Scenario #1- You're diagnosed with a Mental Health disorder...you refuse treatment and refuse to take medication...you start talking about killing people and starting a revolution...you need to be committed.
Scenario #2- You come back from the war with PTSD. You are seeking treatment and show signs of social improvement. Nothing needs to be done.
- Messages
- 235
- Reactions
- 169
Funny how the ayn rand theory come out in discussions as this. Whether you are able to care for your mentally ill or not, it is your fault for not having the resources to institutionalize them. How bizarre. It is OK for the banksters not to pay taxes, nor the rich, but, it is wrong to have the government help out those that are middle class or less with these terrible costs.
- Messages
- 42,667
- Reactions
- 110,783
No.
If they took reasonable steps to secure the firearm then they shouldn't be held responsible for his ability to gain access to it. The rest depends on other circumstances.
If they took reasonable steps to secure the firearm then they shouldn't be held responsible for his ability to gain access to it. The rest depends on other circumstances.
- Messages
- 33
- Reactions
- 24
A couple things. the Ayn Rand theory is really just a secular version of the principles in which the U.S. was founded. So, I would expect all of us be acting in conjunction with it, plus or minus religion based on your own beliefs.
I for one don't think banks or corps should pay federal taxes. Imposing federal taxes has always and will always be an economy killer. This isn't a mystery or assumption. Is it wrong to ask the government to help the middle class? Well, yes. The government doesn't help anybody. They are not an independent business entity enganging in free-market capitilism. They do not create wealth that can then be passed to the middle class. This too is not a mystery or secret. But somehow people are expecting the government to help. And then we get the situation we're in today.
If everyone wasn't so bogged down in taxes and was allowed to actually create wealth, we just might have the ability to impose a culture that see's incentive (either fiscal or humanitarian) to help the less fortunate. Instead we've imposed the exact opposite.
- Messages
- 34
- Reactions
- 23
For all you "yes" voters, why limit it to parents? If any person's gun is used in a crime, why shouldn't that person be held responsible even if that person had no participation in the crime itself?
No wonder this country is in such a bad way blaming an object for someones personal action. Even the antis have the TV watching gun owners brain washed or is it the public education? Blame the car for drunk driving? Blame the booze for drunk driving? or blame the person who drank and drove for drunk driving? I keep my guns locked up because I don't want anybody messing with them.
- Messages
- 413
- Reactions
- 165
This is close to my feelings on this issue. Regardless if it where my child or someone staying at my house I feel that as a firearms owner I have a responsibility to make sure my firearms are secure. How well do parents know their children? I know mine had very little clue what went through my head as a teenager. If your guns are not secured enough from anyone staying in your home that you would feel they are secure should that person be replaced with a random person off the street you need to really asses your trust in that person, and your security. Failing to do so in my mind makes you liable, what teenager didn't pick the lock on the liquor cabinet, shed, _______. I'm far more worried about my guns then my scotch.
- Messages
- 222
- Reactions
- 188
There are so many different scenarios to cover to give this question a simple yes or no. For instance, you have firearms yet you keep them a secret from your children. What happens when they find them? Curiosity takes over and because they have absolutely no fundamentals of firearms safety they use their best judgement on what to do next. So yes not exposing your children and hiding something with that much destructive force the parent is to blame if something happens. If it was a teenager who went hunting and knew about gun safety and then decided to lose his/her mind and go on a spree then there is another split decision there. The variables I see can be looked upon in so many different angles. Did the parents and the teachers really not want to deal with the kid and have a dr put them on prescription drug. Look at all these drugs they put kids on and from what I can see a lot don't need them. They alter brain chemistry, adderall, prozac and a list of other pills. How would you know what your child thinks if you altered their brain chemistry. What if your kid is hiding a meth problem? What if the child was being bullied but the parents taught the child to lay down and not defend themselves. There is a lot to be said about a very passionate bubblegum beating. These are just some of the angles I see. Sorry for the run on paragraph
- Messages
- 33
- Reactions
- 24
Here's an interesting perspective. A lawyer buddy of mine sent me this quote:
"In order to establish negligence as aCause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."
Going by this legal definition, the defendant's (owner of the gun that was stolen) act of not securing his guns can never be the cause of the harm. The cause of the harm is the thief's (Owner's child) willingness to pull the trigger and commit murder. Even if the parents do not seek treatment for child they suspect or has shown to be mentally impaired. Their negligence only extends to their child. Not to any actions the child takes as a result.
"In order to establish negligence as aCause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."
Going by this legal definition, the defendant's (owner of the gun that was stolen) act of not securing his guns can never be the cause of the harm. The cause of the harm is the thief's (Owner's child) willingness to pull the trigger and commit murder. Even if the parents do not seek treatment for child they suspect or has shown to be mentally impaired. Their negligence only extends to their child. Not to any actions the child takes as a result.
- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,483
This thread has meandered a bit - there is a big difference between Child and Mentally Ill.
You have a double challenge if your child is mentally ill.
Of the roughly 30k firearms deaths / year in the USA ~ 2/3 are suicides. Are all who commit suicide mentally ill ?
I strongly believe we need to do more / better on mental health front.
For this thread - if the child is not "responsible" then the parents/guardian need to be accountable.
I am not saying that is always easy.
case: A "child" breaks a neighbors window. The neighbor forgives the child. That still leaves a broken window. A 4 year old -vs- A 14 year old- have to be treated differently to perform restitution.
You may also look at intent - what the child trying to break the window, or were they doing something a reasonable person would know might break the window, or were their unforeseen circumstances?
- throwing a ball on the wall with a window, running a lawnmower in front of the window, closing a door (where the vibration broke the window.)
You have a double challenge if your child is mentally ill.
Of the roughly 30k firearms deaths / year in the USA ~ 2/3 are suicides. Are all who commit suicide mentally ill ?
I strongly believe we need to do more / better on mental health front.
For this thread - if the child is not "responsible" then the parents/guardian need to be accountable.
I am not saying that is always easy.
case: A "child" breaks a neighbors window. The neighbor forgives the child. That still leaves a broken window. A 4 year old -vs- A 14 year old- have to be treated differently to perform restitution.
You may also look at intent - what the child trying to break the window, or were they doing something a reasonable person would know might break the window, or were their unforeseen circumstances?
- throwing a ball on the wall with a window, running a lawnmower in front of the window, closing a door (where the vibration broke the window.)
- Messages
- 619
- Reactions
- 249
Kids know the difference between right and wrong by the time they are 10 years old. So why is society treating them like they are brain dead until they are 18?? It used to be you held accountable for your actions no matter what age you where and there was no sealed files just because you were under 18. You screwed up it was public record.
