Poll: Parent leaves gun unsecured, child uses it in a crime, should the parent be held responsible?

[Riot]

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?

What do you consider "unsecured"? In a locked car? In a locked house? In a locked storage unit?

 

[cookie]

People should have the choice to commit suicide if that is their want.

 

[Koda]

If a child takes your car without you knowing and goes to a party and gets drunk and drives and causes a fatal crash, should the parent be held accountable for not securing the car?

 

[Kruel J]

Simple answer. Get a safe. And lock your guns in it. How many more kids have to shoot up a school with firearms they took from their parents? How does a freshman get an AR? Come on folks. If your bundle-of-joy swipes your AR and your pistols and decides that he wants to shoot up his school, its 100% YOUR fault for 1. Not locking up your bubblegum. And 2. Not knowing your kid well enough to see the writing on the wall.

 

[Dayu]

What do you consider "unsecured"? In a locked car? In a locked house? In a locked storage unit?

For purposes of my position here? "Not in your immediate possession."

What do you consider "unsecured"? In a locked car? In a locked house? In a locked storage unit?

That's easy. The test is that if someone got ahold of it, then it was unsecured, regardless of what you may have done - it wasn't enough. If your child "defeated your security measures" before using your gun in a shooting, then the gun was effectively unsecured and why shouldn't you be held accountable.

But, Joe, why limit this to just the Liberal POV on guns? Let's be fair (which is what Liberals claim they want) and pass a law making people responsible for the misuse (criminal or otherwise) of ANY of their property. As Koda says, your kid drives your car to a party after taking your keys without permission, gets drunk, and injures/kills someone, why shouldn't you - as Ginny Burdick wants - be held criminally liable?

 

[Koda]

I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that if the security level was defeated then the owner should be liable. There is no safe that cant be defeated. Should you be held liable if your kid cracked your $1000+ Liberty safe?

 

[Greywhisker]

The test is that if someone got ahold of it, then it was unsecured, regardless of what you may have done - it wasn't enough.

So, essentially, the act of owning the gun always makes you responsible for someone else's illegal actions?

 

[RicInOR]

Sen. Ginny Burdick says shooter's parents should be held criminally responsible

 

[Greywhisker]

This might piss people off but that is not my intent. This seems to be the logic that is being applied here:

If I choose (assuming I have the legal choice to do so) not to secure my gun, and someone takes illegal possession of that gun, and then commits an additional crime with my firearm, I am responsible.

So that makes the victim responsible for their own rape as well.

If I choose to dress slutty (not secure my gun), which is legal, and someone rapes me (takes illegal possession of me), and then robs me or kills me (commits an additional crime with me), it's my fault.

Likewise, if my house gets burgled, then clearly the criminal is not in the wrong, because no matter what I've done it is always possible to break into it.

 

[Dave Workman]

Well, good old Ginny Burdick wants to solve this dilemma for you:

Oregon's leading anti-gunner jumps to exploit Troutdale

Oregon State Sen. Ginny Burdick, described yesterday by the Portland Oregonian as "the Legislature's most vocal advocate for stricter gun laws," said the parents of the Reynolds High School shooter "should be held criminally responsible for the death of Emilio Hoffman."

<broken link removed>

 

[etrain16]

Simple answer. Get a safe. And lock your guns in it. How many more kids have to shoot up a school with firearms they took from their parents? How does a freshman get an AR? Come on folks. If your bundle-of-joy swipes your AR and your pistols and decides that he wants to shoot up his school, its 100% YOUR fault for 1. Not locking up your bubblegum. And 2. Not knowing your kid well enough to see the writing on the wall.

Every report so far says the guns were properly secured and the kid still got them. So, what are you going to say if it turns out they were in a safe? Then what? I guess it's time for all of us to give up our guns if someone can defeat our security, commit a crime and we're responsible. With that logic, we should also require all parents to lock up their car keys when not in us, their prescription medications, their knives, baseball bats, cigarette lighters and anything else a kid could use to do something stupid.

It goes back to the parents taking reasonable precautions. And so far, it sounds like they did. Why do you want to be so quick to join the ranks of someone like Ginny Burdick and crucify the parents?

 

[coyote223]

No safe is break in proof. A driven mental case, given enough time, can defeat all security measures. Yeah, let's just keep giving this criminal administration more and more rope to hang us all with,,,

 

[Ligito]

What is the age of adult? age of responsibility?

Those 12 yr old girls are being charged as adults for killing their classmate.


If the child is not and adult, then yes, the parents should be held to account.
Determining that is challenging.

Until it happens to you, then you may have a different point of view.

 

[DireWolf]

I've been meaning to ask this question for a while, curious to hear your thoughts.

If a parent fails or chooses not to secure their gun(s) and their children uses it to commit a crime (such as a school shooting), should the parent be charged with negligence?

Note that I am not talking about any sort of law mandating this, I'm referring to after the crime has been committed.

Without question.

Kids shooting kids - they get their firearms from lazy parents and other adults that leave firearms unsecured.

I think the answer is for the owner of an unsecured gun be charged with a no-jail felony, preventing future ownership. That would encourage proper measures are undertaken - lock it up or wear it. Period.

 

[Dayu]

So, essentially, the act of owning the gun always makes you responsible for someone else's illegal actions?

That was sarcasm, son.

 

[Koda]

Without question.

Kids shooting kids - they get their firearms from lazy parents and other adults that leave firearms unsecured.

I think the answer is for the owner of an unsecured gun be charged with a no-jail felony, preventing future ownership. That would encourage proper measures are undertaken - lock it up or wear it. Period.

So more gun control laws affecting lawful gun owners? Did you miss the part about the Reynolds shooter defeating the security?

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

After scanning through the other posts, I will just throw in my two cents worth.

In the recent incident it was reported that the firearms were secured (I don't know how though and that could have some bearing). The perp defeated the security measure (again if it was just a locked closet that would be important to know) and went about his evil scheme.

Ginny Burdick thinks the parents should be charged saying in essence that whatever they, the parents, thought was secure was not secure enough. Here's is where my vote became a maybe. The idea of security is an illusion. There is no fool proof method of keeping someone from getting something, be it your gun, your car, your wallet, etc. Generally most of us go to some pretty good lengths to foil criminal plans by buying safes for firearms, anchoring them to the ground, putting them in what we believe to be secure locations. Yet in spite of all of these measures safes still get broken into by those who are determined.

Then you have the question of family as brought up earlier in this thread. I too have kids in my house. I have invested in ways to secure my firearms. Then came the question from my daughter one day regarding the issue of her being home alone.

"Dad, if I am home alone and need to defend myself, can I have access to the safe?"

How do you handle that issue? This is a largely personal ones and I have seen people make varying decisions on this point. I had to do the same. However as stated earlier none of us are mind readers and cannot know with 100% certainty what the intent of our children may be at any given moment any more then we posses the omnipotence to discern the designs of those around us. For every youth that has set about to bring death and fear to the public I can pull out a story that demonstrates a child successfully wielding a firearm in defense of self, family and home.

So in the final analysis, as with most of the decisions in life, there is no black and white answer to your question. There are simply a million shades of grey that are determined by a multitude of variables.

No law or regulations, which was not the intent of your post Joe, can ever be able to cover the broad spectrum of those variables without getting into the ambiguous "reasonable care" verbiage often used in regulations.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Dayu]

Actually, Joe, the legal doctrine you're looking for is called "Sippenhaft." Very popular in socialist countries, historically.

And @GrpCap, there is no "black and white" only if you ignore centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence in regard to criminal liability. Absent what you might call "aiding and abetting," a third party simply is not criminally responsible for the actions of a criminal.

Now civilly ... that's a different matter entirely. But it's not what Joe asked.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

It greatly depends on your definition of "secured," the age of the child, and the maturity of your child.

Sorry for the cop out post but it really comes down to these three things. Did the parent, knowing the child was psycho, let him have the weapon? I would say probably not. Was the child of legal age to have a firearm outside of the preview of the parents? Probably not. Now we must define secured. It really comes down to a ton of variables.

Eagle

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Actually, Joe, the legal doctrine you're looking for is called "Sippenhaft." Very popular in socialist countries, historically.

And @GrpCap, there is no "black and white" only if you ignore centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence in regard to criminal liability. Absent what you might call "aiding and abetting," a third party simply is not criminally responsible for the actions of a criminal.

Now civilly ... that's a different matter entirely. But it's not what Joe asked.

Even under the idea of Anglo-American jurisprudence there is no black and white. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.