If a person accidentally kills someone...

[9andaWiggle]

If a person accidentally kills someone with a gun, should they be allowed to keep that gun, and have no restriction on buying/using guns in the future?

Now, what if they not only accidentally killed someone, but it is shown they were willfully negligent in how they handled that gun, and that negligence was the reason the incident that killed the other person took place. Should they be allowed to keep the gun and have no further restriction on buying/using guns in the future?

 

[Good Times Good Times]

No, they should not get to keep the gun.

They should not be able to purchase in the immediate aftermath. After a period of time.......perhaps. I'd have to hear arguments for/against and decide. I don't wait for Fox to give me my talking points.

 

[livespive]

You would have to prove it is a true accident for the first one. Then I would say yes.

#2 is a no.... "willfully negligent" is the nail in the coffin.

If a person accidentally kills someone with a gun, should they be allowed to keep that gun, and have no restriction on buying/using guns in the future?

Now, what if they not only accidentally killed someone, but it is shown they were willfully negligent in how they handled that gun, and that negligence was the reason the incident that killed the other person took place. Should they be allowed to keep the gun and have no further restriction on buying/using guns in the future?

 

[Robadat]

Depends on circumstances of the accidental death. In any event, the family of the victim can sue the person for causing the death, even it is totally accidental.

In #2 "willfully negligent homicide" (causing a death due to a negligent act) is a felony in most States and would preclude the person from owning any guns in the future.

 

[9andaWiggle]

I know you guys are smart enough to have seen this coming - so change my scenarios above from a gun to a car. Do you have the same opinion? Or for Rob, who knows the law better than I, is the law applied equally?

 

[livespive]

Yes I do have the same view.

I know you guys are smart enough to have seen this coming - so change my scenarios above from a gun to a car. Do you have the same opinion? Or for Rob, who knows the law better than I, is the law applied equally?

 

[Good Times Good Times]

I think it is an apples/oranges comparison.

If there is a "willful negligent homicide" involving a car, it's most certainly going to be a suspension of drivers license and further charges.

The driving example shows that in basically every other thing in life if something is dangerous everyone works very diligently to make such safer. With guns, something that has a literal purpose of being dangerous you throw your arms up and go "WELL, WHAT CAN WE DO?"

The reason is that those who want no restrictions on gun ownership imagine that their gun will one day save their life or the life of a member of their family. The odds are infinitely smaller that that will ever happen, in fact more likely their gun kills or injures themselves or their loved ones via suicide or accidental discharge. But it doesn't matter. It could conceivably happen and that's enough for them.

I don't live my life motivated by fear or fear based. Having a gun for protection is the same as not wearing a seat-belt, with the justification being if you drove into a river it might reduce your chances of survival.

It comes down to fear.

 

[Greg T.]

I think it is an apples/oranges comparison.

If there is a "willful negligent homicide" involving a car, it's most certainly going to be a suspension of drivers license and further charges.

The driving example shows that in basically every other thing in life if something is dangerous everyone works very diligently to make such safer. With guns, something that has a literal purpose of being dangerous you throw your arms up and go "WELL, WHAT CAN WE DO?"

The reason is that those who want no restrictions on gun ownership imagine that their gun will one day save their life or the life of a member of their family. The odds are infinitely smaller that that will ever happen, in fact more likely their gun kills or injures themselves or their loved ones via suicide or accidental discharge. But it doesn't matter. It could conceivably happen and that's enough for them.

I don't live my life motivated by fear or fear based. Having a gun for protection is the same as not wearing a seat-belt, with the justification being if you drove into a river it might reduce your chances of survival.

It comes down to fear.

A gun is built to protect the owner. The car is built to transport the owner. A clean comparo cannot be made.

 

[WAMO]

DRIVERS LICENSE YOU CAN GET BACK, KIND OF QUICKLY ACTUALLY. BUT LIKE GTGT SAID (I THINK) GUNS IN THE WRONG HANDS ARE EVIL. AND 4 WHEEL DRIVE PICK UPS ARE COOL.

 

[9andaWiggle]

I find the psychology interesting. Many people view giving a son/daughter a gun as a right of passage. Many view the car in the same manner. Yet when an irresponsible teen mishandles a gun and people die, the outcry is far worse than if he mishandles a car and people die.

If I'm texting on my phone and back up over a family member and kill them, nobody says we should take cars away from everybody. But let me forget a live round is in the gun, then it goes off killing a family member as I'm showing it to them and the evil gun must be banished!

How about drunks? What would your reaction be if you found out I was plastered and drove home? Now what would it be if I were stumbling around in the street shooting bullets into the air? Both cases are irresponsible and put others in grave danger by my actions, but people will quickly say "that idiot shouldn't be allowed to have a gun", while the drunk driving reaction is more likely to be mixed, or even glossed over as "that's crazy 'ol 9~ for ya! He'll probably hurt somebody some day..." Very few will actually say "that idiot shouldn't be allowed to own a car", much less lobby for legislation to take cars from drunk drivers and permanently keep them from obtaining cars in the future.

Here's my point in all of this: Cars accidentally kill just as many people as guns do. People are just as careless with cars as they are with guns (maybe more careless). Yet nobody lobbies against the automobile. Both are dangerous tools. Both kill indiscriminately when entrusted to the wrong hands. The common denominator with both devices is the human using them. So doesn't it make more sense to try fixing the people than it does the tool?

A responsible person with a gun is no more dangerous to anyone than a responsible person with a car. An irresponsible person is a danger to society regardless of which potentially lethal object is within his/her grasp.

 

[Greg T.]

I find the psychology interesting. Many people view giving a son/daughter a gun as a right of passage. Many view the car in the same manner. Yet when an irresponsible teen mishandles a gun and people die, the outcry is far worse than if he mishandles a car and people die.

If I'm texting on my phone and back up over a family member and kill them, nobody says we should take cars away from everybody. But let me forget a live round is in the gun, then it goes off killing a family member as I'm showing it to them and the evil gun must be banished!

How about drunks? What would your reaction be if you found out I was plastered and drove home? Now what would it be if I were stumbling around in the street shooting bullets into the air? Both cases are irresponsible and put others in grave danger by my actions, but people will quickly say "that idiot shouldn't be allowed to have a gun", while the drunk driving reaction is more likely to be mixed, or even glossed over as "that's crazy 'ol 9~ for ya! He'll probably hurt somebody some day..." Very few will actually say "that idiot shouldn't be allowed to own a car", much less lobby for legislation to take cars from drunk drivers and permanently keep them from obtaining cars in the future.

Here's my point in all of this: Cars kill just as many people as guns do. People are just as careless with cars as they are with guns (maybe more careless). Yet nobody lobbies against the automobile. Both are dangerous tools. Both kill indiscriminately when entrusted to the wrong hands. The common denominator with both devices is the human using them. So doesn't it make more sense to try fixing the people than it does the tool?

A responsible person with a gun is no more dangerous to anyone than a responsible person with a car. An irresponsible person is a danger to society regardless of which potentially lethal object is within his/her grasp.

9~, you're right, but again, the gun is meant to kill. The car is not. The car is meant to be driven safely all around town and take people where theyb want to go. The gun has basically one purpose. Sure, people use them for sport and target practice, but the main purpose of the gun is to kill.

 

[WAMO]

HEY G, JUST A QUESTION. IF A GUY IS ROBBING ME AT GUNPOINT AND SHOOTS ME, HOW IS THAT PROTECTING THE OWNER?

 

[Greg T.]

HEY G, JUST A QUESTION. IF A GUY IS ROBBING ME AT GUNPOINT AND SHOOTS ME, HOW IS THAT PROTECTING THE OWNER?

Well, in a way it is. It is stopping you from killing him. But that's not the question here.

 

[WAMO]

LOL LOL. WELL, YOU GOT ME THERE. DAMN IT.

 

[Good Times Good Times]

Some people, in both staunch anti-gun groups and even groups against it (NRA etc), bury their head in the sand and ignore the realities. Others weigh them - how many Afghan civilians have to die to wipe out al Qaeda? How many American soldiers will die or be injured in the process? How many American civilian lives and injuries does that save? Is it worth it? Those same types of questions should be the crux of any argument about gun control.

Most of us look at it that way - we believe that owning a gun is not an inalienable human right, so we must weigh the benefits against the deaths.

Those who view gun ownership as an inalienable human right don't like to be confronted with the humanity of the "risks," especially when it's the death of children, so there's a lot of cognitive dissonance so that they can remove the gun from the equation. They'll blame the father, the 11 year old boy, society, video games, etc, but refuse to put any of the responsibility on our gun laws. I pull my hair out at the cognitive dissonance and get to a feeling that they're incapable of seeing past themselves and their guns and some warped, dogmatic bumper sticker logic.

They want complete gun freedom more than they care about protecting innocent lives, even those of children, and they'll jump through hoops to separate the two.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there's any way to change their minds on this. They'll stick to the methods of separating the two in their mind and keeping gun laws out of the equation. Instead, the focus needs to be on those who are pro-gun rights but also reasonable enough to see that it's not a binary problem, of either all guns or no guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), and that anyone who supports any measure of additional gun control is going to be willing to accept some rather than none (ME)... So there's compromise to be had.

Unfortunately, the right does a great job on this issue of creating panic - "They're coming for your guns!". Let's be honest, do we not see this here? In reality, this is not the case. Most people who support gun control don't want to take everyone's guns, they want to take certain types of guns and take guns from certain people, while making sure those who have them are safe and responsible.

Hopefully, sometime soon, those who want more gun control can realize that there are some gun owners and gun advocates who aren't "gun nuts," but will be highly offended by being called that... whereas they might otherwise be open to discussion (I have hunters/collecters in my own family)... Meanwhile, hopefully those gun rights advocates will realize that there are some gun control advocates who don't want to take their guns away, but simply enact REASONABLE gun control laws.

If those two groups don't come together, we'll never get anything done.

 

[livespive]

The common ground between the two is "LICENSE" This shows resposibility.
Even with my PE "LICENSE" I have to practice engineering the right way.
There have been engineers that have lost their PE's because they have willingly done something wrong.
Gun, Car, and Engineer in all three cases they can willing do something that can result in death.

 

[9andaWiggle]

GT, I agree about the laws. I hear "why don't we just enforce the ones we have?", but I'll be honest and admit I don't know the full extent of laws that are already on the books.

Personally, I think any gun owner should be required to take some kind of educational/training course to get a license (that would be necessary to have prior to purchase). I mean, you have to do the same for a car. Some states even make you take a hunters education class before you can purchase hunting licenses. So why not? Seems a reasonable start to me.

I know some don't like that, fear of the gov't using the data to target people, and that's a legitimate concern, but if the government's intent is to take the guns they'll find a way to identify who jas them and come get them anyway.

I still argue, though, that the gun itself is never the problem. It's the person in control of that weapon that's the problem.

 

[livespive]

"I still argue, though, that the gun itself is never the problem. It's the person in control of that weapon that's the problem"

Exactly, when that person desides that they are going to do something they are going to do it.

We just had this happen in my town not to long ago.......she didn't need a gun:

http://nbc4i.com/2015/10/06/woman-accused-of-running-over-her-husband-during-domestic-dispute/

GT, I agree about the laws. I hear "why don't we just enforce the ones we have?", but I'll be honest and admit I don't know the full extent of laws that are already on the books.

Personally, I think any gun owner should be required to take some kind of educational/training course to get a license (that would be necessary to have prior to purchase). I mean, you have to do the same for a car. Some states even make you take a hunters education class before you can purchase hunting licenses. So why not? Seems a reasonable start to me.

I know some don't like that, fear of the gov't using the data to target people, and that's a legitimate concern, but if the government's intent is to take the guns they'll find a way to identify who jas them and come get them anyway.

I still argue, though, that the gun itself is never the problem. It's the person in control of that weapon that's the problem.

 

[9andaWiggle]

9~, you're right, but again, the gun is meant to kill. The car is not. The car is meant to be driven safely all around town and take people where theyb want to go. The gun has basically one purpose. Sure, people use them for sport and target practice, but the main purpose of the gun is to kill.

I have to ask, what difference does it make what a tool was designed to do when people misuse that tool? Why should it matter what that tool is? If I am negligent in operating a tool in a safe manner and accudentally kill someone, why shouldn't I be banned from ever acquiring another of that tool just like I would be with a gun? A car, a hammer, a knife, a bow/arrow, a 2x4 with a rusty nail, or whatever. When people are the common problem in other people's death, why is the focus not on the people problem?

 

[Good Times Good Times]

I know some don't like that, fear of the gov't using the data to target people, and that's a legitimate concern, but if the government's intent is to take the guns they'll find a way to identify who jas them and come get them anyway.

What is the concern that the government knows who has guns? I've never understood why that was a concern. The government generally knows where you live, if you have a car, job, etc.......what is the concern that the gov't knows you have a gun?

I still argue, though, that the gun itself is never the problem. It's the person in control of that weapon that's the problem.

Right....but how do you control the person without infringing on their civil liberties? It's a very serious thing to try and legally say that this person isn't mentally capable of doing something....and just because you're weird and antisocial doesn't mean you're not allowed to purchase a gun (or go through the loopholes).

If I'm present where you plan on mass murdering, I'm certainly going to like my chances against you with a 2x4 or rusty nail (is this a subtle Joy Ride movie reference ). I'm quick, used to be really quick, but not quicker than you with a gun after me. So for me, the difference that it makes is amount of damage in such a short amount of time.