Newtown leader condemns professor who suggested school massacre was 'drill'

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Again, I would be interested to see a case where a strict liability law is applied in the case of a stolen, but otherwise legally held and kept object. If you know of a case, I would be interested to read about it.

The problem with comparing lions to guns is that guns cannot "escape" from your house on their own.

I don't know that it is. I'm suggesting that we apply it to certain guns.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Again, I would be interested to see a case where a strict liability law is applied in the case of a stolen, but otherwise legally held and kept object. If you know of a case, I would be interested to read about it.

The problem with comparing lions to guns is that guns cannot "escape" from your house on their own.

I don't know that it is. I'm suggesting that we apply it to certain guns.

So what legally happens to this law abiding citizen if someone breaks into his home, steals a certain kind of gun, and uses it to kill with?

And how would this stop mass killings like in the theater and school?

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Again, I would be interested to see a case where a strict liability law is applied in the case of a stolen, but otherwise legally held and kept object. If you know of a case, I would be interested to read about it.

The problem with comparing lions to guns is that guns cannot "escape" from your house on their own.

I don't know that it is. I'm suggesting that we apply it to certain guns.

So what legally happens to this law abiding citizen if someone breaks into his home, steals a certain kind of gun, and uses it to kill with?

And how would this stop mass killings like in the theater and school?

The owner of the gun would be liable for the deaths to a certain degree. This would reduce mass killings such as the one at the school in that it would 1) create a disincentive to own certain types of guns to begin with and 2) create incentive to provide a higher level of security over said guns so that they are not easily taken and used in a killing spree.

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

Nekochan wrote:
Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

So you are going to lock a guy up who has his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home. While he's locked up, let's take him to court and sue him (for what little he has left after criminal court fees) for having his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home.

Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

So you are going to lock a guy up who has his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home. While he's locked up, let's take him to court and sue him (for what little he has left after criminal court fees) for having his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home.

Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

alecto wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

So you are going to lock a guy up who has his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home. While he's locked up, let's take him to court and sue him (for what little he has left after criminal court fees) for having his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home.

Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

First they would have to prove you were the owner of a gun that was stolen and used in a murder. If they held people liable to the extent BOF would like people would just stop reporting the theft of guns and remove any identifying serial numbers that would link it back to them.

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

So you are going to lock a guy up who has his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home. While he's locked up, let's take him to court and sue him (for what little he has left after criminal court fees) for having his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home.

Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

First they would have to prove you were the owner of a gun that was stolen and used in a murder. If they held people liable to the extent BOF would like people would just stop reporting the theft of guns and remove any identifying serial numbers that would link it back to them.

You would of course also require that whatever guns fall under strict liability would have be registered. Determining the owner who is strictly liable would simply involve looking up to whom the murder weapon is registered.

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

alecto wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

So you are going to lock a guy up who has his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home. While he's locked up, let's take him to court and sue him (for what little he has left after criminal court fees) for having his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home.

Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

First they would have to prove you were the owner of a gun that was stolen and used in a murder. If they held people liable to the extent BOF would like people would just stop reporting the theft of guns and remove any identifying serial numbers that would link it back to them.

You would of course also require that whatever guns fall under strict liability would have be registered. Determining the owner who is strictly liable would simply involve looking up to whom the murder weapon is registered.

You first have to get the 400million plus guns in the US registered, many will refuse to register. You will not have a registration system as long as FOPA stands, would take major changes to get FOPA changed.

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:
Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

So, what is the answer, Neko?

Do nothing?

There's no way to prevent all gun violence in the U.S., so just sit back and enjoy the carnage?

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Nekochan wrote:Strict liability for keeping dangerous objects/animals usually applies to civil liability.

Perhaps criminally, civilly, or both; more than they are now is the point.

So you are going to lock a guy up who has his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home. While he's locked up, let's take him to court and sue him (for what little he has left after criminal court fees) for having his legally obtained gun stolen from his own home.

Yes, I think this is the answer to gun violence in the US.

On one extreme end of the spectrum, we have zero liability for the gun owner. On the other extreme end of the spectrum, we have strict liability in which the gun owner is both criminally and civilly liable. I'm not saying that we have to go from one extreme to the other but, rather, we find some level of liability in the middle - a level of liability that is greater than what we have now.

Nekochan wrote:Boards, it is not right, legally or morally or in any way, to hold someone responsible for a gun or any legally obtained object that was stolen from his home. And it won't stop school or theater killings.