There was another school shooting today, this time in Indiana. Fortunately, no one was killed, although two were wounded. An unarmed science teacher saved the day.
Seventh-grader Ethan Stonebraker said the science teacher likely prevented even more injuries by confronting the shooter, who he said pulled out a gun and opened fire while the class was taking a test.
“Our science teacher immediately ran at him, swatted a gun out of his hand and tackled him to the ground,” Stonebraker said. “If it weren’t for him, more of us would have been injured for sure.”
We don’t know where the shooter got his gun. But we’ve had a number of recent circumstances in which shooters used their parents’ guns, or who were not supposed to have guns according to a court but were indulged by a parent.
I’d like to direct your attention to a post at a blog called Stonekettle that I have found recently. The blogger describes a conversation between himself and someone opposed to gun control laws. The blogger argues that there should be enforceable laws making the owner of a gun legally responsible if that gun is used in a crime, including a mass shooting. The other person objects:
If someone takes my car without permission and runs someone over with it, am I liable? The same answer applies to if someone took one of my guns without permission to murder someone else.
YES.
Yes. You can be held liable depending on circumstance.
Tony might want to check the laws of his state.
You see, in many states failure to properly secure your vehicle does make you liable under the law – not to mention, being grounds for claim denial by your insurance company.
For example: In nearly every state it is illegal to leave a running car unattended, even on private property, even if the the door is locked, and in some states even if you use a remote starting system with anti-theft lockout capability.
If you leave your car unsecured, with the keys in the ignition, you can be held liable for its theft and subsequent use in a crime.
Likewise, if you loan your vehicle to somebody unauthorized to operate it, or who is impaired, or who is not covered under your insurance, then you are liable for whatever happens with that vehicle. You are most certainly liable if your kids take your car and kill somebody because you left the keys where they could get them. You’re responsible for both the kids and the car.
However, if you take reasonable steps to secure your vehicle and to keep it out of the hands of unauthorized users, then the law generally does not hold you accountable if someone steals your car.
This is no different whatsoever from what I suggested.
Very simply, if you own a gun, you are responsible for it. If you leave it where your child can get it, and your child takes it and shoots up his science class with it, you should bear some legal responsibility. Likewise if a loaded gun is left where a toddler can get it, and the toddler kills himself or a sibling, that is not an “accident.” The owner of the gun is responsible for that shooting, and he or she should be legally responsible also. If you can document that you keep your guns in a safe or secure, locked cabinet, and a master thief gets into your house, picks the locks and steals the gun, and you report this to police, then you are not liable. Otherwise, you are. And if there are soft headed judges who routinely hand out suspended sentences for irresponsible gun ownership, maybe we can talk about mandatory sentences.
I do think that if gun owners get the message that they can get hit with serious fines and jail time for what is done with their guns, I suspect we’d see a lot fewer school shootings, at least.
Further, gun violence — including the costs of law enforcement and medical bills — are estimated to be costing U.S. taxpayers $100 billion a year. Gun owners should be required to pay for liability insurance to help pay for that. I’d tack additional sales taxes onto gun sales as well.
Are there any sensible arguments why this isn’t a good idea?
No, there are no sensible arguments against making gun owners liable when a gun owner's irresponsibility results in their guns causing injury or death. The NRA itself cries piously about "responsible gun owners" and yet, unlike their lobbying to ensure guns are more widely available, make no equivalent effort to ensure laws are created to codify what being a responsible gun owner really means. If my minor child takes my car keys, goes out, joyrides and crashes through my neighbor's window, my neighbor gets to sue me, and my insurance company is well within its right to deny any claim I make. There's no reason why I as a parent of a child should not be held responsible if said child took my gun, went to school and shot somebody. There is no rational argument that the two are not the same and should be treated differently.
And yet, the NRA death lobby and their followers insist that it is rational because, the second amendment.
"Are there any sensible arguments why this isn’t a good idea?"
Answer – "no".
The only problem with "sensible arguments" is the NRA. Requiring that gun owners be responsible could inhibit the sale of guns, the NRA is in the business of maximizing gun sales, responsible gun laws could hurt sales? This is why we have all these "stand your ground" laws, background checl loopholes, easy access-no wait period, etc… the NRA knows if gun owners have to face the consequences of gun ownership it could impede sales.
Thom Hartmann wrote an article a few months ago arguing that guns should be treated like cars.
Regarding gun nuts:
Like with religious nuts, nothing sensible can penetrate these zealot's thick skulls.
You're either with Jesus, or you're with Satan.
You're either with Smith & Wessom, or you're against the 2nd Amendment and America.
They have names for people lik who don't believe in the same things they do:
Heretic.
Traitor.
Regarding gun nuts:
Like with religious nuts, nothing sensible can penetrate these zealot's thick skulls.
You're either with Jesus, or you're with Satan.
You're either with Smith & Wessom, or you're against the 2nd Amendment and America.
They have names for people like us, who don't believe in the same things they do:
Heretic.
Traitor.
In the past, they burned the former, and hung the latter.
I often worry about the future. I don't want to be barbecued, or have my size 20 neck stretched until it snaps.
I, don't think we'll ever get the shit-stains that tRUMP and his zealous followers have soiled America and all that it stood for centuries with. (Sorry for this awkward sentence).
To those people, in the future, the tRUMP years will be fondly remembered as "The Good Old Days."
Whatn the fu…?
It’s probably the lead poisoning; breathing the fumes from the shooting ranges. Honestly, that would explain a lot of Republican behavior— madness.
A few months ago Thom Hartmann wrote Two Simple Laws Could Solve America’s Epidemic of Violence. One of them relates to treating guns like we learned to do with cars:
These are great ideas.
Moonbat: excellent ideas I have thought about myself. Trouble is, the NRA, being a terrorist organization, has so far been able to scare its puppet legislators from requiring universal gun registration, which would be a first step towards setting liability, ownership, etc.
Slightly off topic, on the subject of why police should not be armed: the NFL kneeling. Last week the owners, without a true vote and without even consulting with the player’s union, put in a no kneeling on the field rule. The owners talked about “respecting the flagâ€. They might as well have talked about the weather, because the kneeling is about police violence and not the flag. Changing the subject is not a good strategy for the fat cats. It is prett transparent. And without the players, they have nothing. I think they are about to learn that lesson. What they should do is go out and kneel with the players. A good boss backs up his people, especially when they are right. All the owners have done so far is to try to offend nobody and end up offending everyone.