Firearms responsibility
Oct. 10th, 2011 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleI got interested in some firearms liability issues in relation tothis incident in which a customer dropped his 9mm pistol in a barber shop, the gun fired, and the barber got shot in the ass. While most modern guns cannot fire from just being dropped, it turns out this is a common problem in certain early 20th century weapons that are still in use today.
I asked Bill if he thought the gun owner should be held responsible, and he completely shocked me by saying "no". My own take on guns is that gun owners should be held strictly liable for their weapons - until such time as the weapon is sold, taken by force, or reported stolen, anything that happens with that gun should be 100% the responsibility of the owner. After all, the firearm lobby has said for YEARS that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Except, I guess, when it's your gun...
I was similarly shocked to find that the legal threshold for "negligent discharge" is rather high; you have to be grossly negligent for this term to apply. Compare this to the threshold of liability for that other clasically dangerous accessory, the swimming pool - pool owners have to do a LOT to protect themselves from liability, arguably more than gun owners do! I'm detecting some "special rights for shooters" here.
The article states that the barber "declined to press charges" which suggests that the option was available and that the law did in fact hold the gun owner to some degree of responsibility, although the details are hard to find. The gun owner did pick up the medical bill.
So... now that I've completely biased your opinion, here's your opportunity for you to help prove that I am, as always, right about everything. :-P
It's poll time!
[Poll #1785616]
I asked Bill if he thought the gun owner should be held responsible, and he completely shocked me by saying "no". My own take on guns is that gun owners should be held strictly liable for their weapons - until such time as the weapon is sold, taken by force, or reported stolen, anything that happens with that gun should be 100% the responsibility of the owner. After all, the firearm lobby has said for YEARS that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Except, I guess, when it's your gun...
I was similarly shocked to find that the legal threshold for "negligent discharge" is rather high; you have to be grossly negligent for this term to apply. Compare this to the threshold of liability for that other clasically dangerous accessory, the swimming pool - pool owners have to do a LOT to protect themselves from liability, arguably more than gun owners do! I'm detecting some "special rights for shooters" here.
The article states that the barber "declined to press charges" which suggests that the option was available and that the law did in fact hold the gun owner to some degree of responsibility, although the details are hard to find. The gun owner did pick up the medical bill.
So... now that I've completely biased your opinion, here's your opportunity for you to help prove that I am, as always, right about everything. :-P
It's poll time!
[Poll #1785616]
