Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)
I promised myself I wouldn't waste any more band width on this thread, but you asked me a direct question:
<font color="blue"> Now if we are to hold the original owner responsible for the crime, or at least have them bear the same penalty, then I suppose we need to sentence that police department to life in prison???
</font>
Obviously, you can't "sentence" an organization. But, in cases where an organization has to bear responsibility for their actions, the remedy is usually a financial penalty.
The idea behind my suggestion was to make everyone a lot more careful about what happens to their weapon. In the case of the police department, it would be infinitely cheaper to destroy the weapons they no longer want than to risk a possible large penalty.
It might also be sensible to have a provision to transfer the responsibility, i.e. in a legitimate sale. The registration would be transferred to the buyer, the sale would be recorded, and the responsibility would also be transferred to the buyer. Thus, a buyer who is responsible would not continue to carry that responsibility once the weapon was legitmately no longer in his possession.
The impetus behind my suggestion would be to force all owners to be much more careful about how they store and/or carry their firearm. Anyone who leaves a weapon in a place where it can be more or less easily stolen, or accessed by children, etc., should bear the penalty if the result of their carelessness is criminal action or a tragic accident. The idea of making the owner share the penalty no matter where the weapon ends up is because the weapon would not be in "circulation" if the owner had taken due diligence.
I mentioned in another post that I have had two weapons stolen in break-ins even though they were locked up. Obviously, I didn't make the storage secure enough. I doubt there will be any consequences of a criminal nature because these were simple .22 plinking rifles, but they could cause an accidental death in the wrong hands. the situation was that they were at our mountain cabin, which is uninhabited most of the time but which is occasionally rented. I had them in a padlocked closet where we store other items we don't want to "share" with our renters. Over the course of 15 years, we had two break-ins (one discovered by a friend who is a retired police chief, when he used the cabin). The first time, I didn't learn my lesson, and simply replaced the rifle and the padlock. Since the second incident, there are no more rifles at the cabin.
By failing to secure the rifles adequately, I am guilty of negligence, which could be contributing negligence in any incident concerning those rifles. I failed to think about that in advance. Under current law, once I turned in a police report about the thefts I'm off the hook. But, the potential consequences are what caused me to formulate my ideas about responsibility.
Of course, the entire idea depends on adequate registration of all sales, and that would probably get some people's panties in a bunch. I'll stay out of that one, except that a government that might confiscate all weapons is something else I rarely worry about, except when I think about our current Attorney General, which I try not to do.
I promised myself I wouldn't waste any more band width on this thread, but you asked me a direct question:
<font color="blue"> Now if we are to hold the original owner responsible for the crime, or at least have them bear the same penalty, then I suppose we need to sentence that police department to life in prison???
</font>
Obviously, you can't "sentence" an organization. But, in cases where an organization has to bear responsibility for their actions, the remedy is usually a financial penalty.
The idea behind my suggestion was to make everyone a lot more careful about what happens to their weapon. In the case of the police department, it would be infinitely cheaper to destroy the weapons they no longer want than to risk a possible large penalty.
It might also be sensible to have a provision to transfer the responsibility, i.e. in a legitimate sale. The registration would be transferred to the buyer, the sale would be recorded, and the responsibility would also be transferred to the buyer. Thus, a buyer who is responsible would not continue to carry that responsibility once the weapon was legitmately no longer in his possession.
The impetus behind my suggestion would be to force all owners to be much more careful about how they store and/or carry their firearm. Anyone who leaves a weapon in a place where it can be more or less easily stolen, or accessed by children, etc., should bear the penalty if the result of their carelessness is criminal action or a tragic accident. The idea of making the owner share the penalty no matter where the weapon ends up is because the weapon would not be in "circulation" if the owner had taken due diligence.
I mentioned in another post that I have had two weapons stolen in break-ins even though they were locked up. Obviously, I didn't make the storage secure enough. I doubt there will be any consequences of a criminal nature because these were simple .22 plinking rifles, but they could cause an accidental death in the wrong hands. the situation was that they were at our mountain cabin, which is uninhabited most of the time but which is occasionally rented. I had them in a padlocked closet where we store other items we don't want to "share" with our renters. Over the course of 15 years, we had two break-ins (one discovered by a friend who is a retired police chief, when he used the cabin). The first time, I didn't learn my lesson, and simply replaced the rifle and the padlock. Since the second incident, there are no more rifles at the cabin.
By failing to secure the rifles adequately, I am guilty of negligence, which could be contributing negligence in any incident concerning those rifles. I failed to think about that in advance. Under current law, once I turned in a police report about the thefts I'm off the hook. But, the potential consequences are what caused me to formulate my ideas about responsibility.
Of course, the entire idea depends on adequate registration of all sales, and that would probably get some people's panties in a bunch. I'll stay out of that one, except that a government that might confiscate all weapons is something else I rarely worry about, except when I think about our current Attorney General, which I try not to do.
