Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

In this case yes, he should be tried for manslaughter. Not sure you will find much disagreement in the gun community over that. It is no different than any other negligent homicide.

I don't agree that if someone broke in his house, stole a gun, then shot someone, that he should be held responsible. Not sure if you were going there or not.

So following along your line of thinking...with the "leaving a gun lying around". If someone comes in my house...whether a burglar or a person I know, and they see my keys sitting on the table, and they take my car and drive into a crowded street and kill people, should I be at fault? What if they take knives from my butcher block, and go into a school and stab and kill people. Still my fault? What about my chainsaw?

Do you see where I'm going with this? A gun is a tool. Harmless unless it is put in the hands of a criminal or someone who has the desires to do harm. Why is a gun the only tool that people want to blame the owner instead of the criminal. Yes, if someone leaves a loaded gun on the counter, and a child takes it and shoots someone, they will likely be charged with a crime, but if someone leaves a cast iron pot on the stove, and a kid pulls it off onto their sibling, and kills them....is that a crime too? Guns aren't inherently evil, any more than my knives, car, hammer, or chainsaw is. We should treat them all the same.

RenegadeCJ wrote: So following along your line of thinking...with the "leaving a gun lying around". If someone comes in my house...whether a burglar or a person I know, and they see my keys sitting on the table, and they take my car and drive into a crowded street and kill people, should I be at fault? What if they take knives from my butcher block, and go into a school and stab and kill people. Still my fault? What about my chainsaw?

Do you see where I'm going with this? A gun is a tool. Harmless unless it is put in the hands of a criminal or someone who has the desires to do harm. Why is a gun the only tool that people want to blame the owner instead of the criminal. Yes, if someone leaves a loaded gun on the counter, and a child takes it and shoots someone, they will likely be charged with a crime, but if someone leaves a cast iron pot on the stove, and a kid pulls it off onto their sibling, and kills them....is that a crime too? Guns aren't inherently evil, any more than my knives, car, hammer, or chainsaw is. We should treat them all the same.

I was going to make the exact same argument, because it's logical.

I remember a long thread on a gun forum, many years ago, about children getting hold of loaded firearms. It should never happen; if anyone owns guns, they should be well beyond the reach of a child.

We have no youngsters - but when we have company over, my guns get put away, because inevitably there's always someone who wants to handle them.

I completely agree that rootin'-tootin' d-bag in the article should be put away for both manslaughter and unimaginable stupidity. I don't care to have such fools taking up my oxygen.

I have no problems with responsible gun ownership. Living up here I also consider them useful tools and own several. That said I have no sympathy for those who make gun ownership an ideology. They are too often used to feed fear and paranoia.

ScienceChic wrote: Renegade, that's an an interesting scenario you bring up. I would have to say it depends. If the gun owner took every reasonable precaution to keep their guns locked up and out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them - whether it's someone who lives in their house or someone who breaks in and steals them, then no, I don't believe they should be held accountable. We control what we can while realizing that we can't make everything 100% safe.

If, however, they leave their guns lying around, loaded or with easy access to ammunition, for anyone to take - their 2 yo son or a burglar, then they have been irresponsible and they should be held accountable for some measure. I would say that it should be on a case-by-case basis as to the severity of the resulting crime, and the level of irresponsibility of the gun owner, and their remorse.

At the moment I can't think of any other scenarios or qualifications that would change my above statements, but it's certainly possible.

If gun owner's house is locked up, then the gun owner has been responsible with the gun. If a burglar breaks into the gun owner's house, the gun owner has no liability. The burglar is responsible for his burglary, theft of the gun, and any future crimes that he commits with the stolen gun.

Interesting input.

I wrote in an earlier post how firearm ownership is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Not hammers, or cars, or cell phones. There's a constant outcry about internet loopholes and gun show sales, which is essentially a crock of doo-doo. If you purchase a gun at a gun show, a background check is performed on the phone. Sometimes if the check can't be completed, you have to pick it up at a dealer later. Internet sales? Complete and utter lies. You cannot buy a gun over the internet without a background check, and the gun is then shipped from the dealer to another licensed dealer. I've done this several times. It cannot be circumvented.

Mass slaughter existed long before guns were ever invented. Firearm deaths in the US have been declining for years; they're sensationalized by instant media, just like videos of cats on pianos.

So who in the loop is going to ascertain which citizen is qualified to own a gun?

Here's a thought. The Colorado lawmakers bowed to pressure and outlawed magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. If you had larger magazines before the law went into effect, you could keep them. Prosecutors have to prove you bought new magazines illegally, and many have stated (along with sheriffs) that it's a ridiculous law. (I agree.) Just because you purchase a larger capacity magazine doesn't mean you intend to go out and kill anyone.

Which brings up another point ... crotch rockets. If someone purchases one of these motorcycles, they have only one intention - to break the law, to speed, to push the limits, to go as fast as they can, and to terrorize other drivers, residents, and livestock. Anyone who lives on a winding canyon road knows this to be especially true, evidenced mostly on weekend mornings. So why aren't these motorcycles banned by the legislature? Owning one isn't a right. They serve no useful or constructive societal purpose. Unlike gun or magazine purchases, the buyer is practically stating, "I am going to go out and break the law and be as big an a=hole as I possibly can."