http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/20/newtown-will-not-bury-the-mother-of-the-killer Comments On: Newtown Will Not Bury the Mother of the Killer by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 10:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss so if you're gonna keep a loaded gun unsecured in your house just in case that burglar comes by, sure, you get that freedom to feel secure. you also should get sent to jail if your kid steals it and shoots up 20 kindergartners.
Posted by onion]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:28:54 -0800 The Stranger cripes! does the government leave its nuclear weapons laying around unsecured and expect everyone to leave them be? no! if someone stole bombs left lying around with no security could the govt just say "hey, they were stolen. it's not our fault that they were used to murder 100,00 people! gosh!"
gun owners have the responsibility of keeping their weapons under complete LOCK AND KEY. the only person who should be able to access a registered firearm is the registered owner of that firearm. at the very least there should be a trigger lock on the things. one with a combo only the owner knows, or at least the key should be hidden and I mean HIDDEN. something like a bushmaster should have 20 trigger locks and be inside about 15 or so bomb-proof safes. and it doesn't matter whether or not the gun thief is sane, crazy, a friend, family or from Mars. the registered owner is responsible for what those guns do. period.
Posted by onion]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:20:54 -0800 The Stranger
As far as trying to figure out in a trial whether the mother knew exactly what the son was thinking/feeling before he did that, it would be a little difficult because, you know, she's dead.


Posted by sarah70]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:55:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by AlliMike]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:05:30 -0800 The Stranger
And why do I care? Seriously? Well, why do any of us care about the victims at Sandy Hook? It's not like we are related to them or anything.

And lastly, yes indeed I would bear personal responsibility in the case you mention - but I question whether that should equate to legal liability. In any event that wouldn't happen because unlike many gun owners, I am not stupid enough to keep a loaded weapon anywhere near where an intruder or a family member might come across it and use it.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:26:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by gr8lakesgrrl]]> Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:00:38 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CbytheSea]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:51:06 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TampaDink]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:40:55 -0800 The Stranger
Mental health concerns as well as gun regulation/control must BOTH be addressed by Congress.
Posted by TampaDink]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:38:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Madame Chintoa]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:59:19 -0800 The Stranger
Well, I guess whether she bears any civil culpability would be a matter settled at trial. Like whether she knew her son was unstable. Or if she didn't secure her weapons. Even still, *she* was the legal owner, not the son, and if she gave unfettered access to him, then I have no problem placing civil liability on her. Just like if someone is injured on your property, even if the injury is in no way your fault, you're still on the hook for premises liability. Why are you so hostile to even the merest suggestion that people be held responsible for the handling of weapons that are capable of mass murder?

For that matter, why do you even care? She is dead. The only people who have any reason to care whether her estate is sued are her inheritors.

And continuing on with your idiotic reasoning above, if a burglar grabbed your weapon that was sitting on the kitchen table and shot your kid? YOU would be partially responsible for that. Congratulations.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:19:10 -0800 The Stranger
Geezus. Stop with the mother. The assault rifle was bought legally; talk about that.
Posted by sarah70]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:14:25 -0800 The Stranger
I am not allergic to personal responsibility. I just fail to see how suing the mother's estate, in this case, for the crimes of her adult child, is an example of it.

No one knows, at this point, how he came into possession of his mother's weapons. All we know is that he did, and that she was his first victim. But Charles, and others, seem happy to have her, a victim of violent crime who - as the gun defenders will remind us - legally owned her weapons, treated as a perpetrator.

That is also one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:33:39 -0800 The Stranger And I am charged as an accessory in my own assault. After all, it was my gun. He only had it because he took it from me.

That is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Parents have a responsibility to their children, to both keep them safe and to keep them from using items that should not legally be in their possession. If a teenager gets drunk with the parents' knowledge and then gets into a car and kills someone, the parents can and frequently are held civilly liable. They've even been thrown in jail for criminal negligence. Why are you so allergic to personal responsibility?
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:18:21 -0800 The Stranger
we draw lines, make boundaries tc about what is acceptable or legal and what is not. shades or grey, and there is a huge distinction between criminal and civil liability. so, had the mother lived through hsi, she may not be criminally liable, she and her insurance company would most surely be sued, and settle for damages.

i hope it still happens, and the lawsuits include bushmaster and/or Cerebreus, their owners.

i would bet that , just like tobacco companies, the gun makers have lots of internal docs that show they willfully choose to not make their products safer , so they can maximize profits, knowing those decisions cost lives.

doubt many juries will be sympathetic to that, and a fat civil judgement might change the industry much quicker that legislation.
Posted by Cassette tape fan]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:10:00 -0800 The Stranger
Or even farther: I am a law-abiding gun owner. I keep a handgun for self-defense. Well aware that a weapon I cannot get to and use is no more help than no weapon at all, I keep it loaded in my bedside table. One night, I hear a noise and creep downstairs, weapon in hand. I turn the corner and surprise an unarmed burglar! We struggle. In the struggle, the gun goes off and wounds me in the leg. I manage to subdue the miscreant and hold him until the police arrives.

The burglar is duly charged with breaking and entering, and assualt with a deadly weapon for shooting me with my own handgun.

And I am charged as an accessory in my own assault. After all, it was my gun. He only had it because he took it from me.

Sound about right?

God, I love a good reductio ad absurdum!
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:50:42 -0800 The Stranger
If the child used the parents' guns, yes. Why do you think that's so controversial? We're talking criminal negligence at a minimum.

And, since the kid in that story wasn't yet old enough to legally operate a motor vehicle, yes, his parents should be charged with some form of criminal negligence for giving him access to the vehicle.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:17:44 -0800 The Stranger Not just a minor child, even ADULTS (see @45's wording).

So if a 50 year old guy gets in a drunk driving accident, the court has to drag in the guy's 70+ year old parents as accessories. Even if they haven't seen their son for decades.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:13:07 -0800 The Stranger
For example, you propose the parents in this case should be charged:

http://www.swrnn.com/2011/07/07/sd-teen-…
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:40 -0800 The Stranger
parents' guns
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:38:39 -0800 The Stranger
If the criminals used their parents guns, yes, depending on the circumstances. If the shooter is a minor, yes, absolutely. If the shooter is mentally ill, perhaps, certainly a civil action is in order.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:37:49 -0800 The Stranger
Safes and trigger locks should be mandatory, or at least required for a gun to be insured (and gun insurance made mandatory). People should be liable when they don't secure their guns. I would bet that in this case and most others the guns were not stolen from a locked safe.

We should also limit ammunition purchases over time to an amount that supports legitimate home-defense needs. If someone wants to shoot off a lot more rounds than that for target practice, they can go to a range, where the law can allow larger amounts of ammo that don't leave the premises, with strict business licensing requirements. Yeah, shooting off a gun at a random location in a national park, or in a local gravel pit, no longer becomes possible. Deal.

And maybe limit gun ownership to one of each major category--one pistol, one shotgun, one rifle. If people want more they can go to the licensed gun range where more guns are kept on the premises. Then even if some disturbed kid steals from his mom's locked gun safe, he'll be limited to three weapons and a handful of ammo for each--not enough for a massacre.
Posted by Cascadian]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:31:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by The truth is still putting on its shoes]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:26:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:23:06 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Charles Mudede]]> Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:20:07 -0800 The Stranger