Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr
This really isn't a course of action that needs to be looked at either. The only way this could even be considered is if the person who owned the gun gave it to him and knew he was going to kill someone..then it would be an easy link for aiding and abetting..
So really, where ever he got the gun, it was up to the kid to pull the trigger (if he in fact did) not up to the person who owned the gun to make sure the kid couldn't get it.
Now, before blast that whole theory to bits.. I will agree that a person should take reasonable steps to ensure that their weapons are locked and guarded against children.. but I do not agree that a person who owns the said weapon should face criminal charges when that person did not have anything to do with the crime.
That would be like saying a parent should be held criminally liable for a manslaughter charge when their teenager goes out and gets stupid in a car and kills someone. That is pure bollocks.
|
Se - this is where we differ, because I do actally believe that what you said there (my highlight) should be the case.
Just to get this clear - if you have control of something, and if the attempt to use it for its normal purpose could have clearly expected fatal consequences (a car crash, a shooting, etc), then I believe you should be criminally liable for the consequences of allowing that item into the control of someone who mi-uses it. I have no problem if you want to own a gun for legitimate reason (farmer for pest control, hunter for deer whatever other reason your chosen society allows) but if you allow your kid to get hold of it when quite clearly they shouldn't (I think it's clear that a death was a bad thing) then you are complicit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
This is becoming some sort of US=gun nuts vs. Britain=peaceniks when Britain has also had its share of gun violence and the most publicized were shooting sprees with multiple deaths so don't blame the US for this.
The fact is that those with a mind to do so will commit whatever crime that warped mind decides and having gun laws doesn't change that.
This is about an 11 year old kid who voiced his desire to kill an eight months pregnant woman and did so and no one noticed his mental state. Now they want him tried as an adult....
Even if he is tried as an adult, they probably wouldn't put him in an adult prison, if convicted, until he is of age to be so. In New Jersey(neighbor to PA where this took place) is a full youth's prison, the Yardville Correctional Facility. He'd probably end up there.
|
I think it's not "US=gun nuts vs. Britain=peaceniks", I think it's "US=personal freedom at the possible expense of collective safety, vs. Britain=public safety at the possible expense of collective freedom".
The point being that in this country, we have far more controls on all sorts of areas of life many of which confuse and anger Americans, but in consequence we have fewer people dead of gunshots, fewer people allowed to die because their medical cover was insufficient, more controls over food ingredients, more controls over industrial pollution, and so on.