Not at all! You decide that based on your values. Mine may be different from yours
@tRidiot In all these threads I have never seen anyone tell you what the standard for you is. That's for you to decide. Just like its for me to decide what I do in my home or vehicle with my possessions. I let my 11 year old handle guns I wouldn't dare let other people touch due to my personal experience and observations. If you want to leave your stuff out to get stolen. Your choice if someone gets shot with your gun you didn't want to secure and your okay with it. That's your prerogative. I ask you again if a kid kills himself with your gun. Is that the kids fault for playing with what they thought was a toy? Do you have no responsibility with guns only when it come to thieves? What about your son? His friends? Visitors to your home? You still have no responsibility?
So do you just give your patients any drug they ask for? Where do you draw the line? No pain killers? No Weed? But if they want 2% hydrocortisone well that's okay?
So do you just give your patients any drug they ask for? Where do you draw the line? No pain killers? No Weed? But if they want 2% hydrocortisone well that's okay?
You want us to validate YOUR values. Big pants on and kindly do that yourself
You want us to validate YOUR values. Big pants on and kindly do that yourselfBe
serious if you want but sorry I’ll not play your game. Seriously maybe you should rethink whether you should own firearms if you continue to be frustrated because we are agreeing with your line of thought on gun ownership
AMEN. Your standard is obviously different. That doesn’t make it wrong but clearly different. What you think is all that’s important to you. Please don’t try to force those standards on others though because there’s are different
It goes beyond that. If a person steal your shovel and commits a crime with it, you can be held responsible. If someone hops two or three fences to trespass and swim in your pool but drowns, you can be held responsible. The courts have decided this time and time again. It put Winchester out of business, Remington is to follow.
Perhaps the great divide here is semantics... It's not if you should be held responsible, but ultimately are.
Alright. I totally get where @tRidiot is coming from. He is asking about negligence and liability. Not about wisdom or stupidity or ethics. He is also not asking what the current legal status is: he is asking your opinion individually what your standard of negligent liability is.
Those are two separate factors. Is it unwise/stupid/unethical as a gun owner to leave a loaded gun in an unlocked car? Yes. Is the owner liable and at fault to any degree for damages done should someone other than them take (steal) the gun? Different question.
I will answer the question.
In my opinion, there are still two aspects that are getting confused in this thread: liability/fault for the theft, and liability/fault for damages done with the item following the theft.
As for the theft, the owner bears no fault period. In my opinion there should be zero layers of protection required by an owner to secure their property before it is theft for someone else to take it. Regardless of value or danger.
Regarding the liability for damages, there is a lot more depth. First off, I would say it does depend on potential danger. For example, liquor and drugs. I am not required by law to secure them to some abstract level, but if I don’t, and a child should harm themselves or another with it, then there is negligent liability. I would value a firearm at a similar level. If I fail to secure a dangerous item sufficient that a typical child cannot access it, then I could bear liability.
Those are two separate factors. Is it unwise/stupid/unethical as a gun owner to leave a loaded gun in an unlocked car? Yes. Is the owner liable and at fault to any degree for damages done should someone other than them take (steal) the gun? Different question.
I will answer the question.
In my opinion, there are still two aspects that are getting confused in this thread: liability/fault for the theft, and liability/fault for damages done with the item following the theft.
As for the theft, the owner bears no fault period. In my opinion there should be zero layers of protection required by an owner to secure their property before it is theft for someone else to take it. Regardless of value or danger.
Regarding the liability for damages, there is a lot more depth. First off, I would say it does depend on potential danger. For example, liquor and drugs. I am not required by law to secure them to some abstract level, but if I don’t, and a child should harm themselves or another with it, then there is negligent liability. I would value a firearm at a similar level. If I fail to secure a dangerous item sufficient that a typical child cannot access it, then I could bear liability.
So liability is defined by who takes the property and/or if damages are incurred?
Time and time again people have said if you don't take more precautions then you have contributed/are to blame/deserve no sympathy. I'm not sure what else you could mean other than applying those standards.
Not at all... if I am asked to take an action, I evaluate the request, risks, benefits to both parties, etc. Different situation than telling someone they should or must do this or that. And people come to me for advice on how to handle things. I give them what they ask for - advice. If they need treatment for a particular condition, I do what I can to help them, but no, I don't just give anything people ask for. People may think they know what they want - what they need or what is good for them may be different. Same with raising kids.
I take responsibility for the visitors to my home and for my son. I have taken the steps necessary to secure firearms when visitors are in my home. All I've been doing is asking for clarification of how many steps YOU GUYS (generic 'you' here) think is necessary or should be required. If some people feel asking those questions is wrong, well... I can't help how you may feel, but if you enter a discussion and someone asks you to justify your position or clarify it, how is that wrong or confrontational? If you can't defend your position or even STATE WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, maybe that says something? I dunno... have I told anyone what they SHOULD or MUST do??
Don't just take and hold a position because you have always assumed it. Examine it and evaluate the appropriateness. Is your position consistent with your other beliefs? Is it consistent for different people in different positions/locations, etc.?
Asking people to think can be painful.
