One thing I learned in the Business Law course I took in my MBA program 45 years ago was that, “parents are financially responsible for the torts of their children up until the age of majority (age 18 or so, depending an jurisdiction)” Of course, a tort only results in money damages, but maybe the only way to clean up the gun problem is to make it a criminal violation and “lock’em up”?
intercst
No, the gun rights advocates will finance lawyers fighting to protect idiot parents of youthful murderers because of gun ownership rights being hyper-constitutionally important as the New Christian Original Intent Order come to pass.
…and people ask me if I am not afraid to live in Mexico because of gangs.
d fb
Prosecuting straw purchases might help too. Maybe even treating them as accessory to the crimes committed with the gun purchased.
Lock’em up, it’s OK with me. There should be some criteria, I suppose, so I’d go with “knowingly allowed access to firearms by minors.” Full stop. If you are a parent and do not supervise access to firearms, you go to jail.
Suppose you are an absent parent, living across the country from the juvenile. Well, those extenuating circumstances give you a pass; I’m not trying to criminalize heredity here. But if you are present, you know - or should know that your 12 year old is playing with a lethal weapon, and you likely know that they have somewhat aberrant thoughts, as well.
Go directly to jail. Sit there while someone more responsible raises the children.
In a country so enamored with “market” thinking and “market” forces, surely all aspects of human behavior and decision making are optimized when everything has a price attached to it that everyone has to ponder in their decision making. What’s the “price” of that gun I’m buying Junior? It’s not just $699 for the Glock. It’s also $100,000 reflecting the weighted cost of a $20,000,000 dollar class action lawsuit times the 0.5% chance Junior is a latent psycho and decides to kill a classmate. And an extra $2000 per year on the family medical plan to cover the added risk of needing ER treatment for someone in the family or a member of someone else’s family if the weapon is used to injure someone. Maybe your homeowner’s liability insurance should also skyrocket. Surely at this point, any GUN in the house is more dangerous than a trampoline or pool.
WTH
Thing is, guns are part of religion in Shiny-land. Must not interfere with religion. The kid in Oxford is only one case. The news, frequently, reports on a little kid shooting himself or a playmate with an unsecured gun. Gun locks are readily available. Detroit PD will give residents a lock for free. Police departments and the media beg people to secure their guns.
Michigan passed a law recently requiring guns to be stored securely in the home. Bet the Michigan law doesn’t last long.
Several years ago, Washington DC passed a city ordinance requiring guns in the home to be locked or disassembled. Someone took it to SCOTUS. The court ruled that requiring a gun to be locked, or disassembled, inhibited the owner’s “right” to use it, and overturned the law. I expect the same fate is awaiting the Michigan law.
Steve
I don’t see why this was so novel. Seems like a case of Gross Negligence or Gross or Depraved Indifference. Of course state laws very.
I would think most states have laws for criminal indifference. Seems that when all the warning signs are ignored, you have established a pattern of indifference.
Require gun mfrs to insure gun buyers against liability for misuse of those guns. Regular insurers will NOT issue such insurance–ever. So it is kicked back to the mfr. They are the one(s) making the product, so they “know the cost” of what they make. Not just the mfg cost, but the total cost to society. Let the mfr(s) bear all the costs by being required to fully insure the gun buyer/legal owner. The mfr can then charge the buyer the appropriate insurance premium. All “free market” stuff.
Suddenly, the price of guns goes which way? And sales go which way?
THAT is “the free market”. Currently, “the free market” does NOT reflect ALL the costs associated with guns because they KNOW they would be out of business if they had to bear the full cost of their product(s).
Why would this be? Presumably an insurer takes on risks in exchange for a payment. If I have a house with a great risk than others - say, more expensive construction, or I live in a flood plain, or, I don’t know I run a business out of my home - shouldn’t I pay a higher premium?
Why wouldn’t “owning a gun” be considered a risk, and assessed at a higher price point. And if you say “Well, people will lie”, then the policy should say, in big bold print, “all claims relating to firearms owned by or kept within the premises are hereby excluded.” For instance, we have a special rider, for which we pay a small premium, to have umbrella coverage for Mrs. Goofy’s (deceased) mother’s wedding ring. It’s only worth a couple thousand, and it’s kept in a bank safety deposit box, but it’s slightly over the limit that they insure with a standard policy, so there’s a special carve out for it. Why not the same for guns?
I am thinking that car insurances will have to segment much more by product lines. For instance, if gigacasting means the entire car has to be trashed because of a minor accident, those cars should cost far more to insure. Likewise battery packs, etc. Why aren’t firearms treated like that?
The payout amount is not calculable for the insurance company. Which is why insurance companies are leaving FL, CA, and so on. The risk of mega-payouts is beyond the ability of the insured to pay (i.e. the required annual premiums are FAR above what people can reasonably pay). If the premium you paid annually to cover than ring was $5k (and not $50-$100/yr), you would be evaluating if that cost was something you should be paying.
I think a well behaved juvenile should be able to have a gun. But parent is responsible. And should be liable when the juvenile miss-behaves.
Juveniles having firearms is a great idea!
What could possibly go wrong?
Another entry in the long stream of similar incidents around metro Detroit, from yesterday.
I think a 16 year old can have a 22 rifle and go rabbit hunting. And probably learn to participate in a deer hunt.
Yes, it requires an adult to work with the youth to teach them safety issues.
Blocking all juvenile’s from having a gun is very far out. Let’s hope common sense prevails over such extremism.
We allowed our children and now the grandchildren to shoot and learn about guns. That does not mean they have access to guns without an adult being around.
No adult, no guns. Never had a problem.
In the US there are77.49 million gun owners, with an estimated 436.4 million guns.
How Many GUNS are in the US in 2024? (Gun Ownership Stats) (marineapproved.com)
How many juveniles can go rabbit hunting anyway? Or have access to deer hunting?
Like most laws, it would limit freedom of a small percentage for the benefit of the large percentage.
Democracy at work…
The best thing is to insist gun owners insure their weapons. There would be fewer owners with fewer guns.
When a gun is stolen and used in a crime there is a liability involved for the gun owner. Insurance should be mandatory.
We have had justices who have screwed over the lives of many Americans to protect their own lives from the crazies.
The cost of the insurance would be deemed a hindrance to gun ownership, hence unconstitutional. Education and health care can be rationed by ability to pay, but people have a “right” to have guns. Even a permit requirement has been deemed “infringement” by 29 states, which style permitless concealed carry as “Constitutional carry”.
Car insurance already does that. Your collision and comp premium is based on the specific model you drive. Choose a Tesla with 1.9 sec 0-60 accelleration, you pay more.
intercst
Started to learn to shoot at age 8 at firing ranges (Dad and my maternal grandma were my teachers, and pioneer descended Gran was the better shot). Was not allowed to join a hunting party until I had proved my ability to stalk to close quarters by taking a proof photo (showing a very surprised deer). My first kill was a rabbit when I was 13. Uncle accompanying me immediately cut out its heart and told me to eat it, and while I chewed told me something close too “You also are meat for some hunter, and you will die and be eaten. Always kill with humility and compassion.” Then he taught me how to spit roast. Yum!
Now, if that were the norm I would not be so opposed to gun control. But I was one of the last of a lost age. One nephew is an expert marksman, professional policeman, and teaches weaponry to SWAT teams. The 5 others are expert backcountry folk, one is an expert bowman, but they adamantly refuse to use firearms.
Requiring liability insurance would be a great beginning point given our constitutional difficulties.
d fb