A Monday night sighting of the convicted killer who escaped from an eastern Pennsylvania prison nearly two weeks ago jolted the surrounding community into high alert and prompted school closures Tuesday, after police warned the inmate now has a weapon.
I would argue that, generally, one isn’t responsible for the crimes that another commits – the perp would have had to have trespassed, and stolen the rifle. What one does on their own property is generally of their own concern. This is assuming, of course, that the reason in which this occurred has no laws on the storage of firearms (whether such laws are justified, or not is separate argument, ofc).
While I don’t think laws exist for gun storage in most of the US. It is very well known that you should lock up guns when not in use. Seriously there are ads about it on YouTube ( I don’t know why, I don’t and have never had a gun, nor anyone in my immediate family) at the very least he deserves to be bullied for making such an obvious bad decision. I want this to be kept in mind you live in the same state as Kensington… and you think it’s a good idea to leave guns open?
When I said “responsible” I was meaning “held accountable by the law”. Of course one should be stroring their firearms in a safe manner.
Suggestions enforced by tutting on social media are not a substitute for actual laws with actual repurcussions.
That’s what irks me. Say we get a weekly report about another child shooting their brother with an unsecured loaded gun. That just prompts observatory responses from gun nuts: “Oh yeah, generally it’s a good idea to secure your guns and keep the ammo separate. Here’s a handy youtube guide for setting one up if you feel like it.”
It infuriates me to no end that the response is not the same as it is in industrial topics: “There is no such thing as an accident. Just willful ignorance of safety rules/laws.” Let’s make those into laws.
It’s just gun owners jerking each other off because it wasn’t them, they don’t actually care to fix anything and will staunchly oppose trying.
For safe storage, the talking point is usually “Safes are expensive! What about poor people? Do you hate poor people? Do you want them to be raped? Some of them might be black or gay or women! Whose the real nazi now?”.
Of course, they’re not giving away guns for free, so they’re obviously fine with a financial barrier for gun ownership, as long as that money goes into the pockets of gun manufacturers and lobbyists.
I would say that, for this example, an argument could be made that having a loaded firearm that is reasonably easily accessible to children could be defined as reckless endangerment, or negligence. I am generally in favor of punishing such behaviours; however, it should be noted that such a punishment is generally not at all black and white, so it should certainly be mostly left up to a jury.
Let’s say you’re a reactor engineer, and you’re safeguarding a package of plutonium being unloaded from a truck while some others go to get equipment to move it. You look at a particularly fluffy cloud in the sky for 25 minutes, then look down and the plutonium is gone. You apologize to your superiors about the oversight, not knowing what criminal might have trespassed in the area. Then, terrorists blow up a city with a dirty bomb.
Are you a terrorist directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people? No. Are you still partly responsible, enough that you should lose any potential jobs in nuclear engineering? Absolutely. Carrying dangerous items bears responsibility for their safeguarding.
Your example is fundamentally flawed. Plutonium on its own does not create the threat of a nuclear bomb – plutonium is used in the manufacturing of nuclear bombs. The only threat of plutonium would be the levels of radiation that it would produce, as such, one would need to make sure that the plutonium is properly shielded in order to protect the public.
That being said, I do understand the point that you are trying to make, and I do agree with it – if one looks at things through the perspective of the non-aggression principle, an argument could certainly be made that there exists examples of items whose mere existence is a threat to the safety of others. For example, stockpiling large amounts of fertilizer (e.g. ANFO), improper storage, and handling of dangerous pathogens, nuclear bombs, etc. These examples, by their mere existence, creates a threat to the livelihood those around it, as such, an argument could certainly be made that they should be regulated by law to ensure the safety of the surrounding public; however, in general, I do not see firearms as falling within this category, or, at the very least, it heavily depends on context. I would look at it from the perspective of whether or not the situation at hand constitutes reckless endangerment. For example, say you leave, unattended, a loaded firearm on a public bench. This could be argued to constitute reckless endangerment as the firearm could easily be accidentally discharged by an unassuming passerby – since an item in the public domain could certainly be expected to be interacted with by a member of the public – thereby creating a threat to the safety of others – the individual whom is the owned of that firearm could thus be considered as responsible for endangering others. Another example would be leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a residence with children around. This could be argued as negligence for the safety of the child, and could be legally treated as such. However, if your firearm is in a location that, on its own, creates no immediate threat to the safety of others, and the only way for it to become unsafe if it is taken from that originally safe location by an individual who is not reasonably expected to interact with it – e.g. theft, and trespass – why should one be responsible for that outcome?