Those who sell guns to criminals should not be held responsible for crimes committed

I came across a post in another thread where someone, presumably a Liberal, stated that they think those who give guns to known criminals who later go on to kill someone should be executed, placing a primary share of the blame for the murder on the one who illegally provided the gun.

I emphatically disagree.

Now, before I start off I just want to clarify that I'm not saying the one who provided the gun holds no blame whatsoever for the murder, but I am saying it's very inappropriate to attach primary responsibility to them for the murder. (And let's keep in mind this was a murder committed by someone else.)

Just because something is illegal DOES NOT automatically imply that the person who committed the illegal act should be held responsible for all of the indirect effects of their actions.

First off, some people assume a known criminal has no other reason to have a gun than to commit a robbery or murder someone. That's not necessarily true.
One of the primary reasons criminals have guns is for protection, from other criminals. (It's not like they can go to the police for help, and they often have to worry about rival gangs or organized crime groups trying to secure a monopoly on an illegal undertaking)

Then there are different types of criminals. Providing a gun to a white collar criminal convicted of fraud isn't exactly the same as providing a gun to someone you know has already gone on a murderous random killing spree.

And here's another perspective to consider. There was a time in America before these type of gun control laws existed. You could sell a gun to anyone who was free and walked into your store. Those who murdered someone were executed. If a criminal who had committed robbery in the past was released, they could purchase a gun again. (Whether they were released depended on exactly what they had done, and the rate of reoffense for those with long prison sentences was low because most of them were so old by the time they got out)
So, there was a time when providing a gun to a "known criminal" was not illegal (in general, it could still be a crime in certain specific types of situations, such as if you were trying to aid someone in the crime). Obviously these people (back at that time) were not responsible for a murder the criminal chose to commit with that gun.

Now some will argue utilitarian justifications rather than deontological ethics.
But let's keep in mind this is the law here, being imposed with force. Once you abandon morality you become as bad as the lawless.

There is also of course the argument that even if the criminal had not been provided with a gun it might not have stopped them from being able rob/steal a gun, or committing the murder (a gun isn't always required to commit a murder, obviously). You can't say for certain that if the gun hadn't been provided the crime wouldn't have happened (or another similar type of crime).

But perhaps the strongest argument of all is that the one providing the gun wasn't the one committing the crime. (other than the fact that providing the gun was made a crime in itself, of course)

I'm not particularly making the argument here that providing guns to criminals should be legal, necessarily, but you can't (or shouldn't, I should say) lay a primary share of the blame for the crime on the one who did not commit it.

Look, if the one who provided the gun is 40 percent responsible for the crime committed with it, let's say, does that make the criminal only 60 percent responsible?
Or are you going to hold the people involved a combined total of 140 percent responsible for a crime?
From a morality justice perspective that just doesn't make sense.

If the one who provided the gun is responsible for the crime, that has to imply that the criminal who actually committed the crime is less responsible. (And of course maybe that seems to be the way Liberals feel)

 

The anti-gun left's ability to concoct and present ape-**** crazy ideas knows no limit.
They believe it is possible for a law to prevent people from breaking another law.

 

Ultimately it is a simple question. Which party was it that made the conscious, deliberate decision, to go about ending the life of another?

 

This is saying Osama bin laden was not responsible for 911 since he was not in the planes

 

That's easy: The stockholders!

 

It is entirely possible for someone to give someone a gun and be just as responsible for another’s death as the shooter. The situation depends largely upon foreknowledge. Did the giver of the gun do so knowing it would be used in the crime or did he/she just give the gun to someone, whether they knew or not that the person was not legally allowed to have it, not knowing how it would be used.

IMO, if someone is allowed to be free in society, they should have all the rights of freedom. If they have proven they are a threat if having a gun, they should not be in society. This is why I am for the death penalty for any use of a weapon(deadly threat) in a crime.

 

Would this apply?

 

My opinion on this matter is basic, if someone supplies a firearm to a person they suspect, or know to be a prohibited person and that person goes on to commit a crime with that firearm, the person who supplied the firearm is complicit in that crime, as they aided and abetted the person who directly committed the crime.

As such, they should be criminally charged appropriately including, should there be death, as an accessory to a homicide.

When a person puts money ahead of being law abiding, they should understand, that carries a serious risk of punishment and liability.

This is one of the reasons when I sell a firearm to anyone outside of a well known family member, I always do a transfer through an FFL, doing so covers me both morally and legally.

Then there is the litigious reason for doing so, lets say you sell a firearm to a friend, you know the guy is clean as a whistle with no record, but a while later he is involved in a shooting resulting in an injury or a death, guess what ducky, more than likely you are going to be sued as part of that shooting and may lose everything you have.

That's another reason to pass the firearm through a FFL, by doing so you have transferred the firearm to the FFL, and the FFL transferred the firearm to the buyer, having that middleman can save your fanny from being taken to the cleaners by a personal injury attorney.

While possession and use of a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, with that right comes a high level of responsibility to ensure your firearm can never be used in a unlawful manner.

I try in a polite manner to drill into my students heads, the ownership of a firearm is a serious matter, not to be taken lightly, if your firearm is not present for your immediate use, lock it up.

Owning one is a huge responsibility and failing to take that responsibility seriously can have very bad results.

 

Excuse my altering your post, but it is the only way to quote it here.

It’s called (in jurisdictions where it is a part of the law) Felony Murder.

As posted by Dave 8383.

"It is a charge where if someone engages in a criminal act, where through the events of the crime a life is lost, the individual committing the crime can be charged with murder even if they were not the person who took part in the killing and/or didn’t intend the death of the deceased."

This is quite applicable, as I already stated, if a person supplies a firearm, to a person they suspect or actually knows is a prohibited party, and after the fact that prohibited party commits a crime with that firearm, the supplier legally becomes an accessory to the crime, and should be charged and vigorously prosecuted.

While not detailed in the Second, firearm owners have a moral responsibility to ensure their firearms are never used in a crime, it's common sense and a necessary respect for other law abiding people.

 

LOL!

So you are suggesting "common sense" gun laws?

Vegas might argue the same for mandatory forms?!?
Guess you guys are on the same side!

 

Your so full of crap it isn't funny.

 

I believe the word you wanted was You're.

 

Maybe.
If the shooting is 15 years down the line, not so much.

 

Thems fighting words rich. Lol

 

Whoever uses a gun 'illegally' should be the only one to pay a penalty for it. Then again, if liberals had their way, all of our Founders would have been arrested or facing prison for arming seditious rebels. Just looking at how fascist and authoritarian today's liberals and gun grabbers are getting, I don't oppose arming any adult of sound mind in the event we must one day defend ourselves and our rights against oppressor liberals...

 

I fully agree to most of your post, but if someone knowingly or suspects they are providing a firearm to a prohibited person, they should be considered an accessory to any crime committed by that prohibited person.

That's just common sense and is commonly part of a strawman purchase, which is a federal offence.

Johnny being a convicted armed robber needs some more income, but lacks the tool needed to pull off another armed robbery, so he gets his girlfriend who has a clean record to go over to "Guns On The Corner," where she obtains the tool Johnny needs to bring home some income.

He then holds up a local store and gets killed by the shopkeeper.

At that point his girlfriend should be charged as an accessory to that murder, she supplied the tool needed to allow her boyfriend to go out and commit a crime, and that got her boyfriend killed.

Likewise should the shopkeeper be killed both Johnny and his girlfriend should go down hard for the crime.

I get scoffed for this, but too frigging bad, the truth is, firearm owners have a moral and legal responsibly to ensure their firearms are never used in a crime, anything less is inexcusable, owning firearms is serious business and the freedom we have to own one requires a high level of responsibility... anything less is fuel for the anti-gunners to chip away at the Second.

 

First, most of the FF faced charges of treason, if not summary execution if captured.
Second, sure, anyone using a gun for criminal purposes should be criminally charged. That’s a obvious given.
The current set of laws specify it being a criminal act to ‘knowingly’ furnish or sell a gun to felon or someone intending to use it for criminal purposes (I know of someone convicted of doing just that).
My biggest objection is for those that are attempting to craft legislation that makes someone responsible for all future uses of a weapon they may have once owned.
Want to minimize (because you can’t eliminate) the possibility of weapon transfers to criminals, open the NICS to private sellers.

 

There should be a system in place where non-FFL's can access NICS and receive a confirmation number that the transfer was processed legally.

Now should someone not want to use NICS, that's their call, it should not be mandatory for private transfers.

 

Senator Tom Coburn proposed a voluntary background check system that opened the NICS to private sellers. It was vigorously opposed and failed to get sufficient votes to pass. When looking at the objections most hinged on the voluntary vs mandatory aspect of his proposal. When you sifted through the arguments, the bottom line was a traceable regulated mandatory system would require gun registration and a voluntary system wasn’t able to be tracked for compliance without gun registration. So, a measure that could be voluntary and serve to reduce private transfers to those that shouldn’t have guns didn’t meet the goal of requiring gun registration (really gun owner registration), the Holy Grail of GCAs, so rather than take an incremental step to keep guns from those that shouldn’t have them, it has become an all or nothing proposition. From the GCA view point, If gun registration isn’t an underlying requirement, then oppose any proposed solution using the various scripted spurious objections while denying the goal of establishing a national gun registry.
Dozens of times in this forum opening the NICS to private sellers has been proposed to be met with the same old objections such as ‘that doen’t mean all sellers will use it (hidden meaning: it’s not required)’, the NICS will be used to access personal info by unscrupulous actors (a false implication...doesn’t work that way), no guarantee a background check was performed in a private transaction (an argument that devolves to registration being the only way to track compliance), and etc.

 

NICS shouldn't be mandatory for anyone.

 

Agreed, but GCAs want manditory UBCs AND gun registration.

As I have posted previously, when I sold off much of my collection, I had my own methods for vetting potential buyers (rejecting a couple I wasn’t comfortable with) and a record of my transfers, but it would have been nice to be able to use the NICS in that process.

 

And once again the anti's show their true colors.

They don't give a rats fanny about children or anyone else injured or killed by the illegal use of firearms, all they care about is banning them out of existence.

Anyone of them who claims otherwise, is flat out lying.

 

ok, so you give/sell a weapon to a person that said they need it to kill their boss, they do, and in your world you're clean and that other person is the only one that belongs in jail... thats nutz

the op specifically stated 'sold to a known criminal', ergo the seller had reasonable knowledge that it would be used in a crime... iow, he's just as guilty as the shooter , period

 

You sir are distorting what I posted beyond any sense.

 

Not really....buddy. lol