What are our ethical obligations as a gun owner and good-citizen?

[Onward Allusion]

So in the LA Times there’s a fairly detailed article on Jared Loughner and his “spiral into madness”. The article chronicles his erratic and disturbing behavior throughout his adult years. Here’s a link to the article:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-20110116,0,2115673.story


#1 At what point as family members, friends, neighbors, AND gun-owners are we ethically responsible for the reporting of those we are closely acquainted with to the authorities?


#2 From a legal perspective, do the shooter’s parents or members of his college faculty have any criminal exposure? How about from a civil liability perspective?


#3 Finally, should there be a requirement (law?) to report erratic activities to the authorities? At what point should this man have had his gun rights questioned?

I’m merely asking questions that have been going though my mind. I’m an avid supporter of RKBA and think that anyone who is not legally prevented from owning a firearm should be able to have them AND carry without any type of permit. My thoughts on this is that we should have "ban the shooter and not the gun or accessories".

 

[NavyLCDR]

To me, what the Second Amendment says is that if a person is free to walk the streets in public, they should be free to carry a firearm. So, to me, it's not a question of whether the person should be able to carry a firearm or not, it comes down to a question of whether that person is safe enough to walk the streets as a free person. That is just strictly what I think the Constitution says, and if we want to change that, I think we need to amend the Constitution.

I think Brian Aitken in New Jersey is a prime example of the slippery slope that we place ourselves on.

 

[Art Eatman]

IMO, a strong "No!" on questions 2 & 3. I find the idea of a "snitch law" to be repulsive.

As far as the first question, the fly in the ointment is twofold: One is our legal structure regarding privacy for certain matters. The other is the societal unwillingness to be active as regards a mental health issue. We'll comment, "He's crazy!" among ourselves, but strongly resist publicizing such a view of a person, particularly to any authority.

 

[308win]

If the person is a family member or close friend that you care about I believe you owe it to him to try to get him the help he needs. If the person is an acquaintance or contact I believe Art has framed the issue because it is only a matter of time until someone under the guise of 'well intentioned' tries to do a number on someone; unfortunately, the same also holds true for the family member/close friend groups as well human nature being what it is.

To my thinking what is unconscionable is recognizing a person is a danger to others and doing nothing.

 

[JohnBT]

I've worked with individuals with disabilities for 36 years.

Good luck getting somebody help in a timely manner if they aren't obviously acting out and actively dangerous. The system has been clogged and underfunded for decades. Parents, relatives and spouses can beg for assistance when a loved one goes over the edge, but the system simply does not have the resources.

Why do you think they pick up the more bizarre-acting people and then turn them loose as soon as they can? There's no place to put them and treat them. "Call your city/county mental health/community services board office and make an appointment." Yeah, okay, if they bother to call how many weeks or months will it take to get an appointment and be seen?

Will seeing a psychiatrist once every 2 or 3 months for maybe 15 minutes to get a new prescription really help? Will seeing a Licensed Clinical Social Worker therapist or case manager once a month or every couple of weeks really help? (These are good folks, but their hands are tied by caseload size, lack of inpatient psych beds, funding, etc.)

You have to try, but be prepared.

I hate to compare the process to putting drunks in the drunk tank until they sober up and then turning them loose with a referral to AA, but maybe that's a more familiar example.

Too many patients, not nearly enough money for services.

John

 

[JohnBT]

Here's a 3/08 newspaper article I googled up at random to give an idea as to the scale of the problem. Dang, 30,000 committment hearings in Virginia?

"Reforms spark some anxiety"

"Among other things, the new legislation will require CSB workers to spend more time monitoring patients ordered to receive mandatory outpatient treatment, and to attend all commitment hearings held across the state.

Those hearings, which have numbered about 30,000 in recent years, are likely to increase as a result of the new legislation, which loosens the legal criteria under which the state can hold or treat the mentally ill against their will."

 

[General Geoff]

#1 At what point as family members, friends, neighbors, AND gun-owners are we ethically responsible for the reporting of those we are closely acquainted with to the authorities?

Never. I wouldn't report my enemies to the authorities for crimes they have not yet committed, let alone my friends and family.

#2 From a legal perspective, do the shooter’s parents or members of his college faculty have any criminal exposure? How about from a civil liability perspective?

No.

#3 Finally, should there be a requirement (law?) to report erratic activities to the authorities?

Absolutely not.

At what point should this man have had his gun rights questioned?

Immediately after he aimed his firearm at an innocent person.

 

[Deanimator]

#3 Finally, should there be a requirement (law?) to report erratic activities to the authorities? At what point should this man have had his gun rights questioned?

That would be so utterly subjective that it would be totally unworkable and unenforceable.

What's an "erratic activity"?

To Josh Sugarman, it'd be owning an AR-15.
To Fred Phelps it would mean being gay... or just not VOCALLY hating gays.

It's never going to happen, and if it did, it'd INSTANTLY be subject to the most insane abuse, by fanatics of the right AND left.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm pretty certain that these things fall into the category of uncontrollable disasters. Almost the proverbial "Acts of God."

I look at it this way: Even given the large amount of media coverage such things get these days, someone (or many someones) being shot by a madman is still a HUGELY uncommon event. We see the carnage (especially poignant as a young child was killed) and instinctively feel a need to do something about it.

But what can be done? The proposed remedies all involve greater and more egregious intrusions into personal liberties perpetuated against millions of law abiding citizens in order to "weed out" those who MIGHT do something terrible. BEFORE they do something terrible. In other words, to act to restrict, arrest, and hobble them prior to them acting in an illegally violent way. That, on the face of it, goes against the rights of a citizen as we cherish them.

But the bigger picture is this: What are the stakes? Well, the stakes are obviously death. But sociopaths and psychopaths are far down on the list of things that cause death. We have come to accept that those things which cause the most deaths (like heart disease and cancer which take over half of us) are unavoidable to a large degree and very few of us truly commit to even a half-hearted attempt to so restrict our lives as to lessen the KNOWN risk factors/activities which lead to them. Or to many other serious risk factors. We all face enormously more risk from traveling daily by automobile than from ANY homicide -- certainly almost infinitely more risk than from death at the hands of a random mass-murderer -- and yet we are not unduly concerned with those risks and only those truly paranoid/nuts (ironic, eh?) would avoid cars.

(As an aside, Bill Bryson reported once after reading part of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, there were, in one year, 142,000 Americans who received emergency room care for "injuries inflicted by their clothing." There's a thought for you!)

But here's this problem we have -- a tiny, tiny part of our society who may, at some random time, for reasons they might not even understand themselves, willfully cause the deaths of a few innocent people. So do we accept that this is an UNCONTROLLABLE risk present in the world around us -- just as are car wrecks, falling trees, myriad diseases, volcanoes, floods, (heck, how about negligent discharges of our firearms or those of other people at the range?), earthquakes, Africanized honeybees, and injuries caused by our clothing?

Or do we lock ourselves down into a stifled, restricted, hobbled existence in an utterly impossible quest to eliminate a danger that will always be present in any society?

 

[Guns and more]

#1 At what point as family members, friends, neighbors, AND gun-owners are we ethically responsible for the reporting of those we are closely acquainted with to the authorities?


#2 From a legal perspective, do the shooter’s parents or members of his college faculty have any criminal exposure? How about from a civil liability perspective?


#3 Finally, should there be a requirement (law?) to report erratic activities to the authorities? At what point should this man have had his gun rights questioned?

1. Ethically, yes. Do the world a favor, and maybe save a life.
2. In the Loughner case, it appears everybody except his parents complained. The problem is that the government is so bloated with regulations, nobody did anything.
3. No. Period.

 

[Cosmoline]

Part of the problem is that the mental health laws cast far too broad a net. Commitment proceedings can be held to address everything from high grade psychosis to mere suicidal ideation. There needs to be a distinction between those mentally ill who are a clear danger to others and the vast majority who pose no danger to anyone but themselves. For those with with schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder who are known to be violent and dangerous off meds, full institutionalization by the state needs to be an option. It used to be routine--probably far too routine. But the pendulum swung back too far the other direction. In many cases of spree killings, including one killer who came right through my neighborhood, the family was trying to deal with a problem far beyond their abilities.

Re. No. 1, I think there's an ethical responsibility to the rest of the family if the person is a danger. Having a son who can't be trusted with knives around when you have a spouse or other kids to worry about is a serious lapse in judgment.

No. 2, the family is often the first to die on the spree. So there's already ample risk in the decision to keep the problem at home.

No. 3, that would run counter to fundamental rights and long traditions in the country.

 

[HoorayFor2A]

Well something fishy is going on here.

Apparently we are not allowed to talk about the fact that Giffords offered no security measures at the site of the shooting.

As a civilian, when I go to meet an elected official, don't I have reason to expect a certain level of security in the vacinity of the public figure?

I don't want to stand next to Obama if the secret service is on holiday.

 

[Sam1911]

Well something fishy is going on here.

Apparently we are not allowed to talk about the fact that Giffords offered no security measures at the site of the shooting.

The moderator who closed your first thread thought it was absurd so just deleted it. I took the time to answer your second thread before closing it.

As a civilian, when I go to meet an elected official, don't I have reason to expect a certain level of security in the vacinity of the public figure?

No you do not. Security details are not there to protect you. They have no duty to protect you. They have a job to do which does not involve you in any way. And, most politicians do not have much, if any, personal security detail in any event.

I don't want to stand next to Obama if the secret service is on holiday.

If you're standing near the president and someone takes a shot at them, the Secret Service will be shielding HIM, and evacuating HIM without even pausing to consider your existence. If you catch a bullet, he and they will be off the premises long before you've gasped your last breath.

 

[HoorayFor2A]

Sam, I will agree with you on that.

Would you say that the presence of the secret service reduces the odds of an attack on the President, successful or otherwise?

Hypothetical...... Suppose there are 10,000 people in the United States who have serious ideas about assassinating the President at a public event. 9,999 of them don't go through with the idea because they know security is tight and they probably won't be successful.

So if I decide to shake hands with the President at this event, my odds are 1 in 10,000 that he gets attacked while I am there. Good odds, so I'll decide to go and meet him.

But if these 10,000 men have information that the President will have no security on that day, maybe they will all make plans to attack him. Now my odds are not so good. The President might be shielded, but now he has put me at risk because he has no security.

I understand there is no "adequate security," I used the wrong language. I think my point is a concern with negligence, maybe Giffords didn't even take security into consideration.

 

[Art Eatman]

HoorayFor2A, make that your last post on that silly subject. Giffords had and has no responsibility whatsoever for the safety of anybody who goes to hear her speak. None. Zero, zip, nada. If there is concern for such safety, DON'T GO!!!

And let this be the last off-topic post in this thread.

 

[HoorayFor2A]

Sorry to offend. I do like your chili in Terlingua

 

[JohnBT]

"For those with with schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder who are known to be violent and dangerous off meds, full institutionalization by the state needs to be an option."

That'll happen about the same time they institutionalize the paroled/pardoned murderers, manslaughterers (is that a word?), repeat wife beaters, and all of those other repeat offenders.

When will that be? Never. Not enough money.

 

[mljdeckard]

This kid had a long record of brushes with the law, and his parents had a long history of difficulty in dealing with him. The Pima Co sheriff KNEW he had threatened the congresswoman in the past, and his department stopped him that morning. I have absolutely no idea what else anyone else could have expected the law, his parents, or anyone else to have done in advance.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I agree with Sam1911's assessment that things like this almost fall into the category of "Acts of God".

In answering my own questions, I think family members or even close friends are morally obligated to report erratic and possibly violent behavior to the authorities. HOWEVER, where to determine that line is a very hard choice. Does one give the police a call when their brother talks about killing their ex-girlfriend? How about some kid who talks of doing another Columbine? Where does one draw the line?

From a legal perspective, I think tort lawyers and possibly even prosecutors could have a field day in drumming up cases against those who were negligent in:
- protecting those at the event
- Loughner's parents for not taking the "appropriate" actions
- College officials who did not involve "real" law enforcement (not campus police)
Do I agree with the above? No, but I think there will be suits filed - most likely civil.

#3 - NO. I don't think there should be a law that requires folks to report "erratic" behavior. What constitutes "erratic"? It is a slippery slope surely to be abused at some point.

 

[Art Eatman]

One problem with cases like Loughner's is that many disparate people have some knowledge of potential Bad Things, but the dots aren't connected. Same sort of problem as for the WTC on 9/11. Bits and pieces of information which weren't correlated into a true picture of a potential problem.

Sorta hard to figure a law which says, "Thou shalt connect the dots," or to persuade a jury that a failure to communicate is indeed a tort.

 

[wishin]

If you are directly told by someone or overhear them say, whether family or not, that they are planning to commit a serious crime such as murder, yes you have a moral and civic duty and obligation to either stop them, if you're capable, or report them to LE. Beyond that, there's no real way to know what someone is going to do, unless you're Clairvoyant.

As for legal implications, you can sue anyone for just about anything....

No laws to report under any circumstance. Think about what went on in Nazi occupied France.

 

[Owen Sparks]

#1 At what point as family members, friends, neighbors, AND gun-owners are we ethically responsible for the reporting of those we are closely acquainted with to the authorities?

When we find out they are part Jewish and a threat to the arian purity of the Fatherland?

NO, The only MORAL justification is when their words or actions contain a threat of violence.

#2 From a legal perspective, do the shooter’s parents or members of his college faculty have any criminal exposure? How about from a civil liability perspective?

Only when their words or actions contain a threat of violence.

#3 Finally, should there be a requirement (law?) to report erratic activities to the authorities? At what point should this man have had his gun rights questioned?

Only when their words or actions contain a threat of violence.

 

[JohnBT]

" - College officials who did not involve "real" law enforcement (not campus police)"

They are real police.

From the school's web site:

"All DPS officers are certified by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) and have received a minimum 585 hours basic peace officer training approved by AZPOST. DPS police officers are armed and have full peace officer authority and powers of arrest."
_____

" - Loughner's parents for not taking the "appropriate" actions"

He was and is an adult according to the law. They are not responsible for him or his actions.
_____

" protecting those at the event"

I don't who you are referring to. I don't believe we have an expectation when out in public to have somebody looking out for us. I believe the courts have endorsed this viewpoint.


I suppose we shall see if there are a spate of lawsuits.

 

[leadcounsel]

The person to blame is the shooter.

Replace the word gun with 'lawnmower,' or 'alcohol,' or whatever. What is your obligation to stop every person drinking in a bar and prohibit them from driving?

Look, life is finite and dangerous by its very nature.

Folks really just need to get over it, mourne, and move on. We cannot, nor should we, attempt to make everything in life 100% safe and predictable. We have tried in the US in the last 50 years and are RUINING this country... HOW? By eliminating personal accountability and responsibility! It's always someone elses' fault rather than the individual that is to blame. The government, the parents, the school teachers, the counselors... etc. NO. It's the killer's fault!!!!!

Live and let live.