h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I swear that there was an illegal gun sale invloved there somewhere. Wasn't there something about a transaction at a gun show?

Still, the girl should have known better than to have given the gun to the perp.

I'm sure Two Bit can correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but it is my understanding that even in a civil case, the only way the aunt could have been held responsible is if she was proven to show negligence. In other words, if she was supposed to be supervising the children at that time, then they are her responsibility. Likewise, if she left the keys in the ignition, that shows neglect of her responsibility. And like Two Bit says, even in that case, you would think a halfway decent lawyer could get her off.

In regards to your arguments about the car: true, you have to pass a test and be issued a license to drive a car. The same goes for a gun, in my state. You have to offer proof that you've been through safety training, and a clean FBI background check must be completed before you can purchase a weapon. Did a lack of certification stop your 15 yr old from stealing the car? Do the laws in California stop crackheads with rap sheets that read like phone books from carrying weapons in Compton? No. Laws only stop the law-abiding. The criminals are going to do whatever they're going to do. A criminal is far more likely to acquire a gun through the black market than steal it from my house. It's so much easier for him. And if all the handguns were taken away through an act of law, the criminals would still have them. The only people who would lose them would be the law-abiding.

Generally, you do have to show some sort of intent or neglect of a duty to prove make a civil case. I used to know all the differnt standards for torts, but somehow I've mangaed to avoid boring classes on liabilty for the last year or two.

There may be a couple of ways to put responsibilty back on the aunt. For instance, if she wasn't willing to prosecute the boy criminally. Otherwise, it may be some sort of insuarnce rule that it still goes on the car's policy. Insurance companies do some weird things sometimes.

Draconian gun control has not been working so well for the United Kingdom. The more they restrict gun possession the more crime increases.

Have a look at this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm

Thanks for the link. I've seen a television report on this same sort of thing in Australia. I largely discounted it, though, on account of the fact that it was produced by the NRA.

This article is pretty poorly done, though. What constitutes "high" or "low" levels of legal gun ownership? And this bit here seems self-contradictory:

"It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average."

Actually, it looks like the group it was reporting on is an advocy group.

The advocacy group commissioned the study, but the study was actually done by a source one would think is a neutral party, the Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London. As an American, I'm in no position to comment on their reputation for impartiality, but I'm sure someone will be along who can.