Gun owner fails to adequately secure firearm, child dies

[james&olya 1,121]

Have you looked into things that you come across in your day to day life where insurance companies are involved?

They are not there to protect the gun owner nor the victim, hence they are called business they are there only to make money so adding insurance card is not going to benefit neither one.

Insurance protects the holder against significant financial risk.

Mandating liability for owning guns benefits the potential victims of negligence on the part of the owner by facilitating financial recovery to compensate losses.

Together they tend to influence behavior and lessen the risks of whatever adverse outcome by the costs and rules the insurer demands of the insured. It is a free-market solution. Isn't that better than government making all the decisions?

[Harsh_77 718]

Highway safety and transportation safety in general has improved dramatically! Building safety, including fire risks, are improved. Earthquake safety is another one. Safety from dangerous products (such as lead painted toys, etc). You have an opinion, which you are entitled to. It is wrong! Have a nice day!

My opinion can be wrong... but you are comparing an orange and apple..

If that makes you thinkg your opinion is right have fun..

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is no confusion you are the one trying to twist the fact and make the legal gun owner look bad,

Why do you think it is okay not to adequately secure a firearm so that such tragedies are less likely to happen?

[Harsh_77 718]

Insurance protects the holder against significant financial risk.

Mandating liability for owning guns benefits the potential victims of negligence on the part of the owner by facilitating financial recovery to compensate losses.

Together they tend to influence behavior and lessen the risks of whatever adverse outcome by the costs and rules the insurer demands of the insured. It is a free-market solution. Isn't that better than government making all the decisions?

And how many times the Insurance company gets away without paying?

[james&olya 1,121]

My opinion can be wrong... but you are comparing an orange and apple..

If that makes you thinkg your opinion is right have fun..

You CAN compare apples and oranges. Let me show you. Apples are generally better for making pies. Apples are easier to grow in northern climates. Apples are more red than oranges.

[Harsh_77 718]

Why do you think it is okay not to adequately secure a firearm so that such tragedies are less likely to happen?

In this case there is no such base as the firearm was not scured, it was STOLEN.

Blame the drug delear dad who had drugs in the house and a young son to whom he was setting an example where stealing, dealing drugs was ok.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You figured that out all by yourself?

My 'logical fallacies' were for your benefit, to expose your 'logical fallacy'!

Mine was not a logical fallacy, its even highlighted in recent court decisions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In this case there is no such base as the firearm was not scured, it was STOLEN.

If it was properly secured, how could it be stolen? Burgarly means he managed to get into the location, find the firearm, and leave, without being confronted.

Plus, the facts do not support that the father was the burglar, only that the gun was reported stolen during a burglary. Being as drugs are involved, that gun could have changed hands several times.

Edited February 26, 2013 by The Patriot

[Caryh 5,206]

And how many times the Insurance company gets away without paying?

Injury from the accidental discharge of a gun is usually already covered by homeowners and renters insurance. It has already been found in court that the injury does not need to take place in the home, since the property is the homeowner's. The precedent was set when a homeowner discharged a shotgun while unloading it on his truck bed. How this would apply in the case of a stolen gun, we'd have to see how the courts would rule. But obviously using insurance to get gun owners to secure their guns isn't going to happen, because the vast majority already have that coverage.

[Harsh_77 718]

If it was properly secured, how could it be stolen? Burgarly means he managed to get into the location, find the firearm, and leave, without being confronted.

Plus, the facts do not support that the father was the burglar, only that the gun reported stolen during a burglary. Being drugs are involved, that gun could have changed hands several times.

Means... nobody was at home.

You think the safe cannot be cracked?

Lets assume the father himself was not a burglar still it does not change anything, he was associated with drug delears he would have known 99% the gun was stolen.

So you would give all the benefit of doubt to a drug dealer but not to a law biding citizen?

[Harsh_77 718]

Injury from the accidental discharge of a gun is usually already covered by homeowners and renters insurance. It has already been found in court that the injury does not need to take place in the home, since the property is the homeowner's. The precedent was set when a homeowner discharged a shotgun while unloading it on his truck bed. How this would apply in the case of a stolen gun, we'd have to see how the courts would rule. But obviously using insurance to get gun owners to secure their guns isn't going to happen, because the vast majority already have that coverage.

Yes.. inside a home accidental discharge are covered by existing insurance but what the anti gun lobby and Dems want to do is make gun owner purchase additional insurance and hold the legal law biding citizen hold responsible and drive the cost of owning the gun so high that most would not want to own the gun.

Dems know legally they cannot change the right to own firearm, so they want to make make it owning gun so difficult and expensive nobody would want to own one.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Injury from the accidental discharge of a gun is usually already covered by homeowners and renters insurance. It has already been found in court that the injury does not need to take place in the home, since the property is the homeowner's. The precedent was set when a homeowner discharged a shotgun while unloading it on his truck bed. How this would apply in the case of a stolen gun, we'd have to see how the courts would rule. But obviously using insurance to get gun owners to secure their guns isn't going to happen, because the vast majority already have that coverage.

Check out McGRANE v. CLINE

In that case, a firearm was stolen from a bedroom and used in a murder. They had a safe but it was left out. The final ruling was that they were not liable for the murder.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[Harsh_77 718]

Check out McGRANE v. CLINE

In that case, a firearm was stolen from a bedroom and used in a murder. They had a safe but it was left out. The final ruling was that they were not liable for the murder.

[PMartin37 161]

So to you that is ridiculous idea but what OP suggest hold the legal gun owner responsible sounds good?

By the way the gun hand been stolen 2 years ago.

I'd like to use the fun analogy being peddled by the Clint Eastwood lovin types here Since guns don't kill people, people kill people. Let's consider the scenario that cars don't kill people, drivers kill people. If you are drunk and wind up killing someone, your car insurance liability will pay because as the insurance company sees it, the insurance follows the car (in most instances). The reason why is that even though the driver was irresponsible, someone else suffered due to that driver's negligence in a covered vehicle. Now....the person on the other hand is charged for all sorts of offenses including vehicular homicide. In other words, in they eyes of the law, the vehicle and the driver are both guilty in the incident. Why shouldn't it be so with guns if negligence is involved that results in death?

[Caryh 5,206]

The insurance companies already have to cover what happens outside the home with a gun. Unless its an illegal act, which no insurance company will cover. So that cost is already being born by gun owners. Obviously its already a small actuary risk, because I don't recall being asked about gun ownership when I bought homeowners insurance. I can't imagine adding in a small adder to cover accidental discharge of stolen guns will make much of a blip on the insurance bill. As to requiring gun owners to buy an insurance product no insurance company would ever offer (illegal use of a stolen firearm), I can only see that as a direct challenge to the 2nd amendment, and it ain't gonna happen no matter how much the anti-gun crowd might like it.

Yes.. inside a home accidental discharge are covered by existing insurance but what the anti gun lobby and Dems want to do is make gun owner purchase additional insurance and hold the legal law biding citizen hold responsible and drive the cost of owning the gun so high that most would not want to own the gun.

Dems know legally they cannot change the right to own firearm, so they want to make make it owning gun so difficult and expensive nobody would want to own one.

Check out McGRANE v. CLINE

In that case, a firearm was stolen from a bedroom and used in a murder. They had a safe but it was left out. The final ruling was that they were not liable for the murder.

Criminal culpability and liability are very different animals in court though. Or was it a liability case?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Caryh