Gun owner fails to adequately secure firearm, child dies

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Dude this is saying like families with the cars have more chances of being involved in car accident than families with no car.

You are finally seeing the light under the door.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm pretty sure if a person owns a gun and allows it to be accessible to kids, if the neighbor's kid gets shot in the head, you won't need to worry about your homeowners insurance. The parents of said deceased child will sue and take your home from you most likely- negating the need for any future homeowner's insurance. I know I certainly would.

It depends on the incident I suppose. If the neighbor's son or daughter enters your house without permission I would say its unlikely. Many states already have laws that define this including California.

[Harsh_77 718]

I'm pretty sure if a person owns a gun and allows it to be accessible to kids, if the neighbor's kid gets shot in the head, you won't need to worry about your homeowners insurance. The parents of said deceased child will sue and take your home from you most likely- negating the need for any future homeowner's insurance. I know I certainly would.

Thats a hypothetical case as per OP but the point of this whole argument was should the gun owner be held responsible when the gun was stolen 2 years ago and now child shot himself coz his father who owned the stolen property was negligent.

[Harsh_77 718]

You are finally seeing the light under the door.

So now you are agreeing that the purpose of the present government and its supporter is to unarm the civilians?

Why don't you come out clean instead of using the deaths of children to fulfil your agenda... thats sick.

[PMartin37 161]

You are finally seeing the light under the door.

Don't count on it

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Don't count on it

So now you are agreeing that the purpose of the present government and its supporter is to unarm the civilians?

Yes. The government is all for taking away everybody's cars.

[Harsh_77 718]

Don't count on it

Don't count on it when agenda is to take away guns from hands of civilians...

Yes. The government is all for taking away everybody's cars.

ohh noo u going to be on public transport......ooh u never had a car.

[PMartin37 161]

Thats a hypothetical case as per OP but the point of this whole argument was should the gun owner be held responsible when the gun was stolen 2 years ago and now child shot himself coz his father who owned the stolen property was negligent.

In my OPINION, i think he's negligible for being so thoroughly irresponsible by not keeping the gun in a vault or locked box. I once worked in a office building close to some apartment buildings. One day, I looked out on the lawn outside our complex to see two young boys playing with a gun ( I didn't know whether it was actually real or not - I wasn't getting close enough to find out). I'll say that the way they were handling it, carefully and curiously, made me believe it was real. They could have shot any person on the street, myself, themselves...you name it. I'm guessing some idiot parent (relative or friend)left it accessible to them. I called the police but the kids left before they could get there. I have no idea how it panned out. My point is that any that owns a weapon....should be responsible and yes liable for it- whether it's stolen , found, whatever. If it's in your possession, it's YOURS and YOU should be screwed if you manage to kill someone with it.

[PMartin37 161]

Yes the government wants to take everyone's guns.....RUNN! RUN!!! oh yeah...and please buy more guns!! It can only prove how sane and rational you are.

[james&olya 1,121]

In my OPINION, i think he's negligible

Yeah, he is probably fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But he is also probably quite NEGLIGENT!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah, he is probably fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But he is also probably quite NEGLIGENT!

It's a stupid language. I don't know why we continue to speak it.

[Harsh_77 718]

In my OPINION, i think he's negligible for being so thoroughly irresponsible by not keeping the gun in a vault or locked box. I once worked in a office building close to some apartment buildings. One day, I looked out on the lawn outside our complex to see two young boys playing with a gun ( I didn't know whether it was actually real or not - I wasn't getting close enough to find out). I'll say that the way they were handling it, carefully and curiously, made me believe it was real. They could have shot any person on the street, myself, themselves...you name it. I'm guessing some idiot parent (relative or friend)left it accessible to them. I called the police but the kids left before they could get there. I have no idea how it panned out. My point is that any that owns a weapon....should be responsible and yes liable for it- whether it's stolen , found, whatever. If it's in your possession, it's YOURS and YOU should be screwed if you manage to kill someone with it.

So as per you the orignal owner is still in possession?

What you saw from window has nothing to do, it could be a BB gun or paintball gun - you could not confirm and yet you called cops.

Who is paranoid?

[Ban Hammer 13,573]

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.

properly secured does not mean it can't be stolen. i'm sure you've heard of plasma torches - they can make quick work of a safe.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is why I keep my loaded handgun on my hip in a holster. Safest place for it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

i'm sure you've heard of plasma torches - they can make quick work of a safe.

And the contents inside.