Gun owner fails to adequately secure firearm, child dies

[PMartin37 161]

maybe if dude had some common sense, he wouldn't have been napping with a gun laying around in reach of a toddler.

It's our right as Americansnot to have any semblance of common sense. And it's unconstitutional to create laws to encourage common sense.

Edited February 26, 2013 by PMartin37

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How do you know the original owner had gun loaded and in his bedside drawer....

Why do you constantly confuse the hypothetical with fact?

again there is no rule / law by which you cannot keep a loaded gun in your bedside drawer.

Perhaps there should be. If the gun owner would be held liable, and if the gun owner would have to demonstrate financial responsibility in order to own a firearm, then I am certain these sort of things would be less common as insurance companies begin establishing their own rules to provide coverage.

Edited February 26, 2013 by The Patriot

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Why do you constantly confuse the hypothetical with fact?

Perhaps there should be. If the gun owner would be held liable, and if the gun owner would have to demonstrate financial responsibility in order to own a firearm, then I am certain these sort of things would be less common as insurance companies begin establishing their own rules to provide coverage.

Of course that won't happen. Lets assume CA passes such a bill, there will be an injunction against it almost immediately and it will go on to fail in the court system.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course that won't happen. Lets assume CA passes such a bill, there will be an injunction against it almost immediately and it will go on to fail in the court system.

Yep. The liability argument is solid, the prior requirement would take a bit more work. The courts would first have to redefine the 2nd Amendment. They have done it several times already. They will probably do several more times in the future.

[james&olya 1,121]

Fail: Not reading the complete post.

Fail: As per "Patriot's" argument than bus driver, original owner of the bike, horse, taxi driver, original owner of the skateboard should be responsible for the robbery.

Why not just extend that to whoever made the cereal the robber ate for breakfast that day? How ridiculous do you want to get?

[james&olya 1,121]

He mean who?

Have you noticed in your day to day life in every place you have got insurance company involved the things have got worst and worst.

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!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yep. The liability argument is solid, the prior requirement would take a bit more work. The courts would first have to redefine the 2nd Amendment. They have done it several times already. They will probably do several more times in the future.

The whole insurance argument will create a financial barrier in exercising a constitutional right. It will affect the poor at a far greater rate - its similar to a poll tax and thus unconstitutional.

We are not talking about a small fee here, probably 2,000 USD minimum a year.

[james&olya 1,121]

It's our right as Americansnot to have any semblance of common sense. And it's unconstitutional to create laws to encourage common sense.

What are you smoking?

[james&olya 1,121]

The whole insurance argument will create a financial barrier in exercising a constitutional right. It will affect the poor at a far greater rate - its similar to a poll tax and thus unconstitutional.

We are not talking about a small fee here, probably 2,000 USD minimum a year.

It is also my constitutional right to be able to own property. But I cannot afford to buy my own island in Hawaii. So it is unconstitutional to make me have to pay for it?

It is my constitutional right to have 'free speech' in political matters. I want the entire country to know my opinion but I cannot afford the millions in advertising fees they want to charge. So it is unconstitutional for them to charge me?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The whole insurance argument will create a financial barrier in exercising a constitutional right. It will affect the poor at a far greater rate - its similar to a poll tax and thus unconstitutional.

We are not talking about a small fee here, probably 2,000 USD minimum a year.

A state could, I suppose, make it a requirement for home owner's insurance and renter's insurance policies to cover that in general liability, if the firearm is normally stored in the residence. I would be surprised if they don't do so already, to some degree.

The whole area of negligent firearm entrustment is interesting.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It is also my constitutional right to be able to own property. But I cannot afford to buy my own island in Hawaii. So it is unconstitutional to make me have to pay for it?

It is my constitutional right to have 'free speech' in political matters. I want the entire country to know my opinion but I cannot afford the millions in advertising fees they want to charge. So it is unconstitutional for them to charge me?

Your statement is a logical fallacy. You are highlighting the cost of the item as opposed to the insurance or tax rate.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[decocker 7,198]

What are you smoking?

puff puff pass on the sarcasm spliff.

[Harsh_77 716]

Why do you constantly confuse the hypothetical with fact?

Perhaps there should be. If the gun owner would be held liable, and if the gun owner would have to demonstrate financial responsibility in order to own a firearm, then I am certain these sort of things would be less common as insurance companies begin establishing their own rules to provide coverage.

There is no confusion you are the one trying to twist the fact and make the legal gun owner look bad, as per you the drug delear who stole the gun should not be held accountble for anything.

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.

[james&olya 1,121]

Your statement is a logical fallacy. You are highlighting the cost of the item as opposed to the insurance or tax rate.

You figured that out all by yourself?

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

[Harsh_77 716]

Why not just extend that to whoever made the cereal the robber ate for breakfast that day? How ridiculous do you want to get?

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.