Gun owner fails to adequately secure firearm, child dies

[james&olya 1,121]

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?

The father was arrested and presumably will be successfully prosecuted. I am NOT about to give him any 'benefit of doubt'! But liability for events is often a shared thing. To some extent we are all, as members of society and voters, liable for the proliferation of guns and gun violence we have facilitated or tolerated.

[james&olya 1,121]

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.

No. What we want is for guns to be owned RESPONSIBLY and in a way that does not result in the huge numbers of those killed and maimed by them in this country!

[james&olya 1,121]

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.

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

Here there is ample opportunity for legislation to establish the LEGAL OBLIGATION of gun owners to register their guns and to secure them in such a way that minimizes their risk of being stolen. Establish that if you fail to do so you shall remain liable for whatever happens subsequently with that gun!

[Harsh_77 716]

The father was arrested and presumably will be successfully prosecuted. I am NOT about to give him any 'benefit of doubt'! But liability for events is often a shared thing. To some extent we are all, as members of society and voters, liable for the proliferation of guns and gun violence we have facilitated or tolerated.

Did govt come out and tell you AR15 was never used in school shooting, based on which they have created a mass hysteria?

Just owning a gun or using a gun for target practice or hunting is not proliferation of guns, wht happen to the case where a firearm dealer did notify as he is required to FBI about someone purchasing large amount of guns?

I don't mind when it is done right way but when they just want to cripple the citizens that is dumb.

Same lawmakers who do not want the citzens to own the firarm are very careful about making sure they and their family are either protect by armed guards or some of them even have CCL.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

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

It was a liability case.

[Harsh_77 716]

No. What we want is for guns to be owned RESPONSIBLY and in a way that does not result in the huge numbers of those killed and maimed by them in this country!

Most gun owners are responsible... how many ppl in this country own gun?

How many incidents did you have where legal gun owner just shot someone for no reason?

Very very few incidents.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It was a liability case.

McGrane v. Cline (The "Stolen Gun" Case) 94 Wash.App. 925, 973 P.2d 1092 (1999) cert. denied 138 Wn.2d 1018, 989 P.2d 1141

Magnuson Lowell was privileged to represent a couple from Fall City, Washington. While they were away for the weekend, their 16-year-old daughter, staying at home, invited some ne'er-do-wells over to the house. It is believed that some time the following day, one of the young men returned to the home while it was empty, broke into the parents' bedroom, and stole the father's handgun from his desk, along with some of the mother's jewelry from her closet. The theft was reported to the police as soon as it was discovered. Seven weeks later, the thief used the stolen weapon in a robbery at a diner in Des Moines, Iowa. In the process, he shot and killed the diner hostess, plaintiff's decedent. Arguing to the Washington Court of Appeals in Seattle, Magnuson Lowell's Rick Lowell persuaded the judges that under these facts, the courts should not recognize a duty on the part of a firearm owner to prevent the theft of the gun from his residence by one who makes subsequent criminal use of the weapon. It is important to note that this case did not involve accidental injury to children who may have had unsupervised access to a gun. Nor did it involve facts that might have alerted a gun owner that a theft was reasonably foreseeable.

[Caryh 5,206]

Here there is ample opportunity for legislation to establish the LEGAL OBLIGATION of gun owners to register their guns and to secure them in such a way that minimizes their risk of being stolen. Establish that if you fail to do so you shall remain liable for whatever happens subsequently with that gun!

That is actually what the courts said in McGRANE v. CLINE. Although requiring an insurance policy that insurance companies will not sell, still runs the problem of not passing constitutionality. Obamacare only made it through the courts only because it does not fine those that do not buy health insurance, it taxes them.

"We acknowledge that burglary is an all too common occurrence today, particularly in urban and suburban settings, and that firearms are frequently stolen during a burglary.   But there are too many issues of legitimate public debate concerning the private ownership and storage of firearms for this court to impose potential liability upon firearm owners based solely upon factors of ownership, theft, and subsequent criminal use of a firearm.   We believe that the proper arena to resolve issues of such competing societal interests is legislative rather than judicial."

It was a liability case.

Thanks, I did a google and was reading about the case.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How many incidents did you have where legal gun owner just shot someone for no reason?

You mean accidentally? Or, do you mean under the definition of 2nd degree murder, as in the acting with a depraved mind?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

DID YOU KNOW? States with high household gun ownership have more unintentional shooting deaths than states with low household gun ownership.

• In 2010 in the U.S., 606 people died from an unintentional shooting (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)).
  
• In 2011,14,675 people were wounded in an unintentional shooting but survived (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC).
  
• The mortality rate from accidental shootings is 8 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
  
• For kids ages 5 to 14, the mortality rate is 14 times higher in high gun states than low gun states (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
  
• For kids ages 0 to 4, the mortality rate is 17 times higher in high gun states than low gun states (Miller, 2001, p. 481).
  
• For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths (Miller, 2001, p. 483).
  
• For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an accidental gunshot wound (Wiebe, 2003).
  

- See more at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional#sthash.6Z0k1ZeJ.dpuf

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Freedom always has a price.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting (Kellermann, p. 263). - See more at: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional#sthash.6Z0k1ZeJ.dpuf

[Harsh_77 716]

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

[PMartin37 161]

It was a liability case.

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.

[Harsh_77 716]

As per you no guns means no violence or no death, why is chicago with country's toughest gun control have so many deaths, whys does Europe have so many violent deaths?