Mark wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:16 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and
stealing a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd
love to hear the rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

see "attractive hazard"

Not even close to applicable.

I don't think you can compare leaving a loaded AK47 on the kitchen
table to leaving the car keys on the kitchen table.

Why not? Neither creates harm by their mere existence, but both can be made
to create harm if placed into the wrong hands. Neither posses an inherent
evil, but those who are inherently evil can choose either to do evil. Both
can cause death and injury by non-intentional and intentional means.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com