Mark wrote in
:

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"

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

Mark


A criminal is not going to see an "AK on the kitchen table" unless he has
already broken some laws.Like breaking into the house.
Thus NOT an "attractive hazard".(a term I've never heard of before this)
I have heard of "attractive NUISANCEs".


Nothing like making theft victims criminals,and excusing the REAL
criminals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net