A boy was shot at school by a gun brought to school by another boy. This is a reason that there should be strict liability for whatever damage is caused by a gun owner's gun. It is based on the legal principle that if you keep something inherently dangerous and it escapes, you as owner are strictly liable for any damage which results from the escape of the dangerous item. Foe example, if you keep a lion for a pet in your back yard under this principle you would be liable for any damage the lion causes if it escapes even though you have done everything you thought possible to prevent it from escaping. And likewise if someone steals your gun you will be liable for any damage done with it. I expect the number of stolen guns will dramatically decrease if this principle is in force.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/kid-shot-gut-pro-gun-sheriff-charges-gun?utm_source=Crooks+and+Liars+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3458ca0751-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d4904be7bc-3458ca0751-330139729

Nope, not always. If you lend something and it is used to injure, or if you do it yourself, you are liable. If.your child does damage you are liable.

But if your.possession is taken without your permission or knowledge and used to damage, the perp is liable, not you. This is why the law is structured in its current manner.

Your "should" would be penalizing gun owners for damage caused outside their scope of ownership. The law requires the owner to exercise reasonable safety control. Nothing more.

Same as your car. If someone uses it without your permission, you are off the hook.

If you want this type of.law I suggest your first action should be to go after the people responsible for Fast and Furious.

"It" doesn't exist except in experimental form. When it does, it will be quite expensive keeping most gun owners from considering it. To respond to a couple other folks who need yet another law, gun owners et al will resist any and all forms of additional gun control legislation because gun control advocates have been exposed as gun grabber advocates. Any and all legislation at any level is just another attempt to accomplish that goal. That's the difference between the two. If a conservative doesn't own a gun, he/she doesn't own a gun. If a liberal doesn't own a gun he/she doesn't want anyone to own a gun. Your rights stop where mine begin my friends, as it should be.

Nope, not always. If you lend something and it is used to injure, or if you do it yourself, you are liable. If.your child does damage you are liable.

But if your.possession is taken without your permission or knowledge and used to damage, the perp is liable, not you. This is why the law is structured in its current manner.

Your "should" would be penalizing gun owners for damage caused outside their scope of ownership. The law requires the owner to exercise reasonable safety control. Nothing more.

Same as your car. If someone uses it without your permission, you are off the hook.

If you want this type of.law I suggest your first action should be to go after the people responsible for Fast and Furious.

Nope, not always. If you lend something and it is used to injure, or if you do it yourself, you are liable. If.your child does damage you are liable.

But if your.possession is taken without your permission or knowledge and used to damage, the perp is liable, not you. This is why the law is structured in its current manner.

Your "should" would be penalizing gun owners for damage caused outside their scope of ownership. The law requires the owner to exercise reasonable safety control. Nothing more.

Same as your car. If someone uses it without your permission, you are off the hook.

If you want this type of.law I suggest your first action should be to go after the people responsible for Fast and Furious.

If someone steals the knives out of your kitchen and later uses them to kill and dismember someone are you liable? Stolen is stolen, it has passed out of your control; there is no way we can live in bank vaults. There is virtually no degree of home protection which will stop a determined thief from stealing your property.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that no one should have any possessions because they can all be used as weapons. A power drill to the skull, for instance. A doorstop heaved at a head or pillows used to smother someone. Everything is potentially lethal but only those things used by criminals are involved in crimes.

Are you overweight? If so you are probably responsible for children in Africa starving because you obviously ate more food than you needed. Lets put all the fatties in the country on trial and then follow them with the smokers and gum chewers. Why stop with me, someone sold me the gun so lets put him on trial as well and the distributor who sold it to him, as far back as you need to go to reach the manufacturer and designer of the gun. Then get those pesky pillow salesmen on trial as well.

Hell, why stop there? The individual that sold me the gun that I didn't secure well enough should have to go to jail too, shut down their business so no more guns can be sold from there that might not be secured well enough in the future. Might as well shut down the company that built the gun also, and while we're at it, shut down the companies that produced the steel and plastic that the gun was made out of, throw in the company that designed the mold for the gun too. We shouldn't stop there though, because that's only half of the equation. We should arrest the owner and workers, and shutter the business that made the bullets, heck, we should even include the owner and company that makes the boxes that the bullets come in, and what about the owner/company that made the ink that's on the box, after all, if it wasn't for them I wouldn't know what was in the box, right? Oh wait, I know I know, we should probably nuke China because they invented gunpowder ... 🙄🙄🙄🙄

My attempt here, was to sound almost as silly as you. How'd I do?

Hell, why stop there? The individual that sold me the gun that I didn't secure well enough should have to go to jail too, shut down their business so no more guns can be sold from there that might not be secured well enough in the future. Might as well shut down the company that built the gun also, and while we're at it, shut down the companies that produced the steel and plastic that the gun was made out of, throw in the company that designed the mold for the gun too. We shouldn't stop there though, because that's only half of the equation. We should arrest the owner and workers, and shutter the business that made the bullets, heck, we should even include the owner and company that makes the boxes that the bullets come in, and what about the owner/company that made the ink that's on the box, after all, if it wasn't for them I wouldn't know what was in the box, right? Oh wait, I know I know, we should probably nuke China because they invented gunpowder ... 🙄🙄🙄🙄

My attempt here, was to sound almost as silly as you. How'd I do?

Hell, why stop there? The individual that sold me the gun that I didn't secure well enough should have to go to jail too, shut down their business so no more guns can be sold from there that might not be secured well enough in the future. Might as well shut down the company that built the gun also, and while we're at it, shut down the companies that produced the steel and plastic that the gun was made out of, throw in the company that designed the mold for the gun too. We shouldn't stop there though, because that's only half of the equation. We should arrest the owner and workers, and shutter the business that made the bullets, heck, we should even include the owner and company that makes the boxes that the bullets come in, and what about the owner/company that made the ink that's on the box, after all, if it wasn't for them I wouldn't know what was in the box, right? Oh wait, I know I know, we should probably nuke China because they invented gunpowder ... 🙄🙄🙄🙄

My attempt here, was to sound almost as silly as you. How'd I do?