Can parents sue a public school when a shooting occurs?

[clementine]

Humor me here.  Dh and I were talking over dinner tonight about school shootings, both past and present.

 

Knowing that shootings CAN happen in any school, and knowing that schools aren't doing much (if anything) to prevent them - can parents of an injured/killed child sue the school for not taking serious preventative measures to protect the students?  

 

What is it going to take to get a metal detector in every school?  What is it going to take to do bag searches or something?

 

I feel like when a shooting happens somewhere in our country....the country is in shock and is sad....and after a few days, life goes back to normal with no REAL steps being taken to prevent it from happening somewhere else?  

 

I know you can't stop all violent crime in America, but school shootings seem, to me, to be something that we (as a country) could do something about??

 

Am I naive?  Unrealistic?  Do we just HOPE that it doesn't happen in our town?  I don't know, this is kind of 'word vomit'...I just want real prevention.  

[Joker]

I don't know what the answer is but I have two dc in public high school and I don't want them to add metal detectors and bag searches.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Joker

[SKL]

No, and I don't want them to add metal detectors or bag searches.  Schools are already prison-like enough.  If someone decides to shoot some people they are going to figure out a way to do it.

 

It makes me kinda mad to see people blaming the schools, as if the school admins and teachers aren't already suffering enough from these incidents.

[bolt.]

I think if the school was grossly negligent -- maybe if they received a threat, but did nothing; or if they had protective policies but didn't follow them -- perhaps there would be grounds for a lawsuit.

 

I don't think that negligence (in the legal sense) is defined as doing 'less' than the maximum possible/ imaginable protective procedures. I think it's about knowing, reckless risk taking. Therefore schools who take their protective measures reasonably seriously, similar to what is average in their area, could probably not be found negligent.

[OrganicJen]

Without opining on the issue, suing a public school in general is pretty difficult due to governmental immunity. Then, if one can overcome that, they generally have to show the organization they want to sue knew of a danger and then still did not act to attempt to stop it.

[clementine]

I don't have school-age children at home, our youngest is a freshman in college this year.  But I just want these shootings to stop.  I am heartbroken for those families that lose children to violence.  

 

I don't know the answer, but I just don't believe that enough is being done to prevent school shootings.  

 

I was thinking out loud.....

[Jean in Newcastle]

Yes, a school district can be sued.  A local school district where there was a shooting has been sued.  I don't know how it turned out though or if it has gone all the way through court.  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington-school-shooting-victims-sue-article-1.2490878

[Kassia]

The parents of the victims of our school shooting sued the school district and administration.  It got really ugly with the community turning against the parents for doing so (the community donated a lot of money to the families after the shootings to pay for funeral/medical expenses) and made the situation much more painful for everyone.  It all made me very uncomfortable.  I can't judge the parents when I haven't walked in their shoes and never want to.

 

ETA - link http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20170831/chardon-high-school-shooting-trial-date-set-for-wrongful-death-suit-against-former-employees

Edited January 24, 2018 by Kassia

[clementine]

Here’s an article on some of the lawsuits brought forth:

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/blame/summary.html

 

 

Yes, a school district can be sued.  A local school district where there was a shooting has been sued.  I don't know how it turned out though or if it has gone all the way through court.  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington-school-shooting-victims-sue-article-1.2490878

 

Thank you for those links.

[Ravin]

Making schools more prison-like is not the solution. I totally don't get the sense in thinking metal detectors or not letting a kid answer the classroom door (as my DD's school district implemented; most of the buildings are designed for doors to rooms to open to outside, not to interior hallways) or taller fences are really going to make a difference in a world where a clever yet malajusted teenager could probably construct a firearm with a 3D printer, assemble it in the school after walking through the metal detector with the few metal bits required disguised as a keychain. Or someone could wreak plenty of havoc shooting from outside fences/into windows. Or...

 

Turning schools into prison yards is not the solution to this problem. Neither is thinking we can use psychological disciplines to identify problems before they happen. 

 

Better gun control, on the other hand...is of course something completely out of the control of schools. 

 

Unless maybe it's one of those districts that decided teachers should carry firearms to defend the school, and a teacher shoots someone. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

I largely agree with Bolt.

[Bluegoat]

I can't see how that would really do anything to resolve the social issues causing the problems.

 

Actually, I think it might make them worse.

[umsami]

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to prosecute the parents of the teens involved *if* they allowed them access to their guns... guns weren't secured...etc.

[QueenCat]

Around here, the middle and high schools all have resource officers. They are armed and part of the local police department. I think it would be going too far to subject the kids to bag searches unless there is a reason to search a specific student's bag. 

[QueenCat]

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to prosecute the parents of the teens involved *if* they allowed them access to their guns... guns weren't secured...etc.

 

YES! If a student gets their parents gun because it was accessible to them, the parents should be considered accessories. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Humor me here.  Dh and I were talking over dinner tonight about school shootings, both past and present.

 

Knowing that shootings CAN happen in any school, and knowing that schools aren't doing much (if anything) to prevent them - can parents of an injured/killed child sue the school for not taking serious preventative measures to protect the students?  

 

What is it going to take to get a metal detector in every school?  What is it going to take to do bag searches or something?

 

I feel like when a shooting happens somewhere in our country....the country is in shock and is sad....and after a few days, life goes back to normal with no REAL steps being taken to prevent it from happening somewhere else?  

 

I know you can't stop all violent crime in America, but school shootings seem, to me, to be something that we (as a country) could do something about??

 

Am I naive?  Unrealistic?  Do we just HOPE that it doesn't happen in our town?  I don't know, this is kind of 'word vomit'...I just want real prevention.  

 

I don't believe the bolded is universally true.  If you compare school security in most places in 1998 to now, I believe you would find a great deal has changed.  Schools also (sadly) have plans in place for what happens if an armed intruder gets on campus. Most of the mass shootings would not have been prevented by metal detectors or bag searches.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to prosecute the parents of the teens involved *if* they allowed them access to their guns... guns weren't secured...etc.

 

I believe (not 100% sure but not in the mood to research it) that some parents/guardians have faced prosecution in at least a few shootings.  I do know others were investigated and not charged as they were not criminally negligent in how they stored the weapons.

[catz]

I don't think schools do nothing... at least, not across the board. I've seen videos online about how doing a lock down if there is a shooting on campus. There's some device I'd see online that a teacher slides on door so no one can open it?

 

As for being an accessory... what if the shooter kills himself? Now the parent is an accessory to the killing of their own child? If it was a high school student they knew better so it's not as if a young child accidentally pulled the trigger. I just don't know how that would go over..

 

I think of it less of being an accessory, and more like being liable.  Like if someone injures themselves on your property, you may also be held liable.   And if your child kills them self with your mismanaged weapon, yep, I still think you're liable.  I think the Sandy Hook case is one of these cases, and I know the mother was killed but I do think she did not manage her weapons appropriately.

[chiguirre]

Honestly, I think it makes more sense to prosecute the parents of the teens involved *if* they allowed them access to their guns... guns weren't secured...etc.

 

By definition, if a minor gets access to his parent's gun, it wasn't secured. People won't be responsible with their guns unless the consequences of irresponsibility are severe. We need to start prosecuting the gun owners when their guns are misused and make sure the prison sentences are a real deterrent to allowing anyone access to your gun.

[Bluegoat]

By definition, if a minor gets access to his parent's gun, it wasn't secured. People won't be responsible with their guns unless the consequences of irresponsibility are severe. We need to start prosecuting the gun owners when their guns are misused and make sure the prison sentences are a real deterrent to allowing anyone access to your gun.

 

I don't know about that.  Even if everything is locked up, a teenager might be able to steal a key, or for that matter bash the thing with a hammer until it is broken open.  A gun safe in a house isn't normally meant to keep out a determined adult (which a teen is, in this context) who actually lives in the house.  And most parents are probably not thinking that their kid is a risk to steal a gun and commit mass murder (and, really, that isn't exactly common.)

[El...]

I've been thinking that financial liability is a great way too move things along. 

 

I wonder if making gun owners liable for the misuse of their guns would motivate them to secure their stuff, and maybe to own less guns per person.  If a kid steals an adult's gun and kills people, I think the adult could be sued for being negligent.  If someone steals your gun and you don't report it stolen, and then the gun turns up in a crime scene, I think you should be sued for negligence in the securing of your gun.  

 

That would make owning a whole ton of guns a larger liability.  Insurance companies would either offer coverage or specifically exclude it.  People would lock up their guns, I bet.  Gun safe manufacturers would make some money.

 

Of course, the NRA would go nuts against this idea, but I don't think the next generation is going to be as loyal to their leadership as this one has been.

[jewellsmommy]

I have firmly believed for many years that there need to be more school therapists/guidance counselors available. Even if they have to rotate through the middle and high schools on certain days. I think each child should have a mandated appt. each marking period. What could it possibly hurt to do this...other than cost a lot of money (that's always the hold up isn't it?)

 

If every student has to do it then there is no stigma associated. We may get t more homes with issues on the radar this way. We may identify kids who are getting bullied that need help. We may have better academic success if some of these kids are falling through the cracks with learning issues. We may catch more school/teacher abuse before it's too late. I think it would be worth the money to have well trained psychologists take this on. Our country needs to get it together in regards to mental health. We require vaccinations and doctor visits to start school or for joining in athletics etc. Let's establish some good mental health attitudes. Adolescence is a hard time! They could all benefit from a good model/good association of what mental health looks like.

[Bluegoat]

I've been thinking that financial liability is a great way too move things along. 

 

I wonder if making gun owners liable for the misuse of their guns would motivate them to secure their stuff, and maybe to own less guns per person.  If a kid steals an adult's gun and kills people, I think the adult could be sued for being negligent.  If someone steals your gun and you don't report it stolen, and then the gun turns up in a crime scene, I think you should be sued for negligence in the securing of your gun.  

 

That would make owning a whole ton of guns a larger liability.  Insurance companies would either offer coverage or specifically exclude it.  People would lock up their guns, I bet.  Gun safe manufacturers would make some money.

 

Of course, the NRA would go nuts against this idea, but I don't think the next generation is going to be as loyal to their leadership as this one has been.

 

Hmm, but how has this sort of thing worked in other areas?  Lots of people getting sued, and lots of CYA.  But I'm not sure it's really resolved any problems and it's caused other ones.

[goldberry]

Knowing that shootings CAN happen in any school, and knowing that schools aren't doing much (if anything) to prevent them - can parents of an injured/killed child sue the school for not taking serious preventative measures to protect the students?  .  

 

I was thinking of the mall and workplace shootings that have happened... are people also upset at malls for not doing "more"?  I understand your emotions, because these shootings are gut wrenching.  But around here I think schools are doing all they can without becoming oppressive.

 

:grouphug: to all this morning...

[Dmmetler]

There’s also a point at which it becomes ridiculous. A case in point-when I taught in PS (elementary music and math content area support) my classroom was in the gym, which was separated by the main building by a covered walkway. The teachers walked the class if they came as a group, and my older support students came by themselves for their sessions (usually 3-4 at a time, but not necessarily from the same grade/classroom).

 

Post Columbine, the school district decided to go to a limited entry system, where people had to come in only limited entrances and be buzzed in by the secretary. Except that when they set this up, they missed that kids had to go back and forth to the gym building on a regular basis. Not surprisingly, it didn’t take long before people started propping that door (and the outside gym door, for that matter) because otherwise, our classes were being interrupted by needing to go open the gym door, and the teachers and students had to walk all the way around to the other side of the building to be buzzed in.

 

It wasn’t until a local reporter did an expose on access to schools and discovered those propped doors (and similar situations at every school old enough to have more than one building that they put locks that would open with an ID on those doors (and gave teachers passes that had the keycard to let students use when they needed to go for support).

 

 

And, yes, people are mad at malls, too. Unfortunately, most of the calls for change involve greatly restricting the access of teens to public places, regardless of whether teens are actually the problem. I had a thread on that not long ago.

[Kassia]

I have firmly believed for many years that there need to be more school therapists/guidance counselors available. Even if they have to rotate through the middle and high schools on certain days. I think each child should have a mandated appt. each marking period. What could it possibly hurt to do this...other than cost a lot of money (that's always the hold up isn't it?)

 

If every student has to do it then there is no stigma associated. We may get t more homes with issues on the radar this way. We may identify kids who are getting bullied that need help. We may have better academic success if some of these kids are falling through the cracks with learning issues. We may catch more school/teacher abuse before it's too late. I think it would be worth the money to have well trained psychologists take this on. Our country needs to get it together in regards to mental health. We require vaccinations and doctor visits to start school or for joining in athletics etc. Let's establish some good mental health attitudes. Adolescence is a hard time! They could all benefit from a good model/good association of what mental health looks like.

 

:iagree:   Love this post.

[El...]

Insurance for if someone steals you guns type of insurance? If you have a certain amount worth of guns now and want them covered you already need a rider policy as there are caps on contents coverage. Like art, or jewelry. That insurance already exists. But if someone steals you guns and commits a crime.....it gets sticky because what if someone has guns in a safe, but doesn’t realize the safe was tampered with and guns were stolen, so you didn’t report it? Say you had contractors in your house and didn’t have a top level safe, but merely a locking cabinet. Are you still liable?

 

I ask because we have that happen here, in the police report sometimes. It’s usually suspected by contractors or people with access to the home. Not burglary. It doesn’t take a crack criminal to pick a lock. Or walk off with a smaller safe. A lot of people who are responsible gun owners can’t afford safes that take a tripod mover to move. Even a few hundred pound safe can easily be stolen by a couple of determined guys.

 

I’m not against liability as a whole, for negligence, just pointing out it’s not one way or another, black and white.

 

Insurance for "if your guns are used in the commission of a crime and you are discovered to be at fault due to negligence."   

 

It would be messy, wouldn't it?  I'd guess that if you were robbed and didn't realize it (for how long?  I mean, wouldn't you know that your safe was GONE?  Open? I guess, maybe?) you would plead that you could not have known and the suit would be dismissed or diminished.  Being sued is not being assessed a judgement. 

 

Perhaps the law should allow people to prove that they made a valid attempt to secure their weapons, in case someone broke into their safe and headed directly for the nearest bank... before they could notice the break-in and call the police.

 

I would add that I'm not an anti-gun person.  I'm a cop's daughter, a veteran, and former law enforcement myself.  I used to be an NRA instructor but have let my certification lapse.  I own a gun (but not here with me: I now live in Europe - it is well secured elsewhere).

 

I also am thinking of this from a veteran's perspective.  I used to supervise a military armory.  God help you if you couldn't find a gun in that context.  I think a lot of people could take securing their weapons seriously.  "It used to be in my top dresser drawer but I haven't looked at it in six months," has got to stop.

[QueenCat]

In addition to the resource officers I mentioned above, I've thought of others things that have changed in the schools I've been a part of, either through my kids or working in them. 

 

1) Lockdown drills.

2) Mental health awareness programs for students.

3) Mental health training for teachers.

4, Locked doors, with buzzed entry from the office.

5) Doors that aren't the main entrance are only accessible with key card. Or in some cases, another buzzer (like backdoors, going out to the trailers).

 

Not sure why part of this is highlighted but I can't get it to go away.

Edited January 24, 2018 by QueenCat

[chiguirre]

 

I’m not against liability as a whole, for negligence, just pointing out it’s not one way or another, black and white.

 

I think it is black and white. Guns are designed for one main purpose, killing living things. If you own this killing device, you are absolutely responsible for whatever happens with it. So, lock it up and check on it frequently! Report it immediately to the police if it's missing! Or lose all your assets and go to jail if someone uses it to harm or kill another human. Guns are a serious responsibility. If you want to own one, you need to accept the financial and criminal liability if something goes wrong. No excuses.

 

[QueenCat]

I think it is black and white. Guns are designed for one main purpose, killing living things. 

 

 

In our house, the guns are only used at shooting ranges. And they are only loaded when we are at the shooting range. Why? Because shooting at targets is fun. 

[chiguirre]

 Because shooting at targets is fun. 

 

Sure it is, but you are still responsible for everything that happens with your gun. It's your choice to own it so you're liable if something goes wrong.

 

[chiguirre]

Considering that it was our GUIDANCE COUNSELOR who threatened to shoot up our ps last month, I don't hold out much improvement by increasing counselors. After a long, armed stand-off, he was arrested. And then allowed to bond out. This after years of his coming to work drunk. My kids were much safer in my home, with our secured firearms, than at that school. 

 

Could you post a link to a news article. I want to know more!!!!

 

[OrganicJen]

I don't know about that. Even if everything is locked up, a teenager might be able to steal a key, or for that matter bash the thing with a hammer until it is broken open. A gun safe in a house isn't normally meant to keep out a determined adult (which a teen is, in this context) who actually lives in the house. And most parents are probably not thinking that their kid is a risk to steal a gun and commit mass murder (and, really, that isn't exactly common.)

But if your gun safe was bashed open the police could document that so it would show you did have it locked up at least.

[QueenCat]

Sure it is, but you are still responsible for everything that happens with your gun. It's your choice to own it so you're liable if something goes wrong.

 

 

Not really. If I'm negligent, yes. If someone breaks open the lockbox and steals it? NO. 

[Bluegoat]

But if your gun safe was bashed open the police could document that so it would show you did have it locked up at least.

 

Sure, but that's still an example of a situation that's not negligent.  And really, lock-ups and such in homes in general aren't usually meant to keep things out of the hands of people who actually live there who really want them.  

[justasque]

.... Guns are a serious responsibility. If you want to own one, you need to accept the financial and criminal liability if something goes wrong. No excuses.

 

 

This.  I think the only way things are likely to change is if money enters the equation in a way that forces individual people to change.  

 

If your weapon is used to inflict damage on goods or people, then you should be liable to make restitution, and you should have insurance to cover it, just as we expect people to carry such coverage on their vehicles and their swimming pools. 

 

And as much as possible, this needs to apply to people who themselves do the shooting, as well as those whose guns are stolen - you injure three people, your insurance needs to cover their healthcare and recovery costs, unless self-defense is clearly the case.

 

Of course there will be people who don't get insurance and inflict damage on others; we can handle this the way we do uninsured motorists.

 

Everyone could still own the guns they want, but they'd be required to take on the underlying costs.  Insurance companies could charge according to the perceived risk factor, assessing things like whether the owner has a gun safe, a background of violence, and so on. (There would of course be a debate as to what kinds of things insurance companies could use to assess risk; that would be a debate well worth having.)

 

A small positive for the victims of gun violence, in that at least their health-related costs (or, sadly, death-related costs) would be covered, which is important in that we don't have universal health care.  And without restricting anyone from owning a gun, so no 2A issues (unless one wants to argue that it would be too expensive for the poor; that would be an interesting debate).

[Laurie]

 

 

Knowing that shootings CAN happen in any school, and knowing that schools aren't doing much (if anything) to prevent them - can parents of an injured/killed child sue the school for not taking serious preventative measures to protect the students?  

 

What is it going to take to get a metal detector in every school?  What is it going to take to do bag searches or something?

 

I feel like when a shooting happens somewhere in our country....the country is in shock and is sad....and after a few days, life goes back to normal with no REAL steps being taken to prevent it from happening somewhere else?  

 

 

 

 

 I don't think enough attention is given to the drug companies and the role that psychiatric medications play in mass violence.   Maybe more people need to sue the drug companies.   

 

https://breggin.com/legal-page/

 

I have no idea how much a metal detector would cost, but students should be able to cope with them unless they have a pacemaker.   People already have to deal with airport security, metal detectors at courthouses, no bags/purses at some sporting events, etc.   When my son took the GRE this summer,  he had to go through a very thorough security check-in procedure, including checking his pockets, although this was more likely done to prevent cheating!    And cheating isn't even a life-or-death issue!  

[El...]

This.  I think the only way things are likely to change is if money enters the equation in a way that forces individual people to change.  

 

If your weapon is used to inflict damage on goods or people, then you should be liable to make restitution, and you should have insurance to cover it, just as we expect people to carry such coverage on their vehicles and their swimming pools. 

 

And as much as possible, this needs to apply to people who themselves do the shooting, as well as those whose guns are stolen - you injure three people, your insurance needs to cover their healthcare and recovery costs, unless self-defense is clearly the case.

 

Of course there will be people who don't get insurance and inflict damage on others; we can handle this the way we do uninsured motorists.

 

Everyone could still own the guns they want, but they'd be required to take on the underlying costs.  Insurance companies could charge according to the perceived risk factor, assessing things like whether the owner has a gun safe, a background of violence, and so on. (There would of course be a debate as to what kinds of things insurance companies could use to assess risk; that would be a debate well worth having.)

 

A small positive for the victims of gun violence, in that at least their health-related costs (or, sadly, death-related costs) would be covered, which is important in that we don't have universal health care.  And without restricting anyone from owning a gun, so no 2A issues (unless one wants to argue that it would be too expensive for the poor; that would be an interesting debate).

The pools are a very interesting parallel.  

[SKL]

 

I have no idea how much a metal detector would cost, but students should be able to cope with them unless they have a pacemaker.   People already have to deal with airport security, metal detectors at courthouses, no bags/purses at some sporting events, etc.   When my son took the GRE this summer,  he had to go through a very thorough security check-in procedure, including checking his pockets, although this was more likely done to prevent cheating!    And cheating isn't even a life-or-death issue!  

 

So now my kids aren't allowed to have anything metal with or on them when they go to school?  And they need to be TSA checked 180 days a year?

 

The effects of the daily reminders of mass murder risk, and spending many hours a day in a place that is treated as so unsafe, probably has significant psychological effects on kids.  Maybe the highly increased focus on mass murder risk since Columbine is one of the reasons we observe more tendency to violence among some youth.

 

The other elephant in the room is constant access to both social media and mass media.

[OrganicJen]

Sure, but that's still an example of a situation that's not negligent. And really, lock-ups and such in homes in general aren't usually meant to keep things out of the hands of people who actually live there who really want them.

But if it were required then at least it would stop the kids who can just go take a gun out of the parents bedside drawer. Obviously some kids could or would bash into a safe but at least if people were required to take that step it would stop all the kids who are getting guns without bashing into a safe from getting their hands on one. Not just kids who do school shootings but the ones who find the guns to play with and kill someone accidentally with it. I'm just referring to the PP who suggested harsher penalties if your gun is used for a crime etc. At least it may help prevent the easy access some kids have and preventing some death is better than doing nothing just because it won't prevent all of it.

[OrganicJen]

This. I think the only way things are likely to change is if money enters the equation in a way that forces individual people to change.

 

If your weapon is used to inflict damage on goods or people, then you should be liable to make restitution, and you should have insurance to cover it, just as we expect people to carry such coverage on their vehicles and their swimming pools.

 

And as much as possible, this needs to apply to people who themselves do the shooting, as well as those whose guns are stolen - you injure three people, your insurance needs to cover their healthcare and recovery costs, unless self-defense is clearly the case.

 

Of course there will be people who don't get insurance and inflict damage on others; we can handle this the way we do uninsured motorists.

 

Everyone could still own the guns they want, but they'd be required to take on the underlying costs. Insurance companies could charge according to the perceived risk factor, assessing things like whether the owner has a gun safe, a background of violence, and so on. (There would of course be a debate as to what kinds of things insurance companies could use to assess risk; that would be a debate well worth having.)

 

A small positive for the victims of gun violence, in that at least their health-related costs (or, sadly, death-related costs) would be covered, which is important in that we don't have universal health care. And without restricting anyone from owning a gun, so no 2A issues (unless one wants to argue that it would be too expensive for the poor; that would be an interesting debate).

This is really interesting. It reminds me about when I was updating some home insurance coverage and the agent mentioned an additional umbrella policy, but then it turned out I couldn't qualify for it because I have a German shepherd and they are on a list that block me from the extra coverage. I mean the way it stands now I can't get extra coverage because I own a breed of dog that my carrier lists as too big a risk factor to give me more coverage, yet I didn't have to answer any questions about owning any guns or if so if I had a safe etc, and between a gun and my German shepherd I'd venture to guess that a person is in less danger from being injured or killed and causing an insurance claim due to my German shepherd being unsecured than a gun. I hadn't really thought about it the way you described it's a really interesting idea.

[QueenCat]

 

And as much as possible, this needs to apply to people who themselves do the shooting, as well as those whose guns are stolen - you injure three people, your insurance needs to cover their healthcare and recovery costs, unless self-defense is clearly the case.

 

 

 

No, sorry, but the owner should not be liable if someone manages to break into their locked up gun safe and then shoots someone with the gun. Just like if someone steals your car, you aren't going to be liable if they wreck it and kill someone with it (nor will your insurance company be liable to the other party). 

[QueenCat]

But if it were required then at least it would stop the kids who can just go take a gun out of the parents bedside drawer. Obviously some kids could or would bash into a safe but at least if people were required to take that step it would stop all the kids who are getting guns without bashing into a safe from getting their hands on one. Not just kids who do school shootings but the ones who find the guns to play with and kill someone accidentally with it. I'm just referring to the PP who suggested harsher penalties if your gun is used for a crime etc. At least it may help prevent the easy access some kids have and preventing some death is better than doing nothing just because it won't prevent all of it.

 

Not having it locked up is far different than the poster who suggested that even if it is locked up and stolen, the gun owner should be held liable. Not locked up and a kids gets it and shoots someone, yes, the owner should be held liable. Two very different scenarios. I do realize that in some areas, for safety reasons, guns need to be high up but unlocked and loaded. I'm thinking bear country, as we do have members here that really do have to be ready whenever they open their back door, as there is dangerous wildlife out there. 

[poppy]

Let's turn our schools into prisons instead of dealing with the guns.  THIS is how we are going to respond to school shootings?  This is better than fighting the gun lobby?!?!

 

This thread and the other one with the same idea really make me want to cry.  

 

 

[poppy]

No, sorry, but the owner should not be liable if someone manages to break into their locked up gun safe and then shoots someone with the gun. Just like if someone steals your car, you aren't going to be liable if they wreck it and kill someone with it (nor will your insurance company be liable to the other party). 

 

Sure, let's say you have a 1 or 2 day window to report the theft.  No one can prevent the immediate aftermath of a theft.

 

Don't report it, you are liable. 

[poppy]

This is really interesting. It reminds me about when I was updating some home insurance coverage and the agent mentioned an additional umbrella policy, but then it turned out I couldn't qualify for it because I have a German shepherd and they are on a list that block me from the extra coverage. I mean the way it stands now I can't get extra coverage because I own a breed of dog that my carrier lists as too big a risk factor to give me more coverage, yet I didn't have to answer any questions about owning any guns or if so if I had a safe etc, and between a gun and my German shepherd I'd venture to guess that a person is in less danger from being injured or killed and causing an insurance claim due to my German shepherd being unsecured than a gun. I hadn't really thought about it the way you described it's a really interesting idea.

 

Trampoline, they won't sell you an umbrella policy.   50 unsecured guns? No problem.

[SKL]

Sure, let's say you have a 1 or 2 day window to report the theft.  No one can prevent the immediate aftermath of a theft.

 

Don't report it, you are liable. 

 

What if you haven't actually used the gun in years and it's not in a place you would normally check every day?

 

Are you suggesting a law requiring all gun owners to check every gun every day to make sure it's still there?

 

My dad used to store his guns under the attic steps (nailed).  Pretty sure he didn't check them daily.  I guess he needed to go to jail.

[SKL]

Trampoline, they won't sell you an umbrella policy.   50 unsecured guns? No problem.

 

From what I've heard, the trampoline accident rate is much higher than the gun accident rate.  (No I don't have a citation for that.)  Also I'm not aware of any way to secure your backyard trampoline from random kids or drunk people.

 

I am not an insurance expert.  I do think it makes sense for insurance to take gun ownership and storage into account. Maybe they do, I don't know.  I do think that if you have a gun with a lock / safe, it should be treated differently from a gun without same.  Like I get a discount on my car insurance for certain safety gadgets.  Also a discount for having a good record / having all household members over age __ certified by a gun safety course should matter.

[QueenCat]

What if you haven't actually used the gun in years and it's not in a place you would normally check every day?

 

Are you suggesting a law requiring all gun owners to check every gun every day to make sure it's still there?

 

My dad used to store his guns under the attic steps (nailed).  Pretty sure he didn't check them daily.  I guess he needed to go to jail.

 

Exactly. Someone could walk off with our gun cases. We each have a small one that holds one gun each. I doubt either of us would notice it was gone until we went to go target shooting, which happens every few months. I do believe in reasonable gun laws, but this kind of thing is just insane. 

[poppy]

What if you haven't actually used the gun in years and it's not in a place you would normally check every day?

 

Are you suggesting a law requiring all gun owners to check every gun every day to make sure it's still there?

 

My dad used to store his guns under the attic steps (nailed).  Pretty sure he didn't check them daily.  I guess he needed to go to jail.

 

If someone breaks into his house, and he doesn't notice, steals his guns and uses it for a crime, he could explain those unusual circumstances to a judge.  He knew where his guns were and they were stored safely which is better than most.  30% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, and the majority of those cases "the place where the owner lost the firearm was unknown".

[SKL]

If someone breaks into his house, and he doesn't notice, steals his guns and uses it for a crime, he could explain those unusual circumstances to a judge.  He knew where his guns were and they were stored safely which is better than most.  30% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, and the majority of those cases "the place where the owner lost the firearm was unknown".

 

I am not sure "most" people don't store their guns safely.  I really don't know - you can't infer that from the crime statistics since most guns have not been stolen and/or used in crimes. 

 

I do agree that there should be a consequence for negligence about gun storage which leads to an accident or crime.  Negligence being not securing your gun well enough that a child or unsophisticated burglar could get it out and shoot it.  Also there should be an extra duty if you know you have a household member (or visitor) who has mental health issues or a history that makes unauthorized gun use more likely.