Safe Storage w/Children

In the training forum of this site some individuals routinely talk about risk to reward ratio. You don’t carry a gun because you know the statistics indicate you will never be the victim of a violent crime. You don’t carry a spare magazine because you think you will need it

Are we really going to reverse the risk analysis to justify not storing firearms securely. Millions of guns have been stored in unsafe manners without incident. Still is the risk worth it?
 
That makes no sense at all.

If you don't carry and are a crime victim, you made yourself a victim. Tough luck for you.

If you don't secure the gun and a child kills themselves and/or shoots another, you were causal to the pain and suffering that ensued for others.

Please leave your unsecured gun on the kitchen table, along with all you prescription medicines in candy dishes.

You really don't understand squat about risk analysis.
 
In the training forum of this site some individuals routinely talk about risk to reward ratio.

You don’t carry a gun because you know the statistics indicate you will never be the victim of a violent crime.

You don’t carry a spare magazine because you think you will need it

Are we really going to reverse the risk analysis to justify not storing firearms securely.

Millions of guns have been stored in unsafe manners without incident.

Still is the risk worth it?
Click to expand...
Six sentences, seemingly unrelated, that say little or nothing.

Is there a point?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
You are conflating liability with responsibility. Nevertheless, your anti-gun bias is showing (again). You live in an anti-gun society, so you aren't really qualified to understand the nuances of how it works here in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the question of legal liability here in the U. S.

With regard to possible criminal liability, many States have "safe storage" laws. These laws generally provide that if a child gets ahold of your loaded gun and hurts someone with it, you can be prosecuted. Exactly what you might be prosecuted for and what your defenses might be vary somewhat from State-to-State. However, most such laws do provide some sort of "safe harbor", e. g., if the gun was locked up in a suitable safe you'll be off the hook.

The issue of possible civil liability is more complicated.

If gets ahold of your gun and hurts someone with it any liability you might have will generally be based on negligence. Negligence in law is basically:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Click to expand...
Negligence is generally a question for a jury. Basically the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.

So --

  1. In general, everyone has a legal duty to exercise due care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to others. If one is found not to have done so and thus caused damage to another, he could be required to compensate the injured person for that damage.

  2. A gun is a potentially dangerous instrumentality. If someone stores his gun in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it can be accessed by an unauthorized person, such as one's child, and such person gets the gun and hurts someone, under some circumstances a jury might decide that the gun owner failed to exercise appropriate care and may be held financially liable.

  3. And if the gun owner's conduct was so careless as to be considered reckless, he could also face criminal charges.

  4. These sorts of results are highly circumstance dependent. Whether there can be liability will be a matter of exactly what happened and how.

  5. Consider this case from gun-friendly Montana, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):
    ...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

    Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

    As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

    Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

    Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

    Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...
    Click to expand...

  6. In general someone who keeps his gun either on his person under his control or locked up (there are lock boxes with key touch combinations offering ready access to a loaded gun) will go a long way towards avoiding such risks. If someone habitually leaves his loaded gun on the coffee table, he's probably toast if some unauthorized person, like his child, hurts someone with it. And if the gun was tucked away in his sock drawer, it'll be up to the jury; but I wouldn't want to have to count on a jury's tender mercies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top