happens...

[Gob]

A two-year-old Arizona boy was hospitalised in serious condition after shooting himself in the face with a gun that police said may have been hidden under a pillow on a bed.

Police said foul play was not suspected in the incident but added that they were still trying to determine exactly what happened.

According to police, the shooting occurred on Thursday night while the Peoria boy and a seven-year-old brother were being watched by a grandmother and aunt.

Police spokesman Jay Davis said initial information indicated that the grandmother was playing with the boy near the bed when he grabbed the gun and shot himself.

It was unclear whom the gun belonged to or if anyone would face charges.

The boy’s father was not home at the time. No identities were released.

[rubato]

Strict liability.


If you buy a gun you are liable for all harm that is caused if the weapon is not secured.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Great point! I think the boy's father should have to support him for the rest of his life or until he's 18 whichever comes first. Either that or he should be jailed for the same period so the state can do the supporting job. The father jailed - not the boy.

To avoid any confusion:
I do hope the child recovers fully without long-term damage, either cosmetic or emotionally. It is indeed something that should never happen.

[rubato]

Great point! I think the boy's father should have to support him for the rest of his life or until he's 18 whichever comes first. Either that or he should be jailed for the same period so the state can do the supporting job. The father jailed - not the boy.

To avoid any confusion:
I do hope the child recovers fully without long-term damage, either cosmetic or emotionally. It is indeed something that should never happen.

The point is, you jackass, that this fact should be a large part of any purchase of a gun and the buyer should have to show proof of insurance which would perforce mean that he would have to show to an outside agency (the insurer) that he had the means to secure a weapon, and the education to understand the necessity of perfect scrupulousness in following certain rules in handling a gun. And he should have to pay the annual premiums for insurance, or lose the gun.

At this point in time he cannot be made financially responsible because the cost is incurred and (in all probability) too great for him to cover.

Blithering is not required. You can avoid it.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

At this point in time he cannot be made financially responsible because the cost is incurred and (in all probability) too great for him to cover.

If the boy's father is not financially responsible for his son's injuries, then who is?

[wesw]

the insurance companies will rule the earth.

do not resist! do not resist!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ha! What world do you live in, rubytuesday? Insurance for negligent gun ownership? Liability coverage doesn't exactly contemplate such a blatant risk. The gun might be covered (for loss/theft/whatever) but aside from some specialist policy costing thousands, no standard insurance company covers gun liability. So pass a law requiring specialist insurance - guns don't kill people; lack of money can prevent it, perhaps.

Sorry for not realizing that your cryptic message about "strict liability" was in fact some deeply significant point about insurance. I tried to read your mind but came up with nothing

[wesw]

"...shall not infringe..."

if you don t like the constitution, get enough votes to change it. or move to south Africa with meade.