Please don't be this person...

[TedKennedy]

About what I thought. Oh well. If thieves gonna thieve, why should I end up with a broken window? Just leave it unlocked, right?

Actually, when my wife was going to school in Springfield, MO - that was petty standard practice in a lot of areas. Folks told her it was better than having a window busted, just don't leave anything in the car. Weird town - rich folks on one street, tobacco road on the next, no real "high crime hotspots", it was all over the place.

 

[RickN]

Just wondering when and where people have responsibility for their possessions or themselves for that fact. If a child shoots himself with a gun that wasn't secured. Child's fault? Its not a matter of how many layers of security its whats reasonable and prudent. Which was tossed out of this thread a long time ago.

BINGO!!!! Somehow common sense and personal responsibility are the first to die.

Time and time again people have said if you don't take more precautions then you have contributed/are to blame/deserve no sympathy. I'm not sure what else you could mean other than applying those standards.



Not at all... if I am asked to take an action, I evaluate the request, risks, benefits to both parties, etc. Different situation than telling someone they should or must do this or that. And people come to me for advice on how to handle things. I give them what they ask for - advice. If they need treatment for a particular condition, I do what I can to help them, but no, I don't just give anything people ask for. People may think they know what they want - what they need or what is good for them may be different. Same with raising kids.

I take responsibility for the visitors to my home and for my son. I have taken the steps necessary to secure firearms when visitors are in my home. All I've been doing is asking for clarification of how many steps YOU GUYS (generic 'you' here) think is necessary or should be required. If some people feel asking those questions is wrong, well... I can't help how you may feel, but if you enter a discussion and someone asks you to justify your position or clarify it, how is that wrong or confrontational? If you can't defend your position or even STATE WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, maybe that says something? I dunno... have I told anyone what they SHOULD or MUST do??

Don't just take and hold a position because you have always assumed it. Examine it and evaluate the appropriateness. Is your position consistent with your other beliefs? Is it consistent for different people in different positions/locations, etc.?

Asking people to think can be painful.

Problem is you are trying to compare apples and peaches. Again you can do as you like but leaving a firearm in a car when you do not have to is not very bright in my opinion. Personally when I carry a gun or am out shooting, when I go into my house they do too. Someone is going to have to break into my home, get past me, my ankle biting dogs and break into my safe.

 

[Snattlerake]

Alright. I totally get where @tRidiot is coming from. He is asking about negligence and liability. Not about wisdom or stupidity or ethics. He is also not asking what the current legal status is: he is asking your opinion individually what your standard of negligent liability is.

Those are two separate factors. Is it unwise/stupid/unethical as a gun owner to leave a loaded gun in an unlocked car? Yes. Is the owner liable and at fault to any degree for damages done should someone other than them take (steal) the gun? Different question.

I will answer the question.

In my opinion, there are still two aspects that are getting confused in this thread: liability/fault for the theft, and liability/fault for damages done with the item following the theft.

As for the theft, the owner bears no fault period. In my opinion there should be zero layers of protection required by an owner to secure their property before it is theft for someone else to take it. Regardless of value or danger.

Regarding the liability for damages, there is a lot more depth. First off, I would say it does depend on potential danger. For example, liquor and drugs. I am not required by law to secure them to some abstract level, but if I don’t, and a child should harm themselves or another with it, then there is negligent liability. I would value a firearm at a similar level. If I fail to secure a dangerous item sufficient that a typical child cannot access it, then I could bear liability.

Same as owning a pool. Oklahoma statutes state you have to have it behind a self closing gate and a fenced yard.

Oklahoma law states that all public pools must have:

• Adequate life-saving equipment.
• Fencing and a self-closing gate, if outdoors.
• A lockable door, if indoors.
• A first-aid kit.
• A “lifeline” that marks the pool's deep end.

The insurance companies are the driving force behind all the "reasonable" precautions. Liability claims are expensive. If the insurance companies can lobby states and create laws to put more of the burden on the owners of pools, firearms, etc, they can adjust their payout tables and rationalize nonpayment of claims. Remember, they are doing this for you.