Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

lostnfound

(16,161 posts)

4. 27 states have child access laws based on negligent storage; not Michigan where this happened

Reply to Orrex (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 6, 2015, 01:04 PM

Aug 2015

I just found a website with Child Access Prevention laws.
27 states have something for negligent storage:

State Laws Based on Negligent Storage
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Shot and killed by young minors - who is the criminal? [View all] lostnfound Aug 2015 OP

Well, if you charged every gun owner whose weapon ended up in the wrong hands and was used to Doctor_J Aug 2015 #1

Making it a crime to let your gun be accessible to an under-13 year old seems reasonable. lostnfound Aug 2015 #2

SO, putting a child's life at risk didn't make this guy responsible, but a new law would???? Doctor_J Aug 2015 #5

I don't understand your point. lostnfound Aug 2015 #6

Here in NC that is the law Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #12

I would love to see irresponsible gun owners jailed Orrex Aug 2015 #3

27 states have child access laws based on negligent storage; not Michigan where this happened lostnfound Aug 2015 #4

Standard prohibitionist outlook based on overturning a Constitutional Amendment. Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #8

This topic has been widely discussed in the two Gunz Groups. Why don't Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #7

Interesting that they report gun deaths among minors by leaving out the older teens most likely pnwmom Aug 2015 #9

I took my data from the Nat'l Safety Council, not a "leading gun control group." Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #10

Funny, I didn't see any link. And a minor is under 18. There isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" pnwmom Aug 2015 #11

Actually, that is your definition of minor... Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #13

No, under 18 is the LEGAL definition of minor. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #14

The data from various sources uses various ages. No law against that... Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #15

It's deceptive to say you are reporting the number of "minors" when you are really talking pnwmom Aug 2015 #16

Some use 12, some 14, some 15, some 18. "Better" numbers, higher you go. Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #18

Right. The higher you go, the more cases there would be. So by only reporting pnwmom Aug 2015 #21

The lower #s were used by known gun-control entities. Eleanors38 Aug 2015 #23

Seems most reasonable to divide statistics Syzygy321 Aug 2015 #19

Since the subject was ACCIDENTAL gun deaths I don't see why it makes sense pnwmom Aug 2015 #20

I missed that detail! Syzygy321 Aug 2015 #22

Easy answer, the parents madokie Aug 2015 #17