comment: >
  
  
  and it's not unfair for people that don't own guns to have to pay for gun violence?
  
  Yes, people who aren't directly responsible for the violence shouldn't have to pay for it.
context: TBH, it astounds me that there isn't strict CRIMINAL liability for adults who, through their own negligence, allow children under 12 to get their hands on guns and use them to injure anyone else.
  For example, the parent(s) of the 6-year-old in Newport News, VA who shot his teacher a couple of months back should be IN JAIL and that child in the legal custody of other family members. >
  
  Agreed. Except now a poor-ish school district will be sued. >
  
  The school should be sued; did you hear what happened? Three times faculty was told the 6 year old had a gun and no one did anything… >
  
  That wasn’t my point. The point is a poor funded district loses more money and what do people think will happen? Staff are going to body search elementary kids? Metal detectors in school? Zero tolerance policies? All the things people complained about a few years ago. The parents of the kid need to held just as responsible as the school. If not, then the schools hands are tied and these disasters continue. >
  
  
  The parents of the kid need to held just as responsible as the school.
  
  So you do think the school should be sued. >
  
  If you are negligent and lose your gun or have it stolen because it was not secured, you should be charged whenever that gun is used in a crime.  If you illegally sell your gun, you should be charged whenever that gun is used in a crime.  Neither of these thoughts stops you from having a gun.  Neither of them restrict your right to weapons.  But both these thought make you responsible for them.  This should become law. >
  
  Same for your car? What about that rock in your front yard.. if I steal it and throw it though your neighbors window, it’s your fault? Okay... >
  
  We already have completely different laws for gun and car ownership.  This is a terrible analogy. >
  
  Car to gun analogies are often poor, but they do have a point in this case. In California you can be charged if you’re car is in involved with a crime that you didn’t commit. It typically happens in hit and run scenarios with no apprehension during title transfer period or hit and runs with your stolen car before it’s been reported as stolen.
  You will often times need to defend yourself in court in these situations and prove that you’re innocent. >
  
  
  In California you can be charged if you’re car is in involved with a crime that you didn’t commit.
  
  Citation needed. >
  
  Google it on your own time. I learned about it at the dmv when I was transferring a title. >
  
  Already did, that's how I know you're incorrect. >
  
  Do a better job next time >
  
  
  "Criminals are not likely to buy gun insurance, and so putting the onus on the lawful gun owner to pay for all the ills associated with firearms, is being considered unfair," Clark said. 
  
  and it's not unfair for people that don't own guns to have to pay for gun violence?