Yes it’s tough but that’s the only way to stop parents from keeping guns accessible to children.

Your right does not trump your responsibility.

would the 6 year old be charged as an adult?

where is the line between 6 and 14?

10? 12? 8?

I am just curious.

the answer is always more guns.

which means she got pregnant at 15 or 16. Now this insanity, and with a stoen gun, no less!

Sigh.....

This is the republican way.

Indeed, since even a six year old is a citizen, perhaps a six year old has a constitutional right to carry guns. I bet the strict constructionist might even argue that back in the late 1700s it was common for kids under the age of 18 to carry fire arms.

Again, as I said in an earlier post in regards to the school shooting in Georgia, why the hell wasn't the gun secure and away from children? At this point, while we're at it, why not just let anyone drive a car without a seat belt or drunk? Clearly we can't be responsible with guns, so if can't do that, then we might as well just let drunks drive cars. Obviously I am not supporting it, but seriously, what is it going to take for people to realize that guns, like cars and heavy machinery, are not to be taken lightly? All these things can kill people. It takes a lot of responsibility to use them competently. I will never claim I can use an excavator when I am obviously not trained to do so. Why should it be any different with guns? I hope this doesn't happens or gets to this point,, but the way things are going, I almost think that it is going take a mass shooting that kills people in the triple digits (i.e. a hundred or more) to get us to wake up.

Time for an insurance requirement. I am sure the companies would have a number of factors that would be used to determine the risk of harm. These factors would then be adjusted over time as their data bases get better. By making people have to pay for the risk the weapon and ammo has many risky people may find they can not afford what they want. Proof of insurance could then have to show coverage for any new weapons or ammo before they could be driven home...Kinda like a car purchase. The coverage would have to be maintained or become impounded.

I would think the "well regulated" clause clause could justify this constitutionaly.

On another note used police guns need to be ground up and not sold where they are taken apart and the parts reused. I was shocked to learn that this is standard procedure for many departments.

Apparently, a homeowners policy never even asks about guns in the home. That seems out of character; they ask about other risk-factors -- a pool, maybe a dangerous dog breed.
I realize that you're talking about a separate mandatory insurance, similar to an auto policy. That takes legislation, which apparently would require the murder of many politicians' children! (said a bit sarcastically, but also truthfully)

because they live in poor areas where police don't want to respond and care more for order than law. They don't understand the consequences, have people like Trump and the NRA stoking their fear of robbery and murder, and know too many neighbors who were attacked by druggies or gangs and feel helpless. The ease of getting guns, both legal and illegal, really stokes the fire.
The police need to control the crime and not harass the innocent. Guns need to be controlled. People need to be educated on gun danger. They need to live without fear. Children need to learn at home and in school to keep away from guns. If people really need them, the guns should be kept locked up.

The mother in this case may lose her children and end up with a criminal record. Then what? She can't help them and they end up as wards of the court without any parents unless they get lucky.