There are currently negligence laws that apply to those situations and they absolutely should be enforced, and I would favor someone who opts to not use a child restraint in a car to be prosecuted for negligence if a child is injured or killed in an accident.

 

But only if they are hurt or injured...You don't think putting them at risk to begin with is negligent?

 

So you could play Russian Roulette with a kid and unless the gun went off, you shouldn't be charged?

But only if they are hurt or injured...You don't think putting them at risk to begin with is negligent?

 

So you could play Russian Roulette with a kid and unless the gun went off, you shouldn't be charged?

 

I'll go back to my dog analogy. The argument could be made that having a dog (especially certain breeds) in the house with an infant or toddler places the child in jeopardy. Should all parents of small children be banned from owning dogs?

I'll go back to my dog analogy. The argument could be made that having a dog (especially certain breeds) in the house with an infant or toddler places the child in jeopardy. Should all parents of small children be banned from owning dogs?

 

So your not going to answer my question?

 

There are certain things that are inherently dangerous. If you have an aggressive dog or a dog that shows aggression towards the child then yes it should go. Should they be banned no, but if they are going to have a dog they have a responsibility for the child's safety and should never leave the child in a position to be harmed by the dog. FWIW a lot more kids are killed/injured without proper restraint than by the family pet.

I'll go back to my dog analogy. The argument could be made that having a dog (especially certain breeds) in the house with an infant or toddler places the child in jeopardy. Should all parents of small children be banned from owning dogs?

Just having a dog does not put a child in danger ,it is how the dog is treated trained or raised . Even you should see that .

No I don't see that. I've heard more then one instance of a child being injured by a "loving" family pet that hadn't been mistreated. I still think it's a valid analogy. If there's even a small chance that the dog will attack the child then the child is in jeopardy.

Why not people who own dogs shouldn't have kids?

Why not people who own dogs shouldn't have kids?

 

I'd be happy if people strapped their dogs into a seat belt instead of letting them sit in their laps while driving. Huge pet peeve of mine. Kind of off topic but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway.

Nice. Having to get out of the car and unbuckle the kid from his car seat while you're dropping him off for 3rd grade basketball practice. :lol2:

 

Shouldn't have to do that with a booster seat, right?

I agree that some laws on the books are ridiculous. I can't say that about laws that protect kids.