Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners. I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another. As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.
I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year: http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7
There is very much still a ban on gun research.
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?
What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know. With measurable data?
It would work both ways too. Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).
Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.
If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
I have 2 kids under the age of 13. Unloaded guns in an out of they way closet are no danger to them or their friends. They don't have the dexterity, strength or knowledge to load them. I've also instructed them as to what will happen if/when they touch them. Most of the accidents I'm aware of involve children encountering loaded firearms. I would suggest my unplugged saw is bigger danger to them than the unloaded firearms in my closet.
As the children grow older and more knowledge about firearms operations, locks may be implemented.
Since you've brought up safes, they tend to take up a lot of space and are somewhat expensive adding yet another barrier to firearms ownership. Given that unloaded firearms are pretty safe, I don't feel the need.
With regard to other parents, I don't advertise to other parents or children there are guns in the house because its none of their business. We also have alcohol and prescription medicine in the house, I would suggest those are a higher danger than the guns, yet I don't feel compelled to disclose that either. If I was leaving loaded weapons throughout the house, that would be a different story.
With regard to attractive nuisance, my firearms aren't laying loaded in the yard. They are in house, unloaded in an out of the way area. That's substantially different than a pool or trampoline with easy access.
From your link:
"Usually the landowner must take some more affirmative steps to protect children." For a pool or trampoline, a fence usually suffices to the best of my knowledge. I would suggest unloaded guns locked in a house that the kids don't know about, aren't attractive and/or the house locks and the unloaded condition are an affirmative action.