Maybe you do not like the law, but it is what it is. The theoretical situation you propose is comparing apples to oranges: crooks, obviously mentally ill, lived with his parents who knew or should have known about his mental illness, who had several firearms in the house (we know he had access because he used one in the assassination attempt and the killing and wounding), but in your hypothesis, you say your daughter doesn’t live with you. There’s no comparison between my statement of the law applied to facts and your hypothetical which uses different facts.
This attitude is why bad, unConstitutional, laws stay on the books for so long. It runs absolutely contrary to everything the Founders expounded at length about. Up to and including committing Treason against their rightful King.
Unless Crooks had be adjudicated mentally defective and remanded to his parents care, it is absolutely an apples-apples comparison.
Even if my Daughter were to take a firearm from my house, it in no way makes me culpable for her actions. Period. No different if she were to borrow a car and get in an accident.