boy plays with a handgun

[seabeyond]

and points it at his face. this was on video

the three children were taken from the parents

there was no bullets in the gun

were the children in danger, should they have been taken out of the parents house, kids taken away from parents.........

because a child held an empty gun

is this who we are

saying if.......they get their children back. a month before they go to court to see if they get to keep their three kids

[Robin Hood]

1. Jeezus, did you get a look at the white trash parents?

My gawd!! Typical NRA Bush supporters.

[seabeyond]

10. k, so no judgement there

and because they are white trash bush supporters then we the white elite, what clean, non trash, get to take their kids away

i mean, f*......what does that have to do with whether someone gets to keep their kids

and who the hell are you to decide if they get to be a parent cause you decide on film, a flash of ten seconds they are white trash

[Robin Hood]

25. You sound confused.

Their children are not being taken away because they are white trash. Theyare being taken away because they are irresponsible parents. That boy was not only in danger of harming himself but also other innocent by-standers or neighbors. And the fact that the parents still show no concern or remorse proves the point further their children need a safer environment.

I guess compared to the typical trash Bush supporter, I supposed I am elite, when in fact I am just average. You ask "who the hell are you to decide", I am an American that lives in this society and has a right to live in my home without the threat of people playing with their guns and accidentaly killing me.

[seabeyond]

36. they know their child was safe.

so because they dont have the remorse or fear for his safety or fear for other innocents..........that is not their problem. it is your fear you are punishing them for, the not knowing the gun was loaded. the not knowing if child and innocent was in danger. this is is the reason for enforcement of whatever, cause i dont see the law broken. this is our fear for not knowing gun was unloaded, and there was no danger

i say string em up. how dare they. must not of thought something thru. must not of thought of our hysterical communities

[sangh0]

39. The children were in danger

From the NRA's "PARENTS' GUIDE TO GUN SAFETY"

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/infoparents.asp

The Parents' Responsibility

In a home where guns are kept, the degree of safety a child has rests squarely on the child's parents.

Parents who accept the responsibility to learn, practice and teach gun safety rules will ensure their child's safety to a much greater extent than those who do not. Parental responsibility does not end, however, when the child leaves the home.

According to federal statistics, there are guns in approximately half of all U.S. households. Even if no one in your family owns a gun, chances are that someone you know does. Your child could come in contact with a gun at a neighbor's house, when playing with friends, or under other circumstances outside your home.

It is critical for your child to know what to do if he or she encounters a firearm anywhere, and it is the parents' responsibility to provide that training.

These parents did not teach their children about guns even though they kept guns in the house, unsecured and operable. The first rule to teach your children, which these children had not been taught, is:

What Should You Teach Your Child About Gun Safety?

If you have decided that your child is not ready to be trained in a gun's handling and use, teach him or her to follow the instructions of NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program. If you find a gun:


STOP!
Don't Touch.

Leave the Area.

Tell an Adult.

The initial steps of "Stop" and "Don't Touch" are the most important. To counter the natural impulse to touch a gun, it is imperative that you impress these steps of the safety message upon your child.

In today's society, where adult supervision is not always possible, the direction to "Leave the Area" is also essential. Under some circumstances, area may be understood to be a room if your child cannot physically leave the apartment or house.

"Tell an Adult" emphasizes that children should seek a trustworthy adult, neighbor, relative or teacher -- if a parent or guardian is not available.

[kimchi]

113. Three year olds shouldn't handle guns--even unloaded ones.

Mistakes happen, sometimes guns are loaded when you think they aren't. Hence, the Darwin awards.

The parents were irresponsible, period.

[defoliate_bush]

58. Agreed big time

I live in a conservative subdivision in Mississippi (also known as HELL). Everyone is a bush-loving, NRA card-carrying idiot with ten hunting rifles in their houses and kids running around within reach of them. Something needs to be done about this kind of thing. I'm not saying that everyone who has a gun in their house should have their kids taken away, but if their is a kid amongst a pile of weapons, loaded or not, pointing one at his face, something NEEDS to be done.

[UdoKier]

149. I don't care if they are "white trash"

But if they leave guns around for their kids to play with they are probably unfit parents.

I think they should get another chance, but it should be made clear to them that if it happens again, they will lose their kids.

I would never keep handguns in a house with kids, but if I did, they would be locked in a case, unloaded, trigger-locked, with bullets locked away separately.

Do you know how many kids are killed every year this way?

[sangh0]

2. "were the children in danger"?????

Of course they were in danger. They lived in a house where there was an unsecured gun. Even the NRA says that gun owners should secure their weapons, even when they are unloaded.

[seabeyond]

11. they werent in danger, you are creating illusion

in truth they werent in dangerm, simple as that, unless he pinched his finger in the whatever it is, (dont do guns, dont like them) or bonked himself on the head with it

[sangh0]

19. Even the NRA, not known for being hard on gun owners, agrees with me

Your position is an extreme one which even the extremists won't support.

ALL GUNS should be secured when not in use and ALL GUNS are supposed to be asssumed to be loaded.

[seabeyond]

24. i dont give a shit what the nra says

i do know that an unloaded gun will not take a childs life

and i do know that we dont take children away from parents unless it is dire

and an unloaded gun, regardless of what nra says, does not constitute threat of taking children out of their home, imho

[sangh0]

29. You are changing your story

IN another post you AGREED that guns should be assumed to be loaded, and now it's "I don't give a shit"

Here's your post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2078118#2078243

[Occulus]

55. There's no such thing as an unloaded gun.

Period.

[GoneOffShore]

130. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

"i do know that an unloaded gun will not take a childs life"

More people are killed by 'unloaded' guns than the other kind.

By keeping an unsecured gun in the house these people put their children in jeopardy. By showing no concern or saying 'it was unloaded' they obviously don't have a clue.
Here's a question: If this same child had gotten behind the wheel of a car and taken the brake off with kids in the back seat or driven it at someone, would you be saying the authorities are wrong to take them away?

The parents are plainly irresponsible.

[seabeyond]

133. i would say shit happens

i would say f* i wish i hadnt done that i would say what a bitch, the pain of the experience i am going thru

what if a kid took a knife out of dishwasher

what if a child jumped off bed and broke neck, or fell off jumping on the bed, what if, the child tripped down my steep front steps and cut head open, what if a child got chewed up by a dog roaming the neighborhood

lots of scary shit being a parent i assure you. every second of my parenting, especially when children were little, lots and lots of what if, i would see all over the place

i am not that perfect of a parent, shit might happen to us. i try, damn i try to stop everything, probably have made my children a little wussie because of it, but no what if's have happened

[sangh0]

137. What a load of nonsense

Some accidents are easily prevented while others are impossible to prevent. Responsible parents understand the difference, and don't blame the way the world works for their own lack of responsibility.

lots of scary shit being a parent i assure you. every second of my parenting, especially when children were little, lots and lots of what if, i would see all over the place

And the responsible response to this is to do WHAT YOU CAN to prevent those accidents you can prevent. The irresponsible response is to shrug and say "Shit happens"

[seabeyond]

152. nonsense, so someone doesnt think like you and is nonsense

personally i allow various forms of walking life. seeing all the many different perspectives creates something wonderful. everyone doesnt have to walk my rules. i think it is abusive to put a new born in a daycare from 6 in the morning til 6 at night.

but i wouldnt dare insist all these professional people that can easily have one stay at home parent raise their child, live life the way i do. they need to stick a baby in daycare cause they need the self gratification as a wroking parent, so be it. is theirs to do.

i just dont have that right

[sangh0]

168. No, it's nonsense

Plenty of people disagree with me, but only a small number of extremists would take the position you do. Even the NRA thinks your position is irresponsible, and it's not like their mainstream

And we do have the right to protect children from their negligent parents. Deal with it

[Pithlet]

49. They absolutely were in danger

There is no way around that. The gun happened to be unloaded that time. Parents who leave unsecured guns around, loaded or not, are not in the habit of promoting gun safety, and are endangering their kids. My NRA gun loving Republican father would even agree with me on this one.

[BloodyWilliam]

54. Until you can actually see the empty chamber,

The gun is to be assumed as loaded. This time it wasn't, but how was the kid to know? He still played with it.

And you never, EVER point a gun at another person (except self defense, yadda yadda). It's not a toy, even if you "know" it's empty.

[TX-RAT]

3. were the children in danger?

Absolutely.

[seabeyond]

12. how

???????????????

[TX-RAT]

14. Dangerously irresponsible parents.

[seabeyond]

15. responsible i say if they make sure no bullets around

where is the dangerously irresponsible that requires children to be pulled out of family and taken to a strange and fearful enviroment

[sangh0]

20. All guns should be handled as if they were loaded

That's what gun-grabbers like the NRA says.

[seabeyond]

27. so, we know it is not loaded

yet you suggest that regardless of knowing truth, we ignore that and allow a story, so what we can take a child from a parent.

simply not good enough for me, a parent, a non perfect parent

[sangh0]

30. All guns should be assumed to be loaded

People make mistakes. CHildren shouldn't have to pay for them with their lives

[truthspeaker]

106. They shouldn't have let him point it at his face

I'm a gun owner, and if I found a child with one of my guns I would take it away immediately. If I found one pointing it at himself or someone else he would get one hell of a lecture right there.

[chiburb]

116. The parents didn't know the kid was playing with it..

They were busy in the back yard shooting their guns...

[TX-RAT]

68. You did notice the parents were charged ?

With child endangerment, didn't you?

[Gold Metal Flake]

97. If a child is taught that a real gun is an acceptable plaything,...

...then any real gun becomes an acceptable plaything.

It may be that, in any other time in that house, before and after that instance, all of the guns are locked away. However, you can not guarantee that that would be the case in all other houses that child may visit. Now that the child has been acclimated to a real gun as an acceptable plaything, he is in danger until he is instructed otherwise.

One must also consider the mindset of a parent or parents who demonstrate that they consider their child playing with a real gun is perfectly acceptable. The image of a child pointing a real gun at his face would seem to be a horrific one to any thinking, feeling parent. The lack of empathy and thought demonstrated by this couple is shocking.

I see this as no different to teaching a child that matches are an acceptable plaything. "Well, it didn't light this time, so it's OK". My, what a sound rationale.

Bobby, 4 years old, knows where the car keys are, and has been insytructed how to put them in the ginition, turn them to the start and then pun positions and how to put the car in gear and step on the pedal. Isn't that cute? Of course, the car he was in was out of gas, so that makes it perfectly safe and sane. Sure it does. I mean, Bobby could NEVER EVER find his way into a car that has gas, could he?

The child, in play, and with the encouragement of his parents, points a real gun at his head and face. It did not fire. This time.

Perfectly OK. Perhaps his parents can explain the rationale for our Iraq campaign. I'm sure they could.

[Xithras]

204. Wrong wrong wrong.

There's nothing wrong with letting children fire guns IF you take the time to instill the proper respect for the weapon. Before either of my children were allowed to fire their own guns, I took them on a hike through the forest to go squirrel shooting. Both of my kids were eager to "join daddy" when he went shooting, so each was introduced to the reality of guns up front. We hiked, a squirrel died, and each kid got to see what guns can really do.

Both of my children gained a healthy respect for firearms on those hikes. When you watch a living thing die, ANY living thing, and realize that the tool you hold in your hands is capable of inflicting that kind of damage on people, pets, or anything else it's aimed at, any connection between "gun" and "toy" evaporates rather quickly. I still don't let my children shoot unattended, but neither of them has ever handled their weapons in a manner that wasn't reponsible...they don't even play with toy guns anymore (their choice, not mine).

[Gold Metal Flake]

209. Wrong wrong wrong!

Obviously you have no idea of what this thread is about. Read down for the story and then READ it. Responsible gun ownership has nothing to do with the incident. As for my post, it is correct, correct correct in the context of the incident.

[Mistress Quickly]

4. rule #1 about a gun

always assume its loaded.

Dumb ass parents.

[seabeyond]

13. ok, but was their gun and wasnt loaded

so if you know for a fact it isnt loaded where is the logic to assume it is loaded.

the woman videoing may not of known, so with the assuming, hwy didnt she do something. the cops didnt know so i could understand them assuming. so it is role of police to get the answer. if parents know it isnt loaded, they know it is not a threat

but we take kids out of a home from their parents cause i dont know, or you dont know

[sangh0]

23. You say "OK", and then state the opposite

"always assume its loaded"

Your argument is so extreme that even the NRA disagrees with you

[seabeyond]

28. if i know guns. and i know how to unload

and i know there are no bullets. you still want me to say there is a possibility of death

is the nra opinion a law

i didnt know this. is this what we are stating as the governments right to take our children away from us. the legal stance

[sangh0]

31. All guns are assumed to be loaded

Even you agreed with this, but that hasn't stopped you from arguing the opposite.

[PDX Bara]

45. Unloaded Gun

So O.K., it wasn't loaded THIS TIME but maybe it will be next time. Why was ANY gun in a place where a child could easily get access to it? A former co-worker now has a son with MAJOR lifelong disabilities (due to head injuries) because he was able to get a loaded rifle out of a supposedly secure gun cabinet. Taking children out of a home does seem extreme but perhaps there were other circumstances in this case that affected this outcome.

[Ready4Change]

91. Here is the logic.

"if you know for a fact it isnt loaded where is the logic to assume it is loaded."

You want to train for redundant layers of safety. That way, if you screw up in one area, you're still protected in another.

Treat any weapon as loaded. Even when you yourself have just removed the clip and verified an empty chamber, then you STILL don't wave it around, point it at people or yourself, etc... Do this every single time. That way, if you screw up and leave a round in the chamber, or someone puts a round in after you check it out without your knowledge, you won't accidentally kill someone because you STILL don't point it at people.

I treat TOY guns as loaded, as much as possible. I want those instincts to be ingrained.

The fact this kid pointed the gun at himself and wasn't immediately repremanded by his parents tells me his parents are poorly trained in weapons safety themselves.

When it's not in use, you should keep a weapon unloaded, locked up, and perhaps even dismantled so it can't be immediately fired. And most importantly, you train everyone who has even a remote chance of encountering the gun how to do so safely.

If you don't do those things, especially the last one, you're a hazard.

[starg]

205. What...

would you have her do?

[OpSomBlood]

5. Any household with children and unsecured guns should have neither.

And I'm as pro-gun as they come.

[seabeyond]

17. really

and any house that has booze and children should not be. cause a child gulp booze, and hey they are dead, and house with smoker should not have children, any house with pool, should not have children

lordy,........this is getting scary, and we talk the fundies

since you are a gun guy, i am not, i know nothing., if there are no bullets around, or accessible.....then isnt the gun secure?

[OpSomBlood]

18. That's what I mean by "secure"...

...rendered inoperable (by trigger lock or other device) with the ammunition locked in a separate location. I wasn't implying that no house with children should ever have guns, only that those guns should be stored correctly.

[sangh0]

33. The gun was unsecured and operable

no matter how highly you think of your own, expedient, definitions

[OpSomBlood]

171. Umm...I think you're arguing with the wrong person.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but I think you agree with me.

[library_max]

64. This makes sense, but there's no indication

in the case currently at question either that the gun was rendered inoperable or that the ammunition was locked away. It appears that the gun just didn't happen to be loaded at the time.

[truthspeaker]

107. You missed "unsecured"

Many areas require that pools be fenced in. Same thing as requiring a gun to be secured.

[library_max]

60. Thank you, sir. You da man.

No sarcasm, entirely serious. I was really hoping some of our RKBAers would come and set this poster straight. Thanks again.

[KinkyDem]

138. Here's a story about "unloaded" guns

I am anti gun. I'm not a big fan of the RKABA but, I can also see it's point. I'm not argue that right one way or another. This is about actual guns in the actual hands of actual children.

A buddy of mine keeps guns. Several, both pistols and shot guns. One day he came walking into the living room of his home with gun drawn and was acting foolishly with it. "Don't worry, it's not loaded." he says to me.

"Well, you now what, all guns are loaded. All the time. The only safe assumption about a gun is that it is loaded and you are acting foolishly with a gun in my presence." was my reply.

He kept playing with his gun and I left.

Several months later he comes to me and says "Man. I gotta tell you this. When we were getting ready to move out of that house I was cleaning my guns for the move and the shotgun went off. I could'a swornt that thing was un-loaded. I coulda died."

Dumb-ass.

These parents need a serius ass kicking in my mind.

[chiburb]

6. There's more to the story...

1. The boy was THREE years old.
2. The parents had left him unattended because they were shooting their guns in the back yard... having target practice.
3. There was another gun, a rifle I believe, leaning against the car where the 3 yr. old was playing with the handgun.
4. This was videotaped by a neighbor from about 100 yards away.
5. When asked why she didn't put down the camera and rush to the kid, she said she didn't want to startle the boy while he was holding the gun (which she didn't know was unloaded). It may have scared him, resulting in him shooting her or himself.
6. The parents were charged, after police reviewed the videotape, with felony child endangerment.

[theHandpuppet]

151. The parents had also been drinking...

...when they left their three year old (and 7 year old) unattended next to a car trunk full of firearms. The neighbor reported the parents were appx 100 yds away from where they had left the children, and were shooting guns at wooden targets along with another man.

There's no way this is reponsible parenting!

Would any responsible parent be drinking and shooting off guns with their small children running around nearby, unsupervised? Would any responsible parent leave guns lying around for their children to pick up/play with?

These imbeciles need to put down their booze and ammo and start parenting their kids.

[chiburb]

179. Or have the kids removed from the harm until...

the parents go through counseling in child care and responsible gun ownership.

[starg]

206. And...

The reason for video taping in the first place was prior episodes of irresponsibility on the part of the parents similiar to this as well in other areas. Repeated calls to CPS to intervene on behalf of the children received the standard "no proof" response. Finally they now have proof and are rightly investigating these parents.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. of course they should be taken away

I'd rather leave a small children with an unsupervised pit bull than with an irresponsible gun owner and said firearm.

[seabeyond]

21. wow, the pit bull needs no bullets

him. having two little ones that have never been hurt, nor unsupervised, i would never leave a child with pit bull, but if i had a choice, pit bull or unloaded gun, ......well hey, just as an experienced, responsible parent. i would chose the unloaded gun

[sangh0]

26. "always assume its loaded"

You agreed with this, so why do you insist on arguing the opposite, that guns should NOT always be assumed to be loaded?

[seabeyond]

32. cause if i know there is not a bullet i am not going to be afraid

sorry. may make sense to you but not to me.

because they took someones children out of the home, away from the parent. as a parent this is big deal

to say a pit bull ok, an unloaded gun, danger, not gonna go there. just not ...........logical. you ask why i wont participate in a lie, cause i dont. not bush, not the pc. tell me something that doesnt work, and hey, doesnt work

[sangh0]

35. "always assume its loaded"

You are trying to have it both ways. You agree that guns should ALWAYS be assumed to be loaded, and then explain why guns should NOT always be assumed to be loaded.

Keep digging.

[Pithlet]

61. They left a 3 year old unsupervised around guns

I'm sorry, but you are so wrong on this. To leave a 3 year old unsupervised *period* is neglect. To do so around guns is endangerment. It is irrelevant whether the one gun he happened to be holding at that particular time was unloaded. Those children were in danger being left in the care of those parents.

[starg]

208. There is more to the story than

kids being taken away from the parents because of this incident. This was only one more incident in a long history of irresponsible behavoir on the part of these parents. They deserve to have their children taken away from them...and it should have been done a long time ago.

[MrSandman]

201. Four things to keep you and your children safe...

1. Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Do not assume either way, but treat all guns the same.

2. Do not point the gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

3. Do not place your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot

4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Allowing anyone to have a gun who is unable to follow these simple rules is negligent.

Child welfare is to protect children from the negligence of adults.

[porphyrian]

8. I thought this was a metaphor for Bush at first... - n/t

[SuffragetteSal]

9. Negligent parents absolutely

My first response would not have been to start the video camera but perhaps this isn't the first time the neighbor has been afraid of what she might have to witness.

A good example why not everyone should procreate.

[RetroLounge]

16. Many people die from unloaded guns

Duh...

RL

[seabeyond]

34. am going to laugh at this one, assuming was said in jest

along with amazement as i watch a mob to judge and take away a child, oh wait....three children. one of them 3. this experience, above and beyond damaging than an unloaded gun

[Individualist]

22. Loaded or unloaded

No three year old should ever be allowed to handle a gun.

[sangh0]

37. NRA Gun Safety Rule #1

Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction

This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances

But these adults allowed their children to break rule #1.

[never cry wolf]

38. Irresponsible and dengerous

Maybe not in this incident when the gun was not loaded, but what about the next time, when it may not be and the child assumes it's just the same harmless toy.

[seabeyond]

40. what if......we take a child , oops three children from home and parent

on a what if.............

and what if they are so massively responsible, tis a big deal to them to keep track of all that stuff so they are always assured nothing happens to their child

take children away with a what if............

[chiburb]

42. The parents DID NOT know their kid was playing with a gun...

Because they were playing with their own guns! Btw, was the rifle leaning against the car also unloaded?

[sangh0]

43. Responsible gun owners teach their children to leave guns alone

seabeyond is arguing a position so extreme that even the NRA won't support it.

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/infoparents.asp

What Should You Teach Your Child About Gun Safety?

If you have decided that your child is not ready to be trained in a gun's handling and use, teach him or her to follow the instructions of NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program. If you find a gun:


STOP!
Don't Touch.

Leave the Area.

Tell an Adult.

The initial steps of "Stop" and "Don't Touch" are the most important. To counter the natural impulse to touch a gun, it is imperative that you impress these steps of the safety message upon your child.

In today's society, where adult supervision is not always possible, the direction to "Leave the Area" is also essential. Under some circumstances, area may be understood to be a room if your child cannot physically leave the apartment or house.

"Tell an Adult" emphasizes that children should seek a trustworthy adult, neighbor, relative or teacher -- if a parent or guardian is not available.

[chiburb]

46. sangh0, I know that...

It never ceases to amaze, well, you know, about the post counts and all...?

[sangh0]

53. I know you know

It was obvious from your post. It's just as obvious that someone doesn't know this, but it's not you.

[mac56]

47. Seabeyond is trying to defend the indefensible.

It makes me sad when pro-gun people feel the need to do that. These parents fucked up. They deserve to have their kids taken away for awhile.

[seabeyond]

50. right, and taking three kids out of home not that big of a deal

i think instead of agenda maybe someone ought to really feel what the kids experience and learn in all this

[mac56]

56. Yes, it is a big deal, seabeyond.

It's a big fucking deal. And it should be. These parents made a major fucking blunder. The consequences should hurt the parents and inconvenience the kids. Maybe they'll think next time.

[seabeyond]

62. inconvience the kids

i beg your pardon. and this is all you see. lordy

wow

[mac56]

67. Yes. It's just an inconvenience.

One that they'll live through to another day. You should be thankful for that, and that the kids are still alive to deal with the inconvenience.

[chiburb]

57. I think YOU should be happy that the kids will live to see

another day. At least as long as they're out of that house; which I assume will be until their parents learn GUN SAFETY (which you seem to ignore every time someone points it out).

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

72. You know what?

Sometimes taking kids out of the home is not a bad thing. Yeah, imagine that. Sometimes it's a damn good thing. I'm one of those kids SOMEONE should have taken from their parents. My parents were horribly abusive and neglectful. My crazy mom used to wave a loaded gun around when she was angry and hopped up on pills.

In this case, I think it sounds like a good thing. It doesn't mean they've lost their kids forever, it means until that home is SAFER (meaning the parents are more aware and gun-safe) the kids will be in a safer environment.

We fostered two kids who were taken from their mother. They were found going through dumpsters for food, no shoes in February and the little girl was being molested by all the mom's "boyfriends".

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

44. Good point

when I read the rest of the story in a post above, it gave me chills all over. That kid (and his parents) are lucky he's ALIVE.

A THREE YEAR OLD around guns??? No freaking way. And even though many here have said it already, you ALWAYS ASSUME A GUN IS LOADED. And you always ACT AS IF it were loaded. Period.

[seabeyond]

48. yes it was also un loaded

if the guns had bullets in it then there would be an issue. go figure.

k so,...........The parents DID NOT know their kid was playing with a gun..."
Posted by chiburb

that is none of my business. does it matter. if it is not loaded, not dangerous again, a bonk on the head or pinched finger

now personally i never allowed my children, just starting at 6 and 9, but 9 year old has to be with 6, unsupervised

but if we did parenting my way, and took all kids away that have not been supervised, in home, in back yard, whatever....not many parents around with kids. i have to allow trust, that they are comfortable and know what they do, that they cannot raise their children, by my requirement

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

51. Well you

may think it's none of your business, but it IS the state's business when parents are allowing a three year old to play with guns.

Let me ask you something. You are trying to turn this into strictly supervision and take the gun part out in the second part of that post.

Would you have allowed your three year old to play with a handgun and have a rifle nearby? While you were in the backyard shooting other guns? And if you weren't exactly 100% sure those guns were unloaded?

[sangh0]

59. Gun owners are supposed to protect and teach their children

about guns. The first lesson is that they should keep away from guns. If these parents didn't teach their children to stay away from guns, then I doubt they taught the three year old how to check to see if a gun is loaded.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

63. A three year old

probably doesn't even have the manual dexterity or strength to check to see if a gun is loaded even IF he knew how to do it and even IF he remembered to do it (which would be another big leap for a three year old)!!!

[seabeyond]

71. i dont like guns, i am afraid of guns

i am with all of you, i see a gun in a kids hand and it makes me sick. dont do guns. held one once and said eeeeeewwwwwww and handed it back

my kids dont even get guns to play with. they created hockey sticks as guns to play army and that is a ok with me

at a point in our society, in order to get along, we have to put aside judgement and bring brain power to play

only in my humble opinion

and you or i deciding cause of our fears, that unloaded gun is danger, doesnt make it true. and i am willing to see the hypocrisy in creating an unloaded gun as dangerous, adn punish the children taking them out of house. and any parent with little children that see that experience for a child as inconvient, simple a hassle..........that to me is as sick as sweeing a gun in this child hand

i personally feel that taking kids away from parents is huge.......

[sangh0]

87. More distortions

I guess misportraying the gun as being "secured", when it wasn't isn't enough for you, so now you are trying to mislead people by saying that "you or i deciding cause of our fears, that unloaded gun is danger, doesnt make it true"

It's not just the opinion of a poaster on DU. EVERY SINGLE GUN ORGANIZATION agrees that guns should ALWAYS be assumed to be loaded.

[seabeyond]

94. me distort, lmao. gun; no bullets; no danger

gun; no bullets; assume loaded and you say i distort

[sangh0]

98. Why won't you defend your argument?

You said the gun was "secured" when it wasn't, and now, instead of defending your claims, you just repeat your slogan.

[seabeyond]

108. on the thread i said, i know nothing about guns, gun dude

is it secure if there are no bullets. i dont know the terms. but seems to me, if there are no bullets, then gun is secure. if that doesnt make sense to you or is not nra definition of secure, i do not know, cause i dont play with guns. i am clever enough to know a gun without bullets does not kill

[sangh0]

111. So you "know nothing about guns"

but that didn't stop you from saying the gun was "secured", even though you now say you don't know what the term means.

Are you in the habit of using terms you don't know the meaning of?

[seabeyond]

115. post #17.... i asked the question

since you are a gun guy, i am not, i know nothing., if there are no bullets around, or accessible.....then isnt the gun secure?

[mac56]

118. It's been answered here many times.

"Gun guys" know this. The answer is NO. Never assume a gun is unloaded.

[sangh0]

139. seabeyond now pretends the question hasn't been answered

the truth is, it's been answered more than a dozen times

[Pithlet]

102. You are doing a lot of assuming.

You're assuming that because the gun was unloaded that one time the child had it, that it would be unloaded every time that child got a hold of one in that household. That's an awful risky assumption considering you're staking the life of a child on it.

[playahata1]

194. IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Even if it's unloaded, the kid had no business with the gun, and the parents should have been paying attention -- drunk, stoned or sober.

As for taking the kids out of the home: just because you give birth to/sire a child, that alone does not make you a fit parent. The parents were irresponsible for having unsecured weapons, unloaded as well as loaded, around their unsupervised children. And they were intoxicated, to boot. You call THAT being a fit parent?

[BloodyWilliam]

65. Because if it wasn't a what if.

Those children could be DEAD right now.

[seabeyond]

73. no this is the point, they couldnt be dead now

there were no bullets

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

81. Ok Sea

let's take your scenario. Three year old plays with unloaded gun, nothing happens, he lives to see another day.

Well, another day comes and parents again are in backyard shooting their guns. Three year old is again left in front driveway with guns and picks it up again. This time there is just one bullet left in the chamber.

He plays with it, shoots himself in the face.

Family is torn apart, devastated, parents lose other two kids, most likely permanently.

How's that? Is that better?

In this scenario, no one died, but the parents are going to have to learn about proper supervision with kids and guns.

[TX-RAT]

110. Well said.

[BloodyWilliam]

84. Again, Schroedinger's chamber.

Until you can see the bullet or the empty chamber (or the prone, bleeding child), the chamber can be empty or can be loaded. And as one of the few things the NRA and us liberals agree on, YOU ALWAYS ASSUME THE GUN IS LOADED.

Schroedinger's cat was a theoretical experiment based on putting a cat in a box with a poison capsule that had an exact 50% probability of releasing. Until you open the box, you don't know if that cat's dead or alive.

Just like, until you open the chamber or pull the trigger, you don't know if it's loaded or empty.

And just like you wouldn't really put a cat in a box with poison, you wouldn't really leave a gun with a child.

[library_max]

74. Okay, so you want to wait until one of the children actually gets shot,

and then take the remaining two away. Brilliant.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

41. As a gun-owning parent

I have to say those parents need to take some gun safety classes. I hope that is required of them and then they get their kids back.

Point being, loaded or NOT, no gun should be unsecured around children at ALL.

Our daughter has never even laid EYES on our guns. She has no idea where they are, and can't possibly get to them (unloaded, too) and that's the way we are going to keep it.

Children should NEVER be handling guns unless they are older and being trained and supervised in how to do it at the time. Otherwise, nope. Even an unloaded gun is not a toy.

[BloodyWilliam]

70. That's extremely reasonable no matter how you cut it.

The parents might be well-meaning and possibly love their kids a great deal. I wouldn't recommend taking their kids away forever without a very good reason.

But this is negligence that, on any other day, could have resulted in those kids dying. At the very least, they should have to take a gun safety class and pass a gun safety exam before getting their kid back.

[seabeyond]

76. possibly love there kids

why are we talking like this., dont we assume parents love the kids. but cause this outrages us, we say possibly love their kids

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

78. I think he only said that

because he doesn't KNOW the parents. And you left off part of it. He said "possibly love them A GREAT DEAL."

[sangh0]

92. This is the third distortion seabeyond has used in this thread

seabeyond has misleadingly claimed

1) That the gun was "secured" because it was unloaded, even though the term "secured" is not the same as "unloaded"

2) That "guns should ALWAYS be assumed to be loaded" is an "opinion" of some DUers, when it's the conclusion of EVERY SINGLE gun organzation and the saying means that there are times when a gun should NOT be assumed to be loaded

3) Now he has distorted what another poster said

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

95. He/she also said

way up there that he "knows guns". Then claims to have only held one once, handed it back and said "ewwww".

[seabeyond]

109. i have never claimed to know guns

i dont do guns

[sangh0]

112. You claimed the gun was "secured"

even though you now admit that you dodn't even know what the term means.

[seabeyond]

117. here you go again

since you are a gun guy, i am not, i know nothing., if there are no bullets around, or accessible.....then isnt the gun secure?

post #17

[sangh0]

140. I'm not fooled by the innocence act

your question has been answered several times in this one thread. Stop playing like it hasn't been answered to avoid admitting your mistake. No one is being fooled by it

[chiburb]

114. If you want to count distortions...

You'll have to take off your shoes soon...

OT: Were we once on the same side in a Scott Lee dispute? I think so...

[Xithras]

203. Children never handle guns? I disagree

Both of my children own their own guns (.22 plinking rifles) and they're only 10 and 6. They are kept in the gun safe with the rest of my rifles, but we regularly go shooting and both are quite capable marksmen.

The parents in this story, however, are just plain stupid. To leave a child unattended, at THREE, is criminal neglect. They deserve whatever punishment they get, and probably more. I don't have a problem with children shooting, but they MUST be supervised by responsible, sober adults.

[BloodyWilliam]

52. Schroedinger's chamber.

Until you empty the chamber and see the space, one way or another, ASSUME THE GUN IS LOADED. This is BASIC gun safety! Never say "that gun isn't loaded" until you can see the empty space where the bullet would be.

[Occulus]

66. "Schroedinger's chamber"

ROFL

I'll have to remember that one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

196. That's why to point it at your own face,

with my revolver, if you are looking down the barrel, it is easy to see if it's loaded. lol

[mongo]

69. What about the person videotaping this

Shouldn't that person have put the camera down and done something?

Yeah, the parents shouldn't have left the gun where the 3yo could get his hands on it, but at least they knew it was unloaded.

Did the person videotaping know the gun was unloaded? This looks like a personal vendetta to me.

The child wasn't really left unattended with the gun, the parents had just walked up to the target a few yards away to check their grouping.

Yeah, they broke the first rule of gun safety, but 3yo are left in much graver danger everyday.

Ever left the kitchen while a pan was on the stove? Your 3yo could severly burn itself.

Ever ran into the house to get the phone when your kid was in the front yard? The kid could run into the street.

I really don't think that these parents did anything that merits having their kid taken away. It is hard to get shot with an unloaded gun.

[Occulus]

75. "It is hard to get shot with an unloaded gun."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED GUN.

[seabeyond]

80. what do you mean, no such thing

only in story telling is their not such a thing. what an absurd statement. gun has bullets loaded. gun not have bullets, hey that means it is not loaded. such a thing. really is

now you may want to create in brain that one may not truly know if a gun is loaded hence safety rules, but that isnt a reality. a gun can truly be unloaded

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

82. See my post #81, above.

[mongo]

85. gee...and all this time I've been buying bullets too -

I guess I don't need them.

Yes, the first law of gun safety is to always treat a gun AS IF it was loaded. It was on the hood of the car. The parents must have thought it was out of reach.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

89. Would you leave a three year old

in the front driveway of your home, unsupervised and with guns on the hood of a car?

Anyone who has ever been around a three year old knows:

1. That is WAY too young to be out front, unsupervised, guns or no.
2. They can easily climb up on many things. A gun on the hood of a car is not a big challenge for a three year old.
3. The three year old now thinks (based on this experience) that this gun thing is something he can pick up, look down the barrel, etc. Good thing for a three year old to experience? Gonna lead to good things in the future? I think not.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

77. From chiburb, above:

1. The boy was THREE years old.
2. The parents had left him unattended because they were shooting their guns in the back yard... having target practice.
3. There was another gun, a rifle I believe, leaning against the car where the 3 yr. old was playing with the handgun.
4. This was videotaped by a neighbor from about 100 yards away.
5. When asked why she didn't put down the camera and rush to the kid, she said she didn't want to startle the boy while he was holding the gun (which she didn't know was unloaded). It may have scared him, resulting in him shooting her or himself.
6. The parents were charged, after police reviewed the videotape, with felony child endangerment.

[Haole316]

202. You have a question for me?

[drdigi420]

79. bad parenting, yes, enough to take the kids, no

wasnt the wisest decision, but this is an overreaction.

ripping the kids from their parents is ACTUAL harm, not POTENTIAL harm.

the hyperbole over this is getting silly now


people that vote republican are endangering their children too. shall we take their kids?

[mac56]

83. See above. "Ripping the kids from their parents"...

may be the best thing to ever happen to them. It may keep them alive.

[drdigi420]

86. may, might, could be, but isnt so RIGHT NOW

but it IS damaging RIGHT NOW to the children to take them

ACTUAL harm vs POTENTIAL harm

its not a hard concept to grasp once you remove the ideogoggles

[mac56]

88. "Ideogoggles", huh?

Looks like a few of us have those on today, pal.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

93. It all boils down to this:

LEAVING a child in the home with parents who allow a three year old to play unsupervised in the front of the house with guns around (loaded or not) is BOUND to be dangerous. It's just a matter of time.

Taking them from them, temporarily, just might save those kids lives.

Imagine if they left them there, then next week the same thing happened, only dad forgot to check the handgun, or thought he did and there was one bullet left and the kid blew his face off?

Then people would be ALL OVER CPS for not taking the kids when the first incident happened.

This is temporary. The child's death would be permanent.

[sangh0]

99. Forget about the guns

Who leaves a three year old unsupervised?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

103. Well

who leaves a three year old unsupervised in the front yard is the bigger question here.

When my daughter was three, I didn't hover over her every second. When I knew she was in a baby-proofed room and I was within earshot and could easily walk a few feet to see her I didn't worry about it. Even THEN stuff could happen in the blink of an eye, but in the front YARD? Next to the STREET? In the DRIVEWAY?

Forget about it. That alone is big-time bad. Let's see....drink some antifreeze in the garage. Get in an unlocked car and shift the gear. Get UNDER the car and no one knows it. Pick up a gun on the hood and start playing with it. Stranger comes by, sees three year old unsupervised. Or three year old just...wanders.....off.

All of which give me chills.

[sangh0]

104. Bingo

Children get removed because their parents are irresponsible, or worse.

These parents were definitely irresponsible. Poor children

[library_max]

96. So again, wait until one gets shot dead and then take the survivors?

Not really responsible child welfare service, is it?

[sangh0]

101. And it's not only about getting shot

Who leaves their three year old child unsupervised?

[Pithlet]

100. So

Let's just take off those ideogoggles for a moment, shall we? Let's say we decides it isn't a big deal, and just leave the kids with their parents and let it be. The next time the kid plays with a gun - after all, the parents are pretty sure they remember unloading it, so what's the harm? Besides, the state says it's okay - the "unloaded" gun actually is loaded, and the kid shoots himself. The child is dead.

Parents who routinely leave their children unsupervised around guns are endangering their children. Most states do not allow that, nor should they. Children are not our property to do with as we wish. If parents cannot provide a safe home environment, then the children have to be removed for their protection. There are times when removing children from an unsafe home is warranted.

[Pithlet]

105. Potential harm is enough

An unsafe environment is enough to remove children from their home, even if no harm actually comes to them. There is a reason for that. We cannot wait until a child actually harms himself to act. It is too late then. There is nothing hyperbolic about that. leaving guns lying around, and letting your child around them unsupervised is a very dangerous situation. If the state shouldn't have the power to act then, then when should they?

I've said it before; children are not our property. It is our responsibility as parents to keep them safe to the best of our ability. If we abdicate that responsibility, then the state has the right to step in.

[Maine-i-acs]

90. NO GUN IS SAFE FOR A KID TO PLAY WITH

Stop arguing in circles, Seabeyond.

The first thing anyone learns about guns when they go to a class is not to fool around with them.

My kid found a .45 round in a parking lot last month ... think I'd let her play with it even if there's no gun around? Sheesh...

[seabeyond]

119. is this who we are

so, i guess you all have answered my question. this is who we are

just curious, and thanks all for participating on this thread

[Pithlet]

120. What do you mean by "This is who we are"

If you mean that we as a society have an obligation to protect children, whether or not they are our own, then yes, that is who we are, or who we should be. I think you're implying something else, however.

I wish you would read some of the responses again to see what is really being said. No one is saying we should take the decision to remove children from their homes lightly. They are saying that allowing children to play with guns is dangerous enough to outweigh the severity of removing the children.

Children have a right to a safe environment. That right trumps the parent's right to do whatever the hell they want.

[chiburb]

121. But the gun was securely unloaded!

Ah, never mind...

[Pithlet]

125. If secure means

"I'm fairly sure I remember not loading that gun that I left out where Jr can get a hold of it. He's playing unsupervised where I left it last. Maybe I should go check... Aw, hell, he's alright! I'm having too much fun shooting at stuff to bother with it. Honey, pass me the ammo!"

Hell, I'd stake a child's life on that assurance :crazy:

[seabeyond]

124. see i have read each and every reply

and have further interacted.

i dont agree with you on this. and that is cool. i would fight you on this issue. i think an unloaded gun is just that. and we should keep this in perspective, but obviously my perspective is not the same as anothers.

i could easily go without guns in my life. and out of hand of all kids, and adults for that matter. i also believe in the constitution and rule of law and individual right. and i dont see the endangerment per law. per emotion, per agenda, but not by law

differing opinion here. i dont agree with this group
i would have to have a lot more info to feel comfortable taking the kids from the home

[Pithlet]

134. If you don't see keeping guns where small children can reach

them as endangerment sufficient enough for the law to get involved, then there probably isn't a whole lot anyone can say to you. Where do you draw the line, by the way? Do you think the law is overstepping by requiring parents to buckle up their children in the car? I really cannot understand an opinion that thinks it isn't dangerous to leave guns where kids can get to them.

You've gone beyond disagreeing and basically painted everyone else in the thread as freedom hating children steelers with the "This is who we are" hyperbole. But, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[seabeyond]

144. i do disagree with law telling me to buckle or my children

or riding in the back of a pick up or not and wearing a helmet on motorcycle or bike, or not. i believe this is a parent to decide and to be responsible in the driving, or weighing whether taking risk. parents do it every day, everywhere in life. child is 9, do i let him ride the neighborhood on bike, go across the street to park by himself. i am not comfortable with that, i do not do. the parent that does, that allows and child is kidnapped, i will not point finger and say you evil person, i will have compassion for parent and love for parent and sorry you experience this.

and i dont like guns and dont like seeing in kids hands. and if i saw that kid with gun, i would have gone to parent immediately, and told them to get gun out of hand. then i would have in fear for safety been worked up enough to yell at parent at what i saw. and then calmed in seeing it unloaded, yet then probably would have gone into discussion of exactly what is being said in this thread. and how horrible and scary it was to see

and i wouldnt have taken their kids

[Pithlet]

153. Wow

So if children happen to be unlucky enough to be saddled with parents who are stupid, then too bad for them? So a kid dies in a car accident because he wasn't buckled in, it was the parent's prerogative? That's ludicrous!

You may be smart enough to buckle your children in, but others aren't. If they aren't forced to, then their children are more at risk then yours are. You're okay with this?!

[seabeyond]

161. i dont buckle mine in

i feel i have a greater responsiblity to drive safely and defensively and not get in an accident

i dont let kids go in back of truck or ride motorcycle, i dont make kids ride bike with helmet, i dont let kids ride bike on our streets or go to park by self or in front yard unsupervised

i dont teach kids to be fearful of strangers or drugs or alcohol, i do teach them their are risks and it would behoove them to find the answers within themselves.

i do tell them to be wary of cops

i do tell them to connect with self and know that feeling of safety or not, the fight or flight feeling

i have not taught the children about sexual preditors, they are in no position where they have to be fearful, but they are aware of their personal rights on feeling and being safe

[mac56]

164. You don't buckle your kids in?!

You don't make them wear a bike helmet?

That is so unwise. Please reconsider.

What makes you think kids have the capacity to "find the answers within themselves" about strangers or drugs or alcohol? Most grownups don't have that ability.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

167. WTF???

Why do you teach them to be wary of cops, but you DON'T teach them about the dangers of being unbuckled in a moving car, sexual predators, guns, drugs, etc?

That is some whacked out shit, no offense. But seriously, you might want to look into buckling your kids up. I gaurantee you there are legal consequences, no matter what state you live in.

My God.

[Pithlet]

174. You don't buckle your children in?

So, you're willing to gamble on your children's lives that everyone else drives safely, too, and that there are no drunk drivers on the road? That is stupid. Just plain stupid. Stupidity that could cost your kids their lives. You are an adult, and can make that decision for yourself whether you want to take that risk. But you have no right to risk your children in such a manor. Not only are you breaking the law, but you are abdicating your responsibility to your children to keep them safe. I am appalled.

[seabeyond]

177. appalled, you want to take my kids

did the state just get the evidence for you to take my kids away from me. is this enough, cause goodness, i bet i have given you more reason to take my kids than the ones with the unloaded gun

[Pithlet]

181. I hope

That someone in your life with an ounce of sense talks you out of refusing to buckle your kids up. And failing that, I hope that same person turns you in, for the sake of your kids. You probably wouln't get them taken away, but you would get a fine. And yes, if you were an acquaintance of mine, I would do it in a heartbeat. If I saw you out on the street, I'd use my cellphone and report your plates. In a heartbeat.

I am disgusted.

[Pithlet]

184. Really

Ignoring all the other ways we disagreed in this thread, I really hope you reconsider buckling up your kids. You are endangering your kids. All it takes is for someone to rear end you while you're sitting at a stoplight, and it could be all over for your kids. Al the defensive driving in the world can't prevent that. I just saw on Life in the ER where a woman was rearended at a stoplight. The kids were belted, and they were still injured. If they hand't been buckeld up, they'd be DEAD.

For their sake, put away your pride and buckle them up.

[kimchi]

176. What??????????

As much as I disagree with the government running my personal life, I sure as hell agree with the LAW that requires children to be safely buckled. Adults, I really don't care if they have no regard for their own life.

Defensive driving only prevents accidents that YOU would cause. Some accidents cannot be avoided, but it has been proven that a seabelt can save a life. Please reconsider.

My sister is much more vociferous. She once told a young child at the gas station "I'm sorry your mommy doesn't love you enough to put a seat belt on you so you will be safe." As downright mean as that was; it worked.

[seabeyond]

178. and you feel your sister had the right

"I'm sorry your mommy doesn't love you enough to put a seat belt on you so you will be safe."

i would never give a child something like that. how horrible, to the point of sick. that disgust me, truly,. wow

[kimchi]

193. Words can hurt, but cars can kill. n/t

[belladonna]

199. I just have to ask

I know I should ignore this thread and run away while I can, but why, oh WHY, do you teach your children to be wary of cops, but NOT strangers or drugs or alcohol???? Are you for real or were you just in the mood for a flamefest when you posted this? :wtf:

[seabeyond]

211. why wary of cops

cause, cops arent like they use to be. cops today so much see too many citizens as animals, criminals. i tell them to walk the line and understand any breaking of rule can take you down. teenagers arent treated the same as they were two decades ago. i did really one big thing wrong in my teens. i had a couple kids in car open container, i didnt drink, was 17. dont drink. yet i was driving and went thru stop sign, and two cop car sittin there. they went after me, i took off and parked car and we all hid. i didnt fear being beat up, today, though do something stupid like that, and hey, could be taken down. i watch cops (my husband does, i dont like the show) and i watch how they treat people, and even though these people may have broken the law, they dont deserve the way i have seen police behave. and i watch them put this behavior on film and they arent ashamed embarrassed or even see it as issue. i dont see police the same way i did a couple decades ago, i dont expect them to be reasonable, to often i see the opposite.

taking down a 71 year old deaf woman in oregon. handcuffing a 96 year old woman in texas for a traffic ticket that went into warrant

my 5 year old saw an accident and he says to me, when he saw police there, do you get in trouble for an accident. and was going to automatically say nah baby by difinition alone accident was something not meant to happen, no you dont get in trouble, but had to stop myself and said, weeeeelllllll, (cause i am honest and straight with kids) now a days an accident, ya you can get in trouble. so beware, no accidents. in our house, an accident is just that

when my oldest was about 1-2 i wanted to teach kids to depend and respect and trust and like and not fear cops. literally three four first cops ran into at convienent store i would tell son, there is a policeman, i want you to put your hugest of smile on your face and say hi mr policeman and look him right in eyes............(again, i wanted son to interact and get a good feel). truly time and again the officer was rude or ignored the boy. i would say to perceptive son, well you know there are just some adults that arent kid people.

strangers..........this i think we as a society are giving our children adult responsibility and creating fear at times they arent equipped to handle and dont need to know. i dont want to teach my children to be afraid of strangers i want them to embrace and love people. we use people thru out our lives to be so full of love and lite. the people in grocery store alone we interact with, we give them love they give us love, we stay in giggle interacting with each other. and i watch them and take care of them and there isnt a need to teach the flat out dont talk to stranger and put a fear of stranger to kids, nor teach them sex at 4 cause of perverts our in this world. gosh, people and interaction and love to huge a part of life. i dont want kids to miss out on this. again as a parent my job to watch

drugs, cig and alcohol. i think we have become so outrageously absurd in what we are doing with our children with these issues and starting to teach them about this stuff in preschool, and again, they arent in danger and i dont feel the need to give them this stuff so young. also i have issue with booze, i know if i give them my retarded dislike of booze, i will probably push them to it in teenage years. have already handed that to husband to do with kids when they try it as teenagers cause i know i cant teach that in a healthy way. but if we teach drugs and booze and cig in lie, they will see the lie and then not trust me in the future once they see i told a lie to scare them not to do something.

child psychology 101

now i took a lot of time to express and explain. even with this time and thought, this so goes beyond the few words i have written with these few things. it is much bigger than this little bit

i had son in best preschool, mother day out twice a week. they brought in smokey the bear to teach about fire, and guns. 3, 4 year olds, never saw a gun, but smoking showed em, and told them how dangerous. well you know, lot less dangerous if my child continued to not even know. didnt watch shows, didnt have toys didnt know anything about guns, but smokey taught him. then smokey got the matches, took out a match, held up for all the kids to see and struck the match. well golly gee smokey, as all the kids sit mesmerized looking at the flame, that is just neat, you just taught my child to strike a match. he never knew, didnt have a clue

i think we have a nation of people who have decided parents cant parent their child so we have a whole nation of people doing my job for me, and i dont want you to raise my kid. and i wont raise yours. i will respect and trust that you will do a bang up job.

and if like this neighbor here on board says there was more, then good, glad to hear and thank you. that makes me feel better, but a lot ready to take away kids without there being more reason.

[TX-RAT]

156. i do disagree with law telling me to buckle or my children

(or riding in the back of a pick )
(or not and wearing a helmet on motorcycle or bike,)
(go across the street to park by himself)
These are the reason these laws were written.

[chiburb]

159. Does he cross the street to park by himself

In a car or pick-up truck? And does he or doesn't he wear a helmet? This is sooooo confusing...

[mac56]

158. It baffles me that child endangerment doesn't seem to trouble you.

You seem to think it should be left up to every parent to decide, that the community doesn't have any right to step in and protect that child when the parent won't. To use your own words: I'm sorry you experience this.

[seabeyond]

163. so you want to take my kids to protect them

want to send cps to my house. am i a danger to my kids. is this what you are saying

[mac56]

166. No. You can read what I am saying.

I'm saying that it baffles me that child endangerment doesn't seem to trouble you, and that I'm sorry that's the case.

[seabeyond]

180. if it were endangerment then it would bother me

i dont see it as endangerment an unloaded gun

[mac56]

186. Clearly we're not connecting here.

I believe that you sincerely want your kids to be well and safe. But I urge you from the bottom of my heart to rethink some of the decisions you make about them.

I'm done with this thread.

[starg]

210. It's endangerment...

The 3 year did not know the gun was unloaded. Guns and alcohol should not be mixed...in a drunken state how could either parent say for sure the gun was unloaded. They were irresponsible, have a history of irresposibility to their kids and deserve exactly what they got. They have been repeatedly reported to CPS only CPS never had any proof of endangerment...now they do.

[annarbor]

195. Soooooo

You drive your kids home unbuckled and you send them to the backyard to play. There they find your unsecured gun and start playing with it. The neighbor sees the kids and videotapes it and calls the cops. When the cops come to talk to you about it, you tell your kids that they're the bad guys?

Dude, WTF?????

[TX-RAT]

169. I'm sorry you experience this.?

I find this truly amazing. I spent 21 yrs in the Sheriffs dept, and 8 yrs as a county judge. I've never heard such incredibly irresponsible statements, like the ones I've seen, from the author of this thread.

[chiburb]

183. Keep reading, RAT...

She also teaches her kids to be wary of cops...

[TX-RAT]

191. Why doesn't that surprise me.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

165. About seatbelts

When I was a kid, no one had to wear seatbelts. Then that federal law passed and TX passed a state law and we had to. I was about 13. So we went out and dug out the seatbelts (didn't even know where to find them in the car!) and started wearing them, strictly out of fear of a big ticket.

Well, it became a habit.

A month ago, I was riding in a friend's van with my daughter in the second row of seats. We were all belted, following all traffic laws, not speeding, going down the road. A red car pulled out right in front of us, turning when it wasn't safe to. We t-boned her on her passenger side going 40 mph. Her 12 year old niece wasn't buckled and neither was she. I will remember for the rest of my life seeing that 12 year old girl's EYES, big as dinner plates, as we neared impact. Both her hands were on the glass. She was killed instantly. There WAS NO PASSENGER SIDE LEFT TO THE CAR (we were in a Dodge conversion van). The driver was thrown from the car and is still in the hospital (was in intensive care). All three of us were fine, except for my abrasions and bruises from behind my right ear, across my chest and down. From what? The seatbelt that kept me from going right through the windshield.

I will NEVER think seatbelts are no big deal again. I always wore them just so as not to get a ticket. No more. One saved my life and kept my daughter and best friend from harm, too.

Edited to add please notice the part where I said the driver in my car was following all safety and traffic rules. She was not speeding, not driving erratically, no adverse weather conditions, middle of the day, nothing distracting her, just driving down the road. And this lady just pulls right out in front of us. Totally not my friend's fault. Your kids would have gone THROUGH the windshield of the car and most likely died.

[oldcoot]

189. Buckling up is the smart thing to do

As you correctly point out, it does not matter if you are the best driver in the world. You still have no control over the other drivers. You cannot control whether or not they had "one too many" before they got into their cars or whether they would rather talk on their cell phones instead of paying attention to the road.

[TX-RAT]

122. It's who i am.

And damn proud of it.

[Egnever]

123. No it is not

You are getting answers from the shrillest of the pack here. I am in total agreement with you that taking the children away is a complete overreaction to this.

More and more that is what America is though. Especially in the democratic sector. We are becoming a nation trying to legislate away any and all danger or even potential danger. It disgusts me that we no longer feel comfortable relying on common sense to protect people from most dangerous situations and instead try to protect everyone by making a law that forbids them getting into a potentially harmful situation.

It is the thing that most disgusts me with America these days. Our willingness to take away peoples free will in order to save a few people from doing something stupid and hurting themselves.

The world is a dangerous place. You can not legislate away death or accidents they will happen.

How many children are we willing to take away from parents and cause emotional stress and undue hardship on in order to potentially save a child's life?

Me I believe in Darwin and the theory of evolution. The strong and smart will survive. The weak and stupid will die. Without this process taking place we do not cull the herd and the whole species suffers.

Was what these parents were doing smart? Hell no of course not. But it doesn't warrant ripping the kids out of the house. Perhaps some mandatory gun safety classes but thats about as far as I am willing to go.


To all you people living your lives afraid of every single potentially dangerous situation well spew your hate and fear all you want. I will take the dangerous real world over your false sense of security through legislation any day.

[chiburb]

126. You said:

"It disgusts me that we no longer feel comfortable relying on common sense to protect people from most dangerous situations and instead try to protect everyone by making a law that forbids them getting into a potentially harmful situation."

And "common sense" parenting skills that protected their children from dangerous situations were demonstrated exactly where? It seems from your post that:
1. The kids SHOULD have been removed because these parents didn't exhibit your "common sense".
2. Your problem with Felony Child Endangerment laws are what?

[drdigi420]

127. here here, well stated

[seabeyond]

129. kinda exactly, lol my feeling

good to hear i am not alone anyway

i know,...........in all the glory i live, in peace and harmony as a family, with my two healthy happy children and a husband that feels and does awfully good, there are people on this board can point the finger at me and say i should not be allowed to be parent

i know this to be true. i have had people tell me. because i smoke. my abusing them, killing them

i have spent the last 9 year dedicating every single moment of my stay at home mom life taking care of kids and husband, and they would readily take the smoking me mom that they love so, over the clean air parent.

yet,......their are people out their that cannot get beyond the smoking me. and truly feel in their heart i am killing them. and i shouldnt be allowed to have said child. it would be better for a child to be in another home

makes me a little more sensitive to the dismissing of a parent and play on agenda

[sangh0]

143. a other distortion from seabeyond

with more than 100 posts in this thread so far, seabeyopnd said nothing about the arguments this poster has made. Instead, seabeyond has been arguing that the parents did nothing wrong, and instead of admitting his/her mistake, seabeyond instead misleads, and says that was his/her argument all along

[chiburb]

147. There you go again...

Between you and Pithlet (and others) how can a guy enjoy this insane thread?
Damn y'all!

[seabeyond]

157. i have yet to say the parent did nothing wrong

read all my posts. never would you hear me say the parent did nothing wrong

every post has addressed whether this warrants taking children away from parents. i think not

at least get the arguement correct if you are going to put words in my mouth. you keep coming up short. getting to heinze it

[sangh0]

170. You are not telling the truth

You said the gun was "secured", and that the parents were responsible because the gun was not loaded.

[mac56]

132. Libertarian bullshit.

"I will take the dangerous real world over your false sense of security through legislation any day."

I'm glad YOU would. You wanna roll those same dice for that three-year-old kid?

If so, please stay away from my family.

[seabeyond]

135. it is more of a faith and confidence that i can do

at least as well as the government in raising child. i have done well enough in the last 42 years, i am comfortable in my ability to live my life and make my decisions, i am not fearful of inability and a desire for government to right my rule book on how to live this life i have

i may not want to live your way. why must i live your way, cause you like it better

libertarian bullshit. k, so you feel. i prefer that approach in life. has worked well for me

i dont need a b.s. nanny state, lol lol teasing only. not fighting

[Pithlet]

141. So, you're willing to let other children die

because you don't want a"nanny state". You refuse to acknowledge that there are other parents who aren't as competent as you are, and their children need to be protected, because YOU are a competent parent, and YOUR children are safe, so what is the problem? You don't want the government to tell you how to raise your children, so the state should just stay out of everyone's business, and if children are harmed, so be it.

Do you really think that it is a perfect world where everyone has their children's best interest at heart? Do you really think it is none of our business if other people's children are in danger? I'm extremely glad that enough people don't feel the way that you do. I hope it stays that way.

[chiburb]

145. Will you stop making sense ?!?

How can anyone enjoy this thread if you come in here all logical and shit?
Jeez...

[Pithlet]

150. You're right

I'm a good parent, and I do everything to keep my children safe, so the government should just mind its own business and never interfere with anyone else. Other children may suffer because the state minded its own business, but so be it. Accidents happen. More like it? ;)

[chiburb]

155. Ahh...MUCH better!

You're a good mom.
:-)

[seabeyond]

175. i merely think they went over the line here

i am seeing a willingness to more and more restrict what a parent is allow to decide for child and directed by state how we are to raise child. i see it in school system, i see it here.

i think, this is an extreme

if it takes me all the way to allowing parent to abuse child and that i would allow that, shame on you. never have i suggested this.

if the person had ammo in the car, or a loaded gun, totally different. merely talking about this unloaded gun and taking kids, it is an extreme to me

[annarbor]

197. Seabeyond

Please know that if you are traveling in the state of Michigan with your children unbelted in the vechicle and you are involved in a traffic crash where the children are injured, you will be cited for your negligence. The idea of a child being ejected out of a vehicle, or a child being killed or injured by a 200mph airbag because the parent refused to properly secure them in a car is just disturbing.

And I just saw the video of the child playing with the gun....I am a parent, and I must say, it scared the shit out of me.

Ann Arbor

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

172. Let me see if I have this right:

You don't have your kids wear seat belts. You don't have a problem with a three year old being unsupervised around guns. You teach your kids to "be wary of cops" and you prefer they just work it out themselves with regard to drugs, sexual predators, guns, etc.

MMMMMooooookay.

[seabeyond]

185. not even close to having it right

but then i dont think you are open enough to have a clue as to what i am talking about so i will let it go and let you be

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

187. Your own words:

Right here:

"i dont buckle mine in


i feel i have a greater responsiblity to drive safely and defensively and not get in an accident"

Right because you can magically control ALL the other cars and trucks on the road AND you can magically control adverse weather conditions and make sure no one ever hits YOU, no matter how safely YOU are driving, right? This makes me sick. You DO realize, don't you, that you can be following EVERY single rule in the book, but someone can STILL hit the shit out of you, right? And if you and your kids aren't buckled, well, you are most likely toast.

"i dont let kids go in back of truck or ride motorcycle, i dont make kids ride bike with helmet, i dont let kids ride bike on our streets or go to park by self or in front yard unsupervised

"i dont teach kids to be fearful of strangers or drugs or alcohol, i do teach them their are risks and it would behoove them to find the answers within themselves."

"Find the answer within yourself, my child. You will know everything." Why bother with parents or teachers, then, if the kid can just figure it all out? Honestly, I feel sorry for your kids. Guidance is NOT a bad thing, m'dear.

"i do tell them to be wary of cops"

WHY do you do that? You never answered my question!


"i have not taught the children about sexual preditors, they are in no position where they have to be fearful, but they are aware of their personal rights on feeling and being safe"

So you know for a fact they will never need any information about sexual predators? Wow, can I borrow that magic ball? I want to see if my kid ends up going to an Ivy League school or not.

[seabeyond]

188. if you are really really interested in hearing

i can tell you. but it is huge. it is 9 years of parenting and making decisions, both by who i am as a person and where i see the world going, and how i see the world feeding fear to our children in order to control them, and take away their innate ability to figure this stuff out themselves. i have heard people say adults cant do how can you expect kids to. part of the reason i see is we take all decision making abilities from kids from day one, so we can control and keep them safe

i have high expectation of kids, and the adult worries, i keep them, i dont give them to my kids. and then i allow them in a safe enviroment to create their foundation in courage and truth and staying true to heart. and in that i am a believer they will make good decisions in life. it takes a hell of a lot more work and connection and talking and teaching and loving and giving to kids and time man, lots of time. but for me it is a more balanced and true foundation for children as they go to teenage years and older in making decisions, then teaching children fear to control them to keep them safe

i dont take this litely, and i put a lot lot of time into children. all that has seen my life, alll that know me think i am a kick ass mom, with kick ass kids

just to clue you in.

anyway if you really want me to go thru and why i made those choices i would be more than happy to. just is going to take time and thought and right now, those kids, i have to feed and take care of them

[Pithlet]

190. You aren't allowing for a safe environment

if you don't buckle them up. It's as simple as that. I hope you saw the post in this thread about that poor 12 year old girl killed in a car accident. Maybe that will open your eyes if nothing else will. I really hope that someone gets through to you on that issue alone, if nothing else.

[Maine-i-acs]

217. Would you let your kids play with real guns?

Sorry if this has been answered here ...

Most parents have the common sense not to let their kids play with guns.

Teaching kids gun safety is another matter altogether, I think all kids should learn the rules from an appropriate instructor.

We used to have hunter safety as an elective in high school!

[Pithlet]

136. How many children are we willing to let die?

If protecting children is shrill, then I'm the shrilliest shriller of them all. Funny me, but I think allowing children to play with guns goes beyond the pale. Shrill shrill shrillity shrill. That's me.

[library_max]

154. "Me I believe in Darwin and the theory of evolution. "

"The strong and smart will survive. The weak and stupid will die. Without this process taking place we do not cull the herd and the whole species suffers."

And this from another well-known social Darwinist:

"If they be like to die, they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Ebenezer Scrooge, A Christmas Carol

[Swede]

128. Every day an adult dies when shot by an "unloaded" gun.

Wake up dude.

[leanings]

131. When you allow people

to mishandle "unloaded" guns, you set a precedent. The next time they handle a firearm that they incorrectly assume to be "unloaded", they stand a much better chance of killing themselves or someone else. Very few people accidently shoot themselves with guns that they know to be loaded. Now, when I say "people", I'm talking about adults. Kids are not people, and allowing behavior that sets unconcious precedents in adults sets lifelong tendencies in kids. Like "hey, it's unloaded and therefore perfectly safe, let's play with it." And then we read about somebody shooting themself in the head or their kid shooting the neighbor and we go "ewwww...guns are inherently dangerous and kill people even when they're acting in a safe manner. Let's ban 'em."

People that know guns and own them responsibly don't tolerate dumbass behavior like this for a second because they realize the capacity for destruction and disaster inherent in unsafe gun handling practices. First of all it gets people dead. Secondly, if we don't know and acknowledge these things and continue to view guns in the way we see them via Hollywood and the nightly news, more people who hold and unconciously propagate these views are going to come to the conclusion that government needs to step in and take away the sharp objects from the irresponsible American children before they put their eye out. I don't much cotton to seeing dead kids or living in a society of infants.

Contrast with the upbringing that I and all of the other responsible gun owners I know have had. I knew where the guns were from the time I was able to say the word and they were all unlocked. I also knew where the liquor cabinent was and where the car keys were kept. I simply knew that these things were dangerous, that they were for adults and that I was not to touch them under any circumstance. I didn't, and I somehow managed to stay alive and sober until I was responsible and adult enough to use these things on my own. Maybe the model allows for a little more imperfection than my parents realized. Thank God. I think I'll stick with their approach.

[sangh0]

146. Not "people". It's "three year olds"

It was a 3 year old that was allowed to play with a gun unsupervised.

[leanings]

148. Was I unclear?

Or should you re-read the post? Could very well be the latter; I'm burned out today. But I thought I made the distinction that what's bad for adults goes quadruple for kiddies.

[sangh0]

173. No, you weren't unclear

I thought the sentiment deserved repeating and emphasis. I'm sorry for being unclear myself.

[Aftershock]

142. Of course the children should be taken away!

Yeah...there were no bullets in the gun, this time, but what about next time? The gun could be loaded!

The parents should thank their lucky stars that their kid didn't get shot or die!

Geez! There are a lot of irresponsible parents in this world!

[Pithlet]

160. When do you think the state IS justified

in removing chilren from a home?

[GoneOffShore]

162. After watching this go back and forth

all day, and reading your posts, I'm going to walk away.
I just hope your kids grow up to be the responsible members of society that you want them to be.


I'll take my answer, if there is one, off the air.

EDIT to remove possible insult. Though I'm not sure why I should, but hey, I thought better of it and didn't want to raise the level of hysteria here.

[Wonk]

192. I'll say it for you: What a fucking stupid thread. Guns aren't toys. nt

[oldcoot]

182. Do you have a link to this story?

I would be interested in reading about the details.

[Haole316]

198. I am the neighbor....my wife made the video

I'll be back later to give you some more insight into this but I have to run right now......It'd be nice if someone started a new thread, this one's getting rather lengthy

[Haole316]

200. alright...now who thinks

my wife and I have an agenda??
what might this agenda be?

for all who want to know this is far from the 1st complaint about these people to CPS, probably more like the 5th or 6th.

BTW....about me
I'm a RKBA lurker, surely you know that there are probably alot of lurkers around here.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

207. What's an RKBA lurker???

[belladonna]

212. Look here for the answer

http://rkba.org/

Takes all kinds to troll DU, I suppose :eyes:

[Haole316]

216. actually.....

there seems to be alot of support for RKBA down in the gungeon......more than I would have thought. Once again proving the point that most people don't fit into whatever preconceived box you have picked out for them.

[GoneOffShore]

213. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

On principle I agree, but I also am interested in the whole concept of responsiblility. A responsible gun owner is one who secures their weapon, does not allow it to be handled by untrained people and eats what he/she kills (unless they only shoot at paper targets, in which case mayo and lead sandwiches aren't the best luncheon main course).

[Haole316]

215. as a father and gun owner....I agree 100%

[Haole316]

214. One who lurks in the gungeon....

you the the j/ps forum.....sometimes I even post post but I am at present trying to overcome a message board addiction so I don't post much.