Are children safer with a gun in the house?

Around children who can't understand the consequences of their actions, you need a locking place to put your guns.

I wouldn't have firearms in the house with children w/o them being locked.

That being said, I have a quick access safe 5 steps from the bed and a full size safe in a gun room.

My children also are taught (and re-taught) often about gun safety. Eddie Eagle, etc..when they ask, I show them guns. They can touch and are quizzed as to what they would do if they saw a gun at a friends house etc.

I turn these curious moments into "guns are good but need to be handled properly and I will teach you" lessons.

Those who trust 3-5 yr old because you think you have taught them or put fear into them are taking a big risk -- IMHO of course. You may trust you kid, but do you trust their friends? have their friends parents taught them well?

On top of the safety aspect, imagine the reaction if you kid brought an unloaded (safe) gun to school to show his friends, or even some ammo? -- the consequences are unreal today. Its not 1925 anymore. sad.

Not a risk Im willing to take.

Never having been in the child raising business, I canot say, however that might beg the following question. What of adults and their safety, given that the forces of law and order, as they are sometimes described, cannot realistically be looked to?

Keep them locked up and the kids safe. Even the military keeps the weapons locked up until they are needed. You cant control what happens in your home when you are not there. We cant watch them 24/7. Gun ownership is a right, but that right also carries with it responsibilities.

Most likely your father, grandfathers, great-great-grandfathers, great-great-grandfathers, great-great-great-grandfathers, etc. etc. all kept guns in the house, without trigger locks or gun safes, often loaded and ready to go.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact my grandfather and father kept their shotgun and rifle leaning by the back door, loaded. I would be shocked if the previous generations had been different. (They may not have had a door but I'm sure they had guns).

That is why people are now extinct.

Click to expand...

Well, there don't seem to be many sensible people left... but they died of aging, not NDs from their children. All that said the quickvaults are good, because there are so many adult idiots around.

Harley Quinn...many studies have been done and yes it is safer for children when a gun is not around.

Click to expand...

PLEASE show us one "study" that supports this assumed "fact".

Not a story.
Not a movie.
Not a talking point.

Just ONE of your many supposed "studies".

And your link, Harley Quinn, makes me absolutely SICK in its overabundance of Democrat-power-seeking, vitriolic, hyperbolic paranoia and its lack of actual proof.

The following statistics were taken from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Center to Prevent Hand Gun Violence:

In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday. Many more are wounded.
In 1998, 77% of murdered Juveniles age 13-19 were killed with a firearm.
Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.
From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.

Click to expand...

These may be facts, but they have no comparison. None of these "facts" compare the relative safety or mortalty of homes with guns vs. homes without guns.

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.

Click to expand...

IMHO, This is a made-up statement, not a study.

Even if this were true, who is to say that the "family member" or "friend" is not dangerous? How does this study define "friend"? or "family member" for that matter????? With six degrees of separation, most of us here on THR are probably realted somehow to the Charles Manson family.

If you eliminate the number of recidivists who killed friends and family members from this questionable "study", I would venture to guess the number would drop significantly.

I'm a fan of the 4 and under rule. Most children four and under can't load, operate the action, and disengage the safety on most guns. If they can do all of that, I'm sure they can find the guns too. I'm more of common sense in my approach. All ammo is at least 5 feet off the ground or in ammo cans that are hard to open for anyone under 5. Guns that are not being used are unloaded with the safe on. A gun can't fire without ammo. If I had small children around the house more often than a few times a year I might buy a small quick open safe for a handgun, but normally the gun is either with me or in my car anyway. When I am at college like right now, the guns are locked up for theft prevention more than safety.

There's only one "study" I have any faith in and that's the one that brought me to my present age. As a child we had a loaded 30-06 sitting in the corner by the front door and a .22 next to the dining room table. Sure, we lived in the country and we kept them handy so we could knock off any local game that might show its head but none of us kids ever played with them. We knew better.
Now I live in the city and while there isn't any game to shoot I still keep a gun close to the door. My kids know where it is and if neccesary, how to use it. My grand-daughter is now a toddler and like all of 'em, gets into things she shouldn't. So I keep the gun high enough she can't get it and out of sight so she won't get curious. In a few more years - God willing - she'll learn how to use it. In the meantime I won't have to fumble with a lock to get to my gun. If you want to lock up your safety then that's up to you.

I am all for keeping guns and children separate when not supervised by adults. That is the role of adults, not the State.

Harley Quinn - Most of your sources suggest banning guns from the homes of families with children.

I suggest that this kind of thinking leads to eventual rule by tyrants.

I hadn't intended to participate in this thread because it doesn't seem like a good use of time to try carrying on a discussion with someone whose mind is firmly closed and whose interest evidently is in promoting an agenda. The closed mind is evident in this statement from the other thread:

Thanks for your opinion, it confirms much what I have mentioned. Others have opinions

No matter how you put it... In the state of CA there have been so many accidents regarding firearms and children... It is all about safe and safes.

Click to expand...

"No matter how you put it ..." means "No matter what you say my mind is made up and will not change." The agenda begins with "It is all about safe and safes," whatever that combination of words might mean, and quickly becomes the revealed truth that people who have children should not have a gun in the home.

As Harley Quinn quietly introduced his agenda, it's derived from Michael Moore and it's the agenda of the Brady Campaign, the Million Moms March, and all the anti-gun people throughout the world.

Harley Quinn has it down well: "Think of the children" is the standard line. But when you realize that history and commonsense both make that line and that agenda a mockery, it's actually quite a dangerous idea.

The agenda is dangerous for two reasons. First, it promotes the belief that the very best thing a parent can do for a child is to prevent him or her from learning how to be safe in a dangerous world. Second, it leads parents to rely on mechanical props--hardware, gun safes, gun locks, safety devices--and leads them away from raising their children to develop a healthy sense of reality, training, responsibility, and most other characteristics that define independent adults.

I'm not talking about guns alone, and neither are the people of the agenda. They're promoting a kind of institutionalized ignorance as the only acceptable kind of parenting. It's the basis for "Zero Tolerance Policies": they will not tolerate any deviation from their rules, not even essentially symbolic or meaningless deviations. That's why they suspend children from elementary school for drawing pictures of firearms, or because a parent packed a butter knife with the kid's lunch, or because a kid said "Bang! Bang!" during playtime, or because a very young boy kissed a very young girl. They want kids raised to think that guns and knives are bad and that it's evil to express affection except--perhaps--between consenting adults, as if a kindergarten boy or girl could be considered adults except by people who are insane.

As others here have pointed out most sensibly, no other generation has even thought of raising its children that way. The reason is that it's a blatant attempt to transform them into marching morons incapable of surviving in the real world except through the indulgence of helicopter parents, always hovering to prop them up and keep them chanelled, and when the parents are no more the state will keep the morons docile and productive without the need for parental involvement. Parents are an inconvenience because they can have differing values and beliefs from those the state wants. If you disagree you are wrong "No matter how you put it."

My intent now, though, is not to argue that people have the right to make up their own minds and to raise children as they believe benefits the child and the family. That argument, as most of you probably are starting to realize, is unacceptable no matter what you say. It's not open to discussion.

It's also a pointless waste of forum resources to make it necessary for Harley Quinn to start yet another thread when the arguments here become unanswerable. Two threads should be more than enough platform for him to tell everyone the one right way to live and to raise their own families. "No matter how you put it" he repeats the same agenda. It only looks like discussion but it isn't.

All I intend to do here is correct two verifiably innacurate statements he makes about me in this thread.

First is an apparently minor point but possibly suggestive. My name is not "Richard" as Harley Quinn persists in calling me, possibly because people who don't follow his agenda are too insignificant to keep in mind for even a few moments or possibly because he doesn't have even enough interest in other people to get their names right. My name is, as you can see from the heading on this message, Robert. No, I haven't changed my name: you can verify that it's the same name on another response of mine to Harley Quinn in that other thread mentioned by some people: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3828394&postcount=59

Harley Quinn's second verifiably inaccurate statement about me is in his recent reply to AZ_Rebel:

I did not want Richard to leave that is how he interpreted it, and I explained he was wrong and now I am telling that to you.. You are wrong regarding that statement and about this topic also.

Click to expand...

But what Harley Quinn wrote in that very same message I quoted above was:

I believe you should start a thread and explain your position, we will see what others will have to say

Go for it.

Click to expand...

There's no way to intepret those words except as I did and AZ_Rebel did. In case anyone is interested, Harley Quinn did not explain I was wrong. He did tell me I was wrong but granted me permission to remain in the thread after telling me that I was wrong about everything else too, just as he is telling you over and over again. The man knows The Truth and, like Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, and all the others who know The Truth about guns and most other things too, Harley Quinn will tell it until you agree or give up too. "No matter how you put it" there are no acceptable deviations.

The "other thread," by the way, was in response to a specific question about whether Glock users carried them with a round in the chamber. If you think that the question had nothing to do with children, raise your hand. And if you're curious about my message that evidently decided Harley Quinn to start his own thread after I said I wasn't going to leave, here's the link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3828394&postcount=59

I never did like running in place. Lots of effort that got me nowhere is not my idea of useful exercise. Your opinion might differ. That's okay with me.

One more thing if you don't mind. My children are adults and have been for some time. They not only know how to shoot but also how not to shoot themselves or anyone else. They also know how to drive cars without blowing them up, mistaking them for motor scooters or spaghetti, or hitting anyone. Not one of them ever drank household chemicals kept under the kitchen sink or anywhere else. They haven't jumped off roofs or fallen out of windows, punched a cop, robbed a bank, rolled a drunk, stuck up a convenience store, committed a massacre, or done any of the things kids raised around guns are supposed to do according to the hints dropped by the anti gun people. In that sense they're remarkably uninteresting. None of them are as interested in firearms as I am or even especially interested in them. They treat firearms as tools that demand knowledge and respect, but no more or less than tools.

They're competent people: they don't whine, they handle the everyday problems of life, they're exceptionally caring people but not fools, and they are successful people. I could go on forever talking about them and about my respect for them. I like them very much. They met my expectations and in some ways exceeded them. They are independent, not dependent.

What's most important, I think, is that my children--adults for some time but always, to me, my children--do not need me in order to survive or thrive. I know they'll grieve when I die, and that's as it should be, but that inevitable event won't leave them rudderless or cripple them in any way. I did my job as a parent. I introduced them to the world as quickly as they seemed ready when they were younger and encouraged them to go into it as free people when they were ready.

I do think that my brief remarks about my own children are relevant to a discussion like this. Perhaps you'll even agree that they're among the kinds of considerations that are at the core of such discussions. But that's for you to decide.

Enjoy.

"No sane parent would put two cents on reliability of teaching chilren anything and then having them act properly."

I pretty much agree. No matter how well trained your kids are, kids are kids. You really don't want to bet their lives that they are ALWAYS going to do what they are told. Presumably, your kids also have friends who are going to be in your house from time to time. You have to consider the possibility that they haven't received much in the way of gun safety training from their parents. You're responsible for their safety as well, whether you're there or not.

IMO the best way to go is a safe with a numeric key-pad lock. To those who think that overall, kids are safer with no gun in the house, I would say, reflect on the Pettit family for a moment. I'd be willing to bet that Dr. Pettit wishes he had a gun in the house.

You don't want to turn your home into a "Gun Free Zone". We all know what happens in those.

Harley Quinn:

Robert Hairless,



Regards,

Click to expand...

I know. And many others have caught on to you too. Others haven't, but maybe some of them will in time. That's okay with me. I am not interested in seeing your movies though, not even if you comp me.

The Smoking Gun!

Harley Quinn said:

I don't consider him an authority I just used his information...

Click to expand...

Oops Harley, looks suspiciously like a foot in your mouth. "Using his information" IS using him as an authority... You are quoting his information and espousing his position. As Robert Hairless said "(your) mind is firmly closed and (your) interest evidently is in promoting an agenda".

miko said:

No sane parent would put two cents on reliability of teaching chilren anything and then having them act properly.

Click to expand...

I guess we are nuts then. Mrs. Plinker and I have raised three daughters. They were typical, high spirited, intelligent, and at times willful. When they were very young, the very few guns I had were hidden in places they could not go. As they grew, and my collection grew, they were taught not to touch them without permission. And they didn't! One time I sent my youngest to the bedroom to get a pair of fingernail clippers so I could fix her torn fingernail. She came back without the clippers. When I asked why, she said she could see them, but they were under the gun and she was not allowed to touch it. I got them for her and praised her for her obedience.

Two are out the door now, and all three own their own guns now, building collections of their own. Now mine are stored in various safes, some with quick access, some not. The youngest daughter is in her mid teens, and has access to just about any of them, with the exception of the keyed safe. It is not that she is not allowed, just that there is only one key and I have it. She knows how to handle all the guns, and if someone were to attempt to enter the house when she was home alone, she has the means to protect herself.

This is an individual decision that must be made child by child. Some children are not able to handle the responsibility, others are. When I was a kid my brother and I would beat on one another without mercy, but we never ever considered grabbing one of my father's guns. We were taught not to.

Children can be raised to meet your expectations. That does not mean they will turn out exactly how you would like, but it does mean that they can and will rise to the standard you set for them. Too many parents buy into the psychobabble of today which tells them they have no control, so they abandon the kids to whatever comes their way. Control over what your kids do and see and learn is hard, and it takes an effort, but the payback lasts a lifetime.

Finally, to answer the question posed by the OP, in our house, yes, they are safer. The cops are not minutes away, they are hours away, and that is with the cop shop being five miles down the road. I base that time on actual responses for things as serious as a two car collision and as mundane as trespassing. They can't even find our road half the time, and it is not a small or unmarked road. They are there to write a report and that is about it. If there is any protecting that is going to be done, it is us that is going to do it.

My kids range from 10 yrs. to 1 yr. plus three more in between.

In 4 out of 4 so far, somewhere around 4 years old, or just a tad sooner, they become cognizant of the existance of guns, before that they are generally oblivious.

That's when they start getting the type of talk (in a very informal way) about gun safety.

The oldest three can recite to me the rules if they want to hold one of the guns:

1. We both check to make sure it's not loaded.
2. Point it in a safe direction.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger.

Also I found a use for the cable lock that came with my XD... It's wrapped around the handles of the cabinet where I store ammo and reloading supplies.

Loaded guns are never unattended (meaning in my hand or on my hip). They go in the lock box. The consequences of an accident, no matter how remote, are way too high.

Is it safer to have the firearm locked up or have a locking device on it while in the house around children?

Click to expand...

But it still does not pertain to loaded and unloaded in your house. How many unloaded have killed in comparison to the one that is always loaded

Click to expand...

Why do you keep changing the subject and asking different questions?

Pardon me for saying this, but you sound like you're trying to make a point rather than gather information. You have been offered sound data and logical arguments, but you keep shifting and sliding and moving the "goal posts" as it were. I smells me a troll.

According to the cdc, 422 children(kids aged 1-14) died as a result of an accident involving a firearm from 1999 to 2004, that works out to a rate of .12 per 100000 population in that age range.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

During that same time frame and within the same age group, 12 times as many drowning related deaths were reported.

This leads me to believe that having a pool in your back yard is far more dangerous than having a gun.

War is unheathy for children it has been shown lately, in the news.

Click to expand...

So are slavery and concentration camps. Sadly, evil people often force good people to choose.