JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
When I was a kid, I knew where the keys were to everything, and how to pick the combination locks we had. The point is, a determined kid is gonna do what they are gonna do, locking up the guns is just another easy hurdle to jump. If the kid really wants a gun, they'll get one somewhere, or even make one out of some pipe. Locking up the guns or ammo is just a token precaution, the real way to make sure your kid doesn't do something stupid is to teach them to be responsible and thoughtful people.
 
When I was a kid, I knew where the keys were to everything, and how to pick the combination locks we had. The point is, a determined kid is gonna do what they are gonna do, locking up the guns is just another easy hurdle to jump. If the kid really wants a gun, they'll get one somewhere, or even make one out of some pipe. Locking up the guns or ammo is just a token precaution, the real way to make sure your kid doesn't do something stupid is to teach them to be responsible and thoughtful people.

Granted.

A kid taking a loaded handgun from the night stand, to school, and shooting someone. Parent should be charged, convicted and serve time behind bars, Period!

A kid takes a crowbar prys safe from wall, hammers and prys and drags it out to the garage to drill the lock, gets loaded hand gun from safe and shoots someone. Kid has some serious mental issues that need to be delt with.

Mike
 
Sadly there is no test to be a parent. Unless you are adopting then there are lots of tests. Because of that fact there are lots of dumb people with kids. I watched a video not too long ago on youtube where a dad was complaining that his kids toy guns did not look real enough because of the orange ends on the barrels and then went on to show how much better they looked after he spray painted them black. Now when he kids get shot by police he needs to go to prison himself.
 
I don't know specifically about gun related issues. But I think a parent should be legally responsible for their kids until they are 18. Kid does something bad, parent is held responsible to a lesser degree. It's their child, their responsibility. If they didnt' take the time to bring the kid up right, then it's their own fault. But then I also think if a kid does wrong a parent should have the right to kick the kids *** as well. None of this time out bullbubblegum.

Your kids, your responsibility. Take the time to bring them up right, or don't have them.

I agree to a point. Kids can drive at the age of 16 in most states and can even consent to sex, in some. If you haven't instilled discipline, integrity and good moral judgement by the age of 12 then the additional 6 years isn't going to help anything. After 12 it should be on the child for their actions and thier judgement, before that it should be on the parent as if they did the act themselves.
 
You have got to be kidding?

No, that would not be a trespass; that would be negligence on the part of the homeowner and absolute stupidity on the part of the gun owner...for which one should be prosecuted and the other have their guns taken away ... it's a two-for-one if it happens to be the same person.

Please, tell us that you do more than take the gun off the night stand and place in a drawer when you have children in you house...please tell us that, at the very least, you lock it up?

Just so we are clear, the only gun that is out of my locked safe when not being shot or cleaned is the one on my hip. It goes from the hip to the night stand and back to the hip. No, I do not leave guns laying around my house unattended.
 
"it's for the children" is the gun-grabbers mantra, and it is purely an excuse to take rights away from average joe citizen, and it is pure BS.

I have raised 5 children, I now have 13, almost 14 grandchildren, and 1 almost ggrandchild...I have never locked up a weapon in my life (or my dad's life as I grew up with unlocked weapons too) and I have no intention starting now. If you need a weapon in a SD situation, you are going to have enough trouble just staying on target let alone trying to open a gun safe, load the weapon, then get on target before the two or 4 legged agressor has made your SD weapon irrelavent. Another problem is cost...if you require a gun safe, then you have just priced the "right" to SD out of a lot of poor people's ability to pay. Should I purchase a cheap safe, or should my family eat for a week?

The problem is not the gun, the problem is not the owner of the gun, the problem is not whether you have a gun safe or not, or whether you weapons are inaccessable and uselessly locked up...the problem is the child, and the child's training. Even if you teach some people how to handle and respect weapons, you will still have accidents and intentional injuries...no retrictions on our liberties are going to change that. Last year we had two LEO's children die, at home, with their parents service pistol...this has nothing to do with locking up a gun. Remember, the deputy in Clark Co. blamed it on the cheap issue gun safe?

BTW: I think it was a KISS interview with that ceasefrie WA guy where he alluded to the fact that the pistol that the kid in Bremerton had, had been in a safe, and the kid figured out how to open the safe. Restrictions on the everyday Joe citizen becasue of what "someone" might do, just don't cut it....That is not freedom...

If we were going to require that all guns be locked up, why don't we require that all vehicles be locked in a garage, and inspected regularly to make sure some unlicensed underage kid doesn't take it for a joy ride and kill him/herself or someone else????
 
I think you are on point hermannr, unfortunately I don't think many other people will agree with you.

It's easier for people to cop out and buy a safe than raise their kids in such a manner that the kids don't touch what they are not supposed to touch, or go where they are not supposed to go.
 
"it's for the children" is the gun-grabbers mantra, and it is purely an excuse to take rights away from average joe citizen, and it is pure BS.

I have raised 5 children, I now have 13, almost 14 grandchildren, and 1 almost ggrandchild...I have never locked up a weapon in my life (or my dad's life as I grew up with unlocked weapons too) and I have no intention starting now. If you need a weapon in a SD situation, you are going to have enough trouble just staying on target let alone trying to open a gun safe, load the weapon, then get on target before the two or 4 legged agressor has made your SD weapon irrelavent. Another problem is cost...if you require a gun safe, then you have just priced the "right" to SD out of a lot of poor people's ability to pay. Should I purchase a cheap safe, or should my family eat for a week?

The problem is not the gun, the problem is not the owner of the gun, the problem is not whether you have a gun safe or not, or whether you weapons are inaccessable and uselessly locked up...the problem is the child, and the child's training. Even if you teach some people how to handle and respect weapons, you will still have accidents and intentional injuries...no retrictions on our liberties are going to change that. Last year we had two LEO's children die, at home, with their parents service pistol...this has nothing to do with locking up a gun. Remember, the deputy in Clark Co. blamed it on the cheap issue gun safe?

BTW: I think it was a KISS interview with that ceasefrie WA guy where he alluded to the fact that the pistol that the kid in Bremerton had, had been in a safe, and the kid figured out how to open the safe. Restrictions on the everyday Joe citizen becasue of what "someone" might do, just don't cut it....That is not freedom...

If we were going to require that all guns be locked up, why don't we require that all vehicles be locked in a garage, and inspected regularly to make sure some unlicensed underage kid doesn't take it for a joy ride and kill him/herself or someone else????
That is a very stupid argument. So the problem is the children? We should somehow expect children to not do stupid things? We should somehow feel like we can override biology through intimidation and training? If the children do act like children and do things they shouldn't we should blame them?

Training is a key issue but expecting children to act like adults is borderline moronic. They do not possess the ability to reason like we do at their ages. Pretending they do is not only ignorant it is negligent.

You are using the same false statistical logic as the previous arguments. I do not give a damn how many kids you have raised. It does not alter the risk of leaving a child around a firearm unsupervised. The logic of you argument, or lack thereof, boils down to "I walked across a busy highway blindfolded and did not get hurt. Therefore it is safe to walk blindfolded across a busy highway."
 
That is a very stupid argument. So the problem is the children? We should somehow expect children to not do stupid things? We should somehow feel like we can override biology through intimidation and training? If the children do act like children and do things they shouldn't we should blame them?

Training is a key issue but expecting children to act like adults is borderline moronic. They do not possess the ability to reason like we do at their ages. Pretending they do is not only ignorant it is negligent.

No, we should blame the parents for allowing children to act like spoiled brats with no fear of the consequences. I knew for a fact that if I even touched a gun unsupervised growing up there would be hell to pay, so I didn't. Children are not innately dumber now, parents allow them to be through sheltering, lack of discipline and the ever so popular "everyones a winner" lie parents and teachers feed them.
 
No, we should blame the parents for allowing children to act like spoiled brats with no fear of the consequences. I knew for a fact that if I even touched a gun unsupervised growing up there would be hell to pay, so I didn't. Children are not innately dumber now, parents allow them to be through sheltering, lack of discipline and the ever so popular "everyones a winner" lie parents and teachers feed them.
You have absolutely no understanding of child psychology. I am also betting your memory of how you acted as a child is very selective as to suit your current beliefs. You really should refrain from speaking to the subject of child behavior. Children do not possess the abilities to reason as adults do. Why do you think kids do stupid things so often? And, no, that is not a modern day phenomenon. It is a fact as old as time. Some people just like to ignore that fact these days because they hold so tightly to their own desired reality. Just like the people that like to pretend the "good old days of milk and honey" actually existed.
 
You have absolutely no understanding of child psychology. I am also betting your memory of how you acted as a child is very selective as to suit your current beliefs. You really should refrain from speaking to the subject of child behavior. Children do not possess the abilities to reason as adults do. Why do you think kids do stupid things so often? And, no, that is not a modern day phenomenon. It is a fact as old as time. Some people just like to ignore that fact these days because they hold so tightly to their own desired reality. Just like the people that like to pretend the "good old days of milk and honey" actually existed.

One thing I know without a doubt about child psychology, is that when they come across adults that don't believe they can reason, they are quite adept at manipulating them. Aside from the two that live with me (8 and 10 years old), I know a two year old that can play her mother like a harp. And she also knows that it doesn't work with everyone, so she will "test the waters" so to speak with a new babysitter. But she will abruptly shift gears to other tactics if the first thing she tries doesn't work.

Children are as capable as adults at reasoning. Reasoning is just applying available data to a situation, something any child can do. Otherwise they couldn't build forts for their G.I. Joes with legos. They are just working with an incomplete data set, but they absorb information unbelievably fast. The more information and responsibility you give them early on, the faster their ability to reason out good decisions progresses.
 
I agree, children are capable of a lot more than what we give them credit for in our society. Reminds me of a documentary I saw on TV that showed a 3 year old hacking down trees in the rainforest with a machete. Most people in the US would freak out if their 3 year old grabbed a plastic butter knife. Kids are incredible little info-sponges, capable of learning more in a day than I probably could in a month.
 
You have absolutely no understanding of child psychology. I am also betting your memory of how you acted as a child is very selective as to suit your current beliefs. You really should refrain from speaking to the subject of child behavior. Children do not possess the abilities to reason as adults do. Why do you think kids do stupid things so often? And, no, that is not a modern day phenomenon. It is a fact as old as time. Some people just like to ignore that fact these days because they hold so tightly to their own desired reality. Just like the people that like to pretend the "good old days of milk and honey" actually existed.

Dr Spock raised no children, yet everyone today thinks he is the greatest authority on children. I'm sure if you look up the rest of those politically correct "child Experts" you would find none of them ever raised any children either. (or if they did raise any children, their kids are in jail now) If you do not teach a child any disipline, the state will.

My wife and I have successfully raised and home schooled 5 daughters, none of them ever spent a minute in jail, and other than a couple speeding tickets, never have been in any kind of trouble. The oldest is a graduate nurse (she's been in nursing for 20 years now) that graduated (that big school in Oregon) Suma *** Laude, the youngest graduated Magna *** Laude from WSU. The second one is also a nurse, the other two tried housewife instead of college. They are all still married, they all have their own families, and I have one grandson that is married and in the US Army. And amazingly...none of them has spent any time in jail either???

I think I know what I am talking about when I say it is all disipline and training. There are places you allow children to be free to be children, and there are places that you do not. Like at the edge of the Grand Canyon..

But you know, that is my opinion. And Opinions are bit like behinds, eveyone has one, and they all stink...including mine. (And yes, I almost flunked typing class, lowest grade I ever got of any class in school.)
 
I'm generally not in favor of "zero tolerance" policies and "best practices". These ideas are now pervasive in the workplace due to people without experience and/or judgement being put in charge of things based on affirmative action or educational qualifications. "Zero tolerance" and "best practices" are simply a refuge for these unqualified people. At the same time, I've been to law school and I understand the law and its basis. It seems to me that this is what we have judges and juries for. Each case has its own set of facts. It's up to a judge or jury to weigh them. The major items to be considered though would be the age and experience of the child involved, whether the gun owner took reasonable precautions to secure the weapon, and the adequacy of parental supervision, including the child's mental state and maturity, as it was known to the parents. In most cases I see little value to punishing parents who have already suffered the loss of a child. Where the facts indicate extreme negligence or depraved indifference, yes, maybe a charge of some form of homicide. Where there is some form of lesser negligence perhaps just letting the civil system assess damages is appropriate. Where a gun owner has taken reasonable precautions I think that should be an adequate defense. Whether those precautions were reasonable is a question for a jury.
 
I think you are on point hermannr, unfortunately I don't think many other people will agree with you.

It's easier for people to cop out and buy a safe than raise their kids in such a manner that the kids don't touch what they are not supposed to touch, or go where they are not supposed to go.

Do you have kids? Do your kids have friends? Are they allowed to come over to your house? Do you have guns in your house not locked up?

If you answered YES to all of the above then you are a moron.
 
Do you have kids? Do your kids have friends? Are they allowed to come over to your house? Do you have guns in your house not locked up?

If you answered YES to all of the above then you are a moron.

As I said earlier: "Opinions are like behinds, everyone has one, and they all stink"

If you have kids, and your kids have not been trained well enough to make having a firearm openly availble a safe option, then you have not trained your kids very well, have you now?
 
Riot's point - which I believe to be a very valid one - is that beyond ones' own children that unless you strictly prohibit any other life forms in your house that there is the possibility of children not under your direct control roaming in your residence. And while your children may be raised to not touch things that don't belong to them and may ask their friends to respect the same, it doesn't mean they will.

What you can control is easy accessibility to firearms in your home. And if you have children or children present, if you've made that accessibility easy (or at least not hard) then you are neglecting you responsibilities as a gun owner.

It's all fine and good if nothing bad happens, but in the rare cases that it does we all see it in the news. People are quick to blame the news for blowing things out of porportion, but those are accidental (or intentional) shootings that were preventable if easy access to unlocked or laying around firearms was removed.

It's a little surprising that all gun owners aren't on board with stopping the perception of gun owners as being negligent or careless. A united voice calling for responsible securing of firearms - even if you choose not to practice it yourself - makes far more sense than saying, "that wouldn't happen in MY household." Reminds me a lot of the invincibility syndrome that most teenagers have. "Couldn't happen to ME."
 
Generally I would answer yes.

However I'll look at both sides of the fence. There are an awfully lot of what if's and uncontrollable circumstances and other information that would be had at each "incident".

I wouldn't be able to give an answer without knowing the full case.

There will be no law ever put on the books anywhere ever, that could take all the facts into account.
 
I think there are separate issues here. A child grabbing a gun and taking it is separate from somone breaking into the house and stealing a gun. What is the difference between a stolen gun or a stolen car. They both kill people. How many stolen cars kill people, seems like that story does not fit the gun activists agenda.
As far as a child under 16 living in the house getting a gun and harming some one then the parent should fell some heat.
But a break in theft...none. lets punish the theif not the victim.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top