Poll: Which Is Worse?

[eriknemily]

So I was driving home from my parent's place the other day (2 hour drive) and got to thinking about kids and guns. I have youngsters who are of the age that they can realistically start shooting (4 & 6). The thought crossed my mind of which would be worse....

I think I would still say a household where firearms are opposed and frowned upon would be worse than a home where there are guns around but the kids aren't really taught much about firearms and safe handling. But I don't think the two are far removed from each other.......

Any thoughts?

PS I took my above mentioned kids shooting this weekend end. My daughter (6) was barely interested in emptying the 10 rounds out of the 22. My son (4) seemed uninterested until I coerced him into shooting the first mag through the gun and then asked to do it again. I didn't realize how much he enjoyed it until we got home and he exuberantly told my neighbor about his shooting adventure. I couldn't have been more proud

Read More

 

[MountainBear]

The last option could lead to a tragic death. The other two could also lead to a death (not having a way to defend ones self), but are choices. Not training or being safe around firearms is negligent...

 

[soberups]

If you arent going to actively teach firearms safety to your children, then you should not have firearms in your home.

 

[eriknemily]

Looking back over my first post I don't think I explained my thought process very well but you guys seem to have seen where I was going.

I think that last option is what scared me a bit. I want my kids to be extremely well trained around guns. Guns without training = TRAGEDY!!!!

 

[sprice37]

I firmly believe if there are guns in the house there needs to be training. Without training the kids will not know what they are and WILL find out for themselves what they are WITHOUT supervision. That is where the problem lies. In my home there are guns. I have a four (almost five) year old daughter. She is still learning how to handle the firearms properly but will not touch them without asking first. They are not taboo to her so she has no need to experiment when I am not supervising. And yes I have a safe and keep them locked. Therefore I think the house with the guns and no training is the worst.

 

[Graffin]

11 votes for "No guns ever?" Why are you people even on this forum?

 

[deen_ad]

11 votes for "No guns ever?" Why are you people even on this forum?

NOT do you own guns, NOT do you have them in the house. It was which was worse.

 

[MountainBear]

I'm pretty sure the wink at the end means he was being sarcastic...

I would rather a family avoid guns if they are not going to be responsible about learning to use them and about teaching the kids in the house to respect them.

 

[eriknemily]

I would rather a family avoid guns if they are not going to be responsible about learning to use them and about teaching the kids in the house to respect them.

I was thinking along the same lines. It may well be better to have a kid grow up in a house void of guns if the alternative is to have guns around with no responsible training.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I am going to have to say the 3rd option is the worst. I feel there is a greater risk posed from guns in the home where people do not know how to properly use and respect them than the risk faced by not owning a firearm for protection.

 

[smithmax]

I feel the first one is the worst. I have friend who's wife believes this. It's dangerous because she refuses to learn how to operate a gun. At least with the third option you know how to unload a gun and make it safe (just as a byproduct of owning the gun and going to the range once every few years).

 

[eriknemily]

I feel the first one is the worst. I have friend who's wife believes this. It's dangerous because she refuses to learn how to operate a gun. At least with the third option you know how to unload a gun and make it safe (just as a byproduct of owning the gun and going to the range once every few years).

I respectfully disagree slightly with that because of my own experience. I grew up with a family basically neutral towards guns. My dad however owned a 30-06 but never used it. It always stayed on the stand next to his bed. I know for a fact that he kept it unloaded because as a youngster I succumbed to curiosity and pulled that tempting trigger. I swear the 'click' I heard was loud enough to be an actual shot because I was so freakin' scared. I never did touch that gun again.

I think it would have been better, obviously, if my dad had taken me shooting a few times as a kid but he didn't. I grew up with bb guns but wasn't really taught safety other than don't shoot at people or buildings.

I guess I'm rambling. I'll stop now

 

[flinch444]

Howdy folks, im new here but thought I would throw in my 2cents.

I think even if a family doesnt own guns, they should at least know a little something about them. Kids at younger ages are curious. When they start showing interest, even in those "shoot em up" video games, its time to teach them. Better that they know what its all about than not at all.
At around 5 my dad let me shoot his 357 blackhawk. It scared the begeezes out of me. I never wanted anything to do with that thing again till i was much older. I think this was the right path to take at that time, as it taught me right off that it wasnt a toy, and it wasnt fun for a 5 year old.
When kids get older they sometimes go to their friends houses, you cant control every kid and what they do over there every second. It would be a damn good thing if one or more of these kids knew how to handle and make safe, that other fathers gun that these kids shouldnt be playing with in the first place.
IMO a knowledgable and responsible kid present to take control of a bad situation, is by far better than a bunch of ignorant ones who dont even know which end is dangerous. If nothing else he knows that what is happening is not right and to leave and get some help. IMO kids that grow up under rocks, dont make experienced, responsible adults.

 

[GRUNDEL]

My vote went for number three. The thought of guns in a home with out education is just an accident waiting to happen. I grew up in a home filled with firearms and was taught at a very young age the rules of firearms safety. I also hunted with my Father and Grandfather as a child and understood what a firearm was capable of.

Using my sister’s teenage sons as an example, the only education they have with firearms is what they have learned from playing video games. At this point I would not be comfortable seeing them have access to firearm in their home, but as flinch stated I feel it is my sisters and my responsibility to get them educated on the subject.

 

[unionguy]

#3 for me. You wouldn't let someone drive who didn't know how. Having guns in the home with kids WITHOUT training is extremely negligent.

I actually lived this life growing up...my dad never taught me about firearms...I ended up at a friend's house in 7th/8th grade and we--of course--found his dad's pistols. We fiddled around with them. Neither of us ever checked the chamber...didn't know to. We also weren't complete idiots and didn't point them at each other and go "bang".

My other good friend grew up around guns, taught by his father and was always safe. He's the one who introduced me to guns in high school.

Now, I'm teaching my kids (7 &10) all the safety rules. My 10 year old just starting shooting with me too and loves it. I feel now they're safe in my home...and in any friends' they might visit where guns are present.

 

[j.barnum]

I voted for #1 because of number 3, I am "assuming" the guns are unloaded. They are stashed away and nobody even mentions them. Now however, If the SHTF, the gun owner could at least be somewhat prepared to defend the family.
Or if a knowledgeable family member or friend had a need to defend this family, he/she could obtain these gun/s and do so.

Now that all said, I agree #3 maybe the worst case with kids around and you know they will not be trained.

 

[Spitpatch]

Okay, maybe I'll ruffle some feathers here, but I categorize firearms knowledge (at least in America) on the same level as swimming as far as kids are concerned. Both are essential life-survival skills that all kids should be taught.

I cannot for the life of me understand why any parent would not insist that their child learn how to swim at the earliest age possible, and likewise that they would not teach the rudiments of gun safety (at least as included in the Eddie Eagle program: don't touch, tell an adult). Actually, I think the firearm training should go a bit further, even if you are diametrically opposed to gun ownership.

The facts are: at least two thirds of the earth is covered in water. Firearms are everywhere in America, and your child will almost certainly run into one during his childhood. To not teach your child to swim, and to not teach them about guns is parental negligence.

Sorry for you non-swimmers: I guess I just called your parents negligent.

 

[GRUNDEL]

Okay, maybe I'll ruffle some feathers here, but I categorize firearms knowledge (at least in America) on the same level as swimming as far as kids are concerned. Both are essential life-survival skills that all kids should be taught.

I cannot for the life of me understand why any parent would not insist that their child learn how to swim at the earliest age possible, and likewise that they would not teach the rudiments of gun safety (at least as included in the Eddie Eagle program: don't touch, tell an adult). Actually, I think the firearm training should go a bit further, even if you are diametrically opposed to gun ownership.

The facts are: at least two thirds of the earth is covered in water. Firearms are everywhere in America, and your child will almost certainly run into one during his childhood. To not teach your child to swim, and to not teach them about guns is parental negligence.

Sorry for you non-swimmers: I guess I just called your parents negligent.

You Nailed It

 

[biggie24420]

Education is the key..... guns + no gun training = bad/lost lives. I also picked #3.