Article: Have a kid, lose your guns?


PDA






Zedicus
January 17, 2006, 04:56 AM
A Sad but Sobering Article

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-08-Sun-2006/opinion/4951446.html

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Have a kid, lose your guns?


Jessica Lynne Carpenter was 14 years old on Aug. 23, 2000, the morning 27-year-old Jonathan David Bruce came calling at the Carpenter house in Merced, Calif.

Jessica Lynne knew how to shoot -- her father had taught her. And there were adequate firearms in the house to deal with what happened next.

Advertisement

That Wednesday morning, Jessica was home with four of her siblings -- Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John William, 7 -- in the San Joaquin Valley farming community, 130 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Bruce, an out-of-work telemarketer apparently high on drugs, was stark naked and armed with a spade fork. He cut the phone lines to the house shortly after 9 a.m., broke in, and immediately began chasing down and stabbing the children in their bedrooms.

Jessica Lynne tried to dial 911. The phone was dead. So she ran to the gun closet.

Then she remembered the new "safe storage law" that had just been enacted in California, and which her parents had told her about. When John and Tephanie Carpenter had left the house that morning, they had locked the gun closet so no one under 18 could get access to the family firearms ... as required by law.

Jessica's only option was to climb out a window and run to a neighbor's house.

By the time Merced County sheriff's deputies arrived at the home, John William and Ashley were dead. Anna was wounded but survived.

As deputies arrived, Bruce rushed them with his bloody spade fork. So they shot him dead. They shot him more than a dozen times.

The following Friday, the children's great uncle, the Rev. John Hilton, told reporters: "If only (Jessica) had a gun available to her, she could have stopped the whole thing." Maybe John William and Ashley would still be alive, Jessica's uncle said.

"Unfortunately, 17 states now have these so-called safe storage laws," then-Yale Law School senior research scholar John Lott, author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime," told me at the time. "The problem is, you see no decline in either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates" perpetrated against the newly disarmed victims.

The closest thing to such a law in Nevada is NRS 202.300, which allows children under 18 to be charged as delinquents -- there are exceptions for the armed forces, kids with junior hunting licenses, and so on -- for possessing a firearm except under adult supervision.

Section 2 of that statute makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to "knowingly permit a child to violate subsection 1" -- allowing a kid to carry around a gun -- and a category C felony for a person to do so if he or she "knows or has reason to know that there is a substantial risk that the child will use the firearm to commit a violent act."

But that law is "not unduly restrictive," Clark County District Attorney David Roger says. "It's clear the hunters were involved with the legislative process" when 202.300 was drafted.

So when Syber Wells, age 12 -- possibly distraught over his parents' divorce -- committed suicide with his father's shotgun here in Las Vegas in August, Roger and his county prosecutor's office didn't charge Syber's father with making that weapon available to a 12-year-old under NRS 202.300. Instead, they charged him with "child abuse and neglect" under NRS 200.508, a law which Roger agrees does not mention firearms, at all.

"These are difficult cases," Roger says. "It's not about not letting parents have guns in the home, it's about safe storage. It's not my goal to tell parents how to be parents, but it seems like the whole time I've been here it's just been one case after another like this."

But 12-year-olds who want to commit suicide have plenty of options, which is doubtless why John Lott has found "safe storage" laws don't reduce suicides. If young Syber Wells had instead overdosed on medications pilfered from his grandmother's medicine chest, would granny now be on probation while sitting out a suspended sentence for failing to keep her prescriptions in a locked safe?

"You're right, but it's avoidable in these circumstances," David Roger replies. "Yeah the kid could have gone out and gotten something else, but in terms of firearms it would have been harder for him to get a firearm. It seems to me parents should secure their firearms. ...

"The police chief in Henderson was not crazy about prosecuting these cases. Here you have a father who lost a child. He's devastated. How can the criminal justice system punish him any further? But we all agreed these parents should secure their firearms."

On Dec. 28, Syber Wells' father, Geoffrey Wells, was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and further placed on three years' probation by Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle after he pled guilty to one charge of misdemeanor child endangerment, based on his having left the shotgun unsecured in his home.

So what's the legal standard for "secure storage"?

"It's really common sense," Roger says. "If you have a loaded gun on top of a refrigerator and the child in the house is a baby, obviously it's going to be out of harm's way. But if you have a teenager, that's different. It's on a case-by-case basis. ... There are lock boxes; I've got one in my house. You hit five buttons and you have easy access to your firearms. It may make it a little more difficult to get to our firearms when you're in harm's way, but on balance I think it's more important to protect our children."

So, based on a "child abuse and neglect" statute that offers no specific advice about kids' access to guns -- while ignoring NRS 202.300, in which the Legislature struggled to set some specific standards -- our prosecutors and judges will simply decide, after the fact, on a "case-by-case" basis, how we should have prevented 12-year-olds from committing suicide and charge us criminally if they don't like our decisions.

All while District Attorney Roger insists, "It's not my goal to tell parents how to be parents."


Next week: What about the Constitution?


Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the new novel "The Black Arrow."

If you enjoyed reading about "Article: Have a kid, lose your guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LAK
January 17, 2006, 06:09 AM
All this media attention is directed at one thing; get the masses hollering for mandatory, specifed forms of, firearm home security. And required, regular, "inspections".

It's called building emotional consensus. Continually pushing the right buttons - and waiting for a few timely events of horror to occur so they can start banging their fists on the legislative benches ;)
-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Stickjockey
January 17, 2006, 12:04 PM
It's not my goal to tell parents how to be parents...

I call BS.

Henry Bowman
January 17, 2006, 12:11 PM
It's called building emotional consensus. Continually pushing the right buttons - and waiting for a few timely events of horror to occur so they can start banging their fists on the legislative benches The "timely events of horror" almost always support our position in a more intellectually honest way. It is our job to to push the other buttons in advance in an attempt to "build emotional consensus" to the right end.

Unfortunately, the mainstream (for now) media is set squarly against us institutionally and works for free for the blissninny party.

Press on. Stay the course. Use the newest technological tools to our advantage.

Telperion
January 17, 2006, 12:24 PM
The Carpenter family story is tragic, but it does raise a question for me: how many THR members would feel comfortable, law or no, with giving children of the ages described, unsupervised access to the gun safe? How have you discussed it with them?

Herself
January 17, 2006, 12:31 PM
Depends on the children, Telperion. My sister's kids, at that age? All but the youngest, who was a bit troubled. My brother's? Nope.

In large part, because my sister's offspring had been around guns and their dad had given them some instruction. They've seen critters and reactive targets shot, had a chance to internalize what guns will and won't do. But my brother's not a shooter; his children don't have that information and experience.

That's why the decision is better left to parents rather than lawmakers: parents are in the best position to know what their kid can be trusted with. You worry their judgement might be bad? Parents can already be held liable for the actions of their minor children, which is as much law as needs to be applied to the situation.

--Herself

dpesec
January 17, 2006, 12:35 PM
Well, I don't have human children. But I think I'd say when they were small, no. However, they would never be left alone, somebody would be there who could use the firearm.
Older, yes. But I'd keep ammo and pistol seperate. Perhaps a leave a long gun out.
If you raise children to understand that weapons aren't to be played with there's not a problem. Don't point toy guns at people, never pick up a gun without gettting an adult to say it's ok.
Common sense.

Thain
January 17, 2006, 12:57 PM
There were five children in the house (14, 13, 11, 9 and 7) and we know that the 14 year old, at least, had been taught to shoot and how to handle a firearm.

If these were my children, and they were responsible and respectful towards firearms, then the teenagers would know the combination to the safe.

Michigan has a law agianst minors having unsupervised access, and its a law I'm not wholly agianst. I would be perfectly willing to be charged for the "crime" of giving my teenagers access, if it meant that they were able to save lives.

An accessible .45 cal autoloader, a deer rifle, or a 12-guage with ammo and a full capacity magazine would have saved lives in this situation. I would give my teenagers access to them... Just because the law is on the books, doesn't mean you need to follow it. ;)

Thefabulousfink
January 17, 2006, 01:09 PM
Just because the law is on the books, doesn't mean you need to follow it. ;)

Thain-
I do agree with your post, but I would like to point out to the other members of this board that if you choose not to follow a law then you also choose to accept the consequences.
Even if a law is illegal/unconstitutional, if you break it know full well that you will face the punishment until the law can be overturned.

I just want everyones eyes open,

thefabulousfink

Thain
January 17, 2006, 01:34 PM
I fully realize that be breaking the law, I could be subject to prosecution. But, first the violation of the law needs to be offically reported. Then it needs to be prosecuted. Then I need to be convicted.

In the above case of the home invasion, I highly doubt the DA is going to file. If they did, I could probably plea out to a misdemeanor... the naked guy with a pitchfork would be dead, my children would be alive, and that's that.

In the case of the suicidal teen... Well, if I didn't notice the warning signs in advance, it's my fault. (There is a long history of mental illness in my family, including suicide and self-injury. We are very, very in touch with our mental health. Much like a family of diabetics monitor their blood sugar.)

allmons
January 17, 2006, 01:47 PM
What next - hold parents accountable for genetic birth defects? It is time, ladies and gentlemen to begin removing these weasels from office when they start this kind of nonsense.

This man should NOT be in charge of any type of prosecution anywhere.

The revolution must be NOW at the ballot box or we will be fighting in the streets!

I don't even want to contemplate the ramifications if this kind of attack on citizens' rights doesn't stop!

Screw Democrat or Republican arguments - vote for your guns and for a return to common sense. And I see neither in ANY of the major parties.

:cuss:

Standing Wolf
January 17, 2006, 07:13 PM
Here you have a father who lost a child. He's devastated. How can the criminal justice system punish him any further? But we all agreed these parents should secure their firearms.

Who's "we," anyway?

MechAg94
January 17, 2006, 08:10 PM
Hell, my Dad never had a safe. From my earliest childhood, I knew where at least one loaded gun was in my Dad's bedroom. However, my Dad believed in reasonable discipline and I wasn't going to mess with them and he knew it. He also taught my brother and I how to shoot at a young age. I remember shooting metal targets, 2X4's and squirrels. I knew what happened when the trigger was pulled and not to mess with the guns. Of course, my Dad also insisted we treat toy guns as if they were real and not point them at people. You don't see many people do that now days. Also, I remember my Dad helping me hold a .357 mag revolver to fire it. For a kid 5 years old or so, that is a BIG gun. I don't have kids myself yet. I know my brother has not taught his kids how to shoot. I don't think he believes they are responsible enough yet.

My Dad has a keyed deadbolt on his closet now. If this guy had that, he might have been able to give the girl a key to get to at least one or two guns.

I would agree that making sure my kids can protect themselves would be more important than following that law. It would then be my responsibility to make sure my kids knew how to use the guns responsibly.

ExtremeDooty
January 17, 2006, 11:29 PM
Hell, my Dad never had a safe. From my earliest childhood, I knew where at least one loaded gun was in my Dad's bedroom. However, my Dad believed in reasonable discipline and I wasn't going to mess with them and he knew it.

How times have changed. It was the same for me, except that I didn't know if any of his guns were loaded, because we (me and my siblings) never messed with them. We could only touch them when he took us shooting. There were consequences for our actions and we learned that early.

Strings
January 18, 2006, 01:20 AM
I touched a gun unsupervised exactly once growing up. Dad only had a bolt .22 in his closet. one night, he and mom left me alone for a few hours. I noticed a cigarette cherry glowing and dimming in our front yard... INSIDE the cyclone fence. So I picked the lock into the 'rent's room, loaded the .22, put the safety on, and sat in the living room watching TV while I waited for mom & dad to come home. When they pulled in, I unloaded and replaced the gun (and relocked the door)...

When dad found out about it (MANY years later), he was fairly supprised...

progunner1957
January 18, 2006, 01:29 AM
"It's not about not letting parents have guns in the home, it's about safe storage. It's not my goal to tell parents how to be parents,
It's about control. Control by bureaucrats of how We The People live.

Those who demand all guns be locked up in a house with children present are willing to accept a few dead children to achieve their goal - control. The tragedy of the Carpenters undeniably illustrates this as fact.

In "The Old Days," kids had guns when they were 12. They were in charge of the safety of themselves and their younger siblings when Mom and Dad were not at home. Why can't we do that today?? Were the 12 year olds of 50 years ago so much more wise than the 12 year olds of today? This practice could still go on - with the proper training.

The revolution must be NOW at the ballot box or we will be fighting in the streets!

I don't even want to contemplate the ramifications if this kind of attack on citizens' rights doesn't stop!

Screw Democrat or Republican arguments - vote for your guns and for a return to common sense. And I see neither in ANY of the major parties.

Amen, Allmoms! Preach it, sista!!:D :D

Art Eatman
January 18, 2006, 01:35 AM
Telperion, "gun-proofing" a kid is easy. Take the mystique out of it. Remove the thrill of the illicit.

You let a kid feel and fondle a gun. You point out the dangers of rust from damp little hands. You let the kid know that when he's big enough to shoot a gun, all he has to do is ask. Etc., etc. It doesn't take much for him to then lose interest in guns as El Neato toys.

I was in the pastures and woods with my grandfather's .22 rifle when I was seven years old, the same year I got my first Daisy Red Ryder. Nothing bad ever happened. My grandfather told me not to shoot a cow--so I didn't.

It worked for my kid, as well as for me.

Art

Kodiaz
January 18, 2006, 01:37 AM
I don't have kids so my 1911 stays locked and cocked on the nightstand. When I was a kid my dad didn't have a safe i grew up hunting and I never messed with my dads guns. I've shown my cousins my guns and I've shown them how to make them safem, how to know if it's loaded so they know what to do if they ever wind up around a gun that isn't mine. If you want to taech your kids gunsafety there are plenty of photos of really bad negligent discharges floating around online that really show you what an ND is.

TC-TX
January 18, 2006, 02:27 AM
Telperion, "gun-proofing" a kid is easy. Take the mystique out of it. Remove the thrill of the illicit.

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Nice job Art - well said!

drclark
January 18, 2006, 03:12 AM
If a child is not of age/maturity level to be given unsupervised access to the gunsafe, should they be left home alone unsupervised to begin with? There are plenty of things in the home that could be danger to the children or others if accessed/used by someone of questionable judgement.

drc

zahc
January 18, 2006, 03:23 AM
When I was 14, I had a condition 3 870 in my closet, and a loaded revolver in my top dresser drawer, in my room upstairs. This was known and recommended by my parents.


Still here, never killed anybody. But I could have if I needed to.

joab
January 18, 2006, 03:41 AM
how many THR members would feel comfortable, law or no, with giving children of the ages described, unsupervised access to the gun safe?If the girl was old enough to left in charge of children as young as 7 she was old enough or responsible enough to know where the gun key was.

In Florida leaving a 14 year old to baby sit younger children is child endangerment anyway.

When did teenagers become so fragile

LAK
January 18, 2006, 04:11 AM
The "timely events of horror" almost always support our position in a more intellectually honest way. It is our job to to push the other buttons in advance in an attempt to "build emotional consensus" to the right end.

Unfortunately, the mainstream (for now) media is set squarly against us institutionally and works for free for the blissninny party.

Press on. Stay the course. Use the newest technological tools to our advantage.
The mainstream media is a tool of the blissninny parties.

One of their goals is to push the use of technology. Like "smart" guns. The progression going to where completely mechanical firearms "are bad"; "smart guns good";

People who won't give up their outdated dangerous guns - who won't use technology to save children - bad".

"People who use smart technology and give up their nostalgic attachment to outdated unsafe guns to save children - good."
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

pax
January 18, 2006, 04:22 AM
drclark said it.

If a child is not responsible enough to be trusted with every object in the home, he is not old enough to be left home alone.

Yeah, that means I think some people's 17 year olds shouldn't be left unsupervised. So sue me.

joab ~ 14?? How old is old enough, then? (Here in WA, it's 12 ... which was too late by 2 years for two of my kids, and too early by at least a year for another of them.)

pax

50caliber123
January 18, 2006, 05:00 AM
So let me get this straight. Suppose there was a nation-wide law enacted tommorrow requiring safe storage of firearms. I have an 8-gun safe, which is full, so two guns are stored "unsecured" in the closet. Both rifles in the closet are bolt actions, so the bullets are removed, on a shelf, in the safe. Right next to the safe, I have a stack of 6 ammo cans, holding around 3000+ rounds of ammo, and in the safe, at least two guns have full magazines, just needing to be cocked, should trouble find its way into my house.

Would I pass a safety inspection, and what consequences would I face if I didn't? I onow this is in theory (for now), but it should be an addressed issue. I want to stay on the right side of the law, but I will give up nothing I already own. My collection will only get larger :rolleyes:

Kodiaz
January 18, 2006, 08:03 AM
safety inspection are you for real does that happen somewhere?

joab
January 18, 2006, 09:05 AM
joab ~ 14?? How old is old enough, then?16 to babysit

dpesec
January 18, 2006, 09:34 AM
Thain-
I do agree with your post, but I would like to point out to the other members of this board that if you choose not to follow a law then you also choose to accept the consequences.
Even if a law is illegal/unconstitutional, if you break it know full well that you will face the punishment until the law can be overturned.

I just want everyones eyes open,

thefabulousfink
True, but if the jury decides not to convict, no problem. This is something that judges and proscutors don't like. Just because it's against "a law" the jury can still chose not to convict. In effect, saying that law is stupid. :)

The Real Hawkeye
January 18, 2006, 10:00 AM
Wow! This is an eye opener to me. I honestly thought that wacky laws like this were only found in England, Australia and Canada. Government bureaucrats in the United States are allowed to tell us, backed by criminal penalties, how to store our guns IN OUR OWN HOMES?!!! When did this happen? Did I sleep through it? This is a rather major turning point in our decline towards a police state. You'd think I would have heard about it before this. I don't remember the national debate about it. Was there any?

The Real Hawkeye
January 18, 2006, 10:03 AM
Depends on the children, Telperion. My sister's kids, at that age? All but the youngest, who was a bit troubled. My brother's? Nope.

In large part, because my sister's offspring had been around guns and their dad had given them some instruction. They've seen critters and reactive targets shot, had a chance to internalize what guns will and won't do. But my brother's not a shooter; his children don't have that information and experience.

That's why the decision is better left to parents rather than lawmakers: parents are in the best position to know what their kid can be trusted with. You worry their judgement might be bad? Parents can already be held liable for the actions of their minor children, which is as much law as needs to be applied to the situation.

--Herself+1

V4Vendetta
January 18, 2006, 10:13 AM
"True, but if the jury decides not to convict, no problem. This is something that judges and proscutors don't like. Just because it's against "a law" the jury can still chose not to convict. In effect, saying that law is stupid"

In the US, judges can overrule the verdict for any reason they want. It's a legal thing called "Legal Verdict Not Withstanding". For any reason the judge desires, he can change the verdict. So even if the jury sides with you, you can still lose.:(

The Real Hawkeye
January 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
"True, but if the jury decides not to convict, no problem. This is something that judges and proscutors don't like. Just because it's against "a law" the jury can still chose not to convict. In effect, saying that law is stupid"

In the US, judges can overrule the verdict for any reason they want. It's a legal thing called "Legal Verdict Not Withstanding". For any reason the judge desires, he can change the verdict. So even if the jury sides with you, you can still lose.:(You have that wrong. The judge can over rule the jury only in defense of the defendant, i.e., to protect him from the jury. He cannot over rule the jury that has chosen to protect a defendant from a bad law or bad prosecution.

Mizzle187
January 18, 2006, 11:44 AM
This is a hell of a topic. First and foremost i persoanlly and my brothers and sisters were not left home alone untill we were in say middle school. We werent left home with young siblings untill we were in high-school and if it was a must. We were lucky we had a stay at home mom. And even then they wouldnt leave us at home if they didnt think we were mature enough for it. I undertand that some people are divorced or both parents work and cant afford day care,etc... and that requires for tough decisions(it would for me at least). As far as the guns. I am all for teaching early and often. As far as leaving guns available for kids in an emergency they would have to be a teenager and I would have to know without a doubt they were ready for it. You have to remember kids act differently when alone. I would put him/her through a series of test some they knew about but most of them they wouldnt know about. Its a tough tough decision. IMO there are plenty of other things that can prevent stuff like in that story that have nothing to do with guns like having the alarm(less motion) on when they are home alone and having a safe house.

merk
January 18, 2006, 12:34 PM
The Carpenter family story is tragic, but it does raise a question for me: how many THR members would feel comfortable, law or no, with giving children of the ages described, unsupervised access to the gun safe? How have you discussed it with them?


Ive had access to my shotgun since I got it when I turned 13. Hell, it was in its case in the corner of the room. I guess my parents knew I wasnt a stupid kid I guess. I dunno.

Now ive got my gun cabinet in the corner with my shotgun and two rifles and access to about 3000 rounds of ammunition. Even before I turned 18 I had my .22 and shotgun in my rooms with over 1000 rounds of ammunition for any given gun, though I didnt keep the magazines loaded for the .22, ive got one un-chambered shell in my shotgun.


Ya know...Just in case.....



Blah, strayed off, sorry about that.

Thats a damn sad story.

TallPine
January 18, 2006, 02:36 PM
Were the 12 year olds of 50 years ago so much more wise than the 12 year olds of today?
To some degree, "yes" - because of the way they were and are raised.

Kids in the "good old days" generally had more responsibilities thrust on them at younger ages, because it required the efforts of all family members past infancy to survive.

I heard that when Laura Ingalls Wilder originally submitted her "little house" books to the publisher, that she was told that it would have been impossible for her and her sisters to have done the things they did at such young ages :rolleyes: . So she modified the series so that one of the moves was completely left out (a couple years' time period) so that the girls would be "older" in the first book(s).


Maybe it would just be simpler to have a law that you have to lock your kids up in padded room ...? :p

joab
January 18, 2006, 05:57 PM
To some degree, "yes" - because of the way they were and are raised.
From the time I was in 4th grade I had chores as did my sisters.
When the parents got home from work the chores were expected to be done and home work if not done was to be at least started.

If yard work was needed I was expected to do it without being asked. If home repairs and auto work was needed I was the helper without discussion.

If mom wanted something from the store a half mile away I was expected to go without complaint.

My 15 year old is expected to not tie up the phone line with his computer, not play the Playstation too long and not go to "those" site on the computer. He usually fails all of these tasks with impunity.

His mother took him to the movies after working on her feet all day and they ate at the food court. She asked him to go get the food order when it was ready.
He refused because his hair was not perfect and he didn't want his friends to see him like that even thoguh he was "starving"
She finally got up to get the food, threw it in the trash and walked out and left him to find his own way home(2 whole miles).
It's the first time she ever stood up to him.
Then she called me crying because she might have hurt his feelings.
This is typical of how his friends parents act toward their children

That's the difference between how kids were and are raised

It took me about a half hour to find him and hurt his feelings a little more:)

pax
January 18, 2006, 06:01 PM
Whose 15-year-old, Joab?

pax

V4Vendetta
January 18, 2006, 06:06 PM
"His mother took him to the movies after working on her feet all day and they ate at the food court. She asked him to go get the food order when it was ready.
He refused because his hair was not perfect and he didn't want his friends to see him like that even thoguh he was "starving""


Jerk. Kids like that give kids like me a bad reputation. :cuss: :fire:


"She finally got up to get the food, threw it in the trash and walked out and left him to find his own way home(2 whole miles)."

Good girl. 2 miles isn't that far to walk home though. Maybe next time she could drive to a food court in Canada.:evil:

joab
January 18, 2006, 06:08 PM
Ours?

She lives with him and gets last say really only say, should have specified that she was my ex.

He doesn't act like that around me, he tried once

pax
January 18, 2006, 06:13 PM
Gotcha -- that does make a difference.

Didn't really mean to sound like I was getting on your case.

pax

V4Vendetta
January 18, 2006, 06:17 PM
I was a saintly youth. I lived on a farm with pigs, chickens, horses, cows & a goat. Not that we had to have these animals for a living, my dad just liked to have critters around the house. I told him to get a dog. But I still helped with the animals anyway. I worked hard for 3 days building my mom a wooden deck the way she always wanted. The chickens then crapped all over it. I told my dad then that either the chickens go or I do. He then got rid of the chickens. Then he got pigs. I helped set up the fencing, I fed them, I watered them, I rounded them up & got them back in their pen when they escaped which happened ALL THE TIME!!!!! Then 3 of the 4 pigs had 40 piglets each. They all escaped. :eek: Have you ever had to chase down a herd of 120 piglets through woods, briars & flies??? They ran all around the neiborhood reeking all kinds of havoc. They uprooted one lady's entire backyard. We finally caught them & turned them into bacon. Now my dad has horses. I hate them equally. But my point is that no matter how much I detest doing these things, I always helped. I did 85% of the work with the critters & got 10% or less of the profits. THAT, is love.

The Real Hawkeye
January 18, 2006, 06:19 PM
The problem is that the government has created the atmosphere where people feel that big brother is in charge of how you raise your kids. Everybody is worried that some social worker will be assigned to their case because a teacher reported that their kid is being abused because he doesn't have a television in his room and is made to do chores, which is stunting his social development.

CaCrusin
January 18, 2006, 06:39 PM
I had my own guns by the time I was 11. When I was 13, my parents took my newly adopted sister out of town as her sperm-doner father had gotten out of jail and had threatened to kidnap her. I was left with my younger brother and sister. I got a call from the jerk's mother saying that he had just fired a shot through there window and that she was calling the police. I went in to my room, took out my 1911 Government model and loaded it. I put the other kids in the center of the house, quietly watching tv, and waited for him to show up. I knew that if he came, I would shoot him.

I'm glad that I didn't have to do that, but knowing that I could changed me and, I think, for the better.

CaCrusin

The Real Hawkeye
January 18, 2006, 06:43 PM
I had my own guns by the time I was 11. When I was 13, my parents took my newly adopted sister out of town as her sperm-doner father had gotten out of jail and had threatened to kidnap her. I was left with my younger brother and sister. I got a call from the jerk's mother saying that he had just fired a shot through there window and that she was calling the police. I went in to my room, took out my 1911 Government model and loaded it. I put the other kids in the center of the house, quietly watching tv, and waited for him to show up. I knew that if he came, I would shoot him.

I'm glad that I didn't have to do that, but knowing that I could changed me and, I think, for the better.

CaCrusinWell said.

Old Dog
January 18, 2006, 06:45 PM
I can't agree that "the government" created the atmosphere where people feel that big brother is in charge of how children are raised. We did this to ourselves, and much of it was the result of the permissiveness and the outgrowth of the liberal movement -- and such things as the preachings of folks like Dr. Spock (not Mr. Spock), etc. Many parents of boomers, having grown up deprived during the depression or the war years, coupled with the advent of the working mom syndrome, bought into the new age of parenting concepts ... which ripened the atmosphere for the newly-enlarging government to step in. All part of the concept that no one is responsible for the own actions, no one is held accountable for anything; your misdeeds are always someone else's fault ... Hence the rapid outbreak of all the brandnew social services agencies heretofore unneeded in our society. WE allowed this to happen -- government didn't cause it.
The problem is that the government has created the atmosphere where people feel that big brother is in charge of how you raise your kids.Thing is, there are still outposts in this country where folks are oblivious to all this ... presumably, mostly rural areas, where local and country governments not only don't have the resources to monitor all the area's children, but also where the prevailing attitudes toward child-rearing might contain a bit more common sense ... Even in urban areas, there are many who don't understand the power the government has to intercede into their parenting -- until it happens to them, and then they're surprised by it all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Article: Have a kid, lose your guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!