Gun owners are shooting ourselves in the foot with our kids and not locking up guns

[ngnrd]

When I was growing up, my 5-year old brother lit my grandmother's house on fire. He found a lighter (I don't recall where) and started a fire in the sewing room. And, when I was in Junior High school, I was playing with wooden matches on the way home from school and unintentionally lit a neighbor's field on fire - torched 10 acres and got darned close to burning down their house before the fire department got it under control. Yet, curiously, I don't recall anybody calling for matches or lighters to be locked in a safe.

 

[PaisteMage]

For the record my kids are this age.

THe oldest has seena nd knows what a firearm is. He also knows he getsa "bad spank" if he touches or even comes in a few feet of them, if I am not around.

Does he come into contact with them when I am not around, No.

Do I leavve my AMAZING gp100 laying around loaded, on the floor with his legos, No.

Yes, Sam1911, totally is correct.

 

[Sam1911]

Yet, curiously, I don't recall anybody calling for matches or lighters to be locked in a safe.

REALLY? You don't eh? You've never heard the warning, "keep out of reach of children?" You didn't notice that (almost) all lighters now come with safety devices specifically to make it harder for kids to do those things?

You and your brother BOTH accidentally nearly burned down houses and you don't freaking think it's a good idea to do your best to keep those out of kids' hands?

(Of course, as a high-school kid you were really out of the range of "accidental" and of behavior you were too young to understand. Stupidity will always be a factor no matter the age, but that doesn't argue against helping protect kids when they're too young to understand consequences.)

This discussion is a little surreal.

 

[WardenWolf]

The six year old who accidentally killed his little sister is an example of GROSS parental negligence. The parents treated the gun as a toy, and let the kid have access to it and play with it when not under strict supervision. They let the kid think of it as a toy, as well, and it leads to a tragic incident. It was wholly preventable.

If you get a young kid into shooting, you need to teach him, first and foremost, that while shooting a gun may be fun, it's not a toy, and you cannot "play" with it. Also, at that point, any actual toy guns in the house need to be removed or turned to a training role. You cannot have any more play with anything that represents a gun at that point.

 

[ngnrd]

Sam, take a breath. The way your rant is going, I half expect to read "if it only saves one child" in your next post.

The OP was using recent tragedies to try to shame gun owners into locking up their firearms if there are children in the household. Simply put, while I think gun safety is important, I disagree with the premise that they should be locked up. And, as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread is saying it's appropriate to give a loaded firearm to a toddler as a toy.

But, putting a warning on a lighter, or trying to make it "childproof", isn't the same thing as keeping it locked in a safe, either. Guns come with warnings and safety devices, too. Heck, most plastic bags even have warning labels these days. And even though I wouldn't give a child a plastic bag to play with, I don't think there's anybody on the planet that thinks they should be locked in a safe. So... why the call to lock up the guns?


And, for the sake of clarity, I said the field burning was unintentional, not accidental. There's a difference.

 

[fastbolt]

It DOES happen and it CAN be so easily avoided. We need to stop acting like we can't learn anything from others' mistakes.

Absolutely. Really. How is this arguable?

I grew up around firearms, as many Americans of my generation (baby-boomer). I recall being taught to shoot my first gun about age 5 years.

I started using a gun safe when my kids were toddlers.

When they were old enough they were each trained in gun safety, and not allowed to handle any firearm unless I was present to supervise it. I tried to satisfy their natural curiosity about firearms when I was present to supervise, but the guns remained secured the rest of the time.

In a similar vein, later on when we lived in a house with a pool, we didn't allow children in the pool area without adult supervision, and the pool area was fenced.

We didn't leave our first grand child alone in the bathroom when the bath tub was filled, whether or not she was even in it at the moment. Adult presence & supervision.

Anyway, one of my children grew to enjoy shooting firearms, and one didn't. Their choice. They both know enough to be safe around them, too.

The thing that really concerned me regarding the presence of children and my firearms (meaning not having them secured) in our house was the possible presence of the children of other parents, either friends of our children over to visit/play, or children taking music lessons from my wife. My firearms were secured.

Things remain the same now that I have grandchildren. Unless a firearm is securely on my person, they're secured so little fingers can't get at them.

We've been seeing the children of LE involved in the same sort of tragic & horrific firearms injuries & deaths as the children of non-LE citizens.

This is a problem. Responsible owners (and users of issued weapons) ought to take those prudent stops to prevent unauthorized access to firearms. Specifically when it involves minors.

Some states have enacted laws in this regard.

This is a large enough problem that it's very likely we're going to see increasingly more laws occur at the level of the states.

 

[ngnrd]

Furthermore, although it appears that somebody neglected to remove a live round, the gun was actually locked.

Tragic? Yes.
Avoidable? Yes.
Gross negligence? Debatable.
Justification for a call to lock up all the guns in homes with children? I just don't see it.

The child safety lock was in place and operational, White said. Officials believe a shell had been left in the weapon from the last use and no one realized it.

 

[Bobson]

Perhaps if everyone taught their kids about guns from day one, like they do anything else that might harm them, we'd have less of this.

Agreed. My daughter is only a few months over two years old, and she recognizes guns and knives just as well as she recognizes Mickey Mouse and the Little Einsteins kids.

Just like she knows what happens if she touches a match ("It's hot!"), she knows not to touch guns (It's boom!") or knives ("It's sharp!") without mom or dad supervising. That said, all my guns are either locked up, or in a place she can't get to, or both. And yes, she already has begun her introduction to shooting, and loves it.

 

[gspn]

As a nation of gun owners, our average knowledge of basic safety and marksmanship is WOEFUL. Worse than woeful. There are few ranges to practice at and they tend to be extremely expensive. Respect comes from knowledge and knowledge comes from use. Locking guns up is good and sometimes essential, but mystery breeds curiosity. And curiosity can be fatal.

Always assume the young one WILL repeat WILL find the iron. They always seem to find that gun, no matter where you squirrel it away. I liked the rule, I think it was Finn Aagaard's, that the kids can shoot any gun in the house but had to ask first. They learn, they see, and they learn to respect. Otherwise the thing is just a mysterious totem practically screaming to be picked up and played with.

Dude...great post!

My kids are great with the guns. They've been taught properly and early. They shoot a lot and they are very safe with them. Like you say...the "mystery" has been removed.

My kids friends however...I don't know their level of gun safety/knowledge at all. I'd be surprised if any of them have ever seen a gun. THAT is why my guns get locked up in a safe. I'm not worried about my kids messing with them...it's the kids I don't know that are the potential problem.

I can recall when I was a young kid...we didn't have any guns in my house. I had a friend or two who did have guns and I can tell you that your statement is spot on about kids finding the iron. I can recall several times when their parents weren't home and we peer-pressured him into letting us "see" the guns. Well "seeing" turned into "holding" and "holding" turned into "aiming".

If his dad hadn't had the foresight to put trigger locks on them there's no telling what we might have done.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Furthermore, although it appears that somebody neglected to remove a live round, the gun was actually locked.

What am I missing?
How do we know the gun was locked?
And if it was, how was a 5-year old able to get it?

 

[ngnrd]

Paul... Did you read the story linked in the original post? ... paragraph 7.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I will go back and read it more carefully.

It does indeed say that the child lock was in place and operational.
Obviously the 2nd part of that isn't correct, or they have a really loose interpretation of the word "operational".

 

[roadcoder]

You haven't met my kids. I'd be doing you a favor if I left them unlocked.

 

[Sam1911]

Furthermore, although it appears that somebody neglected to remove a live round, the gun was actually locked.

Negative!

Read it again:

The child safety lock was in place and operational, White said. Officials believe a shell had been left in the weapon from the last use and no one realized it.

It was present and operational.

It was NOT actually locked. As I said before, the gun had to be loaded and manually cocked (by an adult) in order to be fireable. Locking it would have been rather a wise idea.

As would not leaving it loaded, and not cocking it so it could not have been fired at all!

 

[Arkansas Paul]

^ That makes sense. It doesn't say it was engaged, only that it was in place.

 

[hariph creek]

I lock 'em up (besides what's on me). I trust my kids. They have been educated and shooting since they were little. There's no "forbidden fruit" fetishism. Some of their friends don't have the same background, though.

Plus these are valuable and portable. Theft concerns me (not from family or house guests).

Anybody that thinks that hiding their guns is effective? Clearly has forgotten what mischief an unattended child can get into.

Any legislation to lock up guns is a bad idea. You can't legislate common sense or safety.

 

[ngnrd]

It was NOT actually locked.

My assumption that it was locked is just as valid as your assumption that it was not.

The quote "in place and operational" lead me to my assumption.

The fact that the gun fired lead you to yours.

In reality, there isn't enough information in the story for a reader to make a definitive determination either way.

I am saddened by the deaths of these children, and I sympathize for the parent's loss. However, I stand by my earlier statement. Although I can understand the emotional reaction to tragic events such as these, there is no justification for a call to lock up all the guns in homes with children present, any more than a call to lock up plastic bags or lighters would be justified if a child died from suffocation, or from a fire.

Guns are not toys any more than are lighters or plastic bags. Each of these objects are wonderfully useful tools when used properly. All of them can be mortally dangerous when not used properly. It is the parent's job to teach their children the difference.

 

[xfyrfiter]

I grew up with loaded guns in the house , accessable to me and my three younger brothers. We all learned at a very young age that guns can kill, because we were eating some of that bounty at nearly every meal. We also learned that the guns were not toys, and were not to be touched, except to use for practice, or to put food on the table. My two sons were taught the same way and there was never an AD, or UD in my or my childrens lives. There is gun safety and then there is child safety and with the right mindset and training there can be both. It is a pity that children can be raised with little of either, as there is today.

 

[Hacker15E]

The implication in the OP's post, and the the associated discussion about the kids shooting the Cricket, is just about as moronic as blaming all gun owners for Aurora, Columbine, or Newtown.

There are lots of us that keep our firearms safely and train our children well. Because a couple of idiots are poor parents, that is not the fault of the millions of other firearms owners who do so safely.

Just like we blame the shooters for the atrocities, let's also lay the blame for incompetent firearms handling at the feet of the incompetent firearms handlers.

 

[gamestalker]

I'm all for accident prevention, but it doesn't have to require locking my loaded guns up. In fact, I view that as the worst possible way of accomplishing such. I raised 6 children, and I never had to lock my guns up, simply because I educated them from day 1. Now that all of them are grown up, with their own children, I have asked them if any of them ever picked up a gun when my Wife and I were not home. The expected, and quick answer was, absolutely not, not even once.

The first thing I did in teaching them at early ages, was to expose them to the loud report from the guns. Not from a distance that would harm their hearing, but in such manner that they would know it wasn't a toy. And at every opportunity my wife and I would take them out and let them see what happens to an animal when it is shot, blood and guts really sends a lasting message. We also took them out shooting, as soon as they could walk. Although it required us to help them handle the firearm, it showed them first hand what it does when the trigger is pulled. When they reach 3 or 4 yrs. old they had already killed their first animal, usually a rabbit. Nothing speaks louder than first hand experience, in this respect. We would take the firearms out regularly in the living room, and then have them practice safe gun handling, have them clear it, while keeping it pointed in a safe direction, and then hand it to their brother, or sister, who would then follow the same routine. My kids would actually have contests, under mine or my wife's supervision of course, completely breaking down the 870's blind folded, and then reassembling them. It just makes sense if you own firearms, to remove the curiosity at an early age.

I remember one of my boys (8 yrs. old) came home from a friends house one afternoon very upset. Before I could ask him what was wrong, he told me I needed to call his friends parents right now, and tell them that the kid was playing with his Dad's guns and ammunition. He said he left the second he saw his friend come out of his Dad's room with a handgun, and a box of ammo.. I always trusted my children around guns, and with good reason. Now when my Grand Children come over they are exposed to loaded guns in my home, and they don't even look at them. They have been raised with the same education and awareness of firearms, I raised my children with. It works 100% if done correctly. I also sent my kids to gun safety classes, but you can't totally rely on what someone else teaches your kids, regarding as to what, and how, you teach them.

I get just as upset when I hear about accidental shootings by children, but I don't view locking guns up as the solution. Unless you expose, and educate your children about firearms, they will always have that deadly curiosity, that is what gets them killed!

GS

 

[splattergun]

I think we're missing something.
We are discussing training your child vs. locking up the firearms. The fact of the matter is, either way, it's the parents' fault when 5 year old children get loaded firearms and shoot people. You want to say it's a training issue? Fine, the parents are at fault for not training their children. You want to say it's easily accessible firearms regarding small children? Fine, it's the parents' fault for making the access so easy.
Bottom line, when a 5 year old kills someone, it's more than likely the fault of the parent.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[gamestalker]

I just wanted to add one more element to my already long reply. My wife and I did not buy toy guns for our children to play with. Toy guns contradict safe gun handling in every respect, in my opinion. The closest thing to a toy gun our kids ever knew, was a pellet gun. And they treated them no different than a real firearm when hunting, and target shooting. And they applied the same rules to them, as a cartridge firing gun while they were home alone, hands off!

GS

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I do not accept responsibility for what another does/does not do with their firearm

"Gun owners are shooting ourselves in the foot with our kids and not locking up guns"
*some* Gun owners are shooting *them*selves in the foot with *their* kids and not locking up *their* guns

 

[beatledog7]

I live alone, so none of my firearms are within reach of a child. When my daughter (17) is on the premises, she knows how to treat them. She has handled and knows how to safety check each and everyone of them, and has fired more than a few of them.

There's not a way in the world she'd touch any of them in my absence unless she was in the house alone and the need for SD arose. She knows where the loaded ones are, and she knows when and how to use them.

I readily grant that there's a huge difference between a 17-yr-old girl and a single-digit-yr old boy. (When my daughter was that age I was not a gun owner, though I would have been had I been as aware as I am today.) But as I posted on page 1, there is no standard safety rule about locking guns away. There is one about keeping them unloaded until they're to be used (NRA #3), and following that one would have saved the life of this little girl.

Let us not forget that in many nations gun owners must by law keep all guns locked away, and in some places they can't even have them in their homes. If we insist on lambasting gun owners who choose to solve the issue of children and firearms in a way other than locks and keys, we are headed down that path. Woe be unto us if we let that happen.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If we insist on lambasting gun owners who choose to solve the issue of children and firearms in a way other than locks and keys, we are headed down that path. Woe be unto us if we let that happen.

If we don't lock up our guns and nothing bad happens, everything is fine. But if we don't lock up our guns and something bad happens like happened in Florida or Kentucky, the incident could have been prevented by having the guns locked up.

Yes, we know that it can be desirable to have a loaded gun immediately available. We deal with that concern by my keeping a gun on my person or in a lock-box.

We have several lock-boxes around the house. They can be opened using a key-touch combination code. They are mechanical so don't rely on power or batteries. They can be quickly opened without looking. They are not easily visible but are easily accessible if one knows that they are there. They are bolted down and thus not readily moveable. Each contains a loaded gun, extra ammunition and a Surefire flashlight. They weren't terribly expensive. In this way, we have a loaded gun easily and quickly accessible to either my wife or me wherever we might be in the house. But the gun is not readily accessible to anyone else.

Keeping guns locked up will substantially reduce the risk of something like what was described in the OP happening. We can do that without impairing our ability to respond to an emergency.

Why are we so resistance to reducing unnecessary risk to innocents?