OMG! Guns Without Locks! In KY Houses! With Children!

I would NEVER recommend that anyone EVER keep a unsecured loaded gun in a house with children. I believe that all guns should be either on your person or locked-up. Nighttime bedside duty? Quick access safe. But who cares what I think? As long as it doesn’t affect me, what people do or keep or say in the privacy of their home is their own business. What? Think of the children! OK, let’s think of the children . . .

Almost half of all adults in Kentucky have firearms.

A recent poll conducted by the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky showed that 45 percent of all Kentucky adults reported having a gun in their home.

Of that total, 20 percent say they keep their guns loaded and without a lock or safety device on it.

Thirty-nine percent of those homes that have guns but no locks on them say their are children present in those homes.

And their [sic] you have it, via wtvq.com. Or, more directly, click here for the study.

The Census Bureau pegs the Bluegrass State’s 2011 population at 4,369,356. If this study’s methodology is sound, I make that 1,966,210 Kentuckians who admit to a stranger report having a gun in the home. Using the twenty percent stat, 393,242 residents leave firearms locked and loaded.

Thirty-nine percent of that number gives us 153,364 parents or guardians living in Kentucky with both children and unsecured, locked and loaded firearms in their abode.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of accidental firearms deaths for Kentucky kids (from zero to 19 years of age) in 2005 was . . . two. Even if you assume both deaths occurred in homes with unsecured, locked and loaded firearms, the practice seems pretty safe to me. Again, not recommended. But it seems we have other things to worry about . . .

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

104 Responses to OMG! Guns Without Locks! In KY Houses! With Children!

  1. avatarcaffeinated says:

    Funny. That’s how my brother and I grew up. We never shot anyone nor did we shoot ourselves. Maybe if education focused a little on firearms education, the world would be a safer place. Currently (and when I was in school) fear-based avoidance rather than safe firearms handling is on the curriculum.

    • avatarMorningDeuce says:

      Funny…my upbringing was sort of a mixture of the two (fear-based avoidance and safe firearms handling). Growing up in a hunting, gun-friendly family, they were all over the place. Most of them were locked up in a gun cabinet, but others were scattered throughout the house in various cupboards and whatnot.

      When we were little my dad always told my brother and I that they were very dangerous and to never touch them unless he was with us. As we got a little older, he began teaching us safety rather than blind fear. We were well educated in safety before the hunter’s safety course at 12 years old. It seemed to work for us.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        That’s nearly identical to how I grew up minus the hunting part. I didn’t start hunting until in college. I remember taking a firearms safety course sometime in early middle school.

        It’s really too bad society feels fear is a better tool than education. It’s not just isolated to firearms, but seems infect every part of popular culture.

  2. avatarHeadoftheholler says:

    If not mistaken we also led the nation in gun sales last year. Here in Kentucky firearm ownership is a tradition we have always held dear to our hearts. Can’t tell you how many silver headed church ladys would hand me candy out of thier purses and I would catch a glimpse of a small pistol next to the bag of candy.

  3. avatarChas says:

    I have a confession to make: My brother and I were taught how to safely handle firearms when we were young. Dad was a hunter and collector, and had a wooden gun cabinet in the den. Most of the time he left them unlocked and unloaded. One day when he was at work, and Mom was at the grocery store, my brother and I (who were old enough to be at home alone) decided that we would play cops and robbers with real guns, so we each took one of Dad’s long guns from the cabinet. I chose a 12 ga shotgun, and, because we had been taught gun safety (maturity is another matter) I pointed the muzzle straight up as I pulled the trigger (never mind that I did not clear the chamber). Nothing happened, so I pumped it once and pulled the trigger again, still pointing the muzzle straight up. You guessed it – BLAMMO!!! Punched a hole through the ceiling all the way through the roof. The worst part was waiting for Mom and Dad both to get home, but they were so glad that neither of us was hurt that all I got was a 2-week grounding. The point is that, while what I did was SUPREMELY STUPID, had I not been taught one of the most important rules of gun safety, never point your weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy, my brother might not be alive today.

    Education and demonstration are the most important elements of gun safety when it comes to your children.

  4. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Yet another case of a bunch of public policy “experts” blathering on about (whatever) in order to justify their useless jobs. For the children, of course.

  5. avatarAnonymouse says:

    Actually, thats NOT very safe: That’s one fatality per 75K households by your criteria (assuming the two fatalities per year are in the ‘didn’t lock the gun’ households). Which is probably way more than the odds of at-night occupied breakins on said households.

    (I don’t know the statistics for break-ins in Kentucky but I know where I live, and its less than 1 per 75K households per year)

    LOCK YER DAMN GUNS!

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      That has more to do with kids being curious and never being taught the safe handling of firearms. Pop culture has used a fear based avoidance program rather than a safety based education program as a solution to the existence of firearms. Educate every man woman and child. It doesn’t just end with firearms.

    • avatarMadDawg J says:

      Are at night occupied break ins the only time you would ever need a firearm in Kentucky?

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      Want to know the odds of any given nuclear power plant in the United States having a LOCA (loss of coolant accident) in any given year? 1 in 70,000, as calculated by the NRC. Clearly, we have more pressing matters to worry about than unlocked guns.

  6. avatarT says:

    Just because it is doesn’t have a lock and is loaded doesn’t mean it is not secure, i.e. out of reach of small hands……..

    “A Kentuckian kneels to none but God”

  7. avatarPaul says:

    OK lets see here, train your child in firearm safety, teach them respect for a firearm, teach them how to shoot, how to clean etc. As opposed to listening to hysterical psychobabble about how any one that owns a firearm is a potential killer.
    My sons were taught safety, care, and how to shoot. Not once did they “play” with my firearms. Not once did they shoot anyone, and not once did they load a firearm until they were on the range. Yes I had loaded firearms in the house, and I still do. They are kept in a safe, only because where I now live, we have home invasions, armed burglaries, muders, etc.

    When I was kid Vegas was run by the mob, and was a safe place to live. It has since been taken over by the leftist anti crowd, and is very dangerous. I would rather have the mob back in, the touchy feely anti’s who rob you through taxes.

  8. avatarChris Mallory says:

    I am a proud Kentuckian. I grew up in a home with unlocked, loaded firearms. At the age of 12, I had firearms and ammo in my room that I could use unsupervised when I wished. My daughter is almost 7. She owns a BB gun. She has been told that she is not to touch “Daddy’s guns”. I took her outside and let her watch me fire a couple rounds. The damage to the watermelon and the noise and recoil of the round going off made an impression on her. She is a very responsible kid. I haven’t had to spank her in at least two years. She knows and understands that even touching one of the guns will lead to “being grounded and my butt busted”.

    To repeat what a poster upthread said, I bow to no one but God. I even refuse to stand when a judge walks into the room, since standing can be a form of worship and I worship no man.

  9. avatarvirtualjohn says:

    I grew up in Texas. My Dad was a Game Warden with Texas Game and Fish. I don’t know that I learned the four Rules per se as a child, but my earliest memories are being told: ‘All guns are loaded. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to have dead. Guns are a tool just like a knife or axe. They can kill or hurt you or others. Treat them with respect.’ I was hunting with my Dad and older brother by five. What I remember being told the most then was: ‘Don’t slam the door. and Hush! Be quiet.” I already knew about guns by then, I didn’t know how to be quiet, apparently.
    I understand all kids can’t grow up today hunting and fishing, but if folks really want to do something about ‘gun violence’ they should teach their kids about guns starting as young as possible. I don’t believe schools should be taking the place of parents, but teaching kids about guns in elementary school would be more useful than a lot of the crap they’re teaching them today.

  10. avatarParthenon says:

    I’m all for people locking up their guns. Unfortunately courts have a tendency to interprete these laws in asinine ways in order to secure convicions in self defence cases. Not only that; law makers seem determined to make violating such laws felonies, thus denying people their right to vote or own a firearm.

    The tinfoil hat in me suggests that this is was the point all along.

  11. avatarMadDawg J says:

    The rate of violent crime per 150k people in Kentucky (via FBI crime stats for 2011) is 364. That is 182 times more likely to happen than an accidental shooting death to a child.

    Is 2 deaths per year to many, hell yes. But is it an epidemic, no.

    Note, the study specifically states “unlocked” not unsecured. When my Nephews are around the gun I have concealed is not locked, but it is secured (plus they don’t know it’s there). Big difference.

  12. avatarDranomilkshake says:

    OMG! More opinion about guns! So, how in the hell are you going to defend against an intruder in your house if your weapon is locked up? Unloaded? Take some responsibility and TEACH your kids safe handling and to respect other peoples personal belongings and there wont be a problem. This was how i was raised, as a kid i had access to my dads firearms but i didnt screw around. He taught me respect and to take care and i have never once hurt myself or anyone else. This is the same gun controll crap i smelled when i read “Fps Russia irresponsible gun owner of the day”.

    • avatarMadDawg J says:

      “This is the same gun controll crap i smelled when i read “Fps Russia irresponsible gun owner of the day”.”

      Prey tell, what gun controll crap are you referring to?

      • avatarDranomilkshake says:

        Ok, now READ my comment in full. The answer to your question is contained within.

        • avatarMadDawg J says:

          No it’s not, that’s why I asked.

          The article ends with:
          “Even if you assume both deaths occurred in homes with unsecured, locked and loaded firearms, the practice seems pretty safe to me. Again, not recommended. But it seems we have other things to worry about . . .”

          That is not “gun control crap” and only one of the comments posted before yours said to lock up the guns and your comment was not posted as a reply to that post, so it is unclear what you are referring to.

        • avatarDranomilkshake says:

          I wasnt referring to the statement at the end of the article. The “what about the children” card followed by a list of statistics suggests that we should all lock up is responsible ownership practice then not saying word one about anyone teaching kids right from wrong about the subject, smells like bull to me. Seems like the kind of attitude that assumes laws and policies are what protect us and gun safes and lawyer locks teach safe handling and respect. If you dont agree then come out to california and maybe you will understand my sentiment.

        • avatarMadDawg J says:

          Ok, that’s what I was wondering and I did not get that from your original post. For clarification, the “what about the children” is a joke referring to the antis argument that screwing a million people is ok if it saves one child. Almost anytime you see that on this site (article or comment) it is meant entirely sarcastically and to debunk the anti-gun arguments. Also the statistics do not support locking up the guns, and I would be more than willing to bet that that was exactly the point of the article.

          This site is “home” to many of us gun loving smart asses, so you do have to crank up your sarcasm detector to max to fully keep up because some of us here use as much sarcasm as we do ammo each year.

        • You see, that’s what liars you are. It’s never been about “screwing millions” to save the children. We’re talking abour minor inconveniences, unless your a mental case of a gangster, you’ll continue to enjoy your fetish items all you want.

        • avatarMadDawg J says:

          FLAME DELETD

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          No it’s about freedom to make our own choices. Which also means the freedom to make our own mistakes. At THAT point, should a crime have been committed the government may intervene. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to do so without governmental interference. At least that’s how it SHOULD be.

        • Sounds pretty extreme to me. Are you saying that at home the gun should be on your person or locked up, but you don’t want the government legislating it?

          Are you saying there is no limit to what kinds of weapons you should be able to own?

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “fetish items”
          —–
          Busted. Welcome to TTAG, Dog Gone.

  13. avatarCitizenClark says:

    “I would NEVER recommend that anyone EVER keep a unsecured loaded gun in a house with children. I believe that all guns should be either on your person or locked-up.”

    How are kids supposed to go hunting on Saturday morning if they have to wake up mom and dad first? How are they supposed to help defend the family if they can’t access a gun?

    Lame…

  14. Robert said: “I believe that all guns should be either on your person or locked-up.”

    That’s exactly what I’ve said and generated a shit-storm of disagreement from the AI.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      I believe said shit-storm generally comes about due to some of your other ideas on gun control, but hey, who’s counting?

      And for the record, I disagree with Robert on this point.

    • avatarMadDawg J says:

      Mike,
      You said it should be law, Robert is stating it is a personal/family decision. That is a major difference, I agree that firearms should be properly secured at all times, but I adamantly oppose legislation requiring it due to the issues with our system.

  15. avatarRalph says:

    Lock up the children. For the guns.

    Or did I get that backward?

  16. avatarSanchanim says:

    Let me start by giving some personal opinions.
    1. Everyone should have a choice about how they store their guns, period. No new laws.
    2. I personally would never keep a gun unlocked in a house with children, period. Even if I felt they were responsible.

    Ok that being said, you might trust your kids to never miss handle your guns but what about their friends?
    In today’s world if a tragedy did happen, you would wind up in court and probably wouldn’t be able to finance a taco for the rest of your life. I am not saying it is right or wrong but it is the truth. Even if you didn’t commit a crime in civil court you would loose everything.
    Is keeping your guns unlocked worth that risk?
    Just something to think about.

    • That sounds great but what do you do about all those knuckleheads who feel like you do about not wanting laws but aren’t responsible like you are? Isn’t that exactly why we need laws to constrain as many of the reluctant ones as we can to do the right thing?

      • avatarMadDawg J says:

        So we are knuckleheads for not wanting more impossible to enforce, personal rights infringing, ripe to be abused laws? Way to resort to name calling rather then a logical and rational discussion.

      • avatarRalph says:

        what do you do about all those knuckleheads

        We can do what we’ve always done with knuckleheads — we ship them off to Italy.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Unfortunately that doesn’t mean they can’t troll across the oceans.

      • avatarJake says:

        they will be irresponsible anyway. Just like criminals will have guns even if guns are completely banned. Duh. Making a law is as effective as telling your looming mugger that what he is doing is against the law. It does NOTHING. You should seriously consider trepanation, it might help let out the dumb sauce clogged up in thurr.

        • avatarpsmcd says:

          I think trepanning has been poorly defined and maligned, but your advice seems sound.

        • “criminals will have guns even if guns are completely banned.”

          That’s probably true, about 10% of the ones who do now.

        • avatarJake says:

          Objection, wild and unfounded speculation based on no historical facts whatsoever. What happens when a petty dictator decides to outlaw guns? The disarmed people start dying of mysterious small objects entering their bodies at high speeds with alarmingly higher frequency. SHOCK.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Now where did THAT stat come from? Seriously Mike, you’re going to have to do better than just making shit up. As dozens of our readers keep telling you. You might want to consider the possibility that they’re right: arguments should be based on facts. Just sayin’.

        • I’m just using my head again and making my best judgment call.

          With proper gun control laws, criminals would not have the access to guns they do now.

          That’s the point. Sorry if there’s no survey to prove it.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          There’s no survey, study, or anything to prove it because it is a fallacy. We linked and posted time and again crime stats from governments with “common sense” gun laws as you put it. The only relationship is that there is more violent crime. Your only argument is “think of the children.”

        • That’s not at all what you’ve done. You’ve occasionally cited cherry picked data to support your already biased position. I’ve offered this:

          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/04/intentional-homicide-rate-whos-worse-uk.html

          If you had any sense you’d just shut up about it after looking at that damning statistic.

        • avatarJake says:

          You criticize people for cherrypicking actual facts just after admitting you use opinion, not fact. There’s a word for that, begins with an H

        • Bullshit, Jake. I offer opinions. I also offer stats, like that beauty about the intentional homicides US vs. UK.

        • avatarJake says:

          Technically, you offer nothing. You switch between fact and opinion as convenient, you appear to enjoy trolling for its own sake.

        • There’s no switching and there’s no trolling. I offer opinions and I back them up with common sense. Every once in a while I offer a statistical bit of proof. Then, of course, I have my theories.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Not only admitting to substituting OPINION for FACT, but the stats mikeb pulls also pile LEO actions, suicides, as well as justifiable firearms usage into the “intentional homicide” rate.

          I really love how he tells people to shut up and uses implied elitist insults to belittle people on this site when you back him into a corner. It shows the mentality we deal with. I know crack dealers with better manners.

        • avatarJake says:

          “With proper gun control laws, criminals would not have the access to guns they do now. ”

          This is false. Don’t whine about your little opinions, you can have all the opinions you want about the truck driving straight at you, it wont change the fact that it will kill you if it hits you. Criminals can get guns whenever and wherever they want, I know this causes you undue stress and extreme paranoia, be a man and get over it. For pete’s sake, you live in one of the birthplaces of modern organized crime and you want to tell me laws will prevent criminals from accessing weapons? Please.

        • You can keep ignoring what I’m saying and put your fingers in your ears are repeat over and over again, “Criminals can get guns whenever and wherever they want.” But, that won’t make it come true.

          Three main sources of guns which end up in criminal hands:

          1. straw purchases
          2. private sales
          3. theft

          My idea of proper gun control laws would dearly eliminate numers 1 and 2, and severely decrease number 3.

        • avatarJake says:

          Oh look it wants to play the repeat a falsehood in hopes it will be right the next time game. I love that game. I eat people who play that game for elevensies. Criminals. Will. Always. Have. Guns. I’m just gonna bow out and wish you luck with that paranoia, and hopefully therapy.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Oh great here we go again..

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Ok rather than name calling or some snide answer I will attempt to reply to Michael’s comment with some constructive thought.
        This is a long one!
        Then by all means ratify 2A directly.
        Here is my crux of the issue that I have.
        2A as it stands is pretty cut and dry. Yes you can discuss the validity in today’s world and so on to ad nauseam, but it is unchanged.

        The states, California is a great example, have created laws, from who can carry and who can’t, to what type of magazine capacity is legal, to what constitutes an assault weapon.
        Pretty much no one can carry, and I can’t even own a Barret 50 cal, not that I could afford one, but I don’t even have the option.
        What this has done is circumvent the federal laws, and the constitution. It has allowed local city and state bodies to set laws based on very little understanding to the final affect and most are based on FUD.
        What I personally believe is the states need to be wiped clean of all laws regarding gun control.
        If you want a registry, or laws concerning how we should carry, store, or own our firearms it needs to be done at the federal level. I am not discussing if this is right or wrong, but it puts the decisions back in the hands of those who can change the constitution. Yes there are purists who don’t want even this, but my point being is that all states, and representatives there in have input to shaping the legislation that affects all of us equally. This alone would prevent a vast majority of the idiotic laws getting passed at all.
        Why you may ask?
        This is a 14th amendment issue. Why is it, I as a law abiding citizen, am treated differently based on where I live. If I had a right to carry in Arizona, or why can’t I carry in California?
        The states and cities are in gross violation of the second and fourteenth amendment based on this theory.

        Another example:
        In California they have legalized medical marijuana. The ATF have raided various pot dispensaries and growing operations which by California law are legal but illegal under federal law.
        The politicians have remained silent to these raids because they know they can not supersede the federal laws. So they made it legal at your own risk as it were.

        I wouldn’t exactly decide based on that to carry a loaded weapon down my street. Even though under the constitution it is legal, but I wouldn’t have ATF lawyers at my side when I got arrested for it.

        Let me put this in context with out guns involved:
        Let’s look at 1A.
        this is from Wikipedia:
        “The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
        Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to each state. This was done through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has also recognized a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech.”

        So based on this, lets say a state decides to outlaw the open practice of Christianity, or say you can not talk about any public figure unless you have written consent from that person. In other states you can practice Christianity and say what you want but not in California.

        What do you think would happen?
        This Michael is exactly my point. You don’t have to love guns or even like them. We are a nation of laws, and under those laws there is order. The federal constitutional law states we have a right to keep and bare arms. It doesn’t say except a 50 cal BMG, or only guns with 10 rounds or less. It doesn’t even state I need a permit to carry a loaded weapon with me. Yet the states have gone out of their way to supersede the constitution even though many states including California have a law which recognizes the constitution above it’s own laws.
        Article III Section 1
        “The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

        All of us deserve and have a right to due process and equality. If the federal government sees fit to retract 2A entirely then so be it but at least it went through the proper channels and was done in a way that gives us all as citizens equal input, or at least input from our duly elected representatives.

        Anything less is an abomination to our rights, and the rights of all of us.

        Ok I will get off my soap box now…

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        2010 Population estimate for Kentucky: 4,369,356
        2010 Percentage of population under 18: 23.6
        Estimated population under 18: 1,031,168

        If the number of accidental firearms related deaths of children is relatively constant at around two a year, then that’s a rate of 0.19 per 100,000. That’s an extremely low number. Are we really going to make a law affecting millions of people on that basis? Especially when moving the number significantly is going to be basically impossible?

        What that means the only possible effect of the law is going to be to burden otherwise responsible people with more government regulation and oversight while achieving no possible public benefit. It’s feel-good lawmaking in its purest form.

        http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21000.html

        • Carlos, we should include all those who are wounded too. And while we’re trying to be fair, we should consider the ones who are narrowly missed (I know there’s no way of identifying them, but I’m just sayin’).

          Now, since the figure is not quite as insignificant as you tried to say, we should do something about it.

          We should require that irresponsible gun owners whose guns end up getting misused in these ways involving kids, lose their gun rights – but only the ones who are guilty of this gross misbehavior.

          Does that unfairly burden millions of people? I don’t think so.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        So a lot the states already have laws mandating gun owners to lock up their firearms. That really hasn’t stopped people from storing them accessible to their kids has it? A federal law would be no different.

        Irresponsible people will be irresponsible. There is no need to make more laws they will not follow.

  17. avatarDubya Bee says:

    How do you define “child?”

  18. avatarBig J says:

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I have a plan that would be very easy to put in place and very effective in cutting down both accidental gun deaths and gun crime. Make the purchase of a DOJ approved RSC (Residential Security Container) aka gun safe a tax deductable expense, up to a fixed dollar value once a year. Say you make the cuttoff $2500. You can buy a $1200 Cannon or Liberty and it’s effectively free. You can buy a $4000 Ft Knox and it’s effectively half price. Keeps the guns away from kids and prevents them from falling into the hands of burglars, which is how a large percentage of guns hit the black market. Two birds, one stone, no new laws passed.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Actually with out making it a requirement they should do that anyways! It is still your choice but nice to know there is an incentive.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      I’ve had that thought before, but here’s the rub: to take advantage you basically have to tell yet another federal agency, the IRS, you’re a gun owner. I’m not sure I like that.

      And technically, you would need to amend the tax code, so you would need a new law, but I know what you’re trying to say.

    • avatarRalph says:

      In MA, there’s no sales tax on gun safes. Isn’t that nice?

      Well, yes, but some gun safes are simply rebadged document safes, made in the same Chinese factory as the document safe, with no extra features except the “gun safe” label.

      I recently purchased a “regular” safe, which is identical in all respects to the gun safe sold under a different brand name. I didn’t get the 6.5% tax break, but I did pay 50% of the gun safe’s price.

      Both the gun safe and the document safe satisfy the Commonwealth’s requirement that guns be kept in a securely locked box when not carried.

  19. avatarTom says:

    My cousins and I grew up around guns which were unlocked and sometimes loaded.
    Cousin’s father was a Deputy Sheriff and had unlocked guns about the house.
    Grandparents had usually unloaded guns around the house.
    Great Uncle had loaded guns in the house.
    I was told not to mess with the guns unless I had adult supervision.
    I was shown what the guns could do.
    I was shown how the guns worked.
    I was taken out and had Grandfather help me shoot the .22lr.
    This was not a real problem.
    The guns were treated as an appliance, such as a lawnmower or any other mechanical device.

    • That’s a heartwarming tale. I guess it means you’re just a tiny bit smarter than all those kids who make the news every day. That’s between 5 and 10 a day, day after day, which I figure is just a fraction of the total. Yet, somehow you guys keep citing those stats which show much less than that.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        Starting with the underhanded elitist insults again? If you claim we are citing these stats then go ahead and link it.

  20. avatarTom says:

    I personally lock up all of my guns except one.
    I do keep the 870 accessible.

  21. avatarSoutherner says:

    “Gunproof Your Children” by Massad Ayoob

    Review below

    http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2002-3_gunproofyour.htm

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Actually pretty interesting article and I would have to agree with.
      Here are my reasons.
      1. My parents are very anti gun. Never owned one or even thought of having one.
      2. I spent summer camps shooting on a regular basis under the guidance of NRA instructors. We had to clean and maintain our guns, and we had drilled into us time and time again proper safety, and range etiquette, period..
      I also spent time with my uncle back east hunting, which also has some wonderful memories I will carry forever.
      3. When I was 18 I had my own firearms in the house. Ok, they weren’t locked as far as keeping kids from them but they were in east to access areas for home defense.
      4. I have always remembered my time when I was young with great fondness. Yes it was summer camp or hunting and all that goes with it, but to this day I never point a gun at anyone, ever, even while cleaning it. It feels abnormal to me.
      Of course I did my stint in the IDF I had to point guns at people but for some reason that felt different, I would never point it at someone in play or jest.
      I am not sure exactly why that is but what ever my instructors taught me so long ago it stuck, and in a great way!
      Just my own thoughts about teaching kids early about guns. It doesn’t turn them into gun fanatics, but if at minimum it teach them that guns can kill. They can be fun on the range and when you go hunting they are good, but they are not toys!

      I have stated in other posts and will state here. Our kids need firearms training in the schools at an early age.
      There are two thoughts here.
      1. The obvious teach them that guns are not toys, but to be respected, and fun two.
      2. The side affect to target shooting is self control! Controlled breathing, and calming one’s self to shoot. Ok seems silly but how many kids today are jacked up on drugs because they can’t learn to bring themselves into a calm state of mind and focus!
      To be honest that helped me a lot as a kid. I was a nerd, and it kept me from getting in a ton of trouble…

      • avatarMadDawg J says:

        “I have stated in other posts and will state here. Our kids need firearms training in the schools at an early age.”

        I have said that till I have lost my voice.

        The rest of your post is great too. I used to work summers teaching kids how to shoot riflery, skeet, and archery and I cannot even begin to count how many parents thanked me for how different their kids where after learning basic marksmanship principles. I worked mainly with children with ADD and ADHD and most of them had their grades improve and got in less trouble afterwards.

        P.S. When where you in the IDF? I got the pleasure of doing joint ops with with a couple of IDF units in the late 90s.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Well Maddawg, thanks for the response, I have to say that giving kids proper training is key, plus in training for target shooting they learn a little about themselves at the same time.
          I served in the IDF from 1992 through 1996. I was in division Givati, regiment almond, which is the direct translation. We were essentially marines with the purple barrettes, and had jump wings and scuba lungs for badges. Worked with Mikey at the sniper school near Jerusalem.
          i had a great time actually, but back in the states since 1997

        • avatarMadDawg J says:

          Then you where back here when I was heading out there, but I’d bet we know some of the same people. If there ever is a TTAG meet and shoot we should talk about the good old days and those who stood beside us.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          You know it.. :-)

        • The problem with all your emphasis on teaching kids at a young age is you often forget that the more important part is parental supervision. All the training in the world cannot replace that.

        • avatarMadDawg J says:

          If the children are properly taught to not play with guns that lessens the requirement on supervision. It has also been proven to work. Yes, parental responsibility of one’s own children will always be paramount, that’s called being a parent.

          The problem with all your emphasis for more laws against doing bad thing with guns is that it assumes the people already breaking the current laws will decide that breaking one more law is just too much. That has been proven to not work.

        • It’s been proven to NOT work too. You’re reading the wrong surveys.

          But why don’t you try a little common sense. Is it really safe to allow young children access to guns when you are not present to supervise them? Is that what you’re arguing?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Show us the proof then Mikeb. You’ve yet to show us any proof. You just troll.

          You are also twisting his words around. There is a difference between leaving firearms unsecured versus “allowing” your children to touch or access them without parental supervision.

        • Yeah, sure, the “difference between leaving firearms unsecured versus “allowing” your children to touch or access them without parental supervision” is the inquisitiveness of the child.

          Many kids, like you Armed Intelligentsia guys when you were kids, obey their daddys. But there are many who don’t or can’t, too inquisitive for their own good they are.

          I repeat, you cannot teach the kids about guns and then expect them to do the right thing if they are left alone with unsecured weapons. Your only hope is to NEVER allow kids to have access to guns except under proper supervision.

          Now tell me Oh Caffeiniated One, are you so contentious that you’re gonna argue with me on that? Admit when you’re wrong, c’mon it’ll do ya good. Look at what Robert did today, apologizing and all.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Your only hope is to NEVER allow kids to have access to guns except under proper supervision.”
          —–
          Funny thing about absolutes like “only”, “always” and “never”: they aren’t true.

        • What’s true then, Moon. Can kids be allowed access to guns or not?

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          How am I wrong when you have twisted what others have said on this board to suit your own arguments? The result of kids getting unsafely accessing their parents’ guns has more to do with bad parenting as previously mentioned.

          Where are the stats you were just talking about? Just one link that isn’t some homemade uncited-source in Excel if you would.

        • You know, I think we actually agree on this, about the bad parenting. Isn’t that the same as “lack of parental supervision?”

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          It’s not always the same, but I think we have common ground on the bad parenting. Unfortunately, the status quo is unlikely to change for the better when it comes to providing incentives for better parenting as opposed to incentives for having unloved children.

        • avatarbontai Joe says:

          I realize I’m giving in to feeding the troll, but I have successfully left kids in a house unsupervised with easy access to kitchen knives, a stove, firewood, aluminum baseball bats, screw drivers, pliers, hammers, power tools, tire irons, electrical extension cords, matches and candles and other stuff I can’t remember right now. But using your philosophy, all children can not be trusted alone with any of these things at any time, ever, until they are what? 25 years old? Because they will most certainly hurt themselves or others with reckless mayhem using any or all of these implements of destruction? So if I need to use the bathroom for 10 minutes, apparently I need to lock the children/young adults in an empty padded room with no wondows or electrical outlets or lights because they will most assuredly kill each other with the unattended teaspoons they can’t wait to get their grubby hands on once my back is turned? I sure am glad you were not my dad, and I hope you don’t have kids.

        • No, that’s not what I said. I said kids should not be left around guns while unsupervised.

          Why is it so hard for you to accept something like that?

        • avatarbontai Joe says:

          Because teaching kids to be responcible around guns is EXACTLY like teaching them to be responcible around kitchen knives, matches, hammers, etc. Why can’t you understand that?? Or would you propose restrictive legislation on hammers, screwdrivers, matches like you wish on firearms?

        • avatarChaz says:

          many parents thanked me for how different their kids where after learning basic marksmanship principles

          Recently I participated in my first Ruger Rimfire Challenge. There were eight or so youngsters 12 and under all accompanied by their parents. Everyone seemed to enjoy the activity. The young girls were better shots. Especially with the pistols the boys were into bang-bang-bang with less attention to details like careful aim! The girls took more seriously actually hitting the targets.

    • Yeah, gun proof your children and then hope for the best.

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        It works.

      • avatarJake says:

        Put a lighting rod on my house and hoped for the best. Stocked fire extinguishers in my kitchen and hoped for the best. Got a car with seatbelts and airbags and hoped for the best. All to prevent things more statistically likely than accidentally killing yourself with a gun. Unless of course they are statistics that you’ve lured into the back of your van.

  22. avatarSanchanim says:

    One thing I wanted to know that maybe Robert can answer.
    Do we know the circumstances behind the “two” deaths for 2005. Heck if we have numbers on injuries lets throw that in too.
    Life is precession I will not deny that. I love kids, I have nine myself.
    But seriously we need to understand that no matter how many laws you make or attempts to control others lives, people will be willing to take risks based on what they feel is normal or ok.
    It was like I said earlier. You may not have committed a crime, but if the tragedy involves someone else’s kid you will be owing them for the rest of your life.

    Ok you all can go back to ranting and raving now. :-)

  23. avatarSanchanim says:

    Ok I will follow up with another large yet sited post.
    Michael B doesn’t get it. I understand he wants gun control. My point being we know taking the guns out of responsible people who could have a CCW does not work!
    Does anyone have any numbers on:
    1. How many crimes are committed each year with guns made by straw purchase dealers?
    2. How many crimes are committed each year with guns which are stolen?
    3. How many crimes are committed each year with legitimate private sales?
    NOTE: I mean legit as the seller was not aware that the person buying the firearm was intending to use it to commit a crime?
    Please provide in per-capita ratio to 100,000 and also if possible provide a state by state break down.

    Unless these unbiased exact figures can be produced on a regular annual basis there is no logic to back up Michael’s statements.

    Here are some numbers as to why guns in the hands of the people works!
    A 1997 Justice Department report on murders shows that the US has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel’s murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life yet it has a murder rate of 2.7. Canada is yet another example of a country with widespread firearm ownership yet a relatively low murder rate of 1.7 as of 2003.
    Sited From: http://whatreallyhappened.wikia.com/wiki/AntiWar/ProGun

    In Switzerland, every draft-age male is required to maintain a firearm in his home, yet the Swiss murder rate is only 15 percent of the U.S. rate. An added benefit is that no foreign enemy has invaded Switzerland in centuries. Israel, which has the most heavily armed populace, has a negligible crime rate.

    But the record of strict gun regulations in other countries is quite dismal. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.
    Sited from: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp

    And from a gun grabber article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

    “The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year – 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state.”

    Oh and here is the kicker!
    Same article our gun free safe zone of Washington DC!
    “If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top – with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man, woman and child in the state. There were 99 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 12% on 2009″

    I could go on and on, but lets just say gun laws don’t work. We know this.
    To that end it is not the states right or place to create laws which infringe on 2A period, end of story. If you want regulation make it a federal thing, otherwise you are in violation of 14A.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.