To those of you who have firearms in your home for protection purposes, is that a real concern you have? Are break ins common? Is your home always locked when you are in it to protect yourself?
I'm asking truly for learning purposes, so I hope to come across as sincere and not stirring the pot. I'm Canadian and many people have hunting weapons etc., but our laws about obtaining guns are quite different.
We, SO and I, lock our apartment when we are home. However, our thought is that if someone wants to find a way in without our permission then they will. We will always assume they have malicious intent and will be ready to defend ourselves and soon our child.
@krisdee123 Yes, my family and friends that do have them do secure them and they do keep homes and vehicles locked. Most people I know have guns for hunting NOT self-defense. Yes, some people are concerned about defending themselves from other humans many rural communities often have higher rates of crime than you'd think.
However, in rural locations many people have them to defend themselves, pets or livestock from animals that are aggressive, have rabies or otherwise are posing a threat so not everyone that owns a gun for defense expects to need them for people--law enforcement wont always help with the the animal situation in the county, even if they wanted to they are frequently not staffed for it. I know many more people that would carry hiking in the woods than in public.
We also have a lot of people that only have weapons to hunt which is allowed in many other countries. However, the 2nd amendment is more about the scenario of police states than anything else.
We have our gun for peace of mind. My husband is gone quite often for long periods of time and also works extremely long days. He feels better knowing that I am protected because I'm home alone all day. The city we live in also has a crazy high crime rate. I'm sure everyone here has their own reasons for owning a firearm and from what I've read so far everyone has common sense about gun safety.
Let's say someone owns a gun for protection purposes. They are a responsible gun owner and keep their guns locked up at all times.
Now, someone breaks into your house. How does it work if you need to get your gun and bullets out of the safe if someone is actively breaking into your house? Not sure if you can politely ask them to hold on while you go get your gun.
How does this work?
Practice retrieving it and loading it. Magazine is full, usually, just not loaded into the gun. You know where it is, how long it takes you to get there from any point in the house. If an intruder breaks in, chances are you're going to hear it and have time to react. I think of it like a fire drill. In case of fire, where are your exits, what do you take with you? That type of thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Vernon_Murder This happened very close to my home in high school. I personally knew one of the killers as he used to sit outside my house every day waiting for his girlfriend. As a result, I never will be comfortable without being able to protect myself.
I would like to point out the the gun in this case was illegally obtained. Who knows if the father even had a license or had ever taken a gun safety class. Its unfortunate that people can't follow laws, but that's what happens. People who shouldn't have guns will find ways to get them and do.
The war on drugs and the prohibition are perfect examples why taking something away will not work. It is very sad that some people fail to adhere to their responsibilities that come with privilege of owning a firearm, but if someone is mentally ill they will find a way to hurt those who have "wronged" them. Felons will find a way to obtain weapons they are legally barred from being in possession of. A heroin addict will find a way to shoot up, a pill head will find a way to get a fix, a drug dealer will find a way to cook and sell. The issue is not the product, the issue is society.
I am glad the media is covering these incidents so well because there should be awareness raised for people to be more responsible. As a responsible gun owner and handler myself, I would very much like to see statistics of how many legal firearm owners commit crimes with their weapons vs the crimes committed with illegally obtained firearms.
In terms of wanting to see statistics, my biggest issue with gun policy in the US is that there are laws effectively banning the government from funding research studying gun violence. Basically, before the 90's a branch of the CDC that studies public health in relation to injuries would award grants to scientists studying firearms injuries including issues like how people committing crimes obtained their guns. It might sound weird for the CDC to study this but a lot of people do die or get injured from gun violence and they also study things like car crashes and other types of crime related injuries--most researchers get funding from the government. After a study found that people with guns in their homes were more likely to get injured or killed by a gun, the NRA lobbied for laws and funding cuts that basically stopped the CDC from funding any gun related studies. So even if we wanted to put the best researchers out there to study this (and maybe they'd find out what gun advocates are saying in terms of safety) they don't have non-biased government funding to study it (as opposed to funding from pro gun or anti gun groups which makes the research more likely to be biased). I'm getting a degree in epidemiology studying public health, and was told that it's really hard to study gun related violence because there is very little funding out there and whatever you find will bring a big public backlash.
Just putting it out there. It seems ridiculous to me and while I'm really not opposed to making people have to go through steps like gun safety courses etc before being able to obtain a gun, my husband enjoys shooting and is in law enforcement and we do have guns locked away in a safe at home. We've just seen the good and bad sides of gun issues and I feel like people on both sides of the issue should want to study what actually works instead of arguing with thin evidence either way.
When tragedy happens everyone blames the gun, mental illness, or the law. I believe the focus should be on the person and the safety of the situation. If we were to focus on gun safety there would be less shootings. For instance if that gun had been locked in a safe the child would not have been able to get it. If I keep my guns locked in a safe then if someone breaks in they can't steal them and sell them to other criminals or use them. If we stop blaming mental illness and continue reinforcing the stigma against those that need help then maybe more people will seek the appropriate help before getting to the point of desperation.
The people who commit crimes with weapons are not typically the people who will comply with gun laws.
The cities here in the US that have the strictest laws on obtaining a legal weapon also have the highest crime rates per capita, many of which are committed with guns.
We have a people problem it cannot be fixed with an attempt to create an access problem.
*edited to say that if anybody is legitimately interested in finding other ways to protect your home from break in, whether that be in addition to a gun or instead of a gun, feel free to PM me. I'm not selling or advertising anything. I just don't want my security secrets online ;-)
To those of you who have firearms in your home for protection purposes, is that a real concern you have? Are break ins common? Is your home always locked when you are in it to protect yourself?
I'm asking truly for learning purposes, so I hope to come across as sincere and not stirring the pot. I'm Canadian and many people have hunting weapons etc., but our laws about obtaining guns are quite different.
Break ins aren't very common where we are, and we do lock our doors while inside. We also have cameras to notify and record activity outside and inside of our house. We took a class and exam for our CHLs not only to have any firearms, but also to be educated on laws in the state of TX. Laws are different in each state.
You can look up Suzanna Hupp and the Luby's shooting. She lost her parents in the shooting, and since she was a law abiding citizen, her gun was in her vehicle in the parking lot. Leaving her helpless in the Situation. It is something that always stuck with me for sure.
There is nothing to stop the mentally unstable and criminals from obtaining weapons illegally, and there is also nothing to stop them from using these weapons against those who abide by the law. Yes, I pray that our guns will never fire at any living thing, but if someone or something were to come into my house and threaten our lives, you'd better believe I will do all I can to protect my family. That also goes for being out on the road, especially when we make our road trips to the hill country.
Married 05.19.07 | Together since 03.11.00 | Dom Born 02.06.12
Let's say someone owns a gun for protection purposes. They are a responsible gun owner and keep their guns locked up at all times.
Now, someone breaks into your house. How does it work if you need to get your gun and bullets out of the safe if someone is actively breaking into your house? Not sure if you can politely ask them to hold on while you go get your gun.
How does this work?
My personal set up, my front door is locked. At night, My bedroom door is locked (can't get to my daughter without going through my room. If an intruder comes in, they will undoubtedly make noise and before they can get into my room where I am, I can open the drawer next to me, type in 4 numbers and the safe pops open, exposing my gun. It's pretty quick, actually.
I would hold the parent/gun owner responsible in a situation like that, pintobio. Obviously the child did not walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm only to go on and shoot another child. I would be enraged with the gun owner for not securing their weapon, for not teaching their child proper gun safety - for allowing that situation to happen. At the age of 11, a child knows right from wrong. Other factors (such as poor parental supervision) were at play in that situation. It wasn't an "accident" - dad left a weapon within easy reach of a bully and then chose not to maintain control of either his firearm or his child.
I go back to what I said in my original post - with rights come responsibilities. I accept the fact that because gun safety in a home environment is entirely at the discretion of the gun owner that there is a risk (albeit a small one) that me or one of my family members could be involved in an accidental shooting. Just as I accept the ( much, much, MUCH higher) risk that we may be involved in a car accident while running errands on any given day (talk about people not living up to the responsibility of privilege - everyone on the road feels that they have the right of way, that their time is more valuable than anyone else's and pretty much EVERYONE owns or drives a vehicle whether they have the common sense of a gnat or can actually perform higher level thinking).
*edited because I went back and read the full article
A girl in my office yesterday was telling me how they did research on how many violent crimes are committed with legally obtained weapons. 1.5% so exactly how is making legal attainment harder going to fix the issue?
Considering my friends heresay comes from a research assistant whom I know exceedingly well I'm inclined to believe her research over an unsubstantiated article posted by qz.com. You are always going to find biased articles to support your point, I'm going to prefer articles produced by credible sources with valid statistics and disclosed biases and funding sources.
And I actually read all of the comments and notes that the articles that are being discussed the first one in particular were not about legally owned hand guns, that was an illegally obtained weapon. And as far as biometric safes, I didn't address that in this particular comment because that is proper management of a weapon, how difficult it is to obtain a weapon does not directly correlate with a persons safe containment of the weapon. When children are involved people whip into a frenzy and often find themselves unable to see the entire picture for the smaller parts.
I think character references to obtain a firearm is, honestly, kind of a non-starter. Character references are, by nature, very subjective. Sure, your gut feeling about that student panned out. I'm guessing, however, that his friends felt he was a stable individual (or why hang out with him in the first place?). And as another poster stated, how do you combat a negative review from a teacher or an employer who simply did not like you?
One step further - most serial killers are "normal" and considered nice people in their community.
One step even further - how does any of this apply to the issue at hand? Everyone seems focused on the horrors that occur when children get their hands on guns. Children aren't the ones buying the guns in the first place. Their parents (or family or friends parents) are the ones purchasing the weapons. The adults are the ones not practicing gun safety. The adults are the ones not supervising their children. I am all for holding the adult legally responsible for any death or injury resulting from improper gun safety - if your child picks up your unsecured, loaded gun and shoots themselves or someone else because you left it on top of a fridge or in the hall closet then YOU should be charged with the crime and YOU should be held responsible. I feel this rather than stricter gun control would actually do something to resolve the issue.
Something else I'd like to bring up: Another person made a comment about forty-something shootings by children were committed last year. Forty-something. Percentage wise, this number is insignificant. More children suffocate in cribs with blankets, smothered while co-sleeping and choke on toys/food that were not age appropriate every year (roughly over 100). If we intend to start stricter regulations on gun ownership because forty children were, sadly, involved in shootings why are we not federally regulating blankets, co-sleeping habits and age appropriate food/toy items in our homes?
I am certainly not saying that the gun control issue is solely focused on deaths and injuries involving children (even though it is tragic, honestly it is a small number in comparison to gun violence nationwide). I am just saying that quite a few of the arguments here are pointed directly at incidents and statistics involving children and as utterly tragic it is that any child would suffer from or be involved with a shooting, percentage wise we are not talking about staggering numbers.
Something you haven't touched on at all @pintobio is safety in smaller communities. In my situation can you image what would have happened to my daughter and I if I didn't have a weapon? It would really be a tough pill to swallow taking away what I consider to be my only protection.
Police response time in my town is insane back up from state police after that is even more then that. We are surrounded by other smaller towns and the nearest city is a good thirty minutes away. Could you wait 30 minutes for someone to come help you if you were threatened? I sure couldn't.
I, again, live in a very rural community. We have unruly animals with no animal control so let's just say there was a rapid animal in my yard where my children play....or threatening my dog. That's not a good reason to have a gun? Even if it's just to put an animal out of its misery or keep my daughter from getting hurt or even killed? Which is a very real reality for my area....
Our entire government is based on checks and balances. Federally the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branch keep each other in balance (by splitting power between about 600 elected or appointed individuals). However, another level in Federalism is the State also have the responsibility to protect citizens from the Federal Govt, if necessary. The 2nd amendment is a check and balance, which is why gun rights matter for citizens and States. Resistance to more control is because it tips the balance in the direction of the Federal government versus States and law abiding citizens.
Governments where the power becomes too centralized can accomplish a lot for evil which is why States and citizens are given the right defend themselves in the Bill of Rights, and why this right has recently been upheld in the Supreme Court. Governments with to much centralized power in the hands of a few have resulted in some of the most violent extremism the world has ever seen (i.e. concentration camps, internment camps, genocide etc.).
Which is why no one is arguing that gun safety is really important and that gun deaths are tragic. Many of the people commenting on this post are or have close family that are in law enforcement or the military--believe me when I say NO ONE understands the risks of guns like someone who puts their life at risk on the job like law enforcement or military members (or their families that live with that reality).
So, the 2nd amendment is about a lot more than the right to have a gun simply because you want too.
A fenced in yard is going to do NOTHING for a 200 pound black bear that wants to get into my yard and I am not attacking a bear with a baseball bat or a knife if it were coming after my child so we both would die. It would be completely pointless. Bears that want food or have there eye set on something don't scare easy. I want to shoot and kill him and protect my kids. If you want to try it that's on you but I've seen bears rip apart animals like they were a doll. I could never imagine them doing that to my child or my dog and standing there watching it all happen with my knife (that's just rediculous).
We have a home security system! It's a nice one actually. The problem is, if someone wants to get into your house they will. If someone wants something out here, they will take it. I know when your alarm goes off it notifies the police but again the response time is insane.
The person who DID break into my house had a gun but legally I have the right to kill him when he has absolutely zero rights intruding in my house. What would I do if he had a gun and I didn't? He would kill everyone in my house without a second thought but maybe just maybe he would think twice about his life that he has to lose when I have a gun too.
I personally am not a fan of panic rooms. Maybe for my daughter but I couldn't sit in my house when someone stole everything I've worked so hard for and I want to protect that...with a gun.
You can poke holes in anything but have you ever lived in a rural community? Probably not.
Character references from teachers are still subjective. As are employers. NONE of my high school teachers would ever have given me a glowing recommendation for anything. I didn't attend college, so difficult for anyone to give an honest opinion about who I am as a person other than friends at this point in my life. Military and government security clearances use friends and family as character references all the time so a friend is a valid person to talk with in that situation (and does not render my opinion moot).
Federal regulation is regulation - if you want to impose strict regulations on dangerous items over small statistics regarding children in one area, you need to cover ALL areas. One of the wonderful things about our country is the freedom of choice. With choice, you have to assume the majority of the population has the common sense to choose wisely. Some won't. Your options at that point are to regulate EVERYONE or allow for the fact that some people will make bad choices.
Individually those 42 children are, of course, important. As a percentage it is negligible. Sorry. That is just how statistics work. I don't want any children to be subjected to that but sadly, they are. No amount of regulation other than strict bans will eliminate that.
I'm not opposed to brief psych evaluations as part of an application for a gun but I am totally opposed to home visits/inspections. I should not have to give up certain freedoms to be able to exercise my rights as a citizen.
In regards to fingerprint technology: I purchase and register a shotgun for home protection and for protection against wildlife (I live in a rural area). This shotgun is coded just for me and my husband. Now I don't need to worry about my 3 year old getting mad at another child and shooting them for not showing them a puppy. I also don't need to worry about my mother shooting herself (who has come to watch my children overnight while I have baby #3 and goes out at 8pm to feed my horses and runs into one of the feral dogs who sometimes cause problems around here. Or maybe one of the bears or other large predators we deal with on a semi-regular basis). Nope, no worries for her accidently shooting anything at all since there is a worthless home defense weapon sitting in my gun safe. Maybe she should carry a kitchen knife or a baseball bat as another poster suggested?
I'm not saying I don't appreciate that you are looking for alternative solutions to something you feel is a huge issue, just that the solutions aren't really practical.
I will say, again, the real solution is to hold those who chose not to practice gun safety responsible. Just as we hold dog owners responsible when their beloved pet mauls someone or a drunk driver responsible when they plow into a van carrying a mother and her four children. You seemed to agree with that idea as well. I think it is a start and is more practical and more reasonable than stricter regulations.
My mother lives out of state. How would that work to add her? When she gets here it will be go time, not a lot of time for turn over/fingerprinting.
I recognize the 42 isn't the number killed, just the number of kids who shot a gun in a gun related death/injury. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
I'm not adopting a child. I'm purchasing a gun. You don't need to check out my home to see if I can own a firearm or not. What exactly are you looking for there? Proof that I have a gun safe? I can show you a receipt. I just don't like having the government in my home. Period. They just do not belong there unless I have done something wrong. Which I have not. I have nothing to hide, but it's a violation of my right to privacy.
As a high school student I identified as "Goth". I had abysmal grades and poor attendance. I also challenged the teachers quite often, though I never was aggressive. I never broke the law but I was treated like a bad/troubled youth because of my appearance, attitude and the company I kept. As an adult, I am not that person at all any more. I was self employed for many years as a horse trainer and riding instructor and then worked at vet clinics and animal shelters. I stopped working when I started having babies. I have no current employer (nor have had one in a long time). Friends and family is what I have got for references. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to have my shotgun to protect me and my children when my husband is gone? We legitimately live in an area where animal attacks are a concern. I have shot snakes here as well - we keep snake shot in one handgun designated for just that purpose. I don't want myself, children or my animals bitten by a copperhead.
If you couldn't find one teacher or employer to say anything positive about you, then I would be concerned about you having a gun, honestly. How could every single teacher or employer have a negative bias if you are a decent person? Friends are always going to give a positive reference, whether it is accurate or not.
Why would you be opposed to a house visit? When one adopts a child, these are required. I think that holding possession of a deadly weapon would be adequate reason as well.
I think holding people accountable is one step in the right direction (possibly for child shootings, but we won't know until that actually happens. And it's definitely worth a try). But it hasn't persuaded any other shooters to hold back yet. More needs to be done concerning federal regulations. And like I stated earlier- it's not 42 children who died. That was the number of toddlers who shot people. Let's get that fact correct
As far as fingerprint technology, say you could add more than one person to your household, as long as they go through the screening process? Is that too much to ask, as a safety measure?
Its not just not having a teacher to say something positive though. Some students are not memorable, do not stand out or have close relationships with teachers. What if you were homeschooled? What if you were fortunate enough to have never needed to work outside your home? Demanding those kinds of references is not realistic for every person. What if you had people who liked you, but were anti-guns and therefore refused to give reference?
I feel like this is becoming repetitive now. The original purpose of this thread was to talk about gun safety and not debate gun control. This thread was started to remind gun owners that they are going to have children in their homes and to take precautions. We had a thread once before and some users claimed their guns were not in a safe but out of reach. This is a reminder that out of reach is not how a gun should be kept.
By "go time" I meant that she is getting here when I'm in labor. I have health issues that require me to beat feet ASAP once labor begins so cannot just hang out until contractions become close together and I'm well into the active labor phase. So really I have enough time to say, "Here are the girls. Love you," to my mother as she walks in the door and we walk out of it. Not a lot of time for her to get her fingerprints set up on our gun(s). She lives far enough away that it would be impractical for her to come out here just to get set up with a gun. My last delivery we had enough time to pick her up from the airport, haul butt home and basically throw her and our then two year old out of the car before heading to the hospital.
And I am glad to hear that you are so open minded with your students. Perhaps if I had a few teachers who were as open minded as you my high school career would have been very different. My teachers were not so accommodating and I was labeled a problem before I did anything, mainly because of how I looked and the crowd I hung out with. Not all (or even most) teachers look much beyond what they see on the package. You are absolutely right that appearance does not speak to someone's character. Sadly, not many people feel that way.
We own two 9mm pistols and an AR in our household. DH has a concealed weapons license. Both pistols are loaded in biometric bolted-down cases that take either of us seconds to access on both levels of our house. The AR is stored in a bolted down full-on gun safe and is only used for target practice and as a hobby for DH. I actually shoot the 9mm's better than DH up to 100 yards. If they were not loaded they would be useless by the time we realized someone broke in. We learned this the hard way when we had a teenager kick down our front door and run up into our apartment while we're upstairs napping together a few years back (we since have bought a house). Our downstairs neighbor was a very vigilant retired cop and happened to be home at the time and heard what happened. He grabbed his gun and pulled it on the kid and held him there until police arrived. Had he not been home and done this who knows what would have happened because at the time we didn't keep the guns loaded. We sure do now but the biometric cases make it impossible for anyone else but ourselves to access.
Re: PSA- guns in homes
However, in rural locations many people have them to defend themselves, pets or livestock from animals that are aggressive, have rabies or otherwise are posing a threat so not everyone that owns a gun for defense expects to need them for people--law enforcement wont always help with the the animal situation in the county, even if they wanted to they are frequently not staffed for it. I know many more people that would carry hiking in the woods than in public.
We also have a lot of people that only have weapons to hunt which is allowed in many other countries. However, the 2nd amendment is more about the scenario of police states than anything else.
This happened very close to my home in high school. I personally knew one of the killers as he used to sit outside my house every day waiting for his girlfriend. As a result, I never will be comfortable without being able to protect myself.
The cities here in the US that have the strictest laws on obtaining a legal weapon also have the highest crime rates per capita, many of which are committed with guns.
We have a people problem it cannot be fixed with an attempt to create an access problem.
We took a class and exam for our CHLs not only to have any firearms, but also to be educated on laws in the state of TX. Laws are different in each state.
You can look up Suzanna Hupp and the Luby's shooting. She lost her parents in the shooting, and since she was a law abiding citizen, her gun was in her vehicle in the parking lot. Leaving her helpless in the Situation. It is something that always stuck with me for sure.
There is nothing to stop the mentally unstable and criminals from obtaining weapons illegally, and there is also nothing to stop them from using these weapons against those who abide by the law.
Yes, I pray that our guns will never fire at any living thing, but if someone or something were to come into my house and threaten our lives, you'd better believe I will do all I can to protect my family. That also goes for being out on the road, especially when we make our road trips to the hill country.
I go back to what I said in my original post - with rights come responsibilities. I accept the fact that because gun safety in a home environment is entirely at the discretion of the gun owner that there is a risk (albeit a small one) that me or one of my family members could be involved in an accidental shooting. Just as I accept the ( much, much, MUCH higher) risk that we may be involved in a car accident while running errands on any given day (talk about people not living up to the responsibility of privilege - everyone on the road feels that they have the right of way, that their time is more valuable than anyone else's and pretty much EVERYONE owns or drives a vehicle whether they have the common sense of a gnat or can actually perform higher level thinking).
*edited because I went back and read the full article
And I actually read all of the comments and notes that the articles that are being discussed the first one in particular were not about legally owned hand guns, that was an illegally obtained weapon. And as far as biometric safes, I didn't address that in this particular comment because that is proper management of a weapon, how difficult it is to obtain a weapon does not directly correlate with a persons safe containment of the weapon. When children are involved people whip into a frenzy and often find themselves unable to see the entire picture for the smaller parts.
One step further - most serial killers are "normal" and considered nice people in their community.
One step even further - how does any of this apply to the issue at hand? Everyone seems focused on the horrors that occur when children get their hands on guns. Children aren't the ones buying the guns in the first place. Their parents (or family or friends parents) are the ones purchasing the weapons. The adults are the ones not practicing gun safety. The adults are the ones not supervising their children. I am all for holding the adult legally responsible for any death or injury resulting from improper gun safety - if your child picks up your unsecured, loaded gun and shoots themselves or someone else because you left it on top of a fridge or in the hall closet then YOU should be charged with the crime and YOU should be held responsible. I feel this rather than stricter gun control would actually do something to resolve the issue.
Something else I'd like to bring up:
Another person made a comment about forty-something shootings by children were committed last year. Forty-something. Percentage wise, this number is insignificant. More children suffocate in cribs with blankets, smothered while co-sleeping and choke on toys/food that were not age appropriate every year (roughly over 100). If we intend to start stricter regulations on gun ownership because forty children were, sadly, involved in shootings why are we not federally regulating blankets, co-sleeping habits and age appropriate food/toy items in our homes?
I am certainly not saying that the gun control issue is solely focused on deaths and injuries involving children (even though it is tragic, honestly it is a small number in comparison to gun violence nationwide). I am just saying that quite a few of the arguments here are pointed directly at incidents and statistics involving children and as utterly tragic it is that any child would suffer from or be involved with a shooting, percentage wise we are not talking about staggering numbers.
Police response time in my town is insane back up from state police after that is even more then that. We are surrounded by other smaller towns and the nearest city is a good thirty minutes away. Could you wait 30 minutes for someone to come help you if you were threatened? I sure couldn't.
I, again, live in a very rural community. We have unruly animals with no animal control so let's just say there was a rapid animal in my yard where my children play....or threatening my dog. That's not a good reason to have a gun? Even if it's just to put an animal out of its misery or keep my daughter from getting hurt or even killed? Which is a very real reality for my area....
We have a home security system! It's a nice one actually. The problem is, if someone wants to get into your house they will. If someone wants something out here, they will take it. I know when your alarm goes off it notifies the police but again the response time is insane.
The person who DID break into my house had a gun but legally I have the right to kill him when he has absolutely zero rights intruding in my house. What would I do if he had a gun and I didn't? He would kill everyone in my house without a second thought but maybe just maybe he would think twice about his life that he has to lose when I have a gun too.
I personally am not a fan of panic rooms. Maybe for my daughter but I couldn't sit in my house when someone stole everything I've worked so hard for and I want to protect that...with a gun.
You can poke holes in anything but have you ever lived in a rural community? Probably not.
Federal regulation is regulation - if you want to impose strict regulations on dangerous items over small statistics regarding children in one area, you need to cover ALL areas. One of the wonderful things about our country is the freedom of choice. With choice, you have to assume the majority of the population has the common sense to choose wisely. Some won't. Your options at that point are to regulate EVERYONE or allow for the fact that some people will make bad choices.
Individually those 42 children are, of course, important. As a percentage it is negligible. Sorry. That is just how statistics work. I don't want any children to be subjected to that but sadly, they are. No amount of regulation other than strict bans will eliminate that.
I'm not opposed to brief psych evaluations as part of an application for a gun but I am totally opposed to home visits/inspections. I should not have to give up certain freedoms to be able to exercise my rights as a citizen.
In regards to fingerprint technology:
I purchase and register a shotgun for home protection and for protection against wildlife (I live in a rural area). This shotgun is coded just for me and my husband. Now I don't need to worry about my 3 year old getting mad at another child and shooting them for not showing them a puppy. I also don't need to worry about my mother shooting herself (who has come to watch my children overnight while I have baby #3 and goes out at 8pm to feed my horses and runs into one of the feral dogs who sometimes cause problems around here. Or maybe one of the bears or other large predators we deal with on a semi-regular basis). Nope, no worries for her accidently shooting anything at all since there is a worthless home defense weapon sitting in my gun safe. Maybe she should carry a kitchen knife or a baseball bat as another poster suggested?
I'm not saying I don't appreciate that you are looking for alternative solutions to something you feel is a huge issue, just that the solutions aren't really practical.
I will say, again, the real solution is to hold those who chose not to practice gun safety responsible. Just as we hold dog owners responsible when their beloved pet mauls someone or a drunk driver responsible when they plow into a van carrying a mother and her four children. You seemed to agree with that idea as well. I think it is a start and is more practical and more reasonable than stricter regulations.
I recognize the 42 isn't the number killed, just the number of kids who shot a gun in a gun related death/injury. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
I'm not adopting a child. I'm purchasing a gun. You don't need to check out my home to see if I can own a firearm or not. What exactly are you looking for there? Proof that I have a gun safe? I can show you a receipt. I just don't like having the government in my home. Period. They just do not belong there unless I have done something wrong. Which I have not. I have nothing to hide, but it's a violation of my right to privacy.
As a high school student I identified as "Goth". I had abysmal grades and poor attendance. I also challenged the teachers quite often, though I never was aggressive. I never broke the law but I was treated like a bad/troubled youth because of my appearance, attitude and the company I kept. As an adult, I am not that person at all any more. I was self employed for many years as a horse trainer and riding instructor and then worked at vet clinics and animal shelters. I stopped working when I started having babies. I have no current employer (nor have had one in a long time). Friends and family is what I have got for references. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to have my shotgun to protect me and my children when my husband is gone? We legitimately live in an area where animal attacks are a concern. I have shot snakes here as well - we keep snake shot in one handgun designated for just that purpose. I don't want myself, children or my animals bitten by a copperhead.
And I am glad to hear that you are so open minded with your students. Perhaps if I had a few teachers who were as open minded as you my high school career would have been very different. My teachers were not so accommodating and I was labeled a problem before I did anything, mainly because of how I looked and the crowd I hung out with. Not all (or even most) teachers look much beyond what they see on the package.
You are absolutely right that appearance does not speak to someone's character. Sadly, not many people feel that way.
Both pistols are loaded in biometric bolted-down cases that take either of us seconds to access on both levels of our house. The AR is stored in a bolted down full-on gun safe and is only used for target practice and as a hobby for DH. I actually shoot the 9mm's better than DH up to 100 yards. If they were not loaded they would be useless by the time we realized someone broke in.
We learned this the hard way when we had a teenager kick down our front door and run up into our apartment while we're upstairs napping together a few years back (we since have bought a house). Our downstairs neighbor was a very vigilant retired cop and happened to be home at the time and heard what happened. He grabbed his gun and pulled it on the kid and held him there until police arrived. Had he not been home and done this who knows what would have happened because at the time we didn't keep the guns loaded.
We sure do now but the biometric cases make it impossible for anyone else but ourselves to access.