If you were adopting a child, how would you answer this question?

[spin]

"Do you own a gun?"

TALLAHASSEE - Get set for a mountain of paperwork if you want to adopt a child.

You'll have to go through a rigorous screening process.

It's aimed at giving kids the best parents possible.

Florida's gun rights advocates say it's gotten way too personal.

Ron And Fran Fahs went through stacks of paperwork and hours of interviews to make this a complete picture.

One of the questions many parents have to answer: Do you own a gun?

The Fahs aren't necessarily gun supporters, but they do think the question goes too far.

****snip****

Marion Hammer heads the Florida chapter of the NRA pushing for a law.

"This is almost a profiling of adoptive parents," Hammer said. "They don't want to be profiled, they don't want to be treated differently because they choose to exercise a constitutional right."
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/11/16/adoptive_...

[unpossibles]

1. I think it's a more valid question than "are you gay"

fuck, a lot of kids die due to irresponsible gun owners. I grew up with guns, and don't think they are inherently evil for children, but there are some shitty parents out there, and I have no problem with this question.

[Tikki]

2. +5

[elehhhhna]

77. +10

[onehandle]

7. Absolutely right. The gun crowd equates gun rights with civil rights.

[spin]

15. Guns and civil rights are more closely tied than most imagine...

During the civil rights turmoil in the South, Klan violence was bad enough; it might have been worse with gun control. It was only because black neighborhoods were full of people who had guns and could fight back that the Klan didn't shoot up civil rights meetings or terrorize blacks by shooting at random from cars.

Moreover, civil rights workers' access to firearms for self-defense often caused southern police to preserve the peace, as they would not have done if only the Ku Kluxers had been armed. I remember how Klansmen broke up a series of marches in a Louisiana town with hideous violence and head-bashing while the police looked on in benevolent neutrality. The unarmed marchers' appeals to the governor for state police protection were in vain. After many weeks of heavy injuries to the marchers, a black man shot one of several Klansmen who attacked him with clubs. The state police arrived the next day, and there was no further violence.

***snip***

Like much gun control propaganda, the report does not discuss the utility of guns in defending householders against political or other criminal attacks, which they have reason, to expect. But among over one hundred people murdered by Ku Kluxers in the 1950-65 era, I recall only one who was armed. While his gun did not prevent that civil rights worker's death, it did lay down covering fire which allowed his wife and children to escape the Klansmen who surrounded their burning house. The shots also disabled a Klan car through which the FBI was able to trace, catch, and convict the murderers.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kates1.html

[rd_kent]

52. guns rights are CONSTITUTIONAL rights. Why do you hate the COnstitution?

[onehandle]

103. Yes. Gun rights = human rights.

This room is almost the most 'special' room at DU.

[rd_kent]

122. You seem to be the only one equating this with a Human Rights issue.

As I stated, the right to own a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Is it not? Do you really want to take away a Constitutional Right from someone without Due Process of the law?

And why must you equate it with Human Rights? I have seen no one but you make that association. I guess you are the only one in that "special"room.

[Warpy]

9. Same here

I've just read too many stories about witless parents who kept loaded guns on the nightstand or anywhere else a child can find them who either didn't live to regret it or who had to bury their child or one of their child's friends. People are stupid and that question is asked to weed the really stupid ones out.

Guns need to be secured in any household with children. Period.

They ask that question so they can follow up on it later, make sure you're a responsible gun owner who doesn't leave the thing lying around.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I think both questions are improper.

They do a home inspection prior to placement. We've had 3. No guns laying around. Never asked to see the safe.

[Tejas]

65. Agreed! - nt

[TheWraith]

43. Actually the number of kids killed by guns is at an all time low.

It's been going down for a long time.

[Dead_Parrot]

84. Probably still higher than the number killed by gay adopters, though

just sayin'

[spin]

89. Neither should be a sole reason for rejection. (n/t)

[pipoman]

144. But exponentially more kids die in home swimming pools

than from firearms accidents...no questions about swimming pool, ATV, boat, snowmobile, etc. ownership.

[struggle4progress]

85. Gun safety a concern in the wake of child’s death Monday

By Arthur Mondale | Reporter
Published: November 17, 2009

The death of a three year old boy in Onslow County yesterday shows the importance of gun safety. The child got hold of the family gun and accidentally shot himself ... http://www2.wnct.com/nct/news/local/article/gun_safety_... /

[russ1943]

126. Can't be all time lows if recent years were higher, can it?

Of course the definition of kids, (up to 14, 16, 18 & 20?) is an ongoing diversion and the definition of killed, (murders only, suicides accidental?) somehow here in the gungeon also is used as a distraction and just exactly what the time frame referenced is, isn’t exactly clear.
All time low would generally mean it “never” has been lower.

CDC’s role is a health and injury related perspective (not crime) and includes (among other categories) suicides. CDC’s WISQARS is by far the most user friendly source of statistics in the injury death grouping which includes “killings” but at this time their figures are complete only thru 2006..
National Safety Council statistics are also only complete thru 2006.but aren’t segregated by kid v adults at least for non paying members.

If the most recent figures available are higher than any previous years totals then the most recent can’t be all time lows, can they?
Or..
If a prior years total of kids deaths by firearms is lower than the most recent years avail total then to say the number of kids killed by guns is at an all time low is what? A mistake? A lie? An untruth? A falsehood? Propaganda? Deception? Clairvoyance?

CDC’s WISQARS provides data the most recent of which clearly shows both the number of kids and the rate of firearms deaths are NOT at all time recent lows.
For 16 yr olds and younger thru 2006 show that in 5 of the 6 years prior to the most recent available, the US had both fewer firearm deaths and lower rates than in 2006.

For 14 & younger in three of the last four years available prior to 2006 the number of deaths was less than 2006’s.

For more distant history there’s this;
A study whose abstract at least, is still available, point out that firearms deaths of children and youths although they’ve declined since the early 90’s, remain HIGH COMPARED TO HISTORICAL RATES in this country and rates in other developed nations. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/...

[Euromutt]

109. In my book, that's not a valid question either (n/t)

[onehandle]

3. Do you own a gun? Are you a felon? Do you take drugs? Do you drink?

All valid questions that can be a red flag and lead to subsequent valid questions.

Adopting a child isn't like signing up for a gym membership.

[doc03]

14. How the hell does owning a gun equate to being

a felon, taking drugs or drinking?

[unpossibles]

16. I read that not as those being eqivalent but of all things which may be a red flag

for adoption agencies.

[onehandle]

17. Exactly. nt

[doc03]

18. Why would me owning a perfectly legal object have anything to

do with adopting a child? The kids that are raised around guns and outdoor activities aren't the ones jacking a car at gunpoint. As long as my guns are secured from the kids it is nobody's business if I have one gun or a hundred, it's my right to own guns.

[onehandle]

25. It's their right to protect the kids in their care.

Kids > Guns. Period.

[slackmaster]

27. We had firearms in the house when I was growing up, and I feel I am a more rounded person...

...because of it. My stepfather taught my brother and me many valuable outdoor skills, including gun safety.

[rd_kent]

53. Protect them from what?

ARe you REALLY that scared all the time. Life must suck for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Do you have a fire extinguisher, or smoke detector?

How about seatbelts or airbags in your car?


How much fear do you have in YOUR life?


The people you are criticizing see firearms as a tool for preserving human life. Just like any other piece of life safety equipment.
I don't have to fear, because I can protect my family in all sorts of dire circumstances, and my wife has my back. I live pretty fear-free, actually.

[rd_kent]

60. Did you miss post or something?

Because I am confused at your post. I think you and I share the same views and I was responding to someone else.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Disregard. I am dumb.

Had you confused with someone else.

[reggie the dog]

76. many if not most gun owners see guns as tools

you hunt with them and if ever you had to you could defend yourself, but the primary reason is to go hunting.

[spin]

91. I own a number of handguns and my primary use is target shooting...

hunting, collecting and self defense are also valid reasons.

[X_Digger]

92. Actually..

only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt, so I'd say the primary reason is something other than hunting.

[reggie the dog]

75. so hunters should not be allowed to adpot?

You gotta be out of your mind.

[onehandle]

102. Yes. That's exactly what I said.

Try reading the entire thread.

I'm not going to repeat myself and to others to this room.

[pipoman]

145. And again

guns are statistically less of a risk* than swimming pool ownership** or ATV ownership and neither of those things are Constitutionally protected. Further I suspect that adoptive parents are usually more financially secure than the public at large and are probably more likely to have these types of things.

* CDC- 2006 accidental firearms deaths 0-17 = 102

** CDC- 2006 accidental drowning 0-17 = 934 (of coarse this includes bathtub drowning too...I believe it would be safe to assume a good number of these are in recreational situations/facilities)

[unpossibles]

30. and it's their right to decide that you may not be suitable for adopting a human being

Jeez, I am not anti-gun, but I don't think this is that much of a stretch to ask this. Frankly, they should ask more pointed questions, to try to understand if you are a responsible gun owner instead of just an owner.

And for what it's worth, I bet some of the people doing gun crimes DID grow up with them, although I like how you tried to phrase it a way which sounds a little bit racist by referring to all gun crimes/accidents as "jacking a car".

[AtheistCrusader]

36. What the hell does car jackings have to do with Race?

They come in all shapes, sizes, and colours.

(the car jackers, not the cars, just for clarification)

[unpossibles]

48. it just sounded to me like you presented two options

at one end of the spectrum was the kid who grew up with guns and is presumably a good old boy, and the other end is the car jacker, who ... well, let's just say that carries some small bit of mental image, much like when Reagan talked of "welfare queens" disregarding that most welfare recipients are white.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Well, we have diverse criminals where I'm from.

Or perhaps the news reporting is better. Might vary around the country, I guess.

[unpossibles]

56. me too - I live in NYC

and Cincinnati before that, both diverse cities. I guess I just felt your wording was a bit peculiar; I apologize.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Ah, yeah, there would be a difference.

I'm from Seattle, and my experience has been, every time my car has been broken into, it was white kids. And the news often reflects that.

I realize in some places where a specific ethnic group appears to be a large percentage of the population, 'thug' might get associated to a particular race, instead of to a type of person. I go by types. They come in all colours. Doesn't matter, a thug is a thug. Someone who will take something from you by force, or to hurt you for some odd measure of amusement. Car jackers take cars. That's all I read into it.

To give an example of assocation, for car theft, around here, a lot of people associate it with Russian or old soviet block nation immigrants. The largest and most successful (and most publicly opposed by police) car theft rings in the areahave been Ukranian or Russian immigrants. But when a car goes missing, I don't assume it was them. Could be anyone, until a credible witness offers a description, or the police come out with a suspect.

[reggie the dog]

79. I am from the suburbs and I grew up around guns

lots of good ole boys are black especially in the south and I do belive that many black people do hunt.

[taurus145]

100. Black people hunt.

I'm white. Several of my hunting and shooting buds are black.

We see each other as simply people with similar interests.

[reggie the dog]

78. how is jacking racist?

people of any race do gun crime. A short story. When I was at the university one of my buddies was in the Satans Disciples street gang to sell weed and cocaine to may for college. I hung out in their gang house from time to time and one day a dipshit whose job was to sell liquid PCP (and smoke a lot of it) was playing with his .9mm. Put the magazine in click clock goes the glock (he didnt really have a glock but that was in a rap song he know) so the bullet was up in the chamber, then he took the magazine out and started pointing the gun at everyone thinking it was unloaded. I jumped down on the floor, rolled over and snatched the gun out of his hand. He yelled for security who came down with their pistol drawn to see me with a pistol pointed at the floor. I was not in their gang so it was a no no. I told them that their own gang member pointed a loaded gun at other gang members and me and that I simply disarmed an idiot. I said if I was wrong and the gun was unloaded they could pistol whip me for being stuipd but if I were correct they would leave me alone. I unloaded the bullet from the chamber and when it fell on the floor I handed the gun over to the gang security and he called the cang leader to come over and deal with the idiot who had pointed a gun at us. The leader came over and we had to testify and then punishment was dolled out. Dude got his eyebrows shaved off so everyone would know he was a fuckup and lost his gun carrying right in the gang. Had someone like me, raised around guns, taught to shoot at 5 (taught gun saftey from an earier age)not been there someone would have likely died.

[reggie the dog]

74. Exactly

How dare we try to raise kids who have fun practicing marksmanship and eghad even going hunting!

[struggle4progress]

87. It would also be your right to say extraterrestrials had taken over the US government, and it might

not affect your parenting ability: still, a responsible adoption agency wants to try to form a balanced view of the home before sending a child there and so might reasonably be interested in the fact someone held such views

[kelly1mm]

115. Ok. you're right. Let the kids sit in foster care then! That will teach

them "gun nuts"!

[struggle4progress]

116. The panic and hysteria in this forum is quite remarkable

[AtheistCrusader]

35. One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belonggggg...

Actually two, unless you read 'do you drink' as Alcoholism, which would come out in the psyche profile.

[onehandle]

38. That was covered in #16 and #37. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

44. They would probably not even ask 'are you a felon'.

They didn't ask me, because LONG before you get to the interview, you've already done a full FBI background+Fingerprint check.

[onehandle]

101. Right. So maybe they don't have to.

But since guns are so freely obtained, common and virtually record-less, they must ask.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. They only have to because some moron required them to.

You know they search our homes for all sorts of hazards right? Including lead paint. Pretty sure they'd notice unsecured guns lying about.

[reggie the dog]

72. How does owning a gun, morally speaking, have anything to do

with being a felon? Taking drugs too? I would just lie and say i didnt smoke grass but really I can do just fine in raising my daughter.

[tblue]

4. Me, I'd answer, "no."

Sounds like a reasonable question to me. I used to ask parents that before I'd let my kid play over their house. And I told my kid if your friend shows you the the gun, get the hell out of there.

I hate hate hate hate guns!

[spin]

31. Should that make you more qualified than someone who "loves" shooting...

or just merely owns a firearm for self defense?

[tblue]

42. I don't know.

[spin]

46. That's a fair answer. Thanks. (n/t)

[tblue]

47. Well, they should never ask just: Do you own a gun?

without follow-up questions. Where is it? Is it locked up and secure? Do you also keep ammo and where is it? etc., so on.

[spin]

61. I totally agree...

It's very important to insure that young children are not around loaded weapons.

Accidents involving guns and children can be prevented. Many devices are available to render a firearm safe from little fingers. Gun lock boxes and safes are inexpensive.

If you do own firearms, and have a preteen it's important to teach gun safety. I feel that this is a topic that should be taught in all schools. Many parents would disagree and while I respect their opinion, I feel that if the basic knowledge about firearms was taught to all children, it would reduce accidents.

Admittedly, such accidents are rare. Even so, a teenager might run across a firearm at a friend's house. First, he should know that you never touch a firearm that belongs to someone else without their permission. That rule applies to all shooters. (When on the range, I never walked up to someone and picked up their weapon without asking. It's far more than mere politeness.) If the teenager's friend is showing him a firearm that belongs to the friend's parent, the parent should be present. Second, a teenager should know that he should never allow someone to pass him a firearm without the owner showing him the weapon is in fact unloaded. (Unless of course, he is at a range and the owner passes him a loaded weapon for him to shoot.) Third, a teenager should know that you NEVER point a weapon, loaded or unloaded at something you do not want to shoot. Fourth, the teenager should know that you keep your finger off the trigger of any weapon unless you want to hear a loud noise.

An excellent resource on gun safety can be found at:
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

Follow up questions about gun ownership on the adoption form would reduce my concern about the original question. I also would have no problem requiring anyone who own firearms being required to show proof of attending a firearms safety class before adopting a child.

[reggie the dog]

80. what if you love shooting and love hunting?

[spin]

95. Sounds fine to me...

I've never hunted but I have nothing against it.

Some of my daughter's friends have given us some venison and wild boar to enjoy and it's made a big difference to us in this rough economic time.

I've found the meat delicious. In fact, it tastes as good as store bought meat if not better.

I would take up hunting if I did was not a candidate for a hip replacement. Tracking a wounded animal would be difficult at the least.

My daughter is considering hunting. While she is an excellent shot with a handgun, she is right handed and left eye dominant. She would prefer to use a rifle, probably a .270 or a 30-30. She needs a lot of practice to be sure she can shoot accurately before she tries hunting with a rife. I suggested putting a patch over her dominant eye and learning to shoot using her non dominate eye. Other people have suggested shooting left handed.

[taurus145]

120. That's a common issues with female shooters

A decent scope on something like a .270 or a good red dot on a 30-30 (let's face it, range is definitely limited with a 30-30) should do the trick.

It worked for my wife.

[spin]

127. I like the red dot idea...

she's fired her husbands 30-30 and liked it. I've used red dots in the past. I was impressed.

[rd_kent]

54. So much hate!

Why do you hate inanimate objects so much?

[Lerkfish]

5. considering the nature of the rest of the questions, I don't find this invasive

although it could be phrased better as : if you have a gun, do you have it secured against child-tampering?
at least its a question of safety for the child.

one question we were asked was how frequently we made love. I found that too invasive and completely unrelated to good parenting.

[spin]

11. How frequently do you make love? Damn!

That is INVASIVE!!!

[Lerkfish]

50. it was very bizarre let me tell you

in a office with my wife, and the social worker, who was maybe 22, is asking about our sexual frequency. All I could think of was WTF? but if you're trying to adopt, you're afraid to rock the boat.

[spin]

64. My first thought would have been to say,...

"None of your damn business".

But I would have probably hesitated and said, "A couple of times a week". I would have close to the national average.

People have sex an average of 127 times a year. (For those of you poor in math, that’s once in every 2.88 days).
http://www.blogher.com/how-often-do-you-have-sex

If I would have known I would be asked this question, I would have researched it before the interview. The question is so asinine, I would have been tempted to say, "Once every 2.88 days." It would have been interesting to see the look on the 22 year old social worker's face.

[Euromutt]

114. Ha! That's what people *say*

Personally, I reckon that this is a bit of an "apple pie" issue, where people give an answer that they think will make the pollster look more favorably on them. Religiosity tends to be overstated because of this, and similarly, people claim to have sex a lot more often than they do. Especially people who are in a position to have sex, such as people in steady relationships, including marriage.

From the link: "Married couples make love 98 times per year." Well, that's already starting to sound a bit more credible. But in a sense, every poll done invalidates the findings of following ones; people read these survey results, think that it's normal for married couples to have sex 98 times a year, and in the event that they get polled, they'll probably answer something like that, especially if they do it less frequently.

Besides, quantity is no indicator of quality.

[spin]

124. Quality sex can be a challenge for young couples with toddlers...

and in today's world with text messaging and constant phone calls.

The problem is finding quality time alone.

[PavePusher]

129. Nifty thing about those phones...

they have an "Off" button, 'tho most people under age 35 don't seem to know this...

Toddlers... not so much. Rum in their milk maybe?

[spin]

133. My mother used to put a little beer in a baby bottle...

to keep me quiet.

It probably worked.

Today, I still love beer.

[Euromutt]

143. As the joke goes...

"Yes, we still have sex, only these days, foreplay consists of putting on a Spongebob DVD."

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Yep. The whole thing feels like a job interview

and you are not only financially, but emotionally invested in the process at that point. It's like buying a house, and getting to the LAAAAST piece of paper to sign, and finding out there's a homeowners association rider.

Well, what now? You want the house, in for a penny, in for a pound.

[spin]

93. In a job interview should the question "Do you own guns"...

be asked?

And if you did, what would your response be.

Note: In Florida, the new "bring your gun to work law" prohibits an employer from deciding to not hire a worker based on the fact he/she has a concealed carry permit.

Accordingly, these provisions of the statute remain in effect and prohibit employers from:

1. conditioning employment on the fact that an employee or a prospective employee holds or does not a hold a gun license;
2. terminating or otherwise discriminating against any employee simply because the individual possesses a firearm inside his or her locked, privately-owned vehicle;
3. preventing any employee from entering the parking lot or place of business because his or her vehicle contains a legal firearm; or
4. taking any action against an employee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a motor vehicle lawfully parked in a parking lot.
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?ai...

[Euromutt]

113. If it's a job in a gun shop...

I've applied for a couple of jobs at gun shops in the area (western Washington state), and around here, they do require you to have a Concealed Pistol License. Since most gun store employees I've seen carry visibly on the premises (which doesn't require a license), but presumably also outside while they're locking up, it rather makes sense they'd ask.

[spin]

123. In that case the question makes sense.

And I've seen gun store employees outside the store in the parking lot carrying openly. As I remember they were talking to a customer and left the store to go his car.

Not really legal, but nobody was concerned.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Hahah shit, I forgot about that.

They asked us too, here in Washington State.

I think our initial response was 'what?'

[Euromutt]

112. The way you phrase it is a lot better

It's the way my son's pediatric practice asks on the intake form: "If you own firearms, do you keep them secured?" That is a reasonable enough thing to ask, because it puts in a context of child safety.

[taurus145]

121. About 10 times a day

If you use the 40's movie definition.

[damntexdem]

6. Truthfully.

At least, telling the truth appears to me to be the best way to answer questions asked in the course of adopting a child.

[slackmaster]

8. If the question was literally phrased that way, I would answer "No."

I don't own "a" gun. I own dozens of them.

[wellstone dem]

10. I adopted

and that would be one of the least invasive questions I was asked. I would expect that if I answered yes, that in the in-person interview that I would ask where it is stored and how it is stored. The questions about my medical history, my family's history, my criminal history were all far more invasive.

And I'm glad they were. My daughter deserved to know that she would be in a stable, safe, home.

[doc03]

12. It's none of their f-----g business. Every American has a

legal right to own a gun and millions and millions of kids have grown up in households with guns. The kids that grow up around guns and participate in shooting sports aren't the ones out jacking someones car at gun point.

[ET Awful]

13. I think it's an entirely appropriate question, especially when you consider things like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[krispos42]

19. Do they ask about other hazards?

Ownership and storage of power tools, edged tools, chemicals? Does having a staircase and/or a pool affect your chances? How about breed of dog? Is the family cat declawed?

[doc03]

21. Exactly, it's about gun haters. It's obvious

to me the reason the bureaucratic a--holes are asking the question is they don't approve of guns and if you say you own one you will be turned down for the adoption. How about if they asked you if you owned a bible?

[burrfoot]

23. This is not about gun haters.

This question is not used to determine if a family/individual can adopt or not. This question is asked along with questions about pools, household chemicals, and many other potential hazards. Not to screen you out if you're an owner, but to make sure that if you do have guns, you are storing them safely. Everyone who wants to adopt is asked this question because of the frequency of accidents that occur. Asking the question does not in ANY WAY imply that the owner is bad or wrong, or even that they are unsafe. It is simply a check to make sure that guns are safely secured.

I am one of the people who asks potential adoptive/foster/relative care families that question. I'm also a gun owner and CCW holder. I have personally approved multiple homes with guns, and (denied homes without them), so I know from personal experience that the gun is not the criteria by which you are judged.

If you're a gun owner and a jackass, you may be dropped. If you're a gun owner and a pool owner and your guns are locked up but you won't put a fence around your pool, you may be dropped. If you're a gun owner and you're not willing to comply with visitation and supervision requirements, you may be dropped. If you're a gun owner and there are bare wires sticking out of your walls which you have no intention to fix, you may be dropped.

But you're not dropped for being a gun owner.

This is the second thread where this has come up. Why is it such a sore spot for people? The information does not go into a database, nobody tracks it- the home study gets approved and the ppwk. goes into a file, where 99% of the time it is never looked at again.
In fact, although this isn't really a good thing, I'd bet that 95% of the time it's not even looked at in the first place- if the case worker says the home is approved, the supervisor signs off, and that's that. Of course, that may just be me being cynical.

[spin]

40. Good. It's reassuring to hear from someone in the know.

However, if you and you supervisors were "gun haters" could a yes response cause a rejection?

If the case worker was anti-gun could a "yes" answer color his/her approach to investigating and approving the home?

[burrfoot]

96. "Could"

is a tricky word. Could it affect the outcome, if the case manager and/or supervisor were anti gun? Yes, it could. It shouldn't, and that's not why they ask, but human nature being what it is....well, they'd certainly be able to make it hard for the potential family.

To the best of my knowledge, the potential family could challenge the home study if they felt they were denied simply for that reason. It would probably be reviewed by the local circuit court dependency judge, who could overrule the decision of the case manager/supervisor.

In my honest opinion, this question is not designed to be exclusionary and, in my experience, it is not used that way. It is simply one of many questions about potential hazards in the home, and is not asked in isolation (someone upthread mentioned this)- it's followed with "are they stored safely" and "may I see how they are stored."

Honestly, even if the guns were stored "unsafely", the potential family would have to show a pretty healthy disregard for common sense in order to be denied. A handgun being left in a drawer, or on a table, when no kid is in a home is not necessarily a threat; so you can't knock them for that. If they refused to secure it once the kid was in the home, however, then there would be a problem.

So yes, there is the potential for abuse. I'm not aware of it happening, however, and I'd encourage anyone out there who feels that this may have happened to them to challenge the decision.

[spin]

99. It's good to know there is a challenge proceedure....

I would suspect that since Florida is basically a "gun friendly" state, the approach to this question might be far different here than in a gun unfriendly state.

It would be interesting to find out.

If Marion Hammer is successful in her attempt to push a new law through, other states will try to enact the same law. She is a real firebrand and many of the ideas she starts in Florida end up being passed in other states.

[onehandle]

22. None of those things have the primary purpose of violence.

That is the difference.

[krispos42]

28. But they are just as deadly, which I would think would be the point of the inquiry

If they are trying to simply say that gun ownership in and of itself is qualification for rejection, then that's wrong and arbitrary.

Should fat people be allowed to adopt kids?

[onehandle]

37. I saw nothing about gun ownership being a disqualifier.

Again, it leads to valid follow up questions.

Do you currently lock your guns?

Will you keep them out of reach of the child in our care that you are asking for?

[spin]

29. The primary purpose of firearms is not violence...

I've owned forearms for 40 years and never committed a violent act. I've probably fired 200,000 rounds down range in that period of time and I merely put holes in paper targets. Surely you don't think that is violent.

Most of my firearms were designed for target shooting and hunting. I also own several which are designed for concealed carry and I do carry them as I have a license. I also shoot them at targets. I feel these weapons are designed for self defense. Owning a self defense weapon may prevent violence.

[onehandle]

34. Yes. When the bullet hits a target it evaporates into nothingness.

No, wait. I'm pretty sure it tears a hole in a violent manner.

A guns primary purpose is destruction, no matter how you conduct your business with them.

[spin]

45. Destroying paper targets pasted on cardboard is violent?

Does the paper or cardboard suffer.

Is archery violent?

Or fencing?

Do you realize that shooting is an Olympic sport?





What do you think of hunting?

[reggie the dog]

82. You gotta kill the animals you eat somehow

[reggie the dog]

81. primary purpose of a shotgun is hunting birds

[spin]

90. I have a shotgun, and its primary purpose is home defense.

It's a Stoeger 12 gauge Coach Gun with side by side 20" barrels.

You might use it for hunting birds and it probably would work, but there are superior shotguns for that purpose.

[Karia]

39. They also came to my home and checked

Yes, of course. I'm an adoptive parent too. The social workers also came to my home and checked to make sure that kitchen knives, cleaning solutions, medicines, etc., were safely stored in cabinets with childproof locks. They made sure we had safety gates for staircases and covers for electrical outlets, and they tested all of the smoke alarms. Our paint was tested for lead. We gave them copies of documentation to show that our home had already been checked for radon and asbestos, and found safe. They checked all of these things before a child was placed in our home, and then a couple of months later came again to make sure we were doing/using everything properly.
They also checked our employment histories, marital histories, medical histories, finances, and insurance coverage.
Our fingerprints were taken and run through government databases. The police check was so complete that the report included a 15yo parking ticket (not a problem).
We were asked about religion ("None" was an acceptable answer).
We were asked a lot of personal questions about ourselves, each other, our parents, and our siblings.
Relatives, friends and neighbors were invited to comment on our suitability as parents.

The people who were checking us out were discreet and professional. They were doing their jobs. It was not always a comfortable process, but at no point whatsoever did I feel discriminated against. I would do it all again (and will have to if we adopt another child).

In retrospect, I think it is sort of sad that ALL kids cannot be assured of safe homes.

[Lerkfish]

51. believe or not, yes.

we asked about how "babyproof" our house was, in detail

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Actually yes. They asked about dog breeds.

They also asked about pools/hot tubs, etc.

[The Doctor.]

73. No, they don't.

Once a pediatrician treating our infant son asked if we had guns in the house. I looked at my then wife and said; "aren't those by the flamethrower?"

Then, after we laughed for a bit, I said; "Well... I do have a rather large collection of knives."

The fellow became all serious and asked; "oh, well... where do you keep them?"

"In the kitchen draws like most people. Is that a problem?"

By they time we were done going over all the various hazards in a home, he was in full agreement that the gun question was a stupid one. I'm sure he thought so before hand, but we all had a good laugh.

[spin]

94. For a while pediatricians asked that question...

and I understand it was suggested other doctors did the same thing.

I've been eagerly waiting for some doctor to ask me. Unfortunately where I live at in Northern Florida, very few people do not own firearms. The doctors also own firearms. If they asked that question and the reply was "no"...the doctor would probably ask why.

[msongs]

20. children have a right to own and shoot guns anytime they wish. no bidg deal really nt

[Fresh_Start]

24. I'm pretty sure they ask

do you own your home

if you can't answer the question about gun ownership, you shouldn't try to adopt.
Its way less invasive than most parts of the adoption process.

[burrfoot]

26. I'd answer

yes, I own several. I'd then show them the safe in my closet and the safe in my nightstand, and that would be the end of the discussion.

[onehandle]

41. That might work if it covered all of the valid follow up questions.

Sounds reasonable to me. You get what the questions are about.

[burrfoot]

97. Looking back

on that post, I realize that I can only comment on my own experience. I personally wouldn't and don't disqualify for gun ownership, and I don't know of anyone who does- but as was pointed out, if someone was motivated against gun ownership they could attempt to "sabatoge" the homestudy.

FWIW, I also respect the right of people not to disclose the information if that's their choice. As we're all grownups
(more or less ), you just have to accept that refusal to discuss it- despite it being your right- comes with the consequence of not being given custody of a child.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[doc03]

49. One observation after reading all these responses

Before people give life to a child nobody asked these questions. Maybe we should set up a government panel and have them decide who is fit to reproduce. It will probably eventually come to that the way things are going.

[spin]

63. That's one scary prediction...

but I wouldn't be surprised if in fifty years you are proven correct.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I don't think it'll come to that, but yeah, see post 39 for the sort of microscope we went under.

'not comfortable' is a polite way of putting it.

At the end, I sure wanted to ask when they were going to start doing this sort of exam for ANY potential parent. Of course, I didn't say a damn thing. Don't want to annoy the home inspector/dossier preparer.

[burrfoot]

136. Hey there-

Why do you assume that you would have annoyed the "home inspector/dossier preparer" if you'd asked about why they were asking the questions? Was the person who worked with you particularly obnoxious or rude?

Please don't assume that everyone who does that job would have a problem with you questioning the process (assuming that you'd have done so respectfully).

[AtheistCrusader]

142. I assume the inspector is there to find problems.

That's basically their job. I didn't feel like the person preparing our dossier was really working for US, and not the state. Especially when we renewed the application. We ended up getting another representative to do it for us, and we had a much, much better experience.

[burrfoot]

147. Gotcha.

It depends on the attitude of the person coming into your home, as it sounds like you found out. They have the potential to be an utter prick or a very helpful advocate for the family. I think you're right, that some people see their purpose in doing a homestudy as searching out problems, but it makes me a little sad. It really should be a positive experience.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience the first time, and am glad the second person did a better job.

[Scout]

59. i would answer truthfully ... as should everyone ... n/t

[kimjamey69]

66. Adoption is not just a baby

There is the fact that not all children adopted are babies, you could be talking about a much older child with a history??? So the question I feel is a valid one depending on the actual adoption!

[spin]

88. A good point...

Adopting an older child with emotional problems is a different situation. Some children may be suicidal or have anger management problems.

In that case, the question on the form would be perhaps even more appropriate than for the adoption of a toddler. I still feel that a couple should not be rejected in such a situation merely because they own firearms. The social worker should check the house more thoroughly to make sure that the firearms and ammo are properly stored in something a older child would find extremely difficult or impossible to break into.

Still after consideration and reading the responses to the OP, I don't feel the question is inappropriate as long as the social worker and the supervisor view the situation fairly and without anti-gun prejudice.

But how does a couple who owns firearms prove that they were rejected because they did own weapons? Their quest to adopt a child might be futile if the people in the local adoption agency had a aversion to firearms.

[onehandle]

104. Yep. nt

[reggie the dog]

70. that question is out of line

our kids can die from eating a rhubarb leave in the garden, if they drink whiskey and get alchol poisining. I grew up in a house with over a dozen guns which were all locked up. How many of you anti gun folks lock your alcohol or grass up?

[onehandle]

105. Sigh...

You're not the first one to salvo that strawman out.

Read the fucking thread.

[burrfoot]

137. Really?

You really, honestly, can't figure out why they might ask about gun ownership? And you truly can't understand that asking if guns are in the home and are safely locked up is NOT THE SAME as saying that you can't have them??

Why are you offended that people might ask if you drink, or what you smoke, or if you have power tools or a collection of swords or a porcupine as a pet or...or.....holy fuck, who'd have thunk it- if you have guns??

By the way, the only thing that will get you dropped for answering yes to is the second one.

[Scout]

83. how many of you fine, upstanding, law-abiding gun owners are going to LIE? n/t

[spin]

86. I might be upset with the question, but I would tell the truth...

Many gun owners don't like revealing that info.

However, in a situation where you are adopting a child I feel the adoption agency has the right to make certain that the environment the child is raised in will be safe.

What I would fear is that the social worker or supervisor who was responsible for approving the adoption would reject the application based on the fact that I did own firearms.

You asked a fair question, so I will ask you several questions.

If you were the social worker or the supervisor, how would you feel about a gun owner adopting a child? Would you question the parents about gun safety and check to see that they did have the necessary means available to child proof the firearm? If the choice of parents came down to a couple who owned firearms opposed to a couple who didn't, who would you choose and why?

I am interested in your response. Come back.

[burrfoot]

138. I hope she responds, actually;

but to throw my .02 in... I can't ever imagine it working out so that two families were being considered for the same child at the same time. In every instance I'm aware of, the matching process is only with one family at a time. We have more kids to be adopted than we do families looking to adopt.

However, I work with kids in the dependency system. If you're talking about adoptions through a private agency, I can't offer any insight- I have no idea how that works.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

110. I would lie.

I wouldn't even hesitate. I would only hope to God I was wearing my CCW piece during the interview to sit and bask in the irony. It's not like they'd ever know I own any guns. The child would likely never see them (securely stored) until he was at least old enough to start learning gun safety and how to use them... so it really doesn't matter if I owned one or a hundred locked up guns.

[Scout]

128. so apparently some of our gun-owners are not so law-abiding and upstanding citizens

as they would have us believe.

like that's a surprise...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

132. Is dishonesty on a child adoption questionaire from cosidered purjury?

I'm not sure if it's "against the law" to lie on adoption questionairs. ??
Breaking rules does not always mean breaking laws. For example, in Ohio if you post a "No Guns" sign on otherwise ccw-allowed property and I ignore it then I'm breaking your rules, not the law. If I ignore your direct request to leave your property, then that is trespassing... but that has little to do with guns.

Nevertheless, by your definition, almost nobody on the planet is law-abiding and upstanding.
Sometimes I jaywalk, speed, etc... who doesn't break at least one or two trivial laws on a daily basis?
Lying about irrelevent personal information is not a concern to me. I've no reason to hide that.

PS: You're use of "apparently" in your title is incorrect. You should have used "evidently".

PPS: My new toy for carry under heavy winter jackets.

[burrfoot]

139. Actually,

it is perjury. You are signing a document that is going to filed with the court, and there is a little phrase to the effect of "by signing, I affirm that all statements contained within this document are true to the best of my knowledge...."

FWIW.

*Edit- sweet pistol. I'm a Glock fan. But really, seriously- why would you lie about this information?*

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

146. "seriously- why would you lie about this information?"

I firmly believe:
a) responsible ownership of a gun is not relevent to the matter at hand.
b) There are quite a few people out there with personal bias against guns and thier owners (see: General Discussion)

I believe this enough that I would guard that information from people whom I suspect ought not to know. I mean, a 2A question on a questionnaire is about as appropriate as an abortion or political party question. I know people that ask parents of other children if they have guns as a screening process before letting their kisd stay the night. If a paretn ever asks me, they're getting either a "no" or a (if I think they can handle it) "I keep a few hunting rifles locked up in a safe".

However, knowing that it is perjury (and I do have a CCW on file so it's not quite a secret) my stancee might change - but simply because felonies are bad juju. If it was asking "do you have any guns in the house" I might remove them from the house and then answer no.

[burrfoot]

148. Sadly,

I've gotta admit that you're right about there being a lot of folks out there who are not only anti-gun, but anti-gun owner.

[spin]

135. Now if you would have asked those with concealed carry permits...

the great majority would have answered yes to the question.

[Ready4Change]

98. What's the next question?

If you own a gun, the next question I'd ask, I think, could say a lot about the type of parent you may be.

How do you store it?

If you don't own a gun I'd ask about how you'd store pesticides or other dangerous materials that are often around homes.

I'm not concerned about the gun, or the rat or ant poison. I'm concerned about your security awareness.

[Kaleva]

106. One would be considered odd if they didn't own one where I live.

[proteus_lives]

108. No right to ask that.

It's not related.

[Karia]

111. It is not about guns, but common sense & safety

Something else is getting lost in this thread: adoption is NOT a right, it is a privilege.

[ZombieHorde]

117. Questions they don't ask, but should...

Do you kill children?

Do you molest children?

Do you think children make great servants?

Do you enjoy torturing children?

Would you encourage a child to play country music?

How many children do you eat each year?

Do you enjoy screaming mean things at children?

etc.

[jefflrrp]

119. Also . . .

Children are great lightly buttered and toasted

[ZombieHorde]

125. Truer words have never been spoken. nt

[PavePusher]

130. Hey! What's wrong with country music? n/t

[jefflrrp]

118. Meh. Im ambivalent about this one . . .

Im extremely pro-responsible firearms usuage, and have my VA, PA and NH concealed carry permits. However, I also work with kids, and do realize that irresponsible parents are EVERYWHERE. So Im ok with them asking a parent if they own guns, as long as the follow-up is a clause with how much trouble you'd get into if you don't store your guns responsibly in your home and a kid gets a handle on one of them. No other questions, IMO should be permitted.

My .02 take it for what you paid for it.

[HALO141]

131. I'd simply say "No." n/t

[JonQ]

134. Do you vote?

If so, for whom? What's your religion, do you really believe it or are you just going through the motions? What's your stance on abortion, gay marriage and DADT?

Have to make sure the folks think the right way before giving them a kid.

[burrfoot]

140. Yes, exactly.

We have to make sure that they THINK ABOUT SAFETY before we give them a kid. And act on it.

Sorry about the all caps. I don't mean to yell. I just get real fired up about this one.

* EDIT: (I'm assuming that you know that they don't, and can't, ask about the rest of those things.) *
** EDIT2: (Except the religion one. They do ask that, if you indicate that it's important to you to be matched that way. You're free to answer Any, None, Atheist, Agnostic, or Grand Church of Mickey Mouse) **

*** (Actually I'd be stoked if someone wrote Grand Church of Mickey Mouse) ***

[JonQ]

141. Do you ask if they have a pool?

Statistically more likely to kill a child than the presence of a gun.

[burrfoot]

149. Absolutely I

ask if there's a pool. And, depending on the age of the kid, we'll talk about supervision around the pool, the possibility of an alarm on the door(s) to the pool, or a pool fence. Also ask about how chemicals are stored in the home. And medicines. And although I wouldn't ask automatically, if I saw power tools around the living spaces I'd probably ask about them as well. And fire extinguishers, and smoke detectors. Carbon monoxide/radon detection units are great too, although not (to my knowledge) required.
Again, not to disqualify someone, just to be sure that they have a plan for safe storage/use. It's just an extra precaution.


*Edit: FWIW, I'm aware of how much more dangerous, statistically, basically everything in the home is compared to how dangerous, statistically, a gun is. I understand the reluctance to share ownership info but it just seems like a reasonable question to me. There are enough idiotic folks out there that accidents do happen, and I figure better safer than sorrier.*

[JonQ]

150. The main difference

is that it is a constitutional right guaranteed by law. So using that as a criteria to punish people is a bit concerning. Just like not allowing them to adopt if you dislike their political leanings, or stance on various issues.

[burrfoot]

151. Oh, I get that part.

I think that the question is asked in an effort to address what I see as a legitimate safety concern. I don't, and don't know of anyone who does, manipulate this question into a way to disqualify otherwise good homes from adopting/having custody of a child.

Nobody is using it as a criteria for punishing anyone.

The potential for abuse exists, of course. No way I can deny that.

I'd love to hear what the %'s are of homes with guns that are approved vs. disapproved.... I don't suppose we ever will...I'd bet that we'd find gun ownership to be a non-issue in terms of approval.

Occam's Razor right? The simplest explanation is true? It really, honestly is a question about safety; not a way to create a list of gun owners or to deny them from adopting children. There's no conspiracy to be found out.