Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So having these children have have a parent that is willing to take care of them and bring them into their own and treat them as their child, isnt as important has hating those who simply exercise their right to protect that child?
Their desire for playing with their guns was more important to them than adopting the child. And they are 'heartbroken'.
But they made their choice. Carrying a loaded gun around was more important to them than fostering a child who needs a home.
What's wrong with regulations that guns and ammunition be stored and locked up separately in homes with foster children?
Only in America....
What's wrong with those policies? Simply, they completely undermine the purpose of having a firearm for defense of one's self or home. An unloaded firearm is nothing but a club, and an unwieldy one, at that. Forcing people to store firearms and ammunition separately is nothing but a backhanded attempt to bypass their 2nd Amendment rights.
What's wrong with promoting policies that, instead of fostering an irrational fear of firearms, actually teach children (especially older children, as in this case) the proper respect for and care of firearms? That's the way many in rural areas are raised, and the instances of accidental shootings are infinitesimal in comparison with urban areas where having a gun is some sort of status symbol.
Foster children are wards of the state, and the state is therefore ultimately responsible for a child's safety and wellbeing. Considering that accidental shootings of children in homes with guns is a big problem, ("in 2011, the most recent year with available data, the agency estimated that there were 847 unintentional nonfatal firearm injuries among children 14 and under"), state's put all kinds of requirements on gun owners.
In 2011 there were 80.3 Million Americans aged under 17. Even allowing that not every home has a gun, there were 130,599,000 (call it 130.5M) housing units in 2010 according to the census, according to surveys the number of homes with a gun varies from 45% to 33%, so there were 847 unintentional nonfatal firearms injuries from a low of 43.5M possible homes and a high of 58.7M possible homes that's pretty low odds, and not especially a huge problem.
Every 6 minutes a child under the age of 5 falls down the stairs most are unintentional nonfatal stair fall injuries (87,600 per year sent to the ER the actual number would be higher, since not every fall needs a trip to the ER, and there are 9 more years of kids older than that falling down stairs too) and the population is a mere 24M kids. Should we prohibit people who have homes with stairs from fostering kids?
Can you see a problem with the focus of this rule? Kids are 100 times more likely to be injured falling down stairs than with a gun, and they're all entirely preventable too.
Foster children are wards of the state, and the state is therefore ultimately responsible for a child's safety and wellbeing. Considering that accidental shootings of children in homes with guns is a big problem, ("in 2011, the most recent year with available data, the agency estimated that there were 847 unintentional nonfatal firearm injuries among children 14 and under"), state's put all kinds of requirements on gun owners.
My own parents have been foster parents for years. They are required to have all guns placed in a locker, and in no circumstances are they allowed to carry a firearm. In the eye's of the state that's no different than not having smoke alarms in all bedrooms or living in a house that doesn't meet building codes.
Non fatal. I'm not sure exactly what that is supposed to mean. There are nearly 400 fatal drownings in pools every year. Maybe they should ban parents with pools?
This entire thread is going off the deep end. A government foster agency makes rules for adopting a child. Each state makes its own rules. If these people feel their federal rights take precedence over the NV state laws, they should take it to the Supreme Court. They could also move to a state that will allow them to keep their guns wherever they want and also adopt if any state laws are that lax. Conservatives are constantly championing state laws over federal, except when it apparently does not fit their agenda.
I would like marijuana to be legal in Florida. It isn't. I could move to Colorado where it is legal, but I choose to live in Florida where it is not. If this couple wants their guns and a kid so bad--they could move to a state that conforms with their wishes.
In addition, as an aside, anyone can go to a pet store or bird show and buy a bird-- but has anyone ever tried to adopt a parrot from an avian rescue organization? The applications and rules are very very strict. No smoking, home inspections, hours spent at home not working, etc. This is for birds. Why would anyone with any common sense expect it would be easier to adopt a child?
Last edited by Enigma777; 03-08-2015 at 03:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
