Spinoff: would you let your kids play at someone's house if you knew they had a gun?

[Anonymous]

My friend's husband is a police officer and keeps his gun locked up. I would not let my children play there unless I was there with them but to be honest, I'm more concerned with the fact that my friend has a pitbull that has bitten several people. The gun is locked up but the dog could easily get out. I don't think I would make the other parents complete a checklist before sending my child to their home. There are so many things to worry about, my kid would never get out the front door if I let all of these things consume me. The key is to know as best you can, the parents of the children and not just on a superficial level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who sparked the debate on the other thread. I don't think it is "neurotic" to fail to trust somebody else's definition of "safe enough." I think every parent thinks their gun is safe enough, or their kids have been taught to respect it, but accidents still happen. There are millions of things in life I don't have control over and I realize that, but it's reasonable enough for me to think my young children can find places to play where there are no guns present. Your kids are welcome at my house anytime!

I would make an exception for police and FBI officers because I do trust their definition of "safe enough," generally speaking. But not the general population. I have no idea how smart or stupid some of my kids' friends parents are, and I'm not going to "trust them" on this one.

If PP doesn't want to hang out with me because i'm too "neurotic" for her, I agree, we'd probably not get along.

PP here. You are setting up a straw man. I didn't say you should just trust my definition of "safe enough." I very clearly outlined the extensive safety precautions we've taken. I'd be happy to show them to you. If those precautions don't meet your definition of "safe enough," then, in my opinion, you are a neurotic of the type that I wouldn't enjoy associating with.

As for the use of the gun, it is a family heirloom. My husband and I have both hunted birds in the past, as do many of our friends and family. We have not lately, mostly because we don't have time, but we may choose to do so again in the future. There is no way the gun would be accessible enough (even to us adults) to use for self-defense.

As for the gun vs. pool discussion -- I grew up in an area where everyone I knew had guns, and I never even heard of anyone I knew (much less a child) getting shot. I do know at least two families who have had children drown. We have a house on the water, and the water makes me much more nervous than the gun in the house.

I don't think straw man means what you think it means. But you seem really bent on arguing. I don't care what steps you've taken to make your gun safe. Also, I doubt very much I'd want to be friends with people who kill birds for sport. UGH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the person who sparked the debate on the other thread. I don't think it is "neurotic" to fail to trust somebody else's definition of "safe enough." I think every parent thinks their gun is safe enough, or their kids have been taught to respect it, but accidents still happen. There are millions of things in life I don't have control over and I realize that, but it's reasonable enough for me to think my young children can find places to play where there are no guns present. Your kids are welcome at my house anytime!

I would make an exception for police and FBI officers because I do trust their definition of "safe enough," generally speaking. But not the general population. I have no idea how smart or stupid some of my kids' friends parents are, and I'm not going to "trust them" on this one.

If PP doesn't want to hang out with me because i'm too "neurotic" for her, I agree, we'd probably not get along.

PP here. You are setting up a straw man. I didn't say you should just trust my definition of "safe enough." I very clearly outlined the extensive safety precautions we've taken. I'd be happy to show them to you. If those precautions don't meet your definition of "safe enough," then, in my opinion, you are a neurotic of the type that I wouldn't enjoy associating with.

As for the use of the gun, it is a family heirloom. My husband and I have both hunted birds in the past, as do many of our friends and family. We have not lately, mostly because we don't have time, but we may choose to do so again in the future. There is no way the gun would be accessible enough (even to us adults) to use for self-defense.

As for the gun vs. pool discussion -- I grew up in an area where everyone I knew had guns, and I never even heard of anyone I knew (much less a child) getting shot. I do know at least two families who have had children drown. We have a house on the water, and the water makes me much more nervous than the gun in the house.

I don't think straw man means what you think it means. But you seem really bent on arguing. I don't care what steps you've taken to make your gun safe. Also, I doubt very much I'd want to be friends with people who kill birds for sport. UGH.

Yikes! Than you would really hate me! I killed Bambi a few weeks ago. And we ate him at our neighborhood block party last night.

[Anonymous]

Yes, hunting and guns are really cool. Gag me.

[Anonymous]

no, i would not let my child go if they had gun or a pool and they seemed less neurotic than i am.

i did have this no-gun issue written into a nanny share w a neighbor. pool was a non-issue.