NRA wants gun question dropped for adoptive parents

[imdjh]

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/11/21/550043.html?title=NRA+wants+gun+question+dropped+for+adoptive+parents#

TALLAHASSEE (Bay News 9) -- Adoptive parents like Ron and Fran Fahs went through a lot of paperwork in order to get a little one.

One question that's asked of prospective parents is now prompting a bill before Florida state legislature.

"Do you own a gun?"

The Fahs say while they aren't necessarily firearm supporters, they do feel that question goes too far.

[Arctic Dave]

1. They are in charge, they can ask anything they want.

[imdjh]

3. Not according to the NRA

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/southflorida/story/1317135.html

NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said adoption agencies are violating gun-owners' rights by asking about firearms in an adoption form. She said any request about gun ownership from an agency connected with government was tantamount to establishing a gun registry.

``Gun registration is illegal in Florida,'' Hammer said. ``An adoption agency has no right to subvert the privacy rights of gun owners.''

[Arctic Dave]

9. The NRA is gun lobby not a child welfare agency.

I don't think they have much say about who gets to adopt a child.

[imdjh]

11. It will take about a week for the state to forbid adoption services from asking that question.

Maybe a little longer with Thanksgiving coming up.

[Arctic Dave]

14. Or not.

[AzNick]

2. As foster parents we had to answer this question

It made sense: they wanted to make sure our guns were locked up.

Same thing with all our medical supplies and dangerous products.

The question makes absolute sense.

The NRA are a bunch of idiots as usual.

[imdjh]

4. See my "not according to the NRA" post.

[Tempest]

8. They're going to have a hard time selling that B.S.

Asking the question is far from creating a registry.

[Tempest]

5. It's a legitimate question

All risk factors should be taken into account when placing children. Guns in the home are a risk.

[imdjh]

6. see my "not according to the NRA" post.

[benEzra]

18. As long as they don't weigh that risk more heavily than the far greater risk

posed by, say, swimming pool ownership.

The pediatrics handouts the public-health people used to give our child's pediatrician warned luridly of the dangers of owning guns, but didn't even mention pools, even though pools kill ten times as many kids in that age range. It was political/idealogical, not safety driven, and I suppose there is some concern that some personnel in the adoption process are projecting their own personal views against gun ownership into the process, and unfairly handicapping gun owners in the approval process. I doubt it's a system-wide thing, but I do know there there are plenty of people even here on DU who would say people who own guns are not suitable adoptive parents.

[Tempest]

7. Data on unintentional shootings involving children

http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?folder_id=540&content_item_id=1131

Unintentional shootings account for nearly 20 percent of all firearm-related fatalities among children ages 14 and under, compared with 3 percent for the entire U.S. population.

Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home of the victim and nearly 40 percent occur in the home of a friend or relative. Firearm ownership in the home (especially a firearm kept loaded and unlocked) is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm fatalities among children.

In one recent study of parents of children ages 4 to 12, more than half of gun-owning parents reported storing a firearm loaded or unlocked in their home.

Nearly two-thirds of parents with school-age children who keep a gun in the home believe that the firearm is safe from their children. However, one study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the gun was kept.

Declines in child firearm- and BB/pellet gun-related injury rates during the 1990s coincided with increased prevention efforts, including legislation and education, aimed at reducing unsupervised access to guns by children.

Children living in the South (which includes Florida) have an unintentional shooting death rate that is seven times that of children living in the Northeast.

[imdjh]

10. You expect me to take seriously a statement which groups gun and BB accidents?

[PavePusher]

12. Scary sounding percentages...

But what are the actual numbers? I will bet you a doughnut that more kids in that age range die due to drowning or sports injuries.

[paulsby]

17. more kids under 5 drown in the bathtub

than from accidental (more correctly, unintentional) shootings.

if you are adopting, they should ask if you own a bathtub. nationwide, about 100 kids under 5 drown in a bathtub. far more than are accidentally shot

[PavePusher]

21. Oh, I already knew that. Just trying to prod some people into thinking/researching. n/t

[imdjh]

20. This slimy anti-gun crap is so obvious, and obviously those who promote it think we are idiots.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2009-10-20/story/guns_and_kids_lives_interrupted

Read this article and two things pop out at you:

1- That 18 and 19 year olds aren't children, and neither are late teen criminals. They should not be included in any article which is trying to analyze or promote safety in the context of guns and children. A sixteen year old who buys a gun to use in his drug business is not the same thing as a toddler who shoots his brother with mommy's pistol.

2- That if you run childhood gun deaths for households making over $100K per year in a legal occupation, you can probably count them on one hand.

[Cirque du So-What]

13. Why do adoption agencies need to know about gun ownership anyway?

How much weight does a 'YES' or 'NO' answer to the question of gun ownership have on the final decision to let prospective parents adopt a child? Do adoption agencies deduct points for a 'YES' answer? On what basis? Safety statistics? Parents live in a bad neighbood? Patterns of risky behavior? I don't see any scenario where the adoption agency would consider gun ownership in a positive light.

Prospective parents could easily lie on the questionnaire and hide their weapons in the attic in the event of a pre-adoption inspection, but I don't like any process that tempts people to lie in order to obtain the results they desire. Besides, there's no law against parents buying weapons after the adoption has been finalized, so what's the difference?

I'm still no fan of the NRA; their argument that it creates a 'gun registry' seems paranoid to me. Besides, adoption agencies are all private in Florida, so the big, bad gummint has no centralized database of gun owners anyway. This is one of those rare instances where I agree with the NRA, but not for the reasons they cite.

[burrfoot]

19. It'snot just

a yes or no question. It determines whether or not the follow-up question, "Are they stored in a locked cabinet or safe?"

There's not a "point" system. The purpose of a home study is to get to know the potential parents before giving them custody of a child. Believe me, there are WAY more kids that need adopting than there are people interested in adoption- they are absolutely not running down a point system and looking for ways to disqualify people.

Does gun ownership have any correlation to unsafe parenting? Of course not. Leaving a loaded pistol in a nightstand, or shotgun in the closet, however, is another story.

FWIW, the social workers who do these home studies have stressful jobs for which they get very little pay. It involves going into homes and working with families in living situations that many people wouldn't even believe still exist in this country. It involves seeing and dealing with the consequences of the kind of neglect and abuse which, frankly, is inconceivable to most rational people.
My point? Social workers- particularly those who work with kids- are very aware that the reality of finding a good home for a kid is much, much more important than whether or not that kid is in a home with a gun(s) in it.

I can't speak for every worker at every agency, of course, and I realize that there is potential for abuse with this question. I do believe, however, that the value of knowing the answer to it far outweighs the fact that it might make a potential parent uncomfortable.

Just my .02, YMMV.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Just lie about it.

[doc03]

16. They don't ask people that question before

they can reproduce? Before someone adopts they want to know what kind of income they have, what kind neighborhood they live in, if they have a pool, if they have any guns. It sounds to me like a government panel selecting who they find qualified to have a child. Just saying why is the bar is set so high for adoption when anybody can reproduce. Then especially the Republicans they think you should have the child even if you don't want it or can't support it.

[burrfoot]

22. Well,

You're kind of correct. It's not a government panel, but you're absolutely right that it's a group of people interviewing and getting to know a family (or parent, or parents), and deciding if they are appropriate to be given custody of a child. Not if they're appropriate to HAVE a child, but to be given one.

The fact that people CAN have kids does NOT equate to the fact that they SHOULD have kids. We don't restrict the right because it's biological reproduction. Adopting a child is not the same thing, at all. We (as a society) ABSOLUTELY have a responsibility to ensure that children are going to good and safe homes. Again, this is not about whether you have guns in your home, it is about whether if you do have them, they are stored safely.

People are not being denied foster children because they have a gun or guns in their home. It's a question, with a reasonable motivation behind it. People answer yes to it and still get kids all the time. This is a non-issue.

At least as far as I know. I will happily rethink my stance on this if anyone has information that either A) a registry is being compiled or B) potential adoptive/foster families are being denied because they have guns in their home.


Note: Sorry about all the caps. I don't mean to shout, I just don't know how to do italics here. Or underlining. Or that cool thing where text has a line through it like you crossed it out.

[doc03]

23. Doesn't their decision have a bias

to families of higher income? Disregarding the gun issue doesn't a parent that is a professional and has a $150,000 income have a far greater chance of adopting than a blue-collar family making $35,000. I can understand not allowing a drug addict, child molester or someone that has a
bunch of DWI arrests being denied. It is perfectly legal to own a gun and I would also add the argument could be made the child would be safer because of the presence of a gun. It is the personnel responsibility of the parents to make sure the gun is stored safely not any agency that could be all anti-gun rights advocates to decide.

[burrfoot]

24. I can't speak

for all adoptions agencies, regarding the income preference. I know that for my agency, as long as the income is stable (verified with employer) and there is a reasonable amount more money coming into the home than going out (or there is some other form of assistance i.e. relatives, a savings account, etc.); that's all that matters. I don't believe that there is a bias against working class/blue collar families, I do know that I've not seen evidence of any.

I agree with you that a child may be safer in a home with a gun. Only, I'd add, in a home with a gun that was stored safely.

It is the obligation of the parents to make sure the gun is stored safely. But isn't it, equally, the responsibility of the agency not to give custody of a child to parents that don't store guns safely?

This is an instance in which the person making the decision doesn't know if the person applying demonstrates any sense of responsibility at all. The whole point of the home study is to help determine and document this. Isn't it the personal responsibility of the worker not to give custody to child of someone who isn't responsible?

You are correct that it's possible that, if an agency (or the higher level employees, anyway) were anti-gun, they could establish a pattern of not approving gun-owning homes for adoption. However, any family who believed they had been denied for this reason could appeal this, up to and including the level of the local circuit court judge.

Again, I just don't think that this is a problem. I don't think that people are being denied for being gun owners, and I don't think that a registry is being created.

[imdjh]

27. Does income help you get a healthy infant of your own ethnicity?

[Xenotime]

25. Perfectly legal question to ask. I find it suspicious that they would challenge it.

[imdjh]

26. It's not a legitimate factor in making the decision, therefore the question shouldn't be asked...

.... to avoid the appearance that the answer might be used in an illegitimate way.

[burrfoot]

28. But wouldn't it sound silly

to just "do you store your guns safely?", without first asking if they own any?

All kidding aside, though- would it make a difference if the question was "If you have guns in your home, are they locked in a secure cabinet or safe?"

I'm honestly curious- is it the the literal question that you object to- i.e., "Do I own a gun" is not relevant to how I parent, but "Do I store them safely is"; or is it about not liking that you're being asked to put on a form that you own guns?

Or do you really not believe that the question of safe gun storage around children is relevant to adoption?

[imdjh]

29. Then ask gun safety questions in the abstract.

If you owned a revolver would you keep it :

A- Locked and loaded at all times... you never know when an adopted kid will turn on you.

B- In a pillowcase under the Rottweiler

C- Someplace secure where the kids can't get to it.