Guns and Kids

[SSGSAD]

There are about a dozen different threads started on this subject in the last few weeks too. I mention it because there are a lot more men on this site than women and you'll find more variability in the other threads.

I have two boys, ages 4 and 7. We've had firearms in the house long before they came along. They have never known a world without firearms. And because they were taught from Day 1, before they could walk and talk, the rules in this house regarding firearms, they don't have the slightest interest in "finding" the "hidden" firearms.



No mystery, no curiosity.

Both of my boys have been allowed to touch and hold since they were 3 or 4. The older one has been shooting for the last 2 years, and the 4y/o has been behind the trigger twice (at age 3!!!).

Neither of them bat an eye at seeing a firearm. And when tested, they have always passed.

I am not of the "always locked up mindset." I don't think children in the home is synonymous with some big risk of an accident. After one of the big threads on this, I did some digging. The number of children actually injured or killed from firearms (excluding murders and suicide) is ridiculously low. No, I don't make life choices based solely on statistics, but I also don't base them on emotional paranoias either. You know your kids. If you think they all need to be locked up always, then do it.

I ask this questions every time this topic comes up and no one has given me an answer yet: what did families do before there were safes and vaults and trigger locks? Why weren't there massive casualties then? And why do we think we'll have them now if we don't use those things?

Back in the day, of "Annie Oakley", if you will, no matter how many firearms there were in the house, they were ALL loaded, and EASY acess.....

 

[techres]

Take them out to the range.

If they are fearless, let them understand danger:

The First Gun Safety Lesson at the Range - YouTube

If they are skittish, let them have safe fun shooting stuff:

Safe instruction breeds safe practice. And safe practice is better than any "don't ever" statement about a forbidden fruit that there is.

 

[JasonB]

It's like the birds and the bees.... if they are old enough to ask, they are old enough to know. Take the mystery out of them early. Teach the Eddie Eagle Rules as soon as they can understand. Hopefully you have a GunVault or similar safe.

One of the best Age related replies I've saw on INGO...

You're the parent and know your kids better than anyone... Far better to show the the "Right" way to be around guns than for them to pickup whatever they see on TV or elsewhere...

 

[Hanu]

I agree that children should be educated about firearms, whether or not they are in your home. They may come across them elsewhere and should know what to do and what not to do. That being said, I don't believe you can rely on that knowledge to keep them safe. Think about how many times you've said to them "Don't pick your nose". Do they still pick their nose? Kids are kids, their brains do not work the same as adults.

 

[kludge]

No range report yet, but the 11 yo lady just got this... well, sorta... she'll have to share with me.

 

[Rfrantz3]

I'm a new parent 7 months actually and i cant wait but my mother introduced me at 13 to firearms and 8 to bows and hunting came shortly after 13 but it was probably the number one reason i respected her because of that connection and i hope for the same with my daughter. Just my handful of opinions!

 

[Water63]

My girls are both grown but I introduced them both to firearms as soon as they had a interest in them. Both girls shot their first shots around the age of 5-6 yrs old. I took them out to our range and allowed them to shoot till they were bored with it. That took the curiosity out of them. The standing rule in our house was no toy guns because you never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill or destroy and a gun is a gun. You know your kids better than any of us so you have to determine if taking them to the range is a good option worst that can happen is they will love it and you will be searching for ammo for your family outings at the range. The thing for me is that my kids never bothered any of the guns but their friends can be a problem because you don't know what their background is. So securing a firearm when not in your control is just prudent and the right thing to do.

 

[88GT]

That being said, I don't believe you can rely on that knowledge to keep them safe. Think about how many times you've said to them "Don't pick your nose". Do they still pick their nose? Kids are kids, their brains do not work the same as adults.

I don't rely on that knowledge. I rely on their discipline and training.

 

[Hanu]

I don't rely on that knowledge. I rely on their discipline and training.

At ages 4 and 7 it's not prudent to rely on anything except supervision to keep them safe. I'm sure you wouldn't leave them home alone at that age, no matter how disciplined and trained they may be. I'm not trying to start an argument or imply you are a bad parent. I'm sure that's not the case and I applaud the fact that you provide discipline and training for your children. I would just caution you to not let that lull you into a false sense of security. The consequences could be tragic.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Everything else thats been said is true... remove the curiosity.
Along techres's line of thinking... once they begin shooting safely, My son and I found that pudding cups explode nicely with 22lr

 

[Lees]

I started shooting around age 5. My oldest started shooting at 5. My other kids will, too. It's a lot more about gun safety at that age. I don't expect any real productive shooting until around 10 or so, but the experience of shooting, feeling the kick, hearing the noise, and seeing the holes in the target promote a healthy respect for the destructive power of a firearm.

Our guns are all on our bodies or locked in a gun safe. Never anything in between. My children will not have unsupervised access to a gun until they are adults themselves. They just won't. I don't even think a 15yo should have unsupervised access. 15yo's in general are impulsive and reckless.

I know people will say they trained their kids to not touch guns. What about when a neighbor kid is over? Kids play hide and seek. Neighbor kids wander where they're not supposed to. All it takes is once. What about when my kids are at a neighbor's house and they leave a gun out? We train our kids on the safety rules for kids (don't touch, get away, tell an adult), but what about at a neighbor's house when the neighbor's kid picks up daddy's gun to show off? It's hard when you're friend says it's ok. Especially if the gun looks like a toy. IMO pink and purple guns look like toys and are confusing for young children. I have taken my kids (all very young) to the gun shops and let them see the pink guns in the case, and reinforce that they are still deadly and "real."

I have been in the hospital, talking to the mother of a very young child who was that moment in the process of dying from an NDE. The devastation is incredible. Do all you can to minimize the risk. You can't eliminate it, even by not owning guns (and, IMO my kids are far better prepared to leave.the.gun.alone than kids who come from a household with no guns).

 

[dwickstrom]

My oldest was 3 when he got interested he would sit on the floor next to me band watch me clean my guns I would teach him about all the parts and what they did knowing he probably didn't understand a thing but he enjoyed it. As for keeping it close its on my shelf by my head at night and on my hip during the day. He just turned eight has his own BB gun and know it and my firearms aren't toy and follows the four rules of gun safety. Start them young then they won't be so curious later.

 

[88GT]

At ages 4 and 7 it's not prudent to rely on anything except supervision to keep them safe. I'm sure you wouldn't leave them home alone at that age, no matter how disciplined and trained they may be. I'm not trying to start an argument or imply you are a bad parent. I'm sure that's not the case and I applaud the fact that you provide discipline and training for your children. I would just caution you to not let that lull you into a false sense of security. The consequences could be tragic.

And I would argue that it is less prudent to rely solely on supervision. What of the times when I cannot supervise them? What then? Better to equip them with the knowledge and experience to do the right thing than rely on my presence as the sole stop-gap between success and tragedy.

I know my children. I know how they respond to firearms. It's a simple as that.

 

[Fixer]

I have always tried to gunproof my kids rather than try to kid proof my guns. To do the later only makes them less accessible to you in a time of need. My wife and I both have our LTCH and carry regularly. I have 2 daughters at home now 15 and 9. They both have been exposed to guns from an early age. I wanted to teach them safe handling and the true power of guns. I was not worried about my guns and supervising them at home as much as I was worried about them being exposed to one while at a friends house when I am not around. We had many disscutions on getting a parent if their friends ever wanted to show them their Dads gun when he wasn't around.

I agree with 88GT it is the times that you are not around that they may need the experience and knowledge that you gave them.

"I know my children. I know how they respond to firearms. It's a simple as that." Powerful statement that all to few of us parents are unable to say about knowing our kids.

 

[Hanu]

I have always tried to gunproof my kids rather than try to kid proof my guns. To do the later only makes them less accessible to you in a time of need. My wife and I both have our LTCH and carry regularly. I have 2 daughters at home now 15 and 9. They both have been exposed to guns from an early age. I wanted to teach them safe handling and the true power of guns. I was not worried about my guns and supervising them at home as much as I was worried about them being exposed to one while at a friends house when I am not around. We had many disscutions on getting a parent if their friends ever wanted to show them their Dads gun when he wasn't around.

I agree with 88GT it is the times that you are not around that they may need the experience and knowledge that you gave them.

"I know my children. I know how they respond to firearms. It's a simple as that." Powerful statement that all to few of us parents are unable to say about knowing our kids.

I said that in my first post: "I agree that children should be educated about firearms, whether or not they are in your home. They may come across them elsewhere and should know what to do and what not to do." No where did I say to rely solely on supervision. If anyone thinks that you can depend on a 4 year old to always do what they should, you are putting them at risk. If you've left loaded weapons where they are easily accessible to children, you are putting them, yourself, and others at risk. I hope that you and 88GT are lucky enough to never know the consequences. Talk to one person who hasn't been so lucky and you might rethink how well you know your kids. They are kids. They have the brains and reasoning power of kids no matter how intelligent or well-trained they may be. It only takes one time for them to have a lapse in judgement and your life would never be the same.

 

[88GT]

I said that in my first post: "I agree that children should be educated about firearms, whether or not they are in your home. They may come across them elsewhere and should know what to do and what not to do." No where did I say to rely solely on supervision.

Well, you kinda did. The implication that relying on anything except supervision is imprudent is that supervision is the ONLY thing worth relying on. (Man, that's atrocious sentence syntax.) I submit the following.

At ages 4 and 7 it's not prudent to rely on anything except supervision to keep them safe. I'm sure you wouldn't leave them home alone at that age, no matter how disciplined and trained they may be. I'm not trying to start an argument or imply you are a bad parent. I'm sure that's not the case and I applaud the fact that you provide discipline and training for your children. I would just caution you to not let that lull you into a false sense of security. The consequences could be tragic.

How else am I to read that except to mean that you hold the opinion that only supervision is an appropriate stop-gap to accidents? Perhaps you meant that relying on anything without supervision is imprudent?

If anyone thinks that you can depend on a 4 year old to always do what they should, you are putting them at risk.

Don't you think that's a little bit arrogant on your part to assume that you know what someone else's child is capable of?

If you've left loaded weapons where they are easily accessible to children, you are putting them, yourself, and others at risk.

Is the problem with the presence of risk or the increase of risk?

I will not entertain the notion that risk can be eliminated as long as the commonality of firearms in the homes exists. As long as the "other side" agrees to acknowledge that this is a discussion on levels of risk reduction and not a zero sum game of risk/no risk, then I don't mind having this discussion. But far too often I get the feeling that the lock-it-up-tight crowd is operating on the unfounded notion that doing so eliminates the risk.

Since it IS a matter of risk reduction, the question must necessarily be asked, what is a sufficient level of reduction? Do we have to abide by the choice that reduces the risk to the greatest degree? Can we agree that even if all else were equal and your kids were identical to mine, you might still prioritize differently and accept a different level of risk? So when we throw into the mix that our kids are NOT identical, do I have to make my choices according to your priorities and circumstances?

It may pain the softer-hearted to accept anything but the strictest of standards when it comes to children's safety, regardless of any other factors. It's why we have car seats, bike helmets, fixed-sided cribs, smoking prohibitions....ad nauseum. But we don't make decisions that way in our house. I have other priorities and goals to consider and I'm not about to sacrifice them to a reduction in risk so small that it is negligible to the point of being non-existent (law of diminishing returns).

Once again, let's revisit the past. The slew of households with firearms and kids in this country and what is the risk of accidents? Was it ever so much greater prior to the advent of a locking steel cabinet than it is now? I highly doubt it. It probably went up after the use of locking cabinets became en vogue as parents placed an over-reliance on the mechanical and ignored the cerebral. (Hmmm, this parallels the safeties on firearms debate quite well, I'm noticing.) Statistically speaking, I should be more worried about my kids when they become teenagers. The accidental shooting of teenage victims is exponentially higher than that of children under 5. And small children are still very much motivated, in varying degrees, by a desire to please mommy and daddy. Teenagers not so much. Teenagers, if not properly disciplined and trained, are far more likely to disobey than small children. And do so in defiant, willful opposition rather than just ego-motivated disregard.

I hope that you and 88GT are lucky enough to never know the consequences. Talk to one person who hasn't been so lucky and you might rethink how well you know your kids.

That's just silly. A singular experience, of another person even, is supposed to make me re-evaluate my role and knowledge as a mother? I think not. Particularly when the singular set of circumstances probably looks nothing like mine. Single datum points are not very good motivators for me.

They are kids.

But they are my kids and I know them.

They have the brains and reasoning power of kids no matter how intelligent or well-trained they may be.

Then again, I could go find all the stories of 3, 4, and 5 y/o kids saving their parents' lives by calling 9-1-1 because that's what they were trained to do in an emergency.

It only takes one time for them to have a lapse in judgement and your life would never be the same.

Yeah, it only takes one time for one of them to go psycho and kill me in my sleep too.

I understand and sympathize with your concern. You are free to secure your firearms in your home as you see fit according to the needs/priorities of those in your household. But do not assume to know you know what goes on in my house and then lecture me about how I should be raising my children. Or I'll start preaching about the horrible risk your children face for being schooled in the government indoctrination centers. (I'm only half joking here.)

Yes, my children are at an increased risk because I do not hide my firearms from them. But I'd wager money that risk is negated by their training and more than covers the gap in those that rely on storage and physical barrier.

 

[Hanu]

I stand corrected; "without supervision" is a better way of putting it. I also agree that it is a matter of risk reduction. There is no way possible to eliminate all risk. Beyond that, I think we've come to the "agree to disagree" point (I happen to think that car seats, fix-sided cribs, and smoking prohibitions are a good thing). Your kids are going to surprise you in many ways before (and after) they are adults. Some good, some bad. Each of us decides how to rear and supervise our children. We each have to accept the consequence of those decisions.

 

[88GT]

I stand corrected; "without supervision" is a better way of putting it. I also agree that it is a matter of risk reduction. There is no way possible to eliminate all risk. Beyond that, I think we've come to the "agree to disagree" point (I happen to think that car seats, fix-sided cribs, and smoking prohibitions are a good thing). Your kids are going to surprise you in many ways before (and after) they are adults. Some good, some bad. Each of us decides how to rear and supervise our children. We each have to accept the consequence of those decisions.

If that's what you got out of that post, you missed the point completely.

Agree to disagree is a funny way of putting it since this is about familial choices. There isn't a right or wrong answer that's universally applicable to all families.

 

[Mark 1911]

I've known some kids that could responsibly handle firearms at an early age. I started shooting at age 10 with adult supervision. By age 15 I was trusted on my own. Only once did my father ever have to discipline me for anything related to firearms, and only once (I did not want to repeat that lesson). On the other hand, some young adults, even at age 21, are still very immature and irresponsible. Firearms may be low on the list of concerns for them since they have a lot issues to deal with, but I would be more worried about firearms in the hands of someone like that than in the hands of a minor who has shown maturity and responsibility. Unfortunately, there is no magic age where all kids can be counted on to be mature and responsible. Every parent knows their own kid better than anyone else and ultimately have to be willing to take responsibility for the freedoms they entrust to their under-age children.

 

[tiretrack]

Great debate,with several valid opinions. How are u planing on handling the school property problem? Ours are 15 and 20 and that has been one of the toughest parts of carrying. Phone calls of "I need to stay late can someone pick me up?". Many times I was 2 miles from school and 10 miles from home and armed.