Heartbroken' Couple Denied Foster Children Because of Legal Gun Permits

[bonnie]

Heartbroken' Couple Denied Foster Children Because of Legal Gun Permits 

 

 

 

Mar 07, 2015 // 11:52am 

As seen on Fox and Friends Weekend

 

 

A Nevada couple has been told that they can't adopt a 12-year-old child because they have legal concealed-carry permits.

Brian and Valerie Wilson asked the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week to approve a bill that would allow them to carry loaded weapons and serve as foster parents.

The couple’s attempts at adopting have been stopped by regulations requiring that guns and ammunition be stored in separate, secure containers in any home where foster children reside.

"My wife Valerie and I have been together since high school," Wilson told the committee. "We have always planned from early on that we would adopt later in life. We, in 2013, decided it was now time to go ahead and adopt and complete our family."

"There [are] a lot of older children in the system that need homes."

"I am really heartbroken that the Department of Child and Family Services gave us this denial letter,” Valerie Wilson said to the committee. "I really want a family."

A spokesperson for the department said the reason the Wilsons were denied was a concern about the ability of a foster child to gain access to a loaded weapon.

Tucker Carlson reacted this morning on "Fox and Friends Weekend."

"They're ideologues and they hate guns," he said. "The sad part is all the kids who are languishing in the foster care system, going from home to home. And all the creepy, unfit people who do get to adopt. And they're penalizing these people? It's pretty unbelievable."

Watch the clip above.

[Bravus]

How many children have died in American homes from firearm accidents, just in 2015?

[Bravus]

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[phkrause]

Bravus, just 1 is 1 too many!!

Here's another sad report:

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/gun-accidents.htm

[bonnie]

How many children have died in American homes from firearm accidents, just in 2015?

Double posting removed

[bonnie]

How many children have died in American homes from firearm accidents, just in 2015?

How many children have died because of american homes that own ATV's? Should they be disqualified from adopting?

 

ATV riding risky for kids, experts say | TribLIVE

 

Pittsburgh Tribune‑Review

 

Dec 6, 2014 - ... all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles, except on land owned or leased by a parent or guardian. ... Every year in the United States, ATV accidents injure or kill 40,000 ... the nation, from 2007-11, the most recent federal statistics available, ... No one wants to cause anyone injury or death because of a pursuit, 

 

 

 

 

'“Unfortunately, if you ask any surgeon at any children's medical facility, you'd receive a resounding ‘yes' when they are asked whether such accidents are common occurrences with young people. All-terrain vehicles are big, often powerful machines not specifically designed for children,” said Gaines, director of Trauma and Injury Prevention at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Every year in the United States, ATV accidents injure or kill 40,000 children younger than 16, according to The Safety Institute, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit. Its research shows ATV driving has the highest risk of hospitalization among 33 sports and activities popular with children, including bike riding, snowboarding, skateboarding, wrestling and basketball. The risk of serious injury associated with driving ATVs is 61 percent greater than for football, the activity with the next highest risk.'

Read more: http://triblive.com/news/editorspicks/7134420-74/atvs-atv-safety#ixzz3TniaGmRw 

 

[TheCodeMonk]

How many children have died because of american homes that own ATV's? Should they be disqualified from adopting?

Bonnie is right. My son almost died from a overdose of Imodium ad when he was 2. He got into my wife's purse and ate a whole brand new bottle. Should all homes that have medicine be denied too?

[Tom Wetmore]

Not even an apples to oranges comparison... More like a dog to poisonous snake as family pet comparison.

A significant difference is the nature and intended purpose of that which causes harm. An ATV and Imodium used as intended are not designed to cause harm. And if used as intended they are not inherently dangerous. A gun is. It's inherent design and purpose is a weapon designed to kill. Used as intended it is dangerous and can cause great harm.

[TheCodeMonk]

Sorry, all my friends use their guns for competition target shooting, not self defense or as a weapon of harm.

Not apples to oranges at all. Knifes were originally designed to kill, but that's not their only use today.

[Tom Wetmore]

There are people who consider their use of controlled substances as recreational too and people who enjoying playing with fire.  And there are those who fly vintage war planes  for sport and competition.  But can we say that those are the predominant purpose or that such use is the use for which such things were designed for?

 

Knives have always had multiple purposes, only one of which is as a weapon.  I would say that the original purpose of  the first knife was more likely as a tool and not as a weapon.  Guns on the other hand were and continue to be designed primarily as a weapons used to kill either man or beast.  In fact, non hunting sport use of guns is really a rather modern idea.

 

But the point is not what the owner intends or only uses their guns for.  The point of the question was how many unintended deaths or serious harm happen by weapons kept for such purposes despite the best of intentions and safety precautions taken?  More specifically how many children die as a result of getting hold of guns in the home or somebody else's misuse of such guns?  The question is not about proper use, sports or hunting.  It is about what happens when guns and children are continuously in close proximity all of the time and the probability of harm as a result.  

 

I have hunted and shot for sport both as a kid and as an adult. Look, I grew up on a farm.  We had guns in the house. Hunters aplenty in my family and I grew up in prime hunting country.  Thousands of deer harvested every hunting season in the counties around our farm.   I learned to shoot as a boy.   And one time I narrowly missed shooting myself in the head as a boy, despite having been carefully taught proper use and handling of a gun by my father.  Hearing a bullet whistle past your head is hard to forget.  Kids do memorable and stupid things.  When stupid and immature is combined with deadly, it can have irreversible and devastating effects.  I lived to tell about it.  Many children do not.

 

But too many gun zealots want no limits or restrictions even those that make sense and do not want to face the harsh realities of their choices.

[bonnie]

Not even an apples to oranges comparison...  More like a  dog to poisonous snake as family pet comparison.

 

A significant difference is the nature and intended purpose of that causes harm.  An ATV and Imodium used as intended are not designed to cause harm.  And if used as intended they are not inherently dangerous.  A gun is.  It's inherent design and purpose is a weapon designed to kill.   Used as intended it is dangerous and can cause great harm.  

Conceal and Carry permits are not intended to cause harm to innocent children either. It is not designed for children just as atv's aren't.  All-terrain vehicles are big, often powerful machines not specifically designed for children

 

If this couple had ATV's should they be stopped from adopting? Given the death and injury rate per year is considerably higher than those that have a Conceal and Carry permit.

The carelessness and lack of training in operating a ATV by children is a lot less than most that obtain a Conceal and Carry.

[Bravus]

OK, let me lay out a few things.

Children for adoption in America are much rarer than they used to be, due to (a) increased availability of contraception (good thing), ( increased availability of abortions (bad thing) and © decreased shaming and coercion of single mothers to give up their babies for adoption (IMO very mixed thing but over all an improvement). I'm talking about healthy babies for adoption, not older children with different needs for fostering, which I know Bonnie knows much more about than me and has done amazing work to help.

So, given that there are more couples seeking to adopt than there are children to adopt, if there are two couples who in all other ways are equivalent, it's simply a fact that the child is safer in the home without guns than in the home with guns. Both are likely to have Imodium.

Even though I ride a large powerful motorcycle, I agree with the point that ATVs are very dangerous, both in themselves and because they are often ridden without protective gear by inexperienced people, and I certainly wouldn't let a child ride one. Rather put them on a motorbike with training and appropriate safety gear and precautions. I recognise that appropriate precautions - gun safes and storing ammo separately and so on - can also make guns safer.

But the comparison stands - with all other risk factors being equal, guns in the home make it less safe.

The answer to my original question, by the way, seems to be 87. 87 children killed in gun accidents in America in a little over 2 months. As someone said above, one is too many. 87 is far too many. It's more than one a day.

[TheCodeMonk]

Still wrong. Statistics do not lie, folks.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/08/cdc-accidental-poisoning-death-51-times-more-likely-than-accidental-shooting-death/

[TheCodeMonk]

Also, my point here is not to just be argumentative or to play "devils advocate"... Anyone can throw their opinions around and give good solid reasons why something should or shouldn't happen a certain way.. But a couple who have concealed weapon permits are going to be much more careful with their guns than someone who just has them for hunting. At least in Michigan.. To get a permit, you have to go through a ton of training here to be eligible.

What everyone is really saying here is that it's better for a child to be without parents than to be with loving parents who have guns. I detest that and it makes "my blood boil" to think that there are people who would rather see children without parents.

[Liz]

Children are going to find ways to hurt themselves, they just do. Whether or not they live in a household with guns, ATV's, trampolines or anything else deemed dangerous. Just because they may not live with the perceived danger doesn't mean they aren't going to have friends who might. It comes down to supervision. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction of "you own guns, therefore you can't foster/adopt" a better solution would be, "What's your game plan?" "Exactly how are you going to keep your child safe" start a dialogue and go from there.

[bonnie]

OK, let me lay out a few things.

Children for adoption in America are much rarer than they used to be, due to (a) increased availability of contraception (good thing), ( increased availability of abortions (bad thing) and © decreased shaming and coercion of single mothers to give up their babies for adoption (IMO very mixed thing but over all an improvement). I'm talking about healthy babies for adoption, not older children with different needs for fostering, which I know Bonnie knows much more about than me and has done amazing work to help.

So, given that there are more couples seeking to adopt than there are children to adopt, if there are two couples who in all other ways are equivalent, it's simply a fact that the child is safer in the home without guns than in the home with guns. Both are likely to have Imodium.

Even though I ride a large powerful motorcycle, I agree with the point that ATVs are very dangerous, both in themselves and because they are often ridden without protective gear by inexperienced people, and I certainly wouldn't let a child ride one. Rather put them on a motorbike with training and appropriate safety gear and precautions. I recognise that appropriate precautions - gun safes and storing ammo separately and so on - can also make guns safer.

But the comparison stands - with all other risk factors being equal, guns in the home make it less safe.

The answer to my original question, by the way, seems to be 87. 87 children killed in gun accidents in America in a little over 2 months. As someone said above, one is too many. 87 is far too many. It's more than one a day.

It is true there are less babies and very young children to adopt,but not so for older children. The child in this story is 12 years old. And yes they can be hard to place even in foster homes.

Is the child safer in a home that has ATV's and allow the children to ride/drive them?  87 children in two months is a complete tragedy, I can't even begin to comprehend the parents that have to deal with that. 40,000 injuries and deaths due to incorrect use or accidental use of ATV's is a far greater and far more frequent tragedy number wise.

 

"But the point is not what the owner intends or only uses their guns for.  The point of the question was how many unintended deaths or serious harm happen by weapons kept for such purposes despite the best of intentions and safety precautions taken?  More specifically how many children die as a result of getting hold of guns in the home or somebody else's misuse of such guns?  The question is not about proper use, sports or hunting.  It is about what happens when guns and children are continuously in close proximity all of the time and the probability of harm as a result.  

 

It is not what the owners of ATV's intends but what the end result is. Far greater numbers. Everything in the above paragraph is as applicable to ATV's and their improper use as it is to guns.

To disqualify these parents from providing a permanent and stable home for this 12 year old is another tragedy. At his age there is not a line up of perspective parents vying to adopt him. He may very likely end up as so many older children,never having a home of their own or parents.

Yet if they owned ATV's ,something that injures and kills far more by thousands they would be acceptable

[Tom Wetmore]

As someone who has adopted a child and has a lot of adopted children in the extended family and at least a dozen friends with adopted children, this is hardly the greatest burden or most meddlesome question or requirement to have to meet in the process. I know of at least one of our friends who had to remove the guns from their house. We had to do a variety of home "improvements" to bring our 20 year old house up to the most current fire and safety code requirements. I was required to repair a 4 inch hole in the drywall near the ceiling (had cut through fishing some wires), had to do some repair to weathered boards on our deck because of potential risk of splinters. I kid you not! If they are worrying about splinter risk for an eight year old child, do you think they might consider lethal weapons in the house as safe enough?!?!

And that is just some of the household safety issues faced in the home inspection. There was the family interview with the social worker, psychological testing and interview of my wife and me by a psychologist, references, scrutiny of finances and income readiness, reams of paperwork, legal approval and 3 years of follow up reports to the foreign embassy of the country of birth.

You may have the right to bear arms but you do not have the right to adopt a child. It is substantially harder to adopt a child than it is to obtain a gun. For some peculiar reason the government places a far greater value and level of importance on the safety and well being of a child than your right to have guns to play with. Imagine that!

[B/W Photodude]

I tend to believe that a more reasonable course would be to examine the gun safety habits of the prospective adoptive parents and how they store their guns. As mentioned, kids can find a lot of ways to injure themselves. I would be more worried about skateboards, trampolines, and ATVs than guns. Anyone planning to adopt should have proof of gun safety training for everyone in the house above a certain age.

 

[fccool]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/01/new-mexico-toddler-shoots-pregnant-mother-father-police-say/

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/toddler-shoots-mother-idaho-wal-mart

[Tom Wetmore]

Still wrong. Statistics do not lie, folks.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/08/cdc-accidental-poisoning-death-51-times-more-likely-than-accidental-shooting-death/

Ready , aim, fire... Missed again.

Read this again:

Bravus, just 1 is 1 too many!!

Here's another sad report:

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/gun-accidents.htm

Note the number of incidents involving children where the gun is in the hands of the adult.

Think about how these come about. Having a concealed carry permit means the guns will be out of the gun locker, loaded and ready for use. Otherwise, what is the point? Having a gun in the house for self defense will mean it will be out of the gun safe ready for use. How effective will it be for that purpose of it is locked safely in the gun safe when an intruder surprises the homeowner? Favorite place? Night stand beside the bed. Within easy reach of a curious toddler.

Notice the stats ( remember you said they don't lie) on how few people actually practice basic gun safety.

[TheCodeMonk]

That doesn't change the fact that the real statistics show that kids die more often from other things. Just because you believe something to be absolute doesn't make it that way. Since this is just turning into a back and forth of "I want this to be true so bad" and all we are doing is beating a dead horse, I'll bow out now.

[fccool]

That doesn't change the fact that the real statistics show that kids die more often from other things. Just because you believe something to be absolute doesn't make it that way. Since this is just turning into a back and forth of "I want this to be true so bad" and all we are doing is beating a dead horse, I'll bow out now.

 

   Sure, kids and people in general die more often from other things, and parents can and do make certain decisions when it comes to a wide variety of risks that they can handle with their kids.

 

My friend is a cop, and he has an entire arsenal laying around his house that he doesn't lock up, and he trains his kids to respect the guns.  But it's his kids.

 

It's not an issue of taking a child away from someone.   It's an issue of what parent and the agency prefer when it comes to the ideal home to raise a child in.  If you need a gun, it generally sends certain signal as to what your expectations are from your neighborhood or your future.  I think it's more than about a casualty statistics, but about what you are signaling about the world around you.

[Tom Wetmore]

There is a singe-minded obession that it's all about the guns. It's not.

[bonnie]

There is a singe-minded obession that it's all about the guns. It's not.

If this were strictly about danger to a child would they be able to adopt if the parents were hunters? Many things represent more danger to a child than a Conceal and Carry. 

A former neighbor of ours was an avid hunter and began taking his children at an early age The danger to one of his sons was an ATV. Wanting to show off to friends he found the key and started tearing around. He ended up in emergency surgery to repair broken bones. 

[B/W Photodude]

Interesting website:

 

http://www.christiangunowner.com