Also, NBC has indeed given up all pretenses of unbiased journalism. Not as bad as the last one (http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=579094) but still bad:

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Lobbyists-Guns-and-Babies-NRA-Pushes-Adoption-Bill-69276897.html

Quote :

"Do you have enough weapons and ammunition in your home to make the Terminator blush? Would you like to adopt kids? If so, the NRA said it's here to make it easier for you pistol-packin' 2nd-Amendment lovers to make like Madonna and start adopting like it's hot."

11/5/2009 8:27:42 PM

I wanna point out that NBC Miami /= NBC.

But assuming that NBC is unbiased journalism is about as foolish as assuming Fox News is unbiased journalism. Actually, I can't think of any news station out there that I'd consider unbiased. CNN tries, but they do it by having different shows with different viewpoints instead of having both sides on the same show debating, and they wind up looking bipolar.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. It's kinda of ridiculous that guns would be part of an adoption screening process if the process isn't accounting for the responsibility level of the gun owner.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 8:30:57 PM

Quote :

"I wanna point out that NBC Miami /= NBC."

I was gonna say the same. who the hell wrote that article, or the one in the other thread? jeez, that is horrible reporting, even for the standards of FoxNews

11/5/2009 8:35:36 PM

^^NPR isn't biased.

They down with da troof.

11/5/2009 10:23:45 PM

npr is us-biased though

11/5/2009 11:42:01 PM

no shit, it's National Public Radio

11/5/2009 11:43:53 PM

Despite what some here and elsewhere might think and claim, the NRA cares not only about gun owners' rights but about children's safety.

11/5/2009 11:47:57 PM

Don't be a dope. The NRA cares about one thing only: their precious toys.

11/5/2009 11:49:50 PM

^ Prove it, Captain Logic. And by "toys" do you mean constitutionally protected arms?

11/5/2009 11:54:34 PM

Sure, school the children about gun safety

but who's schooling the dumb fuck adults who tote them?

11/5/2009 11:55:03 PM

^ We allow dumb people to drive cars and possess all sorts of dangerous items that are NOT constitutionally protected like guns are--what's your point? Life is inherently dangerous.

And I would ask you all to note well that in the top photo, it appears that the Virginia State Police are also in league with the evil NRA, the organization that wishes harm upon children.[/sarcasm]

11/6/2009 12:02:01 AM

Recently, a police officer (family) tried to adopt a child. They were denied twice because they had firearms in their home, and he refused to stop carrying when not on duty.

Makes sense, right?.....

11/6/2009 12:50:44 AM

Was that in NC? I ask because my wife and I were just approved for adoption in NC and I have a shotgun. They did ask about it and require that I kept it in a locked closet, but I obviously wasn't disqualified because of it.

Nearly every adopted child through the state has been through some level of neglect or abuse and often suffers from issues because of that. It's not unreasonable to make sure they won't come in contact with guns. This isn't a second amendment issue at all as noone is forcing anyone to adopt.

11/6/2009 6:01:37 AM

no-one is forcing you to post on the internet either, yet I'd bet you'd be fairly upset if you couldn't say what you wanted on it

11/6/2009 7:33:42 AM

If having a firearm in the house has been statistically proven to increase the risk to a child (which I assume it has been), I'm ok with them asking.

I imagine they ask about outlet covers and whatnot as well.

It'd be best if they asked about gun safes, locks, etc..., instead of "gun: yes/no"

11/6/2009 8:54:37 AM

They ask about EVERYTHING. They want to know if there is a history of mental illness, chronic disease in the family, run background checks, require references. We had to have a fire inspection, which meant checking for a working extinguisher and smoke detectors for each bedroom area. Like I said, they didn't care that I had a gun in the house, but they did make sure I had it locked away and stored unloaded away from the ammo. Frankly, the gun thing was just about the least intrusive issue in the whole process.

Basically, there is a much higher standard required for being an adoptive parent, and there should be.

It seems pretty doubtful that anyone would be disqualified from adopting unless they insisted on keeping a loaded weapon in their nightstand or something. Most of the children in the system are traumatized in some way and having an accessible loaded weapon seems like a bad idea the same way having a loaded weapon in a bar full of people drinking alcohol is.

11/6/2009 9:33:16 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572488,00.html?test=latestnews

Quote :

" ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico — A recording of a six-minute call to emergency dispatchers obtained Thursday by the Associated Press details the moments after a 10-year-old boy allegedly shot his father in the head with a shotgun. "Just get a doctor over here!" the desperate boy begs the operator on the night of Aug. 27. "Please hurry up. It looks like he's dying." His father, 42-year-old Bryon Hilburn, was on the floor inside, still breathing, when police arrived at the family's home in Belen, just south of Albuquerque. He died later that night at a hospital. Now, the boy faces a charge of first-degree murder."

11/6/2009 11:03:02 AM

Quote :

"If having a firearm in the house has been statistically proven to increase the risk to a child (which I assume it has been), I'm ok with them asking."

hahaha. right. so, what about the fact that more children die in SWIMMING POOLS than are killed by guns each year? Should having a swimming pool disqualify you as well?

I love it when you make bullshit claims like "guns increase the risk to a child" with no fucking evidence to support it

11/6/2009 12:47:07 PM

Quote :

"if"

Quote :

"assume"

READING IS HARDDD


And as jocristian stated, apparently they do ask all sorts of questions-- such as swimming pool precautions, I assume.

[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2009 1:01:12 PM

so, why would you ASSUME it's been proven. That's why I made my statement, Mr Bullshit.

11/6/2009 1:03:31 PM

Quote :

"When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4]. Most guns involved in self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries (that is, in suicides and accidents) came either from the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative"

Quote :

"Are my children at risk if I own a gun? This is a controversial subject. Many people feel safer when they have a gun at hand. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)* has reviewed the current medical research on the subject and concluded that if you have children, it is safer not to have a gun in your home (see the AAP policy statement for more details)."

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

I'd say there's plenty of room for assumption.


[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : with no fucking evidence to support it! RAWR RAWR RAWR]

11/6/2009 1:10:48 PM

^ You are also statistically more likely to suffer injury from a moose in Canada than in Arizona.

A better set of statistics would be if people in gun friendly states are more likely to suffer accidental severe or life ending injuries in the home than people in non gun friendly states. Or a comparison of whether a person in a non gun home in the gun friendly states is statistically more likely to be injured than a person in a gun owning home in the same state.

11/6/2009 1:48:17 PM

Yes, adoptive parents that have a swimming pool in their backyard would have to have a separate fence around it and keep it locked (not just latched) except when the children were under adult supervision.

They also spent some time around my dogs to make sure they didn't show any aggression in case you were gonna bring that up next.


[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 2:18 PM. Reason : d]

11/6/2009 2:15:45 PM

It is their right, and duty, to freely ask questions in order to protect the children they house. NRA, stop being hypocrites, the second amendment is sacred, but not the first? Complete idiots.

11/6/2009 2:32:00 PM

how does the 1st enter in to this?

11/6/2009 2:52:45 PM

^x5 The AAP lobbies at the state and federal levels for left-leaning policy positions on issues like SCHIP and climate change. I'm not surprised that their "research" conclusions produced an anti-gun policy statement.

11/8/2009 6:57:02 AM

it's good that they keep these kids boxed up in foster homes instead of letting them potentially come in contact with a firearm, swimming pool, gay people, or any other undesireables.

11/8/2009 6:22:36 PM

If they are automatically disqualifying people who own guns, that's a problem.

I suspect they ask, and you're supposed to answer that you keep it locked up if you do have a gun.

It would be a shame if kids were missing out on the opportunity of adoption simply because somebody owns a gun that they also store properly.

I suspect the NRA is just getting uppity. It's perfectly acceptable for adoption agencies to ask just to be sure that folks are handling their gun business like they should be if they want a child in the home.

11/9/2009 1:06:07 AM