Tweet
The Miami Herald reports that the National Rifle Association has taken on the case of a set of prospective parents who were upset when an adoption agency asked them whether there were guns in the household:
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.”
Why would adoption agencies ask about whether there are guns in the household? Here are some facts from Safe Kids USA:
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.
/snip/
The unintentional firearm injury death rate among children ages 14 and under in the United States is nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
/snip/
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.
And the issue is especially important for Florida. According to the same fact sheet from Safe Kids USA, "Children living in the South have an unintentional shooting death rate that is seven times that of children living in the Northeast."
How can this be interpreted as anything other than the NRA deciding that gun registration is so evil that we must accept more accidental child deaths in order to prevent registration through a route that is not even credible? Adoption in Florida is coordinated through private adoption agencies under contract from the state. In fact, the Miami Herald article linked above notes that the state is having difficulty aligning the adoption forms:
A spokeswoman for the Children’s Home Society, Liz Bruner, said the agency asks about guns because it is required to by the Department of Children & Families.
“If they don’t want us to ask about it, we won’t,” Bruner said. “We’re trying to get an updated form to use, but there’s a gray area over what [form] we can use.”
Bruner said that because the state child-welfare system is privatized, Children’s Home Society is a subcontractor for a subcontractor and, therefore, communication with the state agency can be challenging.
Oh yes, those subcontractors of subcontractors are exactly how guns will be registered so that the state can take them away when the UN takes over the US, aren’t they? Never mind that the mere act of answering the question of whether there are firearms in the home might prompt prospective parents to purchase and install trigger locks as one of many steps in preparing their home for a new child. No, the NRA says we must be willing to accept more child deaths if we are to protect the sacred rights of gun owners.
8 Comments
How obvious. Even your choice of the pen name “Jim White” reveals that you are an undercover agent of the socialist government controlled state of secret islamomuslimistfascists of a dark hue determined to take our guns away.
Dang, you’re on to me. I must need a few more layers of tinfoil on my hat…
“How can this be interpreted as anything other than the NRA deciding…”
It can quite easily be interpreted as discrimination against people trying to adopt, or are there DCS representatives in the maternity wards asking if the family owns firearms?
Uhm. People trying to adopt are asked a wide range of questions so that the agency can assess their suitability as parents. I guess if we’re not going to discriminate then we need to stop all of the questions. What could possibly go wrong with that?
“stop all of the questions”
What is it with Libs and their “all-or-nothing” mentality?
Normal person: “I don’t like peas.”
Lib response: “Well, fine! Let’s just ban all vegetables everywhere!”
Seriously, though: is there an unspoken assumption that gun owners are unsuitable parents?
Seriously, though: is there an unspoken assumption that gun owners are unsuitable parents?
No, there are data to prove it. Look at the numbers quoted in the post. Children are at much higher risk of dying in a home where there is a gun. How hard is that to understand? Why put kids in a home where there is a higher risk of dying just because gun owners have an irrational fear of the government taking away their sacred gun rights? The conservative ability to deny reality in order to continue their perceived persecution at the hands of the government would be funny if it didn’t lead to such horrific public policy. Florida will get their law banning asking the question, and more children will die because of it.
So, gun owners are unsuitable parents? That will come as a shock to an awful lot of moms and dads in the military, police, security, etc. It’ll make a great sign for the next rally, though: Gun Owners Shouldn’t Have Kids
Can’t wait to see you march down the street with that one.
It’s long been understood that the best way to get yourself shot is to have a “protective” gun lying around. Let Darwin’s theory take over, I say.