And this is what the anti gun crowd wants...

[mikeymikec]

So you don't have the confidence in your parenting skills to raise a law abiding citizen that respects gun laws? Are you going to not teach your kids to drive because it might enable them to drive away from a bank robbery? Rather than not teaching them to drive, maybe don't teach them to rob a bank.

Do you expect to have (or have you) taught your kids everything they need to know by the age of 11? Impressive.

Also, I'd like to know your opinion on the following topics:

1 - Why does an 11-year-old need to have their own gun (obvious implication that they need to know how to fire it)?

2 - Why does an 11-year-old need to have their own gun in order to learn to respect gun laws?

 

[HumblePie]

Do you expect to have taught your kids everything they need to know by the age of 11? Impressive.

The basics of right and wrong, survival, critical thinking skills, and a love of learning and life. Yep I do.

Do I expect an 11 year old to know how to do calculus problems? No. Do I think my child will need to know calculus at some point. Depends on what they want to do with their life but more than likely.

 

[Munky]

What's disgusting is that an ignorant sheltered anti-gun weenie could cause this much trouble for a family who were not guilty of a crime, and get away simply by making anonymous accusations. There really needs to be a deterrent to this kind of behavior.

 

[Genx87]

Do you expect to have (or have you) taught your kids everything they need to know by the age of 11? Impressive.

Also, I'd like to know your opinion on the following topics:

1 - Why does an 11-year-old need to have their own gun (obvious implication that they need to know how to fire it)?

2 - Why does an 11-year-old need to have their own gun in order to learn to respect gun laws?

Why do people who want to control what guns people can or cant own always resort to the "need" based argument? Why do "rights" have to be justified based on "need"?

 

[ivwshane]

What's disgusting is that an ignorant sheltered anti-gun weenie could cause this much trouble for a family who were not guilty of a crime, and get away simply by making anonymous accusations. There really needs to be a deterrent to this kind of behavior.

Did more information come out about the anonymous caller? Otherwise how do you know the caller was anti gun? How do we know the pic was what started everything?

 

[mikeymikec]

Why do people who want to control what guns people can or cant own always resort to the "need" based argument? Why do "rights" have to be justified based on "need"?

I don't know if you realise it, but my post was with regard to an 11-year-old child. There's a few reasons why they're not considered to be the same as an adult, and if you really need me to go through those, you're going to have real difficulty with this topic.

 

[HumblePie]

Why do people who want to control what guns people can or cant own always resort to the "need" based argument? Why do "rights" have to be justified based on "need"?

There is ALWAYS a need. It may not be an immediate need, but they are rights because the represent an ever present need. Something many people fail to understand.

Does an 11 year old need a lesson how to handle a gun and even have access to one at any given moment? Most likely not. It's not about a moment to moment need anyhow.

What happens if I die tomorrow without ever having taught my child how to properly defend themselves? Sure they may learn on their own, but if I taught them then I KNOW they know it already.

Also, a gun, like any tool, is a contingency item. Meaning a gun is only needed when it is needed. Which is rarely all the time for most people. Just because I don't have a 24/7 need for a screw driver doesn't mean I don't own or don't know how to use one.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...y-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars

But here is a good example of why a child may need to one day know how to handle and have access to a firearm properly. If you really care about specific anecdotal evidence.

 

[cubby1223]

Clearly you are incapable of reading.

Good day!

I'll let you respond to me once more so that you have the last word, which apparently means you have won the argument against me.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Do you expect to have (or have you) taught your kids everything they need to know by the age of 11? Impressive.

Also, I'd like to know your opinion on the following topics:

1 - Why does an 11-year-old need to have their own gun (obvious implication that they need to know how to fire it)?

2 - Why does an 11-year-old need to have their own gun in order to learn to respect gun laws?

because teaching firearms and responsibility is important. because they have a right to own a firearm.

when you stop talking needs and start talking RIGHTS, you will understand.

no one needs housing with more than 400 sq ft per person. clearly we should pass a law limiting housing. no one needs more than 1 car per adult in the household. clearly we should limit vehicle ownership. no one needs millions of dollars in liquid assets. clearly an excess income should go to the government.

let's seize it all! </sarcasm>

 

[Genx87]

I don't know if you realise it, but my post was with regard to an 11-year-old child. There's a few reasons why they're not considered to be the same as an adult, and if you really need me to go through those, you're going to have real difficulty with this topic.

What do you care? It isnt like the kid is living on his own. He is under adult super vision. And while it may have been given to him it is under his parents name.

 

[Munky]

Did more information come out about the anonymous caller? Otherwise how do you know the caller was anti gun? How do we know the pic was what started everything?

Did you read the link in the OP? He posted a picture of his kid holding a gun on FB, and gets hounded by CPS after an anonymous call. Now what kind of person would see that photo and call the "authorities?" Someone who knows guns, and trusts law-abiding gun owners to use them responsibly? Or someone who thinks guns are too dangerous to entrust to ordinary people and decides to unleash his ignorant intolerance via a proxy party of CPS and law enforcement? It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

 

[cubby1223]

because teaching firearms and responsibility is important. because they have a right to own a firearm.

when you stop talking needs and start talking RIGHTS, you will understand.

no one needs housing with more than 400 sq ft per person. clearly we should pass a law limiting housing. no one needs more than 1 car per adult in the household. clearly we should limit vehicle ownership. no one needs millions of dollars in liquid assets. clearly an excess income should go to the government.

let's seize it all! </sarcasm>

Don't forget soda, no one needs soda bottled in larger than 16oz containers!

 

[ivwshane]

Did you read the link in the OP? He posted a picture of his kid holding a gun on FB, and gets hounded by CPS after an anonymous call. Now what kind of person would see that photo and call the "authorities?" Someone who knows guns, and trusts law-abiding gun owners to use them responsibly? Or someone who thinks guns are too dangerous to entrust to ordinary people and decides to unleash his ignorant intolerance via a proxy party of PCS and law enforcement? It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

How did you come to the conclusion that the picture lead to the call? Because the family thinks that's what led to the call? That would be awfully convenient for a pro gun person with a possible ulterior motive wouldn't it (see how I just did the same thing you did?). You don't know what led to the call, you can only assume what led to the call and we know what they say about that.

Now if CPS said they received an anonymous call about a picture they saw then I could understand your reasoning.

 

[Munky]

How did you come to the conclusion that the picture lead to the call? Because the family thinks that's what led to the call? That would be awfully convenient for a pro gun person with a possible ulterior motive wouldn't it (see how I just did the same thing you did?).

Now if CPS said they received an anonymous call about a picture they saw then I could understand your reasoning.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Because so far all you're doing is playing devil's advocate. Yes, that would be really convenient for a pro-gun person to subject himself to harassment just so he could blame it on the anti-gun crowd, now wouldn't it...

 

[ivwshane]

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Because so far all you're doing is playing devil's advocate. Yes, that would be really convenient for a pro-gun person to subject himself to harassment just so he could blame it on the anti-gun crowd, now wouldn't it...

No I don't have any evidence either way, which is why I haven't made any statements like that.

You don't think people who are passionate about their cause or who are a little bit crazy will do what you and I might consider, stupid things?

Exhibit A
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278522


So anything is possible, that's why it's best not to jump to conclusions.

 

[HumblePie]

How did you come to the conclusion that the picture lead to the call? Because the family thinks that's what led to the call? That would be awfully convenient for a pro gun person with a possible ulterior motive wouldn't it (see how I just did the same thing you did?). You don't know what led to the call, you can only assume what led to the call and we know what they say about that.

Now if CPS said they received an anonymous call about a picture they saw then I could understand your reasoning.

Because I would think logical deduction and critical thinking skills may work.

Lets go over the scenario shall we? I am a father who has never had a visit from child protective services. I post a picture on facebook recently of my child holding an AR styled .22 caliber rifle. It generates conversation both liking and disliking what I post. Shortly after my post I have a child protective service agent show up on my door with police officers demanding access to inspect my firearms. First off, CPS doesn't have authority to check on firearms in a home. Second, the CPS doesn't seem to care about the actual harm to a child, but the firearms stored in the same household. This is according to the father and family.

I think one can logically deduce from the actions of the CPS agent and the recent facebook picture that they were probably a direct relation.

 

[ivwshane]

Because I would think logical deduction and critical thinking skills may work.

Lets go over the scenario shall we? I am a father who has never had a visit from child protective services. I post a picture on facebook recently of my child holding an AR styled .22 caliber rifle. It generates conversation both liking and disliking what I post. Shortly after my post I have a child protective service agent show up on my door with police officers demanding access to inspect my firearms. First off, CPS doesn't have authority to check on firearms in a home. Second, the CPS doesn't seem to care about the actual harm to a child, but the firearms stored in the same household. This is according to the father and family.

I think one can logically deduce from the actions of the CPS agent and the recent facebook picture that they were probably a direct relation.

Yes and thinking very logically about it; I'm a pro gun person who posts on pro gun websites, one way to get my message out and to shame anti gun people would be to call CPS after posting a pic of my kid with a gun, because we all know how much kids holding guns gets the anti gun crowd riled up. Then post my harassment on my pro gun website.

Yeah my logic is about as sound as yours.


Oh and "probably" related? That doesn't make a very strong case does it?

 

[Munky]

No I don't have any evidence either way, which is why I haven't made any statements like that.

You don't think people who are passionate about their cause or who are a little bit crazy will do what you and I might consider, stupid things?

Exhibit A
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278522


So anything is possible, that's why it's best not to jump to conclusions.

Unlike you, I don't presume people to be crazy until proven otherwise. So no, I don't believe a NORMAL person would pull a stunt like that.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes and thinking very logically about it; I'm a pro gun person who posts on pro gun websites, one way to get my message out and to shame anti gun people would be to call CPS after posting a pic of my kid with a gun, because we all know how much kids holding guns gets the anti gun crowd riled up. Then post my harassment on my pro gun website.

Yeah my logic is about as sound as yours.


Oh and "probably" related? That doesn't make a very strong case does it?

Your meter is broken.

 

[ivwshane]

Unlike you, I don't presume people to be crazy until proven otherwise. So no, I don't believe a NORMAL person would pull a stunt like that.

Umm...what? I didn't presume anything other than we don't have all the facts to make any accusations what so ever.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Did more information come out about the anonymous caller? Otherwise how do you know the caller was anti gun? How do we know the pic was what started everything?

In the scheme of things does this really matter......what matters is that it hapenned...

 

[ivwshane]

In the scheme of things does this really matter......what matters is that it hapenned...

Yes and what happened was, someone called CPS, they came with a police escort, asked to see their guns, was told no, and they left.

 

[cubby1223]

Umm...what? I didn't presume anything other than we don't have all the facts to make any accusations what so ever.

Except you did form an opinion based on insufficient evidence, presented it as fact while at the same time complaining of other people presenting opinions as fact, and when called out on it went ballistic.

 

[ciba]

I think you're all (both sides) missing an important point here.

All the undisputed evidence in this case (CPS won't speak on it, so I have no choice but to believe Mr. Moore's claims in their entirety as they all appear reasonable) suggests that CPS is grossly overfunded in NJ if they can respond to cases of this nature: 1) No stated threat to the child, 2) no grounds for suspicion of danger to the child, 3) travel to the site when an assessment of the only "evidence" for the claim showing no danger.

 

[Abraxas]

What's the point of a government agent asking to see someone's firearms? They're legal to possess and owning them isn't reason to suspect child endangerment. Even if the owner agreed to let her see the firearms, she wouldn't have been able to do jack shit about them regardless except stare with a dumb look on her face. Even if the concern was whether they were "registered," it's not like the Department of Child Services is the agency which enforces this. This was complete idiocy all the way around.

That is a good question and one we don't have an answer for at this time. Suppose, hypothetically, a neighbor saw the child pointing the gun at traffic or playing with it in the back yard. According to the original thread from the concealed carry website, the child received the gun as a gift earlier the day the picture was taken. It is entirely plausible that the parents may have allowed the child to play with the gun in ways that might not have been safe and that triggered the complaint - not the Facebook photo but some other use of the gun that concerned the tipster. It isn't unreasonable to think child services may have wanted to make sure the guns were stored securely and that when they asked to see them they weren't led to the child's toy box. If the guns were observed to be left lying around, it is entirely possible they could have done a lot more than stare with a dumb look.