7 year old arrested with pellet gun

[mmhmm]

Are you saying that because something penetrated a plastic milk jug that it would penetrate several inches into the human body and cause catastrophic injuries to internal organs?

I don't know if Sarah was saying that, or not, frankq.  I, however, AM saying that.  I've seen it.  A bullet doesn't have to "penetrate several inches into the human body" to seriously injure, or kill you (especially, if "you" is a child).  These guns are not toys.  Children should not have unsupervised access to them.

[frankq]

mmhmm,

Of course not. Nobody is saying they should. That is not the issue. The issue is the usual kneejerk reaction that something relatively benign, because it was a situation where nobody was in any danger, triggers a ridiculous response, from arresting a 7 year old to getting judges to approve what amounts to search and seizure orders........Again, I will research and see how many kids have been killed with BB guns. I know it has happened, but I guarantee that it's rare. If anyone would like, I'll also see how many states require mandatory helmet use for kids using any device that has wheels.....

[Tennesseer]

One of many articles on the Internet


Neighbors mourn for Tollhouse boy killed by pellet gun

Saturday, January 05, 2013

Investigators say the young boy died after he was shot by that pellet gun in the chest. His name is not being released, but those we talked to say they're stunned a little boy died in such a

"I can only imagine what the parents are going through. You send your kids out to play and you can only hope they make the right decisions while they are playing," said Lorrie Mullins, Neighbor.

Investigators say the 10-year-old boy was shot with a pellet gun while riding his bike in the Tollhouse area. Deputies got the call from a house on Quail Mountain Lane at about four o'clock on Friday evening. They believe another child who was playing with the boy shot the gun and hit him in the chest -- without knowing it was loaded.

One gun store owner Action News spoke with wants to remind parents pellet guns are dangerous, and children should never use them without supervision.

"A pellet gun or an air gun, the key to that is it is a gun, it does fire a projectile and you should treat it like you would any other gun and you should keep it secure. The gun should be locked up and the pellet or ammunition for it should be under lock and key preferably in separate areas," said Bill Mayfield, Gilmay Guns.

abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8942960

[frankq]

So far, it looks like 2 in 2011, one of which was a case of a grandfather accidently shooting his grandson from about 2 feet, and one in 2013. No doubt it happens rarely, as does other things. That doesn't mean that we start raiding homes and arresting post tots.

"A pellet gun or an air gun, the key to that is it is a gun, it does fire a projectile and you should treat it like you would any other gun and you should keep it secure. The gun should be locked up and the pellet or ammunition for it should be under lock and key preferably in separate areas," said Bill Mayfield, Gilmay Guns.

Absolutely. There is no contention that a mistake hasn't been made.

[frankq]

Cycling deaths in 2012 hit a five-year high, as 122 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads last year.

That's only in Britain by the way...

Reflecting the boom in cycling among people of all ages and backgrounds, the victims last year defied most stereotyping of cyclists.

The two youngest people killed on their bike were just 8 years old. The oldest was 94. Sixteen teenagers died while five of the victims were aged 12 or under. Most of the fatalities were men, but eight were women. The vast majority were simply daily commuters or young children out for a ride on their bikes when they were killed.

In the U.S. over 130 children killed on their bikes....

Two percent of motor vehicle-related deaths are cyclists although bicycle trips account for less than 1 percent of all trips in the U.S. In 2006, more than 44,000 bicyclists in the U.S. were injured in traffic crashes and 773 bicyclists died as a result of bicycle-related injuries.

Eight-five percent of bicycle deaths are persons 16 and older. The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Ninety-five percent of the bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren’t wearing helmets.


In 2012, thirty skateboarders lost their lives. This report includes two skateboarders who suffered their accidents in 2011, but did not pass away until days or months after the original incident.

It is important to note that all thirty deaths occurred in a roadway. Two occurred despite the helmets they wore. The fatalities included the youngest, an eight year old child, who was butt boarding down his driveway and rolled into his neighborhood street. The eldest was a veteran skateboarder and long time mentor, advocate and former shop owner in Chicago, skating to his car.


So, I hope everyone out there with kids is making sure that they have, and always wear proper protective gear when they are on their bikes and skateboards, else they should be arrested and parents reported to the proper child welfare authorities.....

[Deleted]

So what would you think is the appropriate recourse, frankq?  And where do you escalate the response?

A 7 year old brought a pellet gun to school.  He got a ride home in a police car.  His guardians are going to get a lecture from the cops.  What do you think should have happened?

Is it based on the kid's age?
The caliber of the gun?
The quantity of ammunition?

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2013 10:15:41 GMT -5 frankq said:

mmhmm,

Of course not. Nobody is saying they should. That is not the issue. The issue is the usual kneejerk reaction that something relatively benign, because it was a situation where nobody was in any danger, triggers a ridiculous response, from arresting a 7 year old to getting judges to approve what amounts to search and seizure orders........Again, I will research and see how many kids have been killed with BB guns. I know it has happened, but I guarantee that it's rare. If anyone would like, I'll also see how many states require mandatory helmet use for kids using any device that has wheels.....

It most certainly is PART OF the issue, frankq.  This isn't a one issue sort of problem.  I think we've all agreed arresting the kid might have been an over-reaction; however, the kid wasn't cuffed, booked and jailed.  He was simply turned over to his parents; hopefully, after a meaningful discussion with all of them.  The word "arrest" is, in effect, a kneejerk reaction to something relatively benign ... in fact, a lot more benign than a pellet gun!

Yes, death due to pellet gun injury is rare.  Blindness, however, isn't.  Neither is infection.  I don't care if there are several thousand injuries, several hundred thousand injuries, or several million injuries a year.  Those are pretty darned important injuries to the kids who receive them, and to their parents.  Most of us here are advocating for more conscientious handling of guns (pellet guns notwithstanding) where there may be children present.  That's all.  Not one person here has advocated coming to get YOUR guns.

[mmhmm]

We're not talking about skateboards or bicycles, frankq.  There is no comparison, and I think you know that quite well.  We're talking about a purportedly very real-appearing pellet gun brought onto a school bus by a child.  Let's stay with the subject under discussion.

[frankq]

All I'm saying is that the response has to be in perspective to the "crime". We have people talking about arresting a 7 year old, getting judges to issue search warrants and possible confiscation of any weapons found in homes, all kinds of stuff that's a little out there. If what you contend that what you say happened actually happened, I find that highly appropriate. No doubt about it. To start talking search and seizure, Family Services visits, etc for a seemingly innocent BB gun infraction where better judgment should have been used is overkill and nannyfied. There are several other "dangers" out there that parents probably should be far more concerned about, but I'd bet probably aren't because they simply don't see the danger because serious incidents involving those things don't happen often. They also may have done those things as kids and "survived" and it never occurs to them that, statistically, there is a danger to consider. That doesn't make them bad parents. You try to teach them the right thing the right way. You try to think of everything. You don't. You can't. In the end, you send them out to school or play and the last two words you say to them before they're out of earshot are "be careful". Freak accidents happen. Tragedies happen.

[frankq]

Apr 29, 2013 10:43:05 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

We're not talking about skateboards or bicycles, frankq.  There is no comparison, and I think you know that quite well.  We're talking about a purportedly very real-appearing pellet gun brought onto a school bus by a child.  Let's stay with the subject under discussion.

I am staying with the subject. I am simply presenting a comparison of other common things that parents allow that have been far more damaging. The fact is, we don't have an uproar regarding these parents. We don't have national helmet laws for these activities. We're not calling for searching peoples homes when things happen with bikes and skateboards and deciding that these parents somehow "failed". The real issue here is the reaction to the word "gun". I think I've tied into the subject quite well. Just trying to show a little perspective here.

[frankq]

Yes, death due to pellet gun injury is rare. Blindness, however, isn't. Neither is infection. I don't care if there are several thousand injuries, several hundred thousand injuries, or several million injuries a year. Those are pretty darned important injuries to the kids who receive them, and to their parents. Most of us here are advocating for more conscientious handling of guns (pellet guns notwithstanding) where there may be children present. That's all. Not one person here has advocated coming to get YOUR guns.

Hold on mmhmm, I beg to differ:

Who is advocating "illegal" searches? You have a seven year old with a gun on a school bus. Take it to court and use that as probable cause for a need to search the house to see if there are other weapons that are more dangerous stored. If the judge agrees, there is nothing illegal about it.

From a post by billisonboard on page 1. Notice he says "stored" not "improperly stored". This is what I am responding to regarding coming to get anything...

And I never said that anyone was coming for MY guns. I never mentioned MYSELF or any personal fear in any of my posts. I responded to the posts of others. Of course injuries are important and real. They didn't happen in this case, and could not have in this case because the BB gun was empty. If we're going to stay on task, lets keep it confined to THIS case instead of generalities.

[Deleted]

You need a demoninator for that perspective though.

# kids who need medical treatment for injuries sustained while biking
# kids who ride bikes

vs.

# kids who need medical treatment for injuries sustained from guns
# kids who play with guns


Riding bikes may still be the more dangerous activity, much the way you are more likely to be injured in a car accident than injured in a terrorist attack.  But you need to make the comparison fair.

[frankq]

crafty,

You're right. I was only trying to draw a comparison to things that we let kids do without thinking twice that are far more dangerous as numbers go. That's all. I'd be willing to bet that your second example would yield less injuries, the one regarding "guns", because kids don't generally play with "guns" unattended. But if you want to total the number of kids that shoot actual firearms under supervision and without (assuming old enough) and do the injury math, I'd bet they come out better than bikes and skateboards. Kids that participate in gang activities that get shot don't count.....

I've made it very clear that I agree that said pellet gun should, in retrospect, have been stored more securely. That is not under debate.
Obviously this discussion is getting way out of hand, so I'll leave it to the rest of you for a while.......

[mmhmm]

Who is advocating "illegal" searches? You have a seven year old with a gun on a school bus. Take it to court and use that as probable cause for a need to search the house to see if there are other weapons that are more dangerous stored. If the judge agrees, there is nothing illegal about it.

From a post by bill......on page 2.

And I never said that anyone was coming for MY guns. I never mentioned MYSELF or any personal fear in any of my posts. I responded to the posts of others. Of course injuries are important and real. They didn't happen in this case, and could not have in this case because the BB gun was empty. If we're going to stay on task, lets keep it confined to THIS case instead of generalities.

Billis is correct, frankq.  If a need to search is warranted by a judge, any search made after that is NOT an illegal search.  It's a legal search.  Nobody has advocated illegal searches.

Because an injury doesn't happen in a given case doesn't mean those means that might prevent injuries occurring in similar situations shouldn't be considered.  In this case, while there were no injuries, what most have said is the kid should not have had a pellet gun, loaded or not, on a school bus and the whole family needs to be made to address the issues that allowed this to happen.  Hopefully, that has been accomplished.

By the way, I meant the generic "your".  I should have made that clear.

[frankq]

mmhmm,

Look. You're missing my point. Bill is incorrect, and so are you. It's not about legal or illegal. Of course any search issued by a judge is legal. We're not talking about general legal issues here. If a judge actually consented to such a search over a 7 year old and a BB gun, provided that it is even legal without other extentuating circumstances, I would hope the voters would throw him/here off of the bench at the first ballot opportunity. It's about proportionate response. The kid could have had a slingshot that was not properly locked up too. Whatever. But with all due respect, if you and billinsonboard think that it would be warranted to actually search the home of a person whose child had a BB gun and take any weapons stored there, regardless of the fact that they had nothing to do with anything, then that is truly sad IMHO.

Because an injury doesn't happen in a given case doesn't mean those means that might prevent injuries occurring in similar situations shouldn't be considered.

Just make sure you extend those same standards of parental behavior to children injured by the other things I mentioned, because it's up to the parents to educate their kids and keep them safe, regardless of whether the activity they are engaged in has the evil word GUN in it or not, because in the end, if it's about preventing anything, those kids had better all be wearing helmets and pads.... Nanny state indeed.


Riding bikes may still be the more dangerous activity, much the way you are more likely to be injured in a car accident than injured in a terrorist attack. But you need to make the comparison fair.

Yep...I have to wear my seatbelt, I have to take my shoes off at the airport, but how many parents make sure that their kids are wearing helmets and pads when they grab their bikes and skateboards? Just saying? But I'm not going to go out on a limb and question their ability to parent......

[frankq]

By the way, I meant the generic "your". I should have made that clear.

No problem. Keep in mind that even though we disagree, my comments are made with all due respect. I just think we're looking at this thing from an angle that we shouldn't be. I think we've beat this horse dead now. I'm outta here....

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 11:30:22 GMT -5 frankq said:

mmhmm,

Look. You're missing my point. Bill is incorrect, and so are you. It's not about legal or illegal. Of course any search issued by a judge is legal. We're not talking about general legal issues here. If a judge actually consented to such a search over a 7 year old and a BB gun, provided that it is even legal without other extentuating circumstances, I would hope the voters would throw him/here off of the bench at the first ballot opportunity. It's about proportionate response. The kid could have had a slingshot that was not properly locked up too. Whatever. But with all due respect, if you and billinsonboard think that it would be warranted to actually search the home of a person whose child had a BB gun and take any weapons stored there, regardless of the fact that they had nothing to do with anything, then that is truly sad IMHO.

...

I was speculating on why actually place the 7 year old "under arrest". What is gained by doing so? What was said by this child that caused to officer to take that step? We don't know the answer. And that is where your "extentuating circumstances" would come into play. It seems to me that by placing the kid under arrest, it strengthens the ability of law enforcement and social services to keep him safe if it is deemed that his home environment is not. I am not advocating confiscating any guns found to be unsafely stored. I am advocating confiscating the kid if the adults in the household refuse to rectify the situation.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2013 10:16:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

One of many articles on the Internet


Neighbors mourn for Tollhouse boy killed by pellet gun

Saturday, January 05, 2013

...

abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8942960

Even so, it must be remarkably rare.

I had a friend stay with my family for a while. He found my Dad's pellet gun and used it to shoot a squirrel. Maybe it was just a lousy pellet gun, but he had to shoot the squirrel a good five or six times to kill it.

(And for concerned parties: I stopped him after one squirrel.)

[AGB]

Apr 27, 2013 17:02:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 27, 2013 13:13:53 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

...

But even that's beside the main point as I see it. The main point here that I see is posters saying that if you don't agree with my way of looking at it you should have no rights. I don't agree with guns & your 7 year old having a pellet gun is enough to justify illegal search of your house.

Who is advocating "illegal" searches? You have a seven year old with a gun on a school bus. Take it to court and use that as probable cause for a need to search the house to see if there are other weapons that are more dangerous stored. If the judge agrees, there is nothing illegal about it.

Probable cause for... what, exactly? The kid was wrong and stupid for taking the pellet gun on the bus, hopefully he learned his lesson, but I fail to see why this would lead to a search of the home for other weapons.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 29, 2013 12:20:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2013 10:16:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

One of many articles on the Internet


Neighbors mourn for Tollhouse boy killed by pellet gun

Saturday, January 05, 2013

...

abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8942960

Even so, it must be remarkably rare.

I had a friend stay with my family for a while. He found my Dad's pellet gun and used it to shoot a squirrel. Maybe it was just a lousy pellet gun, but he had to shoot the squirrel a good five or six times to kill it.

(And for concerned parties: I stopped him after one squirrel.)

There was a local case several years ago regarding a very young teen out after dark with a pellet gun that looked like a regular pistol. Police were called by a neighbor and the teen came around the corner of a building. Police told the teen to drop the gun. The teen wasn't using his head and raised the pellet gun for some unknown reason. Police shot him dead. The shooting was determined as justified based upon the facts and time of day. The officer who shot the teen required counseling.

Young people don't realize the danger they can be in carrying guns and pellet guns. Yes the incident is the exception but tell that to the boy's family.

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 12:30:56 GMT -5 AGB said:

Apr 27, 2013 17:02:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Who is advocating "illegal" searches? You have a seven year old with a gun on a school bus. Take it to court and use that as probable cause for a need to search the house to see if there are other weapons that are more dangerous stored. If the judge agrees, there is nothing illegal about it.

Probable cause for... what, exactly? The kid was wrong and stupid for taking the pellet gun on the bus, hopefully he learned his lesson, but I fail to see why this would lead to a search of the home for other weapons.

I don't see why simply the pellet gun on the bus would either. I do see where a pellet gun on the bus, information received from the kid, and discussion with adults in the household where the child lives might. Therefore, placing the kid under arrest at the stage of the investigation that it took place might make sense.

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2013 12:20:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2013 10:16:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

One of many articles on the Internet


Neighbors mourn for Tollhouse boy killed by pellet gun

Saturday, January 05, 2013

...

abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8942960

Even so, it must be remarkably rare.

I had a friend stay with my family for a while. He found my Dad's pellet gun and used it to shoot a squirrel. Maybe it was just a lousy pellet gun, but he had to shoot the squirrel a good five or six times to kill it.

(And for concerned parties: I stopped him after one squirrel.)

It is pretty rare, Virgil, but far from unheard of.  What's more common is flesh injuries that result in infections, or serious eye injuries and other facial injuries.  Also, the new pellet guns aren't like the ones many of us remember.  They're a good deal more powerful.  Why anybody felt the need to make them so is a mystery to me.

I don't even want to talk about the number of significant injuries I've seen over the years ... due to pellet guns that those involved had considered "toy guns".

[AGB]

Apr 29, 2013 12:41:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2013 12:30:56 GMT -5 AGB said:

Probable cause for... what, exactly? The kid was wrong and stupid for taking the pellet gun on the bus, hopefully he learned his lesson, but I fail to see why this would lead to a search of the home for other weapons.

I don't see why simply the pellet gun on the bus would either. I do see where a pellet gun on the bus, information received from the kid, and discussion with adults in the household where the child lives might. Therefore, placing the kid under arrest at the stage of the investigation that it took place might make sense.

Well, that is a bit different than your original comment, so thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure what information from the kid or the adults in the household would lead to searching the home for items that are legal. We don't have laws regulating storage where I live, are there where this took place?

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2013 12:49:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 29, 2013 12:20:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Even so, it must be remarkably rare.

I had a friend stay with my family for a while. He found my Dad's pellet gun and used it to shoot a squirrel. Maybe it was just a lousy pellet gun, but he had to shoot the squirrel a good five or six times to kill it.

(And for concerned parties: I stopped him after one squirrel.)

It is pretty rare, Virgil, but far from unheard of.  What's more common is flesh injuries that result in infections, or serious eye injuries and other facial injuries.  Also, the new pellet guns aren't like the ones many of us remember.  They're a good deal more powerful.  Why anybody felt the need to make them so is a mystery to me.

I don't even want to talk about the number of significant injuries I've seen over the years ... due to pellet guns that those involved had considered "toy guns".

I'd still duck if somebody pointed one at me.

If you and Tenn are on the "reasonable response by police" side of the debate in this thread, I'm on the same side as you. Go back to my first post in this thread.

I just wouldn't consider a pellet gun more deadly than, say, a rock. And in fact if two men were fighting--one armed with a pellet gun and the other armed with a couple good-sized rocks--all my money would be on the guy with the rocks.

[mmhmm]

My money would definitely be on the guy with the high-powered pellet gun.  I guess I'm jaded, Virgil.  I've just seen too many of those injuries.

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 12:55:18 GMT -5 AGB said:

Apr 29, 2013 12:41:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I don't see why simply the pellet gun on the bus would either. I do see where a pellet gun on the bus, information received from the kid, and discussion with adults in the household where the child lives might. Therefore, placing the kid under arrest at the stage of the investigation that it took place might make sense.

Well, that is a bit different than your original comment, so thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure what information from the kid or the adults in the household would lead to searching the home for items that are legal. We don't have laws regulating storage where I live, are there where this took place?

I don't know what that information would be either.  Again just speculating on why they arrested the kid.

The issue for me is keeping children safe. The situation of the pellet gun on the bus was scary from the standpoint of all those little faces staring at a gun in the hands of a kid who obviously didn't have a proper respect for it (or he wouldn't have taken it in the first place). Was it not loaded by chance or did the uncle at least keep the ammo and weapon stored in different locations? Don't know that. As to the "legal" storage issue, it is possible to recklessly endanger the children living in a home and not do anything "illegal". If the adults in the house are not providing a safe environment, then it is legitimate {IM(not so)HO} for the government to become involved.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2013 14:13:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

My money would definitely be on the guy with the high-powered pellet gun.  I guess I'm jaded, Virgil.  I've just seen too many of those injuries.

Knowing you guys (Americans) and your guns, I'm guessing you could get a weapon that shoots an osmium ball bearing the size of a golf ball at 6,500 feet per second classified as a "pellet gun". So I'll concede the point.

[Virgil Showlion]

YouTube video of an "American-sized" pellet gun in action:


http ://youtu.be/DEMC0_XSU6w?t=40s

(Grrr. Can't get this stupid thing to post a link to a video as a link rather than a video.)

(Grrrrrrrrr. Copy the above link. Take out the space. Paste it into the address bar to view the video.)

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2013 14:36:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2013 14:13:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

My money would definitely be on the guy with the high-powered pellet gun.  I guess I'm jaded, Virgil.  I've just seen too many of those injuries.

Knowing you guys (Americans) and your guns, I'm guessing you could get a weapon that shoots an osmium ball bearing the size of a golf ball at 6,500 feet per second classified as a "pellet gun". So I'll concede the point.

*chuckle*  Well, I haven't seen one of those!

As I said, I don't know why it was necessary to take what was not particularly dangerous (old style pellet guns) and turn them into something more powerful and, therefore, more dangerous.  If you want to plink at squirrels, a .22 is probably a better alternative than an old-style pellet gun.  The newer pellet guns, however, will do the job quite nicely, I'd guess.

Here's a bit from an article written back in 1995:

"An estimated 3.2 million nonpowder guns are sold in the United States each year; 80% of these have muzzle velocities greater than 350 feet per second (fps) and 50% have velocities from 500 fps to 930 fps (AC Homan, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, unpublished data, 1994). Most of these guns are intended for use by persons aged 8-18 years. At close range, projectiles from many BB and pellet guns, especially those with velocities greater than 350 fps, can cause tissue damage similar to that inflicted by powder-charged bullets fired from low-velocity conventional firearms (3). Injuries associated with use of these guns can result in permanent disability or death (4); injuries from BBs or pellets projected from air guns involving the eye particularly are severe (5). For example, based on data from the National Eye Trauma System and the United States Eye Injury Registry -- a system of voluntary reporting by ophthalmologists -- projectiles from air guns account for 63% of reported perforating eye injuries that occur in recreational settings (6)."
link


I imagine there have been "improvements" since 1995.

[AGB]

Apr 29, 2013 14:29:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2013 12:55:18 GMT -5 AGB said:

Well, that is a bit different than your original comment, so thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure what information from the kid or the adults in the household would lead to searching the home for items that are legal. We don't have laws regulating storage where I live, are there where this took place?

I don't know what that information would be either.  Again just speculating on why they arrested the kid.

The issue for me is keeping children safe. The situation of the pellet gun on the bus was scary from the standpoint of all those little faces staring at a gun in the hands of a kid who obviously didn't have a proper respect for it (or he wouldn't have taken it in the first place). Was it not loaded by chance or did the uncle at least keep the ammo and weapon stored in different locations? Don't know that. As to the "legal" storage issue, it is possible to recklessly endanger the children living in a home and not do anything "illegal". If the adults in the house are not providing a safe environment, then it is legitimate {IM(not so)HO} for the government to become involved.

Is a home not a safe environment by default when there are firearms in the house? Is this about children and safety, or the method of potential injury and/or death?  I admit I don't catch everything on these boards, so maybe I missed where people where advocating for search warrants and CPS interventions over pools and pillows.