Man arrested for holding baby and BB gun

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111
Man arrested for holding baby and BB gun

Is this child endangerment? What if it had been a real gun is that child endangerment?
Should he have been arrested?

An Ohio dad was arrested after police said he posted a photo on Facebook of himself holding his baby daughter and a BB gun, Fox 19 reported.

Domonic Gaines, 22, was charged with child endangerment. Police told the station that the close proximity of the child to the gun in the photo is cause for concern. It was initially believed that Gaines was holding an actual handgun in the photo, according to earlier reports.

Gaines was in court on Monday and called the incident a misunderstanding. He was playing with the gun while visiting relatives, WLWT.com reported. His attorney said Gaines' ex-wife saw the photo and alerted authorities, the report said.

"What had happened was he had his nephews over, as well as his daughter, they were all playing. He was playing with a BB gun with his nephews. His brother walked in and wanted to take a picture of him with his daughter, he incidentally happened to be holding the BB gun in the picture," Andy Schoenling said, according to WLWT.com

Wilson Dykes, the baby's grandfather, told the station that the issue has "been blown out of proportion."

Read more: Dad arrested after posting picture of himself holding baby and BB gun | Fox News

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't know if it's child endangerment, but it's sure classy. :rolleyes:

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't know if it's child endangerment, but it's sure classy. :rolleyes:

hahahaha. My thoughts exactly. Were I his ex wife, though, I would probably use such a photo to keep him the heck away from my child via the courts.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

hahahaha. My thoughts exactly. Were I his ex wife, though, I would probably use such a photo to keep him the heck away from my child via the courts.

Seriously? Over an airsoft gun?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Seriously? Over an airsoft gun?

Seriously. His ex must feel the same, since she is the one who alerted the police. ROck on, good Mama!

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

Seriously.

Wow. My 7 year old has an airsoft gun.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

The article says BB gun, not airsoft gun. And do you frequently let him hold it and a baby? And frankly, you have very different rules for your family than what I find acceptable, so what your 7 year old shoots does not sway me as a debate point.

Most commercial BB firing airguns guns can shoot beyond 200 ft/s (61 m/s). The Daisy Red Ryder was sold in the USA as a toy in the mid 20th century. A storyline of the film A Christmas Story is that Ralphie wants one of the BB guns for Christmas, but he is told "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" [2] The toy gun fires about 280 ft/s (85 m/s); typical adult airguns are generally in the 300-450 ft/s range.
Some commercial airguns (including BB and/or pellet guns) have the ability to fire considerably faster, even beyond 550 ft/s (170 m/s). Although claims are often exaggerated, a few airguns can actually fire a standard 0.177 lead pellet faster than 1000 ft/s (about 680 miles per hour), but these are generally not BB firing guns.
A pellet with a velocity of 150 ft/s (46 m/s) has skin piercing capability, and a velocity reaching 200 ft/s (61 m/s) can fracture bone.[3]The potential can exist for delivering a fatal injury; this potential increases with velocity, but also rapidly decreases with distance. The effective penetrating range of a BB gun with a muzzle velocity of 400-600fps is +/- 60'/ 30mts . A person wearing jeans at this distance would not sustain any serious injury. However, even at this distance a BB still might penetrate bare skin, and even if not, could leave a severe and painful bruise. The maximum range of a BB gun in the 400-600fps range is 240-350 yards given the muzzle is elevated to the optimum angle.

The bolded is plenty for me. Any one who would hold a gun that could break bones or cause a fatality in the same lap as a squirmy baby is not exhibiting safe gun use.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Seriously? Over an airsoft gun?

I kind of feel the same way. We went to visit my parents recently and my Dad had an airsoft gun sitting on a low shelf. I mentioned to my husband that I wasnt comfortable with it (I know nothing about them) and he went over and checked it out. He was not concerned at all, though he did move it to reassure me. He didnt feel that it was a danger to our kids at all.

Now if they were shooting the gun while the little girl ran around playing in front of them, that would be different (so I understand it being investigated), but just holding it, and the daughter.....Im not concerned. We probably have similar pictures when I am little with my Dad with a rifle in his hand Smile

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 780

The real question: Are you serious Gloria?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

BB guns can be dangerous at close range. So can air guns and blanks. Google Jon-Erik Hexum. There's no way I would want my kids in the same room as one of them, and especially not being held in the same arms. I'm pretty sure my DH feels the same way, but if we were to divorce, there would be a "no guns in the house" clause and I *would* enforce it. Kudos to that mom!

Danifo's picture
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

I work with someone who was accidently shot in the face with a BB gun. It knocked out a (front) tooth and damaged the jaw. It has been 3 months since it happened and she has another2-3 to go until her jaw has healed enough that she can get an implant. Not what I'd want for my kid.

I don't like to hold anything unpredictable when I hold a squirmy baby. I even have my tea in a travel mug!

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 780

Airsoft is relatively safe when played with proper protection. Most airsoft guns on the market are usually below 350 ft/s (110 m/s), but projectiles expelled from any type of airsoft guns can travel as low as 65 ft/s (20 m/s) to more than 700 ft/s (210 m/s) and are capable of breaking skin at 300 ft/s (91 m/s). Though, if over 300 ft/s (91 m/s), the hit would have to be within a short range and breaking the skin is not the same as penetrating it. Blood can be drawn, but flesh is usually left intact or bruised at worst. Protective eyewear (goggles or glasses) is widely considered the minimum protection for airsoft players, as the eyes may be injured by any type of impact. A little known fact is that the teeth can also be injured (fractured) by the impact of a pellet. Dentists have reported broken teeth that require root canal and crowns to repair damage. A face mask (like that used for paintball) is recommended to protect eyes and teeth.

Airsoft gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure why any child needs to be around that or even play with one. When I think of recreations for children, I think of sports, video games, playing outside, and other kid things.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Thinking about this some more, I think the thing that frustrates me is that if the gun *had* (accidentally) gone off and hurt the baby, gun people would say "Well obviously he just wasn't being responsible with the gun" (as evidenced by the fact that he shot a baby.) But since he didn't accidentally shoot her, it's fine. No harm, no foul. It's all based off of the outcome, and not his actions or judgements that lead to the outcome.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

I dont think of myself as a 'gun person', I just think there are circumstances here that we cant tell, know nothing about. Was the gun even loaded? Was the safety on? Apparently these guns are really hard to fire accidentally, which is why DH was not worried about one being in our kids reach. I just dont think it is fair to take a child away from her father due to one picture.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

The article says BB gun, not airsoft gun. And do you frequently let him hold it and a baby? And frankly, you have very different rules for your family than what I find acceptable, so what your 7 year old shoots does not sway me as a debate point.

The bolded is plenty for me. Any one who would hold a gun that could break bones or cause a fatality in the same lap as a squirmy baby is not exhibiting safe gun use.

Another article with more information says it is an airsoft gun. An airsoft gun cannot break bones and has NEVER caused a fatality.

The air guns shoot plastic projectiles called “BBs”. Although being hit by a “BB” can hurt, the guns do not have the capability to kill anyone and are frequently given to children to use as toys. Certain models closely resemble a handgun in appearance, causing them to be easily mistaken for a deadly weapon.

Man arrested for posing with baby and BB gun on Facebook photo — RT

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I'm also bothered by the fact that he posted it on FB, like "Look how funny/cool/whatever I am! I'm holding a gun and a baby! Guffaw!"

I'm not saying that's a reason to get custody of the kid, just more of a general reason why I'm willing to be judgey about him and think that, at best, he's a buffoon.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

The funny think about laws is that you have to abide by them if you do not agree. To reference the abortion debate, I do not agree with abortion but I have to abide by the fact that it is legal and the law says people have the right to have them. The fact of the matter is that it is legal to own and have guns. It might be stupid to hold a child and a gun at the same time, but it is very legal. While I would not personally hold a baby and a gun, I think it can be done responsibly. Think of all the cops out there that have a gun on them. You can't tell me that none of them hold babies?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Do they typically hold babies with their guns drawn? Safely tucked away in a holster by a professional seems like a little bit of a different situation.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I agree. Classy for sure.

I also think that all of these guns that "look" like real guns can be very confusing to kids. Sure, this was an airsoft gun and perhaps not terribly dangerous, but how do you teach young children to recognize and know the difference between acceptable guns to have drawn around the family and guns that should not be?

Were I the mama, I would have done the same thing. Not okay in my book and certainly worth having a chat about IMO.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

The funny think about laws is that you have to abide by them if you do not agree. To reference the abortion debate, I do not agree with abortion but I have to abide by the fact that it is legal and the law says people have the right to have them. The fact of the matter is that it is legal to own and have guns. It might be stupid to hold a child and a gun at the same time, but it is very legal. While I would not personally hold a baby and a gun, I think it can be done responsibly. Think of all the cops out there that have a gun on them. You can't tell me that none of them hold babies?

He has the legal right to have a gun. He has a legal right to have a child. I'll give you both of those. There's no stated legal right to hold both at the same time. Common sense says you don't hold them both at the same time. I do believe that is child endangerment, there is an increased risk that something could happen because he's holding both at the same time. Like Alissa said, you rarely hear about these cases when the injury is prevented, only when something bad happens.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

The one thing I just can't get past is the use of the verb play. Do you usually "play" with BB guns or air soft guns? I don't associate that word with any type of guns. It just seems to minimize the purpose of any guns really.

As for the picture, yeah the way he is holding the gun isn't safe. If the girl wiggles at all the gun could go off. There could be a pet at the foot of the chair or a young child.

And I agree, if that were my X, I would definitely use that against him in court.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"boilermaker" wrote:

I agree. Classy for sure.

I also think that all of these guns that "look" like real guns can be very confusing to kids. Sure, this was an airsoft gun and perhaps not terribly dangerous, but how do you teach young children to recognize and know the difference between acceptable guns to have drawn around the family and guns that should not be?

Were I the mama, I would have done the same thing. Not okay in my book and certainly worth having a chat about IMO.

This is an excellent point.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

The funny think about laws is that you have to abide by them if you do not agree. To reference the abortion debate, I do not agree with abortion but I have to abide by the fact that it is legal and the law says people have the right to have them. The fact of the matter is that it is legal to own and have guns. It might be stupid to hold a child and a gun at the same time, but it is very legal. While I would not personally hold a baby and a gun, I think it can be done responsibly. Think of all the cops out there that have a gun on them. You can't tell me that none of them hold babies?

Have you seen photos of police officers holding babies and brandishing weapons? I haven't. The guns are holstered and locked.
The right to own a gun does not give you the right to be irresponsible with the gun. I don't believe that holding a gun and a baby in this manner is "responsible gun ownership". The police obviously agreed as they arrested him.

Isn't it the gun owners always talking about how "responsible" all gun owners are? So why when we see someone acting in what appears to be an IRResponsible manner, you still make excuses from them.

We might as well call a spade a spade. The 2nd amendment or bust crew will not argue for any limitations on any guns ever. Not for background checks to screen out criminals or mentally ill people, not for limitations on morons holding guns and squirmy babies......nothing. So as their position is completely not open in any way to actual logical debate or reason, I marvel at the fact that they continue to "debate" the subject. Even the Sandy hook thing proved it. First it was because of drugs and mentally ill kids. Then when Obama tried to address that it she OPPOSED background checks and the problem was the gangs and inner cities. Then single mothers. Its a joke.

As to abortion.... again, bringing in an unrelated topic to a loaded topic, something I thought you told us all to not do several debates ago? Yes it is legal to have an abortion. It is not legal to have an abortion in the middle of a daycare center, you would be charged with indecency and all sorts of laws. So something being legal does not give it carte blanch, that ought to be obvious, no?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Spacers" wrote:

He has the legal right to have a gun. He has a legal right to have a child. I'll give you both of those. There's no stated legal right to hold both at the same time. Common sense says you don't hold them both at the same time. I do believe that is child endangerment, there is an increased risk that something could happen because he's holding both at the same time. Like Alissa said, you rarely hear about these cases when the injury is prevented, only when something bad happens.

What law is it against? Yes it is stupid, and I think an X would have any right to use it against her spouse in a custody battle, but it is not illegal to have a gun in one hand and a baby in the other. (I will give you stupid, but not illegal)

Growing up I was never allowed to have toy guns. Not a water gun or any other kind of gun. My mother did not allow them in the house. We had real guns, but not toy guns. She did not want us to mix up the two. While that was our family rule, it is not illegal to have toy guns and many people do.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 780

I don't care if it was a paint ball gun, it's still dangerous and can hurt!! Even a hose can be dangerous at high water pressure.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1533

I cant get past how bad the picture looks. I cant imagine have a baby and a gun in the same picture.

DHs uncle is a state cop and a consultant with the FBI, he takes my oldest to the range (she is actually learning to use a high powered bow and arrow) but he is super careful with all weapons when any of my other children are there.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

The point was made that it's legal for him to hold the gun, and my point was that two completely separate things that are legal don't necessarily mean that the combination of them is legal. Drinking & driving are one example where each thing is legal, but they aren't legal together. But either way, it doesn't have to be illegal to be child endangerment, it just has to be dangerous. Which this was.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Spacers" wrote:

The point was made that it's legal for him to hold the gun, and my point was that two completely separate things that are legal don't necessarily mean that the combination of them is legal. Drinking & driving are one example where each thing is legal, but they aren't legal together. But either way, it doesn't have to be illegal to be child endangerment, it just has to be dangerous. Which this was.

I will agree with you that it was dangerous and stupid, but I do not see where it is illegal. At what age would it become legal then to have both a child and a gun? I went target practicing with my parents at a young age. I am not sure how old, but I would guess starting at age 5? It would have huge ramifications if you were to say you could not have both a gun and a child out at the same time. While this person did not appear to be carefully holding his gun, I do not believe that you can make the blanket statement that it is illegal to hold both a gun and a child at the same time.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

The one thing I just can't get past is the use of the verb play. Do you usually "play" with BB guns or air soft guns? I don't associate that word with any type of guns. It just seems to minimize the purpose of any guns really.

As for the picture, yeah the way he is holding the gun isn't safe. If the girl wiggles at all the gun could go off. There could be a pet at the foot of the chair or a young child.

And I agree, if that were my X, I would definitely use that against him in court.

I think you are over estimating how easy it is to cause one of these guns to 'go off', especially if the safety is on. And how do you know that how he is holding it is not safe? Maybe he is pointing it in that direction specifically because there was no one in his line of fire.

And while I probably wouldnt use the word 'play' it doesnt surprise me that others may use that term for target practice if it is something they enjoy.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Have you seen photos of police officers holding babies and brandishing weapons? I haven't. The guns are holstered and locked.
The right to own a gun does not give you the right to be irresponsible with the gun. I don't believe that holding a gun and a baby in this manner is "responsible gun ownership". The police obviously agreed as they arrested him.

Isn't it the gun owners always talking about how "responsible" all gun owners are? So why when we see someone acting in what appears to be an IRResponsible manner, you still make excuses from them.

We might as well call a spade a spade. Gloria will not argue for any limitations on any guns ever. Not for background checks to screen out criminals or mentally ill people, not for limitations on morons holding guns and squirmy babies......nothing. So as her position is completely not open in any way to actual logical debate or reason, I marvel at the fact that she continue to "debate" the subject. Even the Sandy hook thing proved it. First it was because of drugs and mentally ill kids. Then when Obama tried to address that it she OPPOSED background checks and the problem was the gangs and inner cities. Then single mothers. Its a joke.

As to abortion.... again, bringing in an unrelated topic to a loaded topic, something I thought you told us all to not do several debates ago? Yes it is legal to have an abortion. It is not legal to have an abortion in the middle of a daycare center, you would be charged with indecency and all sorts of laws. So something being legal does not give it carte blanch, that ought to be obvious, no?

Maybe because not everyone sees this as 'irresponsible'. Or at least not that cut and dried.

BTW, Gloria isnt the only one who thinks this might not be so bad.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

The police did. THe Baby Mama did. Most of the posters on this thread do. And without knowing all of the facts I hedged my statement by saying "in what APPEARS to be irresponsible". If you think that this is fine and dandy gun play with babies, we disagree.

My point was that in all of these debates we have yet to hear a solution that is acceptable to THE "2ND AMENDMENT OR BUST" crew in the gun control debate, or a time where a gun owner is being irresponsible in THEIR view, or a time where a background check should and could be a good thing for all gun sales. THEIR uunwillingness to offer up any solution, but to merely shoot down every single one offered up by others is invalidating THEIR ability to debate this entire issue logically in my mind.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

Maybe he is pointing it in that direction specifically because there was no one in his line of fire.
.

Maybe. But in a room full of people like a baby and other children and the photographer the line of fire isn't important to ricochet.

As a note, steel BBs are also very prone to ricochet, especially off hard surfaces such as brick, concrete or trees. Eye protection is essential when shooting BBs, more so than when shooting lead pellets, since a BB bouncing off a hard surface can retain a very large portion of its initial energy (pellets usually flatten and absorb energy), and could easily cause serious eye damage up to and including blindness.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I will agree with you that it was dangerous and stupid, but I do not see where it is illegal. At what age would it become legal then to have both a child and a gun? I went target practicing with my parents at a young age. I am not sure how old, but I would guess starting at age 5? It would have huge ramifications if you were to say you could not have both a gun and a child out at the same time. While this person did not appear to be carefully holding his gun, I do not believe that you can make the blanket statement that it is illegal to hold both a gun and a child at the same time.

I didn't say have, I said hold, and I didn't say it was illegal. I said I believe it is dangerous, and so did the mom who reported it and the cop who arrested him. I'd be willing to bet this wasn't a first offense of him doing something with the kid that she thinks is dangerous; most reasonable people don't call the cops on something like this when no one got hurt. I think most people, even exes, would talk about their concerns & hope that it doesn't ever happen again.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Lets not make this debate about individual posters. I don't think it's invalid to point out trends or inconsistencies between debates, but I do feel like focusing solely on "Debater X can't debate this topic logically because....." typically gets us back into the territory of just debating each other's perceived personality flaws instead of debating the topic. It's not productive.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

The police did. THe Baby Mama did. Most of the posters on this thread do. And without knowing all of the facts I hedged my statement by saying "in what APPEARS to be irresponsible". If you think that this is fine and dandy gun play with babies, we disagree.

My point was that in all of these debates we have yet to hear a solution that is acceptable to Gloria in the gun control debate, or a time where a gun owner is being irresponsible in her view, or a time where a background check should and could be a good thing for all gun sales. Her uunwillingness to offer up any solution, but to merely shoot down every single one offered up by others is invalidating her ability to debate this entire issue logically in my mind.

He has been arrested, when they thought it was a real gun. He has not yet been prosecuted, and may not be. The ex doesnt really count in my books cause we have no idea what their relationship is like, and may just be looking to stir things up for custody reasons.

And I dont think it is ever OK to 'play' with a gun around a child. I actually think that is an unfortunate choice of word by this guy. If this happened as he said, he was 'playing with the gun', the daughter was brought to him for a picture, he put the safety on, held the girl and got his picture taken and then she left.....I just cant get worked up about that, doesnt seem like a huge deal to me. Although, as we are just going from his statement and a picture, I did state that I too think it should be investigated to ensure that is ALL that happened. I guess I am just more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they woudnt knowingly endanger their own child.

I understand what you are saying about Gloria......just dont feel the need to address it.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Lets not make this debate about individual posters. I don't think it's invalid to point out trends or inconsistencies between debates, but I do feel like focusing solely on "Debater X can't debate this topic logically because....." typically gets us back into the territory of just debating each other's perceived personality flaws instead of debating the topic. It's not productive.

Sorry. I changed my language to reflect that I am talking about anyone who continually says "the 2nd amendment" in response to any valid question or proposed solution.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

There are a lot of things that are legal that I think is child endangerment. A lot of people let their young children who are not licensed to drive a car, drive dirt bikes which travel fast and there are often injuries and recently around here a death. I think it is a dangerous parenting move and not one I'm going to allow.

Holding a baby and holding any type of weapon (and a recognized weapon, gun, machete etc...I'm not going to argue someone's fists or anything silly like that.) is another dangerous parenting move and I would question this father's skills. If it was my ex...you bet I would be speaking to my lawyer.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Spacers" wrote:

I didn't say have, I said hold, and I didn't say it was illegal. I said I believe it is dangerous, and so did the mom who reported it and the cop who arrested him. I'd be willing to bet this wasn't a first offense of him doing something with the kid that she thinks is dangerous; most reasonable people don't call the cops on something like this when no one got hurt. I think most people, even exes, would talk about their concerns & hope that it doesn't ever happen again.

We obviously know very different people Smile I have witnessed a number of custody battles where one spouse is willing to say anything against the other to keep their child away from them. Many people try to use the police to their advantage during a separation.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

We obviously know very different people Smile I have witnessed a number of custody battles where one spouse is willing to say anything against the other to keep their child away from them. Many people try to use the police to their advantage during a separation.

I totally agree. I have three friends who have divorced with young children. If a photo like this popped up on FB you can be darn sure that this is entering into case law as we work out the terms of time sharing/visitation etc etc .

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

I totally agree. I have three friends who have divorced with young children. If a photo like this popped up on FB you can be darn sure that this is entering into case law as we work out the terms of time sharing/visitation etc etc .

And from my understanding of this debate, it would be because you have a genuine concern about what is happening in the picture. My point was, that if I was to report a picture like this of my ex and our child and I didnt already have concerns about him having guns around them, it wouldnt be due to being concerned about the picture, but because of other issues we may be having.

I like to belive I am not that person, but I know a lot of people who have gone through nasty custody stuff, from the cops being called because the other person wouldnt exchange the kids at 4am, to lies being told in court, facebook pages being scanned for anything incriminating, CPS being called, to a friend of mine who has actually lost his daughter because after the court appointed him joint custody, his ex took the baby and left the country. That was 6 years ago, and he is still struggling to track her down. In some cases it is jealousy the other person has moved on, mental health issues, and in the case where the baby was kidnapped, his refusal to marry the mother.

My point is that there are a lot of different issues in relationships, especially ones that have ended, but the couple is still forced together by a child. Because of that I cant take the mothers concern about this picture as an indication that there have been previous issues with the childs safety.

Danifo's picture
Joined: 09/07/10
Posts: 1377

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I will agree with you that it was dangerous and stupid, but I do not see where it is illegal. At what age would it become legal then to have both a child and a gun? I went target practicing with my parents at a young age. I am not sure how old, but I would guess starting at age 5? It would have huge ramifications if you were to say you could not have both a gun and a child out at the same time. While this person did not appear to be carefully holding his gun, I do not believe that you can make the blanket statement that it is illegal to hold both a gun and a child at the same time.

I don't have a problem with young children learning to shoot. I do have a problem with holding a baby and a weapon. If you are being responsible with your weapon (safety on, finger off the trigger unless you are pointing it at your target) it is hard to make it go off accidently. I don't know the status of the weapon in his hand. If it was handed to him, he might know the status of the weapon in his hasnd.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"ftmom" wrote:

And from my understanding of this debate, it would be because you have a genuine concern about what is happening in the picture. My point was, that if I was to report a picture like this of my ex and our child and I didnt already have concerns about him having guns around them, it wouldnt be due to being concerned about the picture, but because of other issues we may be having.

I like to belive I am not that person, but I know a lot of people who have gone through nasty custody stuff, from the cops being called because the other person wouldnt exchange the kids at 4am, to lies being told in court, facebook pages being scanned for anything incriminating, CPS being called, to a friend of mine who has actually lost his daughter because after the court appointed him joint custody, his ex took the baby and left the country. That was 6 years ago, and he is still struggling to track her down. In some cases it is jealousy the other person has moved on, mental health issues, and in the case where the baby was kidnapped, his refusal to marry the mother.

My point is that there are a lot of different issues in relationships, especially ones that have ended, but the couple is still forced together by a child. Because of that I cant take the mothers concern about this picture as an indication that there have been previous issues with the childs safety.

I just don't think that is necessarily true. We don't own guns. DH has shot them before so he is comfortable around them. If we split up, currently I have no concerns on how would be with my kids. He's a good dad. If I saw him doing this....I would question it.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

A few months ago a teenage girl was shot in the head with a bb gun from a passing car. The pellet missed her eye and was embedded in the side of her forehead. The only reason she got off so 'lucky' is that it didn't hit her in the temple. So, ya, these are real guns that can do real damage.
Calgary teen shot in head with BB gun while waiting at bus stop; incident random, police say

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Potter75" wrote:

Maybe. But in a room full of people like a baby and other children and the photographer the line of fire isn't important to ricochet.

As a note, steel BBs are also very prone to ricochet, especially off hard surfaces such as brick, concrete or trees. Eye protection is essential when shooting BBs, more so than when shooting lead pellets, since a BB bouncing off a hard surface can retain a very large portion of its initial energy (pellets usually flatten and absorb energy), and could easily cause serious eye damage up to and including blindness.

These aren't steel BBs. They are plastic. Air soft guns, especially pistols are not very powerful and ARE toys. You can get some that are a little more powerful but those are rifle style, and they are still plastic guns that shoot plastic BBs. The pistols don't get very powerful. The one my 7 year old PLAYS with is a plastic gun with plastic BBs. They sell them for $5 at the flea market. They don't just go off, because you have to c ock it EVERY time before it will shoot.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

A few months ago a teenage girl was shot in the head with a bb gun from a passing car. The pellet missed her eye and was embedded in the side of her forehead. The only reason she got off so 'lucky' is that it didn't hit her in the temple. So, ya, these are real guns that can do real damage.
Calgary teen shot in head with BB gun while waiting at bus stop; incident random, police say

If you are using a real BB gun with metal BBs yes. This was an air soft gun that uses plastic BBs. To have a pistol that actually shoots metal BBs you need a gas powered C02 pellet gun and those aren't things that you play with.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

7 year olds shouldn't be playing with guns, plastic or otherwise.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

If you are using a real BB gun with metal BBs yes. This was an air soft gun that uses plastic BBs. To have a pistol that actually shoots metal BBs you need a gas powered C02 pellet gun and those aren't things that you play with.

Try explaining all that to a little kid who gets their hands on one.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

7 year olds shouldn't be playing with guns, plastic or otherwise.

Why not? If you don't let them play with a gun they will just use their finger, what's the difference? I don't let him put BBs in it if he is in the house because I don't want the BBs all over the place. So if he is actually going to shoot it he has to take it outside and wear eye protection. Inside he just play shoots it with no BBs.

My older son has been having air soft wars since he was 12 where a bunch of his friends get together and shoot each other in the back yard. That is what these guns are designed for. I have been hit before it stings a little but they hurt a lot less than a paintball gun.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Why not? If you don't let them play with a gun they will just use their finger, what's the difference? I don't let him put BBs in it if he is in the house because I don't want the BBs all over the place. So if he is actually going to shoot it he has to take it outside and wear eye protection. Inside he just play shoots it with no BBs.

My older son has been having air soft wars since he was 12 where a bunch of his friends get together and shoot each other in the back yard. That is what these guns are designed for. I have been hit before it stings a little but they hurt a lot less than a paintball gun.

Why not? Because it promotes violent play in children. I don't think a bunch of kids running around trying to 'shoot' each other is all that cool, Gloria.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Try explaining all that to a little kid who gets their hands on one.

My son is around real guns and fake guns all the time since his dad is a policeman. He has no trouble knowing the difference and knowing not to touch the real thing unless an adult is helping him. A C02 powered pellet gun is a real gun and should be treated as such. That type of gun should not be used without adult supervision.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Why not? Because it promotes violent play in children. I don't think a bunch of kids running around trying to 'shoot' each other is all that cool, Gloria.

Well we did it as kids and I have 10 brothers and sisters and none of us are violent. I have 2 grown sons who did it as kids and they aren't violent and they had plenty of nerf guns and dart guns and everything else. I know plenty of other people who have done it that aren't violent either. So sorry I disagree.

Pages