Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Adoption Agencies Can't Ask

The Parent Dish site published an article on a new law in Florida which would prevent adoption agencies from asking prospective adoptive parents about their gun ownership.

The adoption bill resulted from a mixup at the Children's Home Society in Central Florida, according to the newspaper. The nonprofit adoption agency, under the Department of Children and Families (DCF), was using an old form that asked about prospective parents' gun ownership. When the NRA brought it up to lawmakers, the DCF ordered all adoption agencies to avoid asking questions about firearms.

Marion Hammer, the NRA's Florida lobbyist, says that the adoption issue illustrates that government groups like adoption agencies could keep a list of firearm owners, which is prohibited in Florida. Hammer urged the gun list prohibition law to be written years ago, as well as a ban on law-enforcement agencies from keeping a list of gun purchases at pawn shops.

Hammer tells the newspaper her next step toward gun ownership freedom may be to stop pediatricians from asking children about guns in their home. She says some think this could end up in the child's file, which could end up in the hands of the health insurance company, who could pass it over to a homeowner insurance company, who could then deny the family coverage because they own a firearm.

If guns are so right and good and acceptable and not-to-be-feared, then why all the secrecy? Ostensibly, the gun rights folks insist on secrecy because of the danger of creating a database of gun owners. This must be avoided because a database could be used in a door-to-door confiscation of guns. Taken to its logical conclusion, this thinking is laughably paranoid.

The real reason for all the secrecy, I would guess, has more to do with the fact that they realize, but would be quite loathe to admit, that guns are not as good and acceptable and not-to-be-feared as they pretend.

What's your opinion? Is it right to prohibit adoption agencies from asking about gun ownership? Is it right to prohibit pediatricians from asking their patients? If guns are so good, wouldn't it be just as likely that the inquiring person would consider gun ownership a plus? Wouldn't the adoption agency and the pediatrician understand the best way to protect the children is if the parents are armed?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

7 comments:

  1. " Taken to its logical conclusion, this thinking is laughably paranoid."

    Because guns have never been confiscated, right?

    "If guns are so good, wouldn't it be just as likely that the inquiring person would consider gun ownership a plus?"

    Let's reword that: If abortions are so good, wouldn't it be just as likely that the inquiring person would consider an abortion a plus? So what would be wrong with an adoption agency asking is prospective parents have had an abortion?

    I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world, not everyone can be trusted with personal information. Especially information as politically charged as whether you own a gun or have had an abortion. There will always be someone out there who will use that information for their own nefarious purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is it any of their business in the first place? Why does an adoption agency need to know. Why would a pediatrician need to ask that of a child?

    You say that it is paranoia. Fine. So forget any laughable reasons and tell us why those would be necessary questions?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The real reason for all the secrecy, I would guess, has more to do with the fact that they realize, but would be quite loathe to admit, that guns are not as good and acceptable and not-to-be-feared as they pretend."

    No, mikeb, the real reason is that it is none of their damned business, and they have no need to be asking such questions.

    I suppose I might not object as much to their meddling if instead of pushing the gun control movement's agenda, they pushed the more logical safety aspect. Here's what I mean:

    If you are wanting to keep your kid from drowning, you teach him to swim. You don't tell him to avoid water. If he is learning to drive, we teach him to drive safely and obey traffic laws and wear a seat belt. Education is the key.

    You don't kid-proof the gun, you gun-proof the kid.

    It's like sex education--our kids receive sex eudcation in schools, because the powers that be have decided that it's so important to teach them the dangers of irresponsible sex. Okay, I can follow that line of reasoning, even though I believe that it is the parents' responsibility, not the State's.

    But, if we accept the logic that kids that know about sex and its dangers are less likely to engage in dangerous habits, and the State benefits from reduced teen pregnancies and STDs, then we can also accept the logic that kids that know gun safety will lead to less "accidents" with guns, which also a benefit to the State.

    So, why are the doctors and adoption agencies not pushing gun education? I think most gun owning families, if they haven't already begun to teach their kids about gun safety, would absolutely love the idea. But instead, they push the "no guns in the home" crap. Add in that (as AR pointed out) gun confiscations have happened, and do happen, and you will see why gun owners are naturally suspicious of anyone that is asking questions about guns in the home.

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect all who approach that jewel.” – Patrick Henry

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's none of the agencies damn business whether or not I own guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some say it's none of their business, but obviously the agencies who needed a specific law to stop this practice don't agree with that. I don't either. Guns in the house are bad news for kids, and women, and suicidal men and teenagers. Of course in a particular instance, let's say FatWhiteMan's house, all those dangers can be dealt with, but when you consider the tens-of-millions of gun-owners, you've got to wonder how many are not a smart and careful and responsible as FWM.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "...but when you consider the tens-of-millions of gun-owners, you've got to wonder how many are not a smart and careful and responsible as FWM."

    That's the price you pay for freedom. Those that give up essential liberty for security get neither, to paraphrase Franklin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Guns in the house are bad news for kids, and women, and suicidal men and teenagers.

    So are rope, bathtubs, swimming pools, cars, household chemicals, knives etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete