Well, I think it is SOME people's business whether you have a gun in your home (ie, parents with kids coming over to play and what have you, where they want to ensure that the gun is properly secured before letting the little ones loose). It CERTAINLY isn't the business of your gym. They probably are using a risk-analysis form that they didn't develop, maybe from an insurance company, and that's why they're asking questions they have no need to know. I would write "decline to answer" on the form.

I don't even think it IS another parent's business. Is it there business if I have a chef's knife? Or a lighter? Or a fountain pen? But then you get into a lot of personal responsibility, and ensuring that it isn't accessible to anyone without a key.

But, at the same time, I'm a big advocate of kids knowing what a gun is early on. I've known a lot of kids, and the only ones who "play" with them are kids that weren't taught how to handle and respect one at an early age. As one of my friends said, "It's only kids who are never told what matches are, but ARE told not to touch them, that burn down houses."

The assessment was an online thing, and all the questions had to be answered. I'm going to talk to the trainer about it when we have our consultation.

I would think that a lot of kids don't know about guns. And even if they do, kids will be kids and might want to play.

ray

When I was 17 and had to switch pediatricians, they asked me if a gun was kept in the house. I responded yes, they asked me a couple more questions about how it was secured, etc. and then dropped it. Apparently the worries are a. kids, and b. untrained gun owners having them used against them. (There was quite a rash of that around here a few years ago)

I think it's a standard risk calculator that's also used by insurance companies, etc.

Is it a good gym? One just opened here in my town. To me the place seems strange, just a vibe. Even if this "test" was a "standard" test and maybe it was, taken from a doctor's test or something, I think you should tell them that it bothered you, at least email them about this. The manager at this local gym seems like a macho idiot to me, maybe upper management is too, and they are clueless.

The manager? No no. This is an online thing (I'm pretty sure I mentioned that in my first post). I take it, then have the trainer do my evaluation. It's a franchised gym, so I'm going to talk to the trainer about it. They might not even know. I'll probably also send an eMail to the team in charge of that section.

I would guess that the questionairre is based on averages, and statistical links, not cause and effect. It seems to imply that the gun itself is the risk, but I don't think this is true. I think handgun purchase may be linked to risks that already exist. That is that people don't buy handguns on a whim, or because they look pretty, but that the person has already decided that they need one - and it may be that factors that inspire people to buy or posess handguns affect personal saftety. People whose lives are the most unsafe for other reasons, may be much more likely to buy guns.

Regardless, I would want to know how the tool was developed and by whom, before determining there was any validity to it. If it's a self-test and only I see the questions and answers, that would be one thing, but if it's a question asked by a person, or going to be kept in a file somewhere, I want to know what the information is being used for (and unless it's for a really good reason, like I've just applied to work for the FBI, I would refuse).

Cite?

Check this out: http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

Sorry, I have to differ with you here. Especially if your gun is in any way accessible to children in the house. I realize this doesn't have anything to do with your original question, but I feel strongly that I would not allow my children to go to a home where I know there would be guns. I don't think you can compare a fountain pen to a firearm? Just my opinion. I agree with the link above that more weapons are used against the gunowner by the perpetrator.

well I think that question is totally ******ed, and I would have ignored the question if possible. I don't care what their reason was, as someone who has been robbed twice, I would have been highly suspicious, right, and just put yes even if I didn't.

Actually, I would argue that a parent has a right to ask any question they deem necessary to the safety of their children. That may mean questions regarding the presence of, access to, and other information regarding potential risks, whether they be firearms, knives, animals, pornography, computer, television, internet, music, video games, family members, or even peanut butter.

Just because they have the right to ask, doesn't mean you're obligated to answer. The same is really true of the doctor's office mentioned, and the gym -- they have a right to ask the question, doesn't mean you have to answer.

The first thought that came to my mind was a big OMG are you kidding me. I would have been like WTH!

Seriously what off the wall kind of question is that for a gym or anyone to ask really. They'd probably think I'm a risk waiting to happen, we've got 3 shotguns, 2 hunting rifles and a handgun.

Ooo so close. I guess we can pull out the debates (which wasn't the intention) since this got moved to the GD. Let's go!

Physician group slams handgun report (ie, the report you cited)

Actually, I can. And I did.

I can easily compare a lighter to a gun, though. As of 1995, less than 250 kids per year died as a result of gun related injuries (a number significantly less than fires). Check on the CDCs website to see current statistics, and you'll find that most anti-gun lobbies are using numbers that include 'children' ages 16 to 24 - the group responsible for the most crime in the country. Here are a few other statistics.

Unfortunately, it really is *none* of any other parent's business what I keep locked in my room. However, I think we may be misinterpreting each other. When the term "right to know" is used (I know you didn't, but it was originally used) is this implying that the owning parent should inform the visiting parent, or should simply supply the information when asked?

If a parent would not want to let their child play in my house because I owned a gun, fine. I actually would hope that that child never came near a gun, since it would be such a piece of wonder and mystery, forbidden fruit, so to speak, that they wouldn't respect it. Which is to say NOTHING about parenting, or whether it is right or wrong to teach your children about weapons, in case anyone thought I was going there. It's just that children who are not taught that a gun is a tool to be respected from an early age are often the ones involved in the needless accidents, and should be kept away from them until a point that they know better.

As far as agreeing with the above poster, please read the article refuting the report from VPC (an anti-gun lobby). Basically, they were comparing crimes in which a woman was killed to crimes in which a woman killed in self defense. When, in actuality, guns are rarely fired when being used in self-defense. The simple sound of a round being chambered is often enough to scare away a would-be criminal.

I agree there. You have the right to ask, not to know. If parents feel strongly about violent video games, I fully expect them to ask if they will be available. I wouldn't doubt the same from someone who feels strongly about guns and children.

What bothers me about that, from personal experience, is that many (not all) of the people who ask if you own a gun are the same people who enter the mini-rant about how guns insta-kill children. 1) It wasn't really any of your business whether or not I keep a gun in my room, 2) I've never seen a gun leap from the table and murder someone, 3) if it's a big deal, don't send your kid over - don't expect me to change my family.

I read a study that found that boys who had attended gun safety courses and boys that had not were both likely to grab, play with, and pull the trigger on a gun that they found in a room when they weren't told it was going to be there...they simply ignored the safety training they received.

It was a small-ish study (64 children), but I think it at least brings into question the idea that training kids on what guns are and what they do will prevent them from touching or using the weapon inappropriately.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...0_guns05.shtml

I agree with you about the sound of chambering a round for self-defense...my father recently purchased a gun for defending a piece of property we have (basically, a "safe house" in case of some sort of disaster...it has an independent water supply and plenty of food, and is relatively secluded, just in case we ever needed such a place). He went to the gun store and asked, literally, for the loudest possible weapon he could find...he never wants to ACTUALLY have to fire the gun, he wants to have a loud noise to scare people off. We're taking a gun-safety class together this Spring.

I agree with the original post that it doesn't seem an appropriate question to ask on a gym survey analysis.

However, from personal experience I don't agree that kids that are taught about guns from an early age will respect them and not try to play with them. My son-in-law is a firearms specialist for the government. He taught his 3 yr. old son never to play with or touch his guns. One day, I was babysitting at their home. Imagine my shock when the 3 yr. old comes running from dad's bedroom with a 45 Magnum pointed at the CAT. Thank God, that Billy did have a lock on the gun. I think I lost 10 yrs. of my life from that experience! Of course it could be argued that a 3 yr. old is too young to be taught. But, if a 3yr. old can reach a gun, they are gonna play with it!

BTW, my husband was a state trooper for 20 yrs. We have several rifles, shotguns and handguns. They are all kept in a locked gun case for our safety.