TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:I don't take "polls" on web sites seriously, but y'all better vote on this one because it's currently 90% Yes.

IMO there should be no fixed limit at either end of the age spectrum. Only criminal history or mental incompetence should be disqualification for having weapons.

- Jim

But did you notice the one thing that is different???

The results or trend in the answer on this website is diametrically opposite than the source websites results...

Not surprising, but it appears the answers and discussion here are based upon more of fact, than emotion...

Just another example that proves we have a little more going on in the knowledge locker than the folks answering this poll on the other website...Right???

KBCraig wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Yes, under most circumstances you need a FOID to even touch a gun.

OTOH, I think the father is now eligible for arrest for the fraud he committed.

What fraud? He properly filled out the FOID application in the boy's name, and then signed as the parent, as required by the form for all children under 15.

Kevin

According to his own account all he did was put an illegible scribble in the required signatue space. The parental permission box is not a substitute for a signature by the applicant. In placing the scribble in the signature box he commited the Class 2 Felony described in the upper left corner of the application.

Of course he's a newspaper columnist with an agenda, so he is obviously not subject to the law.

stevie_d_64 wrote:Not surprising, but it appears the answers and discussion here are based upon more of fact, than emotion...

Just another example that proves we have a little more going on in the knowledge locker than the folks answering this poll on the other website...Right???

I would like to think so, but everyone thinks their opinions are based on facts and logic.

I've heard some coverage of this issue on TV (I try to avoid that, but sometimes I can't). They are taking the approach that a baby owning a shotgun is ludicrous, and they seem to think the kid is going to be shooting before he's out of diapers.

(No one thinks a baby owning savings bonds or having a bank account is silly, do they?.)

It's sad. We have so much work to do.

Jim

TX Rancher wrote:A valid point, and of course I don’t want any child to get hurt, but how many students have you had in that seven year time span? 2 out of how many had accidents?

Or more importantly, how many students during that time span had access to firearms, and did not hurt themselves or others? Would it be “fair� to limit their access to firearms since 2 had accidents?

I don't want to a child's access to a firearm limited altogether; I simply believe a parent or responsible adult should be present for younger teens. (I don't have as much of a problem with an older teen, and believe that by 18, they need to be completely responsible for their own behavior.)

And as for the numbers, I teach approximately 30 students per year, and I usually teach them for three consecutive years. I don't have nearly the sample size taught by most teachers.