FIL, DH, DC and guns

[pacifist]

This incident happened a while ago but DH and I still have a fundamental disagreement over it that we want the MN jury to resolve. I am happy to back down if you all tell me I am wrong.

We were staying in my PIL's French house when FIL offered to take DD1 (aged 12) out to shoot with a high velocity air rifle. I said no: I do not want my DC involved with guns. DH remembers it as my saying "I would not be at all happy with that. It would not be safe. You would be dangerous".

FIL insisted that his family had always had guns, none of them had been shot and that I was being ridiculous. I still said no, VERY firmly.

10 minutes later I heard gunshots in the garden. I could not find DD1/FIL or DH in the house. I didn't dare go out to investigate and get DD1 back because I had no idea where the shooting was so I did not want to take DD2 (aged 9) out with me and into danger, nor to leave her alone in the house where she might run out looking for me, and into the gunfire. Actually I was terrified that DD1 might be in danger - that perhaps FIL and DH had gone out shooting together and DD1 had wandered out to look for them. I kept DD2 away from the windows and waited it out. Afterwards, I found that FIL and DH had indeed taken DD1 out shooting in the garden (not a big garden, just an ordinary one). DH says one of them "stood guard" and it was all very safe.

DH thinks that because I implied my FIL was dangerous, and FIL believed he was not, then FIL/DH were right to carry on against my express wishes. DH says I should not deny the DC experiences. He says in any case this was not a "gun", it was an air rifle. My view is that a lot of clever people in England have decided this high velocity air rifle is dangerous enough for it to be illegal and anyway I don't want the DC to shoot with any guns/rifles at all.

1. AIBU to expect my wishes to be respected regarding the DC whether or not DH/FIL agree with them. DH argues I should have respected HIS wishes to let the DC shoot, and why should I be the one with the final say; and

2. AIBU to not want my DC to shoot high velocity rifles, even under adult supervision, or am I "safety mad"? 3. If you ARE going to go out shooting, shouldn't you tell everyone else in the property where, when and with whom as a basic safety precaution?

These things are very difficult because sometimes, two partners will simply never agree on something and one will have to "back down" despite their disagreement. There's no rule for how that works - you just need to work it out.

Personally I think the key problem is that the initial conversation about whether it was OK for your DD to go shooting was not properly explored and resolved. Your DH is right that there is no reason why you should always get your own way. BUT he appears to have left the conversation with an impression at least that he would comply, and then ignored it. This is absolutely wrong. If he felt strongly enough that he shouldn't have to do what you clearly attached a lot of importance to, then he should have bloody well stood his ground and argued the point for as long as it took.

I kind of think in a situation like that that if a person raises a strong objection, the objection stands and should be observed until the other person either (a) talks them round, or (b) TELLS them that they don't recognise the validity of the objection and intend to ignore it.

The latter may be hard to hear and cause many problems, but at least it gives the objector the benefit of honest information. That's the least you can do. To imply that you'll obey the objection and then not do so, devalues not just the objection but the person as well.

As for the wider issue of whether it's OK to take her shooting, I rather suspect it is. I have a general, visceral hatred of guns based on seeing them as American inner city murder weapons, but rationally I can see there's for more to it than that. I eat meat for example, so can't really raise any objection to the idea of a hunter killing animals with guns. Wanting children to have "nothing to do" with guns is probably a pretty overgeneralised and irrational position. If you trust your DH's claims of competence and safety, I'd say he probably has as much right to share that experience with her as any other.

I agree with those who said that the issue of whether or not your DCs handle guns should have been resolved before hand not when everyone is standing around champing at the bit to be off.

Not telling people where the shooting is going on is just plain dumb. Hearing the shots will not help as it can be difficult to tell which direction they come from especially when out in the open.

My DS (13) joined army cadets a couple of months ago. His unit has a firing range but even so the new cadets are not allowed to fire any weapons including the air rifles until the end of basic training. I think they have at least 4 hours of instruction specifically on safe weapons handling in that time.

Hi,
I think if your uncomfortable with guns being around your children then your dh and fil should respect that and not have undermined you,getting you involved with this and showing you the safety they are taking will help you over come the fears you have with the guns,also you should both talk to your children making sure they understand that the guns are not toys and should not be used without adult supervision only and if they agree to the terms then they can enjoy there time with there dad and grandpa and you'll be at price of mind knowing there safe..

Completely out of order for your feelings to be treated with such contempt.

How about doing some research on what constitutes safe handling and reach an agreement with your DH?

You may need to compromise a bit but I am sure that with applying a bit of thought to this you would reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Oh yes, dont take FiL's word on safehandling as gospel. Do some research of your own. Too many people have only been not injured because of luck rather than judgement.