(06-13-2013, 09:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, it's nice to wax nostalgic about what used to be (and what some current gun owners still practice) but a lot of US citizens own guns, their kids are growing up playing Modern Warfare, and they don't have that respect for guns that prior generations had. I doubt you (and I mean the general "you") will have any luck turning back the hands of time in that regard.
If thats the case maybe the parents should be parents and monitor their children better and take the mature games away from their pre teen children. Not saying you user just speaking in general.
Agreed, kids should be kids and taught things responsibly, not left to an X-Box with GTA for a babysitter.
Granted there are a Lot of stupid irresponsible people in the world, but as to guns I believe they are far and away a minority.
Many, Many more responsible gun owners you never hear anything about
(06-13-2013, 07:08 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Just throwing this out there for conversation.
It wasn't that long ago that firearms in the hands of children was no big deal, in fact it was common place. We did not have the issues then that we have now. Even when I was a child I was able to take a firearm to school. People did not freak out, I did not have the cops called on me. I was not suspended. I was allowed to use the handgun in my presentation and I was graded on it. No big deal.
Maybe my thinking is off base,maybe not. What say you all?
I respect the cultures of different states and locales, it makes this country interesting. I think your experiences as a child/teen are very different from mine due to geography. It has never been permissible to bring a gun on school grounds at any time in my life and we're about the same age. That doesn't mean I consider your thinking or experiences off-base - just naturally different.
I’m also a nostalgic person, but am very aware of how society and culture have changed over the 4 decades that I’ve been on this planet. 6 decades ago when the article was published, it was undoubtedly all the more different. I’m looking at societal problems/ issues with today’s eyes.
Having said that, the 1956 LIFE article that you posted was controversial even back then. That story didn’t make the cover because it depicted a standard sign of the times across the nation. Just the opposite. In response to 550 accidental gun deaths of children in Indiana that year, Mr. Rankin was motivated to teach safety. Education and safety are good, I agree with that completely. But, there was still reaction that grade schoolers were too young to be handling guns. I think in a classroom setting of that sort, considering how guns were typically used at that time, I probably wouldn’t have been amongst the objectors back then and still probably wouldn't object for reasonably aged children today. (I don't get the uproar over shirts and stuff either, btw).
The point that came up earlier in this thread with regards to children and guns wasn't an objection to safety education. It was a rejection by some, myself included, of the claim that educating/indoctrinating children to guns at a very young age somehow makes it risk-free and less irresponsible for adults to leave loaded weapons in handling reach of toddlers, 5 years old, and young children in general. Times and guns have changed; young children's' ability to connect actions with consequences has not.
![[Image: 01_00963411.jpg?w=689]](http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/01_00963411.jpg?w=689)
Another picture from the 1956 LIFE article. I wouldn't have objected to gun safety education for them in 1956 and I wouldn't today. I also wouldn't leave a loaded gun where they had access to it or could find it after they received safety education in 1956 and I wouldn't today. JMO.
In terms of children/minors and gun control laws:
I don't think the minimum age for gun ownership should be lowered and I don't think minors should be able to take guns on school grounds today (but do like the idea of some armed teachers and/or security on campuses).
(06-13-2013, 09:45 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2013, 09:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, it's nice to wax nostalgic about what used to be (and what some current gun owners still practice) but a lot of US citizens own guns, their kids are growing up playing Modern Warfare, and they don't have that respect for guns that prior generations had. I doubt you (and I mean the general "you") will have any luck turning back the hands of time in that regard.
If thats the case maybe the parents should be parents and monitor their children better and take the mature games away from their pre teen children. Not saying you user just speaking in general.
I agree but I don't see that happening with the general public. So do you try to restrict video game violence or restrict access to real weapons?
I don't know how you fix this shit. But I agree with Sally; it's a totally different world now. You can wish for earlier values/times but they're pretty much gone now.
And if you think about it, people have been having these types of discussions for decades. For example the whole sex, drugs, and rock and roll in the 60s and 70s, what happened to the good old days when kids were good Christians and enjoyed watching Guy Lombardo? Society progresses, but people really never change.
^ That's true. I think every generation, in general, looks at the changes in the next one with some degree of nostalgia for more innocent times and still time keeps on slipping into the future. Gotta roll with the changes or be perpetually frustrated with society (unless you're lucky enough to have euphoric dementia).
Caught up on the thread; interesting stories and points.
I've never questioned responsible gun owners teaching their children gun safety and how to hunt, target practice, etc... What age isn't my concern when the child is supervised, it's a private matter.
Education is key for safety when teaching your children to use guns for sport or hobby. Nobody here disagrees, not that I've read anyway. But, that supervised safety education isn't a protection making it okay for little ones to ever have an opportunity to get their hands on or handle loaded weapons without a responsible adult intentionally making it so. That means even if you're gonna turn your back to get milk out of the fridge or chat with your buddy or whatever when we're talking about small children. That's when those tragic and preventable "accidents" take place.
I'll probably never understand the rationale of those who claim that lack of child gun education is to blame when toddlers and young children get a hold of loaded guns and shoot. Very likely that some of the children involved had what their parents considered education or indoctrination to guns and it didn't make the gun less fascinating or deadly in that moment of opportunity. Sometimes parents are wrong and kids are just kids. Why take such an unnecessary risk? It's a matter of irresponsible gun ownership and irresponsible parenting to leave loaded guns where small children can get to them and handle them, not a gun control issue in the traditional sense, imo.
Done with guns for the night.
Giving small children access to real firearms and then trying to blame video games for gun violence is really the most fucking retarded thing I have ever heard in my life.
Nobody has ever died while playing Call of Duty but plenty of kids have died playing with their parents guns.
Giving kids access to guns is irresponsible and retarded I don't care how rosy and perfect things allegedly were in the days of howdy fucking doody.
(06-14-2013, 03:41 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]blame video games for gun violence is really the most fucking retarded thing I have ever heard in my life.
I think there is some truth in that, not only video games but in movies/television as well. Kids have been taught to be responsible with guns since the wild west days. I know adults now who were raised having access to weapons but you don't hear stories about them because they are responsible individuals. All people ever hear about are the bad things, bad shit makes the news.
(06-13-2013, 10:15 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I agree but I don't see that happening with the general public. So do you try to restrict video game violence or restrict access to real weapons?
I don't know how you fix this shit. But I agree with Sally; it's a totally different world now. You can wish for earlier values/times but they're pretty much gone now.
You do both user. You [again not talking about you, just in general] act like a parent and teach the child values. You realize that a child of that age dont understand the difference between shooting someone in a video game and shooting them in real life. There is no reset button in life, like there is in a video game.
You also restrict access to firearms. Not to the point that the child never sees them. To the point where they cannot get ahold of that loaded firearm. Earlier in this thread when I stated that my grandson and I were having breakfast together and the loaded handgun that I carry daily was laying between us on the table, I did not mean he actually had access to it. Yes it was right there in front of him and yes it was loaded, but it was holstered in a high retention holster [it has a "lock" on it that unless you know where and what to push it cannot be unholstered] and if I were to get up from the table I would have removed it. My grandson is at that age where he wants to do everything, you know, get the milk, get the silverware, etc. So I let him and that makes him feel like more of a adult.
Is my way the right way for everyone? No, I would never say it is. I feel every parent, grand parent, or even guardian should evaluate the child's maturity level and decide for themselves. What is good for one is not good for all.
It's a parent's responsibility to know their kid. Are you going to give your irresponsible twat of a kid the keys to the car? Are you going to let it stay at home while you vacation? Many parents these days don't even know their kids. They don't teach them anything that many of us were taught as children. Society says to give them a break if they've had a horrible upbringing, please, that's such bullshit. Do your job as a parent and you won't have a little monster on your hands.
I agree Duch! Piss poor parents raise piss poor children.
On the education side of this. While schools dont educate children about firearms anymore you as a parrent can. The NRA has had a program out called Eddie Eagle. It is a information packet that helps you talk with children and educate them about firearms. Here is a link if anyone is interested in this.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/information-for-parents.aspx
(06-14-2013, 08:01 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I agree Duch! Piss poor parents raise piss poor children.
On the education side of this. While schools dont educate children about firearms anymore you as a parrent can. The NRA has had a program out called Eddie Eagle. It is a information packet that helps you talk with children and educate them about firearms. Here is a link if anyone is interested in this.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/information-for-parents.aspx
Help me out, F.U. I read all of your posts and typically have no problem seeing where you're going. But, I keep missing your point in beating the "education is key" drum for children and guns in regards to gun control.
If you're gonna let your kids use guns for any reason, you as a parent need to educate them about safety. Or, have them take a class. No arguments. It's being a responsible adult, nothing more or less.
How does this relate to gun control and making society safer?
Do you think the more young children that are exposed to guns and taught gun safety the safer society will be? That minimizing the chance of accidental shootings by kids who already have access to guns correlates to decreasing gun violence in society somehow?
Do you disagree that a child who's in a house with no guns and never had gun education is more safe from a gun accident or gun violence at home than one who has been taught about guns and is handing guns?
Do you disagree that it's fully irresponsible for parents to leave loaded guns anywhere in the home that children can reach or access/handle them, even if the child has been taught safety education?
Do you think that a child who's been taught gun safety is any more or less likely to be subject to rage, mental illness, criminal tendencies...as a minor or in adulthood?
Other than minimizing the risk of your children accidentally hurting themselves or others when you allow them to use guns, what is education the key to here?
Thanks, F.U. Honestly trying to understand.
(06-14-2013, 08:46 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2013, 08:01 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I agree Duch! Piss poor parents raise piss poor children.
On the education side of this. While schools dont educate children about firearms anymore you as a parrent can. The NRA has had a program out called Eddie Eagle. It is a information packet that helps you talk with children and educate them about firearms. Here is a link if anyone is interested in this.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/information-for-parents.aspx
Help me out, F.U. I read all of your posts and typically have no problem seeing where you're going. But, I keep missing your point in beating the "education is key" drum for children and guns in regards to gun control.
If you're gonna let your kids use guns for any reason, you as a parent need to educate them about safety. Or, have them take a class. No arguments. It's being a responsible adult, nothing more or less.
How does this relate to gun control and making society safer?
Do you think the more young children that are exposed to guns and taught gun safety the safer society will be? That minimizing the chance of accidental shootings by kids who already have access to guns correlates to decreasing gun violence in society somehow?
Do you disagree that a child who's in a house with no guns and never had gun education is more safe from a gun accident or gun violence at home than one who has been taught about guns and is handing guns?
Do you disagree that it's fully irresponsible for parents to leave loaded guns anywhere in the home that children can reach or access/handle them, even if the child has been taught safety education?
Do you think that a child who's been taught gun safety is any more or less likely to be subject to rage, mental illness, criminal tendencies...as a minor or in adulthood?
Other than minimizing the risk of your children accidentally hurting themselves or others when you allow them to use guns, what is education the key to here?
Thanks, F.U. Honestly trying to understand.
1 Its a gun safety issue in my book. It may do nothing for gun violence but I am not sure. It will however reduce the risk of the negligent discharging of a firearm by a child. That in turn might reduce that child's risk of shooting lets say a sister, brother etc.
2. Is a child safer in a home that has no firearms. Possibly, the exceptions would be drive by shootings, a guest in that home that may have a gun. Now is that child safer when he leaves his home? No. he don't have the skills needed to deal with the presence of a firearm should he come across one in a neighbors home, school, the park or just walking down the street.
3 yes and no. Is a cops child any less safe when his parent comes home and takes their duty weapon off for the night? I don't think so but that depends on how that parent deals with the firearm. If they throw it on the coffee table and leave the house to go, lets say, mow the lawn then yes the child is less safe. If they put the firearm away, in their room and lock the room [I have a outside keyed entry door handle on my bedroom] then no.As long as the parent had direct control over that firearm then I feel it is a non issue.
4 That is a tricky one. In directly it may. I say that because I feel that children need adult interaction to become adults with good values. Any interaction is better than none. It may be no different than playing ball, riding a bike or playing at the park, but a child without adult interaction is left to himself to develop their own set of values. Where do they then learn them, TV, Video games, their class mates, friends etc. Those influences can be counterproductive to the good development of a child.
5 The risk of accidentally shooting someone is a big one. However I feel that as a child is brought up around firearms they learn what a firearm can do. You cannot call a bullet back after you pull the trigger. That bullet destroys whatever it is aimed at. I think in seeing [a good visual I use is milk jugs full of H20 & food coloring, or melons like watermelons etc.] the destruction caused by that firearm/bullet a child learns respect for them. I have no proof of that, it is just a gut feeling.
Thanks, F.U.
Quote:F.U.: 1 Its a gun safety issue in my book. It may do nothing for gun violence but I am not sure. It will however reduce the risk of the negligent discharging of a firearm by a child. That in turn might reduce that child's risk of shooting lets say a sister, brother etc.
If you as a parent choose to introduce your children to guns, it's simply being a responsible adult to teach them gun safety. That's what I'm understanding from your answer; you're not suggesting that more of society should put guns in the hands of children and teach them how to use them properly as a means to decrease gun violence in our country. I agree.
Quote:F.U.: 2 Is a child safer in a home that has no firearms. Possibly, the exceptions would be drive by shootings, a guest in that home that may have a gun. Now is that child safer when he leaves his home? No. he don't have the skills needed to deal with the presence of a firearm should he come across one in a neighbors home, school, the park or just walking down the street.
A child is certainly safer from a gun accident when there is no gun. Doesn't mean nobody should have guns in the home; up to them, imo. But, if guns are present, the best way to avoid accidents is to keep them out of reach/access to children, educated or not. A responsible adult would make sure that guests with guns around their children respect those principles when visiting; it's the adult's responsibility to protect the child in his home.
We can't control drive bys and such. Whether the child has ever been taught gun safety will neither help or hurt them if someone drives by and shoots into the house.
On the off-chance that a mature minded child happens to stumble upon a loaded gun in a public place or at a friend's house and they've been taught to pick it up in such a case, knowing how to handle it safely could be a plus. I can see that.
Quote:F.U.: 3 yes and no. Is a cops child any less safe when his parent comes home and takes their duty weapon off for the night? I don't think so but that depends on how that parent deals with the firearm. If they throw it on the coffee table and leave the house to go, lets say, mow the lawn then yes the child is less safe. If they put the firearm away, in their room and lock the room [I have a outside keyed entry door handle on my bedroom] then no.As long as the parent had direct control over that firearm then I feel it is a non issue.
If you're saying that whether one leaves a loaded gun on the coffee table while mowing the lawn or on the breakfast table while using the bathroom or answering the door, it's irresponsible and negligent parenting when there's a child present at the residence, I agree. There's no gun law against being irresponsible in your own home (that I know of) and it couldn't be enforced even if there were. That's where child endangerment laws come into play.
Quote:F.U. 4 That is a tricky one. In directly it may. I say that because I feel that children need adult interaction to become adults with good values. Any interaction is better than none. It may be no different than playing ball, riding a bike or playing at the park, but a child without adult interaction is left to himself to develop their own set of values. Where do they then learn them, TV, Video games, their class mates, friends etc. Those influences can be counterproductive to the good development of a child.
Children have adult interaction with teachers whether the class is gun safety, fingerpainting, exercise... So, going to school and education in general is good and beneficial to child development, it has nothing to do with guns. Same with at home. It's not gun safety and handling with parental supervision that benefits the child's development, it's guidance and positive interaction that could be accomplished with any activity. On the same page.
Quote:F.U. 5 The risk of accidentally shooting someone is a big one. However I feel that as a child is brought up around firearms they learn what a firearm can do. You cannot call a bullet back after you pull the trigger. That bullet destroys whatever it is aimed at. I think in seeing [a good visual I use is milk jugs full of H20 & food coloring, or melons like watermelons etc.] the destruction caused by that firearm/bullet a child learns respect for them. I have no proof of that, it is just a gut feeling.
The whole purpose of guns is to shoot shit for fun or protection. Exploding melons are cool. Depending on age and mindset, some kids wouldn't be inclined to make other things (or people) explode by choice or accident if they develop a fascination with guns through exposure and accessibility. Others would. Lots of factors involved in how the mind develops. There's no provable correlation so, you're right, it's just a matter of opinion.
(06-14-2013, 07:56 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
It's a parent's responsibility to know their kid. Are you going to give your irresponsible twat of a kid the keys to the car? Are you going to let it stay at home while you vacation? Many parents these days don't even know their kids. They don't teach them anything that many of us were taught as children. Society says to give them a break if they've had a horrible upbringing, please, that's such bullshit. Do your job as a parent and you won't have a little monster on your hands.
My kids get irritated with me because I always want to know where they are going and who are they with. Who's house are they at. Are the parents home. But they know that if they don't tell me and give me the parents phone number, they are not going. Thing 2 calls me that mosey mom and I say yes I'm that mom.
Its not nosey to want to know where your kids are, who they are with and what they doing that's responsible parenting.
(06-14-2013, 07:50 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]You do both user. You [again not talking about you, just in general] act like a parent and teach the child values. You realize that a child of that age dont understand the difference between shooting someone in a video game and shooting them in real life. There is no reset button in life, like there is in a video game.
You also restrict access to firearms. Not to the point that the child never sees them. To the point where they cannot get ahold of that loaded firearm. Earlier in this thread when I stated that my grandson and I were having breakfast together and the loaded handgun that I carry daily was laying between us on the table, I did not mean he actually had access to it. Yes it was right there in front of him and yes it was loaded, but it was holstered in a high retention holster [it has a "lock" on it that unless you know where and what to push it cannot be unholstered] and if I were to get up from the table I would have removed it. My grandson is at that age where he wants to do everything, you know, get the milk, get the silverware, etc. So I let him and that makes him feel like more of a adult.
Is my way the right way for everyone? No, I would never say it is. I feel every parent, grand parent, or even guardian should evaluate the child's maturity level and decide for themselves. What is good for one is not good for all.
Why did you need a loaded gun on the table next to you when you having breakfast with your grandkid?
Its like you are expecting a PCP fuelled nigger with an UZI to come crashing through your front door at any second.
Are you that paranoid? You've get a gun under your pillow as well haven't you?
IIRC both the Newtown and Colorado shooters were in to violent video games. I don't think the games cause you to go off your rocker but if you're already there, I think they can desensitize you or something.
I think the fact the Columbine cunts had their own private arsenals (no doubt bought for them by the parents) is much more of a telling factor than the fact they liked playing violent video games like Doom.
In fact i argue the opposite, nothing DEstresses me more than playing Call of Duty Black Ops for an hour.
(06-14-2013, 11:30 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2013, 07:50 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]You do both user. You [again not talking about you, just in general] act like a parent and teach the child values. You realize that a child of that age dont understand the difference between shooting someone in a video game and shooting them in real life. There is no reset button in life, like there is in a video game.
You also restrict access to firearms. Not to the point that the child never sees them. To the point where they cannot get ahold of that loaded firearm. Earlier in this thread when I stated that my grandson and I were having breakfast together and the loaded handgun that I carry daily was laying between us on the table, I did not mean he actually had access to it. Yes it was right there in front of him and yes it was loaded, but it was holstered in a high retention holster [it has a "lock" on it that unless you know where and what to push it cannot be unholstered] and if I were to get up from the table I would have removed it. My grandson is at that age where he wants to do everything, you know, get the milk, get the silverware, etc. So I let him and that makes him feel like more of a adult.
Is my way the right way for everyone? No, I would never say it is. I feel every parent, grand parent, or even guardian should evaluate the child's maturity level and decide for themselves. What is good for one is not good for all.
Why did you need a loaded gun on the table next to you when you having breakfast with your grandkid?
Its like you are expecting a PCP fuelled nigger with an UZI to come crashing through your front door at any second.
Are you that paranoid? You've get a gun under your pillow as well haven't you?
Since these seam to be legitimate questions I will answer them.
I had that pistol on the table because that is where I was at that time. I was not going to leave a loaded firearm in the other room where my granddaughter [because she was still asleep in the other room] could wake up and find it. It is my daily carry pistol and yes I do carry it every day from the time I put my belt on until the time it comes off. Then it gets placed on my nightstand. It is always loaded and holstered. I don't unholster it and unload it when it comes off, then reload it and reholster it when I put it on. The most dangerous time for a daily carry gun is during the holstering unholstering, loading unloading process. Most negligent discharges occur during that time so I reduce the risk by reducing the number of times that process takes place.
I am expecting no one to crash through my door, but I am always prepared for that scenario to happen [ there has ben 3 cases of firearms being discharged in my town in the last 5 days]. Since no one can see into the future one never knows when a bad person will do bad things, or where and when they will happen. I prefer to be prepared.
Paranoia and preparedness are two totally different things. And no I do not have a loaded gun under my pillow, that would be a stupid place to store one. My handgun is on my nightstand at night and I have a AR15 along my side of the headboard and a shotgun along my wifes side of the headboard. OMG!?!?!?, why all the firepower? Because my wife is a better shot and can handle a shotgun better and I am not always there when she is in bed. I work some work out of town sometimes where I do not come home for a week. The AR on my side of the bed because that is my preferred long gun and I that is what I am most proficient with. Are these firearms loaded? No, but the ammo is within reach should they need to be loaded in a seconds notice.