Myth #3 - Guns are bad

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

He ended up putting a hole in his floor... neither of our parents found out about this incident...

How could his parents have not known, since there was a hole in their floor?

[PhillyKev 0]

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Basically, federal law says you can't manufacture magazines that hold more than ten rounds anymore. I believe you can still sell them to anyone you please. [ps - I know you know it's a magazine, not a clip, but I have to say it]

Some individual states have banned them completely from being owned. CA is one for sure.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Parents won't personally know all the kids their children hang out with. ..

That's just f'in bad parenting. If you don't know who your kids are hanging out with -- f'in find out!

Even if parents know the kids, and the kid's parents, it doesn't mean they know anything about their gun ownership. And it's kind of rude to go around asking all those parents if they own guns and how they store them.

At least one anti-gun organization though, advocates that you not let your children play in any friend's home where guns are owned.

That is ridiculous though, as it implies that there is no such thing as a safe home with a gun, and it assumes that everyone who owns guns is unsafe.

Quote

So, what is the right age?

There are several "right" ages. You can teach them an Eddie Eagle-type safety education message at an early age. We already do this kind of thing for fire safety ("Stop, Drop and Roll!"), bicycle safety, not getting into cars with strangers, and so on. There's no reason why it can't be done for gun safety, other than the paranoia of the anti-gun folks, who oppose teaching kids anything about guns.

Beyond the really young stage, you can graduate the gun safety education to more complex levels. So that by the time kids are in high school, they're learning things like, how a firearm can still have a live round hidden inside the chamber, even though the magazine was removed.

This should be a multi-tiered approach, and mandatory in the public schools for all kids.

In a single generation, every young person in America would be educated in gun safety.

[quade 3]

Quote

And it's kind of rude to go around asking all those parents if they own guns and how they store them.

Geeze, I'd want to know the answers to questions a LOT more rude than that. I guess I'm just not a very trusting soul when it comes to kids and strangers.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Did you know that it used to be very common for school-aged kids to bring their .22s and .410 shotguns to SCHOOL, leave them in a locker, and then stop somewhere to hunt squirrels and stuff after school -- AND THERE WERE NO CHARGES BROUGHT, NO SUSPENSIONS OR EXPULSIONS, NO ZERO-TOLERANCE B.S., AND NO ONE WAS SHOT.

Yep. I once brought a rifle to school for "show and tell", when I was in elementary school. I stopped at the principle's office, who ensured the rifle wasn't loaded, and I was off to class!

Quote

The guns were around but there wasn't the violence. What has changed?

Bingo! Guns were more available than ever back then, yet there was less violence.

What has changed? (drum roll) Our CULTURE.

Back then we had "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best". We didn't have explicit video games where the goal is to shoot and kill as many people as possible. We had parents who stayed married so that kids had both mothers, and fathers. We had families where moms could afford to stay home with the kids, instead of turning their kids over to day-care centers so they could go work. We have violent wrestling shows on TV, so that kids emulate the violence on each other, such that we now have a 14-year old boy in Florida who faces life in prison for stomping a playmate to death. I could go on and on...

This is the root cause of the violence.

The enemy is us.

But no one wants to face up to it. It's too hard to admit that there is something wrong with our own culture. It's too hard to control what our children see in the media and what games they play. We don't have time for it!

Ahhh, it's much easier to plunk the kids down in front of an idiot box so they won't bother us! It's much easier to just blame inanimate guns for the problem! And then go happily about our lives with our heads stuck in the sand, blindly ignoring reality, but confident that we're "doing something" about violence.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How freekin' difficult would it be to put in a pressure relief valve so to limit the amount of pressure possible?

This implies that there would be some kind of government regulation limiting the maximum air pressure allowable in a BB gun.

But no matter how low that level is set, if a kid puts it in the face of another and pulls the trigger, the other kid is still likely to lose an eye.

So then the cry would come for a complete ban an BB guns, or to ban all children from shooting them, until they are at least age 18.

That is unacceptable.

And there are highly priced versions of BB guns that are very accurate, high air pressure, and used for training and competition. Some even refill their air chambers with a scuba tank. We shouldn't ban adults from using such BB guns.

The issue is not government regulation of the design of the gun, but rather gun safety education. Parents need to take responsibility for teaching their children gun safety, and ensuring that young children don't use guns without direct supervision.

Government regulation will never be a good surrogate for responsible parenting.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

He ended up putting a hole in his floor... neither of our parents found out about this incident...

How could his parents have not known, since their was a hole in the floor?

Heheh, I was wondering when someone was going to question that. The carpeting was shag. At first glance there was no visible damage but I asure you it was there.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's a matter of what is and is not reasonalbe. Clearly, it's in the mind of each individual as to what is or is not reasonable...

Yes - it should be a matter of individual freedom.

The parents should determine if and when their children should be introduced to guns, not the government.

It's an individual choice, based upon their own beliefs, their personal comfort level, their judgment about their child's maturity, their environmental setting, and so on.

No one should be able to take that decision away from them.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

It's a matter of what is and is not reasonalbe. Clearly, it's in the mind of each individual as to what is or is not reasonable...

Yes - it should be a matter of individual freedom.

The parents should determine if and when their children should be introduced to guns, not the government.

It's an individual choice, based upon their own beliefs, their personal comfort level, their judgment about their child's maturity, their environmental setting, and so on.

No one should be able to take that decision away from them.

Ohhh...that was a good score right there. He got you with that one Quade.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Re: Eddie Eagle. I do sort of question its effectiveness.

Here is something I saved a few years ago:

"A recent study that compared the effectiveness of several child safety programs gave the highest marks to NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.

The study, conducted by Patricia Kunz Howard, RN, and published in the October 2001 Journal of Emergency Nursing Online, compared the top three of the more than 80 gun safety programs that exist. All three were evaluated based on nine criteria, ranging from critical safety elements and materials’ suitability to the consideration of cultural diversity. Of the three programs evaluated, the NRA Eddie Eagle Program best met the criteria."

Source

[quade 3]

Quote

Ohhh...that was a good score right there. He got you with that one Quade.

Not really.

I don't recall saying that the government should mandate gun education for children. I did say it was a very good idea that parents should see their children do receive some education and that a lot of parents weren't up to the task and should seek outside guidance.

I -do- believe gun education should be mandatory for gun ownership. If you want to go down some paranoid path that it would represent some sort of government licensing scheme destined to remove all guns from all civilians, I can't be held responsible for any such crack pot notions.

I simply think it's a good idea.

We have licenses to operate aircraft, cars . . . all sorts of things. I -don't- see this as being any different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

And it's kind of rude to go around asking all those parents if they own guns and how they store them.

Geeze, I'd want to know the answers to questions a LOT more rude than that. I guess I'm just not a very trusting soul when it comes to kids and strangers.

Well, I agree that there are lots of things you would "like" to know about your childs friends, and their parents.

But if you go around with a questionaire, asking them if they own guns, if they have ever been convicted of a felony, if they have ever committed a sexual offense against a child, if they have dangerous cleaning fluids within reach, and so on, then they aren't going to be friends any more. Even if they honestly answer "no" to each of the questions.

You just have to get to know them yourself, and get a personal feel for how responsible they are, and whether or not they are "good" parents.

That's part of being a good parent yourself. You hang out with the parents of your child's friends, and get to know them. Then you learn to look out for each other's children. You end up with a network of good parents this way, all looking out for each other.

When I was a kid, I was always amazed that I could do something bad two miles from home, and by the time I got back home a few hours later, Mom would already know about it.

But these days, no one knows their neighbors any more. We don't have time for it. It's too much trouble. And our kids run amok...

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

We have licenses to operate aircraft, cars . . . all sorts of things. I -don't- see this as being any different.

Yeah, except not one of those things was specifically outlined as a freedom in the Bill of Rights which "shall not be infringed."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[quade 3]

Quote

Of the three programs evaluated, the NRA Eddie Eagle Program best met the criteria."

And I'm not really doubting that.

What I'm sort of doubting is that you can really teach anything about mortality, reality and consequence to a preschool child. With that said, I question it's actual effectiveness.

For instance, there is a classic psychological test for children that tests if they can understand both sentance structure and reality. Whether or not they understand if things actually exist in or out of their immediate vision. If you have a kid that is talking and walking and about 2 to 3 years old, try it as they grow older. It's facinating.

Have the child stand in front of you and ask them, "go to the other room and see if I'm there."

Before a certain stage of development, usually about 2.5, they can't put it together. They'll run off into the other room.

Before the age of about 5 to 7 they usually can't understand the concept of death.

So, taking those things together, I go back to my original question about the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program and still wonder if it can actually be effective because although the words have a meaning, the last time mom said to not touch a cookie, the kid did and didn't die. Why should the gun be any different?

Again, it's probably about as good a program as there is . . . all things considered, but I question if -any- program for that age group can really keep a kid away from a gun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Article II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I do not think education is an infringement against. Unless you want to argue that imbeciles and illiterates should have unlimited access to weapons. Further, it does not contain the same sort of verbiage as Article I which begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting . . . ".

Clearly, Congress -can- make Constitutionally valid laws with respect to gun ownership. Education should be a part of that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnischalke 0]

Our opinions are similar. I certainly don't think the government has a place mandating training as a prerequisite for ownership. Further, licensing would be a complete and utter infringement on my Constitutional rights.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[AggieDave 6]

Right. Getting a license would mean that they can take that away or could deny it, in and of its self is against the constitution.

Paul's all for the freedom of speech, but it does seem he's willing to compromise on the Constitutional Rights that he just doesn't agree with.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What I'm sort of doubting is that you can really teach anything about mortality, reality and consequence to a preschool child. With that said, I question it's actual effectiveness.

I understand your point, and I would agree that the concept of mortality may be lost on kids that young. However, we do in fact teach our youngsters that certain things are "bad" at that age. We teach them not to grab things that are hot, like the BBQ grill and cooking pans. We teach them not to stick things in electrical outlets. And so on.

Eddie Eagle may not have the reinforcement of giving them a whack on the fanny as negative reinforcement for touching a gun, but it's the best we can do for a public program.

And once they reach a certain age, the message being delivered is taken more seriously and internalized.

In a nation of 260 million people, with 80 million gun owners, there were "only" 37 children up through age 9 killed accidentally with guns, in 2002. While each of those is a horrible tragedy, it's also a remarkable safety record. And each and every occurrence is splashed all over the news media, which tends to overblow the actual scope of the problem, and make the public believe that it is worse than it really is.

Clickey: CDC Firearm Death Statistics (pdf file)

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Unless you want to argue that imbeciles and illiterates should have unlimited access to weapons.

So, you say those people cannot own firearms. Who decides who "they" are? You? A panel of judges? What's your definition of those two terms?

You sound very selective on who you think should have rights and who you think should not. I don't think the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is nearly as selective.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

I agree with ya Dave. I wonder if he minds that imbeciles and illiterates have unlimited access to words and expression.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

I do not think education is an infringement against. Unless you want to argue that imbeciles and illiterates should have unlimited access to weapons.

Sorta like Jim Crow laws except it's an IQ test for gun ownership.

Ken

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[AggieDave 6]

I guess you could say that discrimination is only discrimination for some people, when others are doing it.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

What I'm sort of doubting is that you can really teach anything about mortality, reality and consequence to a preschool child. With that said, I question it's actual effectiveness.

So, if I am getting this right, you cannot effectively teach a small child that a stove is hot? You can't rely on a child's eagerness to learn, eagerness to be accepted and his primal desires for praise and affection? You cannot train a child through repetition and/or discipline?

I guess you have to burn his hand on the stove for him to get the message. Right?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[quade 3]

I think we're talking about the semantics and interpretation of the Constitution, which, as you recall, is actually up to the Supreme Court.

Article II is very vaguely worded and The Supreme Court has not really clarified things such as the meaning of "in a state militia" or "of the people".

Article I (Dave) in not as vague.

BTW, the courts decided many years ago that some members of society do not have all of the rights that the rest of us enjoy -- the mentally incompetent among them. I can't define it nor is it my responsibility to do so, but the courts do.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver