|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2013 09:07 kmillz wrote:
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
Here's a description of Switzerland's 'gun-loving' policy, for anyone's interest. Firearms and ammunition are far more regulated there than anywhere in the States.
The key difference is that their gun culture is rooted in social responsibility and civic duty, not 'the right to bear arms and shoot a pile of dirt with a semi-automatic'. While you can keep a gun for personal use, most men in Switzerland are required to serve in their militia and are issued guns and equipment by the government. Ammunition, and where you can shoot, is heavily regulated.
Switzerland has NOTHING in common with American gun culture, which seems obsessed with protecting 'the freedom' of allowing almost anyone to purchase and operate a gun legally, with as few restrictions as possible. If anything, Switzerland's gun legislation and culture is the absolute antithesis of America's.
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.[citation needed] Keeping the weapon after end of service requires a license.
The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.[6]
|
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns?
|
On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns?
Is there something morally objectionable to a child owning a gun? Or rather, are there any implicit harms that result from a child owning a gun?
|
On May 04 2013 23:53 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Is there something morally objectionable to a child owning a gun? Or rather, are there any implicit harms that result from a child owning a gun?
Children are not sufficiently developed, on average, to comprehend the far-reaching consequences of their actions. This why they aren't allowed to vote, gamble, drink, smoke, or, hopefully, own firearms. And by children I'm referring to like sub-16 year olds at the very least. You could make a (decent) argument that 15-16+ year olds have enough moral responsibility/foresight to make certain choices, but the the idea of a 9 year-old owning a gun is pretty obviously a bad idea.
Basically children can't be trusted to act responsibly because they are children and don't fully understand responsibility. This is essentially an established scientific fact.
|
On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns?
the owership of guns isn't regulated in america. its probably still "owned" by their parents but its really just implied that its going to be theirs when they get older.
I got a shotgun for xmas when I was 12 wasn't a big deal but I went hunting with my cousins and dad well before I was 18 or anything.
|
On May 04 2013 23:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 23:53 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Is there something morally objectionable to a child owning a gun? Or rather, are there any implicit harms that result from a child owning a gun? Children are not sufficiently developed, on average, to comprehend the far-reaching consequences of their actions. This why they aren't allowed to vote, gamble, drink, smoke, or, hopefully, own firearms. And by children I'm referring to like sub-16 year olds at the very least. You could make a (decent) argument that 15-16+ year olds have enough moral responsibility/foresight to make certain choices, but the the idea of a 9 year-old owning a gun is pretty obviously a bad idea. Basically children can't be trusted to act responsibly because they are children and don't fully understand responsibility. This is essentially an established scientific fact.
I agree, but I think that's kind of side stepping the question a bit. While it's true that on average many children might not be able to fully undertake responsibility for a weapon, does that necessarily mean that's morally objectionable for a child (emphasis on the individual aspect of it) to own a weapon if his guardians deem him responsible enough as an individual?
I'm not in favor of it, but I think when people bring up counterexamples like gambling, drinking, smoking, driving, etc, they fail to realize that the same people who advocate for gun rights and say that it would be okay for a child to own a gun are also (philosophically speaking at least) in agreement that there is nothing particularly objectionable to a child driving a car, or gambling, below certain legal limits.
|
|
|
On May 05 2013 00:05 Chaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 23:53 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Is there something morally objectionable to a child owning a gun? Or rather, are there any implicit harms that result from a child owning a gun? so no age limits at all? A gun in the hand of a four year old child, you can think of nothing that could go wrong?
I understand that, but that's not my question. I agree that a gun in the hands of a child is an awful idea, but what I'm wondering is if there's anything morally objectionable to having a child owning a gun. Does a child's possession of a gun result in any implicit harms? In other words, will a child holding a gun result in an accident?
My gut tells me that accidents will happen and as a result children should not own a gun, but there are many who believe that my gut feelings are not enough to legislate something based on fears that something bad may happen.
|
When a child gets a gun it usually is kept away from them unless the parent is with him teaching him how to use it properly. In this case the parents left a loaded fucking gun in the child's possession. It's just a case of severe neglect and stupidity. Most kids are still on a BB gun until their early teens. Stop trying to paint this as America and their guns laws are so evil that even kids are given guns. Only a downright idiot would let themselves be sucked into that thought process. Have some fucking common sense for fuck sakes. This case shows just how far people will go through mental gymnastics to condemn something they do not understand.
|
On May 04 2013 13:03 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:07 kmillz wrote:On May 04 2013 08:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes? The data you would need to find the source of gun violence lies in human psychology, not access to guns. On May 04 2013 09:03 AdamBanks wrote:On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either. Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense? On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote:Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that. The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5 edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here.  First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ??? Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance". Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms. Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking. Saying it's my right to take away your right is hypocritical and irrational, just as saying tolerate my intolerance is hypocritical and irrational. You did exaggerate and more than slightly, it isn't like 9/10 people are walking around with loaded guns at their disposal, I imagine a vast majority of them keep their guns at home. I just want to note, that Switzerland has a population of 8 million people and is one of the richest countries in the world. Their military is almost entirely conscripted. All men in Switzerland are required to undergo compulsory military service at 19, and keep personally assigned equipment, including weapons, at home. Not only are many guns issued directly from the government and in a sense 'registered', most civilians have training that far exceeds that of the average US gun owner. Comparing Chicago and Switzerland is like comparing apples with zebras.
You missed my entire point: Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
I should also add, could it be that the gun laws in an area have a very insignificant impact on violent crimes?
On May 04 2013 18:15 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:07 kmillz wrote:
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
Here's a description of Switzerland's 'gun-loving' policy, for anyone's interest. Firearms and ammunition are far more regulated there than anywhere in the States. The key difference is that their gun culture is rooted in social responsibility and civic duty, not 'the right to bear arms and shoot a pile of dirt with a semi-automatic'. While you can keep a gun for personal use, most men in Switzerland are required to serve in their militia and are issued guns and equipment by the government. Ammunition, and where you can shoot, is heavily regulated. Switzerland has NOTHING in common with American gun culture, which seems obsessed with protecting 'the freedom' of allowing almost anyone to purchase and operate a gun legally, with as few restrictions as possible. If anything, Switzerland's gun legislation and culture is the absolute antithesis of America's. Show nested quote +The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.[citation needed] Keeping the weapon after end of service requires a license.
The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.[6]
How is Switzerland's gun legislation the antithesis of the United States? My only reason for comparing Chicago to Switzerland was to show that strict gun laws and low amounts of gun ownership don't necessarily mean low violent crime rates and that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high crime rate. Are you suggesting that our problem is that we need to give more people guns and train them to use them properly?
|
On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns?
Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children.
Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met.
Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns?
|
On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns?
Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please.
|
On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please.
Does not compute.
|
On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute.
No surprises here.
|
On May 05 2013 00:08 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 00:05 Chaloo wrote:On May 04 2013 23:53 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Is there something morally objectionable to a child owning a gun? Or rather, are there any implicit harms that result from a child owning a gun? so no age limits at all? A gun in the hand of a four year old child, you can think of nothing that could go wrong? I understand that, but that's not my question. I agree that a gun in the hands of a child is an awful idea, but what I'm wondering is if there's anything morally objectionable to having a child owning a gun. Does a child's possession of a gun result in any implicit harms? In other words, will a child holding a gun result in an accident? My gut tells me that accidents will happen and as a result children should not own a gun, but there are many who believe that my gut feelings are not enough to legislate something based on fears that something bad may happen.
That is a very interesting question and I am glad that you brought it up, personally I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with letting a child operate or own a gun under supervised conditions; in the short term there certainly is a risk of an accident occurring, in the long run there may be some benefits of it to society, mainly that of a more knowledgeable population. If the risk of accident is too high with children (not sure where to find an empirical study for it) I believe it would be understandable to have the legislation reflect that just as with other risk reducing legislation (i.e. driver's licenses) . I am still thinking about the moral issue myself, what do you believe?
|
On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here.
I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare.
So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people.
|
On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people.
superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high.
Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible.
|
On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare.
My disgust comes from someone thinking it is responsible to keep a loaded fire arm in a "knee high" childs room. Which is the exact reason these accidents occur in the first place.
So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate.
From what I've seen you are in fact are a person who loves to pretend to be intellectually superior to others. A facade a rock could see through. So it's quite ironic and amusing for you to bring that up.
As for "control fantasies" if you would have taken a few minutes to actually learn my position on gun control before opening your mouth you would know it would be extremely ignorant to label me as someone interested in "control fantasies". Instead you chose to misrepresent me, I suppose it's easier for you to feel superior to me that way.
|
On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible.
How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns.
Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america.
On May 05 2013 01:26 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. My disgust comes from someone thinking it is responsible to keep a loaded fire arm in a "knee high" childs room. Which is the exact reason these accidents occur in the first place. Show nested quote +
So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate.
From what I've seen you are in fact are a person who loves to pretend to be intellectually superior to others. A facade a rock could see through. So it's quite ironic and amusing for you to bring that up. As for "control fantasies" if you would have taken a few minutes to actually learn my position on gun control before opening your mouth you would know it would be extremely ignorant to label me as someone interested in "control fantasies". Instead you chose to misrepresent me, I suppose it's easier for you to feel superior to me that way.
So you're going to try and paint someone as trying to feel superior to you after you thumbed your nose down at them because of their culture?
And you call us ignorant.
|
On May 05 2013 01:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 01:21 Paljas wrote:On May 05 2013 01:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:05 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 01:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 05 2013 01:01 heliusx wrote:On May 05 2013 00:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 04 2013 23:50 a176 wrote:
There has been two recent stories regarding children with guns, in that the children recieved guns as gifts. Why is it legal for children to own guns? Because the government doesn't need to be telling me how to raise my children. Children raised with guns are often times the most responsible gun-owners when they grow up. My cousins have owned guns since they were knee-high (loaded weapons in their rooms) and they are two of the most responsible people with guns I have ever met. Better question would be: why should it not be legal for children to own guns? Damn, you make responsible gun owners look terrible. Never speak about guns again please. Does not compute. No surprises here. I'd just like to know where the disgust and contempt in your post comes from. Millions of people in this country have been raised with guns and have had guns in their hands from the time they were 6 or 7. I think 5 is a good age to be introduced to guns but not to be holding them or firing them. Still, these types of accidents are very rare. So I wonder if your point is not to make a real point. But rather to make a social point. To signal your superiority to others by having the appropriate reaction (disgust, contempt, control fantasies) where the appropriate people can see it so you will be marked as one of the appropriate people. superfan101 said that his cousins have had loaded weapons in their rooms when they were knee-high. Obviously, this is making gun owners look terrible. How does it make us look terrible? For us it creates a culture of saftey and security around our kids with guns. Its a lot better then stashing it under you pillow for your kids to find, like how most kids kill themselves with their parents guns. Growing our children up with guns is the responsible thing to do in america.
Loaded firearms in a "knee high" child's room is in no way responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
