|
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 August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 00:33 Nacl(Draq) wrote:When the streets had people walking around hitting people for fun it wasn't guns they were using but fists. Without a gun a 93 year old women might have died. With a gun a person who went around knocking people out by hitting them in the head died. A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:
[quote]
Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it!
Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call. On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 00:33 Nacl(Draq) wrote:When the streets had people walking around hitting people for fun it wasn't guns they were using but fists. Without a gun a 93 year old women might have died. With a gun a person who went around knocking people out by hitting them in the head died. A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember)
I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US.
|
On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns.
Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself.
On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:
Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed..
|
On August 28 2014 06:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself.
You could also try to reduce the number of guns, it's not like they're falling out of the sky.
|
On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 00:33 Nacl(Draq) wrote:When the streets had people walking around hitting people for fun it wasn't guns they were using but fists. Without a gun a 93 year old women might have died. With a gun a person who went around knocking people out by hitting them in the head died. A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:
[quote]
It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call. On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 00:33 Nacl(Draq) wrote:When the streets had people walking around hitting people for fun it wasn't guns they were using but fists. Without a gun a 93 year old women might have died. With a gun a person who went around knocking people out by hitting them in the head died. A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember) I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US.
For me, the line between teaching your kid the respect for guns and the glorification for guns is shady, to put it mildly. We have all kinds of rules for the kids, they can't see everything (cinema ages) they can't do everything (sex, drugs, drive cars etc) but for some reason, they can shoot guns. And it's even seen normal, accepted and when i'm listening to your posts, even good.
For me it feels strange, guns are so related to violence and killing things, for me it should not even be in the child's mind on that age. (the same reason as cinema rules)
I think it's interesting that you guys don't experience this.
|
On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society... so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest.
If say someone kept a small, non automatic firearm like a handgun for personal defence purposes at home and didn't want their kid to be fooling around with it withour proper care, I could understand that it would be reasonable to teach them about the gun, what it can do etc.
Still, even in that case, I think teaching them that the guns are dangerous tools that should only be used for self defence in emergencies and telling them to stay away from the guns should be enough. Taking a child who barely can tell right from wrong to a shooting range to experiment with different guns is just absurd and unhealty for both the child and the society in general. If anything it makes guns seem more like toys and less like killing machines which on the long run would make people running around with assault rifles and shotguns like a normal thing.
|
On August 28 2014 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:53 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself. You could also try to reduce the number of guns, it's not like they're falling out of the sky.
Why? There's no correlation between number of firearms and number of gun crimes in America.
|
On August 28 2014 06:55 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 00:33 Nacl(Draq) wrote:When the streets had people walking around hitting people for fun it wasn't guns they were using but fists. Without a gun a 93 year old women might have died. With a gun a person who went around knocking people out by hitting them in the head died. A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call. On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 00:33 Nacl(Draq) wrote:When the streets had people walking around hitting people for fun it wasn't guns they were using but fists. Without a gun a 93 year old women might have died. With a gun a person who went around knocking people out by hitting them in the head died. A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember) I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US. For me, the line between teaching your kid the respect for guns and the glorification for guns is shady, to put it mildly. We have all kinds of rules for the kids, they can't see everything (cinema ages) they can't do everything (sex, drugs, drive cars etc) but for some reason, they can shoot guns. And it's even seen normal, accepted and when i'm listening to your posts, even good. For me it feels strange, guns are so related to violence and killing things, for me it should not even be in the child's mind on that age. (the same reason as cinema rules) I think it's interesting that you guys don't experience this.
Shooting guns doesn't necessarily hurt anyone though. Most gunshots are harmless fun, only soda cans, paper, or cardboard gets hit. There's nothing wrong with shooting guns. The problem starts when there's an innocent person in front of the gun.
Do you support abstinence-only sex ed?
|
If parents could decide the legal age we would have plenty of 30 year old virgin daughters 
Giving guns to "minors/children" is like letting them play with a canister of gas (or "real" fireworks). Most likely nothing will happen and they will have tons of fun... BUT if something happens you immediatly know why it was irresponsible to let them play with stuff like that.
I am not even against people having guns, but i think everyone that wants one, should have to get a licence and the test shouldn't be too easy.
AND i think having a gun to defend your home is just absolutely retarded.
|
On August 28 2014 06:57 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society... so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. I could understand that if say someone kept a small, non automatic firearm like a handgun for personal defence purposes at home and didn't want their kid to be fooling around with it withour proper care, it would be reasonable to teach them about the gun, what it can do etc. But still, I think teaching them that the guns are dangerous tools that should only be used for self defence in emergencies and telling them to stay away from the guns should be enough. Taking a child who barely can tell right from wrong to a shooting range to experiment with different guns is just absurd and unhealty for both the child and the society in general. If anything it makes guns seem more like toys and less like killing machines which on the long run would make people running around with assault rifles and shotguns like a normal thing.
Automatic weapons are exceedingly rare, exceedingly expensive, and already heavily regulated. That instructor that got killed was killed by a gun the range owned. Uzi's currently go for about $12,000 dollars and take about a year's worth of paperwork to get.
Are you aware that the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns? Bigger, black, scary "assault weapons" are almost never used. The highest estimate I've seen is 4% of gun-crime is with an "assault weapon". Despite the fact that the term "assault weapon" is a totally arbitrary, nonsensical, and broad.
|
On August 28 2014 06:57 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 06:53 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself. You could also try to reduce the number of guns, it's not like they're falling out of the sky. Why? There's no correlation between number of firearms and number of gun crimes in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
The USA ranks higher than Nicaragua, and the number of firearm related deaths/homicides is over a magnitude higher than in the UK
edit: Compared to all other developed countries the US suffers by far the most from violence involving firearms.
|
On August 28 2014 06:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:55 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:
[quote]
The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'.
At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion.
Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call. On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 05:51 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
You know that story is fake right? The national report is a satire site. You're using a made up story as evidence of something. The knockout game is not fake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember) I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US. For me, the line between teaching your kid the respect for guns and the glorification for guns is shady, to put it mildly. We have all kinds of rules for the kids, they can't see everything (cinema ages) they can't do everything (sex, drugs, drive cars etc) but for some reason, they can shoot guns. And it's even seen normal, accepted and when i'm listening to your posts, even good. For me it feels strange, guns are so related to violence and killing things, for me it should not even be in the child's mind on that age. (the same reason as cinema rules) I think it's interesting that you guys don't experience this. Shooting guns doesn't necessarily hurt anyone though. Most gunshots are harmless fun, only soda cans, paper, or cardboard gets hit. There's nothing wrong with shooting guns. The problem starts when there's an innocent person in front of the gun. Do you support abstinence-only sex ed?
Ah i had to google abstinence only sex ed. :-)
No i'm not a supporter of that, I have the feeling that in the Netherlands we are very open in schools about sex (non restricted to marriage or something) on a relatively young age.
For me the fun of guns (especially on very young age) destroys the respect for the guns (and decreases safety). It's just a contradiction. Just like you can't glorify alcohol and assumes your child will wait til hes 21 (18 in our country).
But again, this is just my feeling about the issue.
|
On August 28 2014 07:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:57 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 06:53 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:
[quote]
Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it!
Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself. You could also try to reduce the number of guns, it's not like they're falling out of the sky. Why? There's no correlation between number of firearms and number of gun crimes in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThe USA ranks higher than Nicaragua, and the number of firearm related deaths is over a magnitude higher than in the UK
The number of guns and gun owners in the US has been skyrocketing, while crime rates have been plummeting.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time
On August 28 2014 07:10 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:58 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:55 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call. On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was. The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember) I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US. For me, the line between teaching your kid the respect for guns and the glorification for guns is shady, to put it mildly. We have all kinds of rules for the kids, they can't see everything (cinema ages) they can't do everything (sex, drugs, drive cars etc) but for some reason, they can shoot guns. And it's even seen normal, accepted and when i'm listening to your posts, even good. For me it feels strange, guns are so related to violence and killing things, for me it should not even be in the child's mind on that age. (the same reason as cinema rules) I think it's interesting that you guys don't experience this. Shooting guns doesn't necessarily hurt anyone though. Most gunshots are harmless fun, only soda cans, paper, or cardboard gets hit. There's nothing wrong with shooting guns. The problem starts when there's an innocent person in front of the gun. Do you support abstinence-only sex ed? Ah i had to google abstinence only sex ed. :-) No i'm not a supporter of that, I have the feeling that in the Netherlands we are very open in schools about sex (non restricted to marriage or something) on a relatively young age. For me the fun of guns (especially on very young age) destroys the respect for the guns (and decreases safety). It's just a contradiction. Just like you can't glorify alcohol and assumes your child will wait til hes 21 (18 in our country). But again, this is just my feeling about the issue.
Does the fun of sex destroy the respect and decrease the practice of safe sex?
I feel I need to add that I think our differences probably aren't reconciliable because they're cultural. Your position works great for you, and mine works great for me.
|
On August 28 2014 07:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 06:57 Bleak wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society... so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. I could understand that if say someone kept a small, non automatic firearm like a handgun for personal defence purposes at home and didn't want their kid to be fooling around with it withour proper care, it would be reasonable to teach them about the gun, what it can do etc. But still, I think teaching them that the guns are dangerous tools that should only be used for self defence in emergencies and telling them to stay away from the guns should be enough. Taking a child who barely can tell right from wrong to a shooting range to experiment with different guns is just absurd and unhealty for both the child and the society in general. If anything it makes guns seem more like toys and less like killing machines which on the long run would make people running around with assault rifles and shotguns like a normal thing. Automatic weapons are exceedingly rare, exceedingly expensive, and already heavily regulated. That instructor that got killed was killed by a gun the range owned. Uzi's currently go for about $12,000 dollars and take about a year's worth of paperwork to get. Are you aware that the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns? Bigger, black, scary "assault weapons" are almost never used. The highest estimate I've seen is 4% of gun-crime is with an "assault weapon". Despite the fact that the term "assault weapon" is a totally arbitrary, nonsensical, and broad.
You miss my point. I think a few posts back someone used the term "glorification of guns". That's what I'm trying to emphasize here. ARs might be rare, but the culture that normalizes (is that a word? I hope so) and reveres guns and gun ownership in general (from what I can see as an outsider, correct me if I'm wrong) is widespread. This is the bad part me and many others are categorizing as "toxic"
This means that when it comes to guns, where sensible people should think "tools capable of causing death that should be used in self defense with proper care and only in emergencies", due to the widespread culture, more and more people will be thinking like "(fun and cool) tools capable of causing death that should be handled with proper care and only in emergencies" This will make guns like a part of daily life, like cigarettes and laptops. And that difference will make violence with guns a problem for the society. I think it's already proven with so many shooting sprees that have been going in U.S.
|
Crime rates have basically been plummeting anywhere. Still the US completely outranks every other developed country when it comes to gun related violence.
|
On August 28 2014 07:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 07:07 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 06:57 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 06:53 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:
[quote]
It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself. You could also try to reduce the number of guns, it's not like they're falling out of the sky. Why? There's no correlation between number of firearms and number of gun crimes in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThe USA ranks higher than Nicaragua, and the number of firearm related deaths is over a magnitude higher than in the UK The number of guns and gun owners in the US has been skyrocketing, while crime rates have been plummeting. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_timeShow nested quote +On August 28 2014 07:10 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:58 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:55 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was.
The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:
[quote]
Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns.
I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call. On August 28 2014 06:01 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
The game might not be fake but it certainly was never the epidemic some media sources claimed it was.
The point is a 93 year old woman was never subjected to the game nor never pulled out her hand cannon to defend herself from it. The story is a load of shit. How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired. Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust. In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember) I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US. For me, the line between teaching your kid the respect for guns and the glorification for guns is shady, to put it mildly. We have all kinds of rules for the kids, they can't see everything (cinema ages) they can't do everything (sex, drugs, drive cars etc) but for some reason, they can shoot guns. And it's even seen normal, accepted and when i'm listening to your posts, even good. For me it feels strange, guns are so related to violence and killing things, for me it should not even be in the child's mind on that age. (the same reason as cinema rules) I think it's interesting that you guys don't experience this. Shooting guns doesn't necessarily hurt anyone though. Most gunshots are harmless fun, only soda cans, paper, or cardboard gets hit. There's nothing wrong with shooting guns. The problem starts when there's an innocent person in front of the gun. Do you support abstinence-only sex ed? Ah i had to google abstinence only sex ed. :-) No i'm not a supporter of that, I have the feeling that in the Netherlands we are very open in schools about sex (non restricted to marriage or something) on a relatively young age. For me the fun of guns (especially on very young age) destroys the respect for the guns (and decreases safety). It's just a contradiction. Just like you can't glorify alcohol and assumes your child will wait til hes 21 (18 in our country). But again, this is just my feeling about the issue. Does the fun of sex destroy the respect and decrease the practice of safe sex?
I guess you can say so for a child with a young age (who doesn't understand the duplicity of the matter). you can't laugh about sex as parents and still expect your child to be serious about it when it matters, Altough you can't compare because you are not allowed to have sex in the US on young age, right? :-)
Don't compare the act of sex as the fun part tough, just the associations around sex and guns, and the attitude of your peer group.
|
How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible.
![[image loading]](http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-Shot-2013-02-20-at-8.59.21-AM.png)
|
On August 28 2014 07:17 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 07:06 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:57 Bleak wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:39 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"? Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens. It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic. How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society... so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. I could understand that if say someone kept a small, non automatic firearm like a handgun for personal defence purposes at home and didn't want their kid to be fooling around with it withour proper care, it would be reasonable to teach them about the gun, what it can do etc. But still, I think teaching them that the guns are dangerous tools that should only be used for self defence in emergencies and telling them to stay away from the guns should be enough. Taking a child who barely can tell right from wrong to a shooting range to experiment with different guns is just absurd and unhealty for both the child and the society in general. If anything it makes guns seem more like toys and less like killing machines which on the long run would make people running around with assault rifles and shotguns like a normal thing. Automatic weapons are exceedingly rare, exceedingly expensive, and already heavily regulated. That instructor that got killed was killed by a gun the range owned. Uzi's currently go for about $12,000 dollars and take about a year's worth of paperwork to get. Are you aware that the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns? Bigger, black, scary "assault weapons" are almost never used. The highest estimate I've seen is 4% of gun-crime is with an "assault weapon". Despite the fact that the term "assault weapon" is a totally arbitrary, nonsensical, and broad. You miss my point. I think a few posts back someone used the term "glorification of guns". That's what I'm trying to emphasize here. ARs might be rare, but the culture that normalizes (is that a word? I hope so) and reveres guns and gun ownership in general (from what I can see as an outsider, correct me if I'm wrong) is widespread. This is the bad part me and many others are categorizing as "toxic" This means that when it comes to guns, where sensible people should think "tools capable of causing death that should be used in self defense with proper care and only in emergencies", due to the widespread culture, more and more people will be thinking like "(fun and cool) tools capable of causing death that should be handled with proper care and only in emergencies" . And that difference will make violence with guns a problem for the society. I think it's already proven with so many shooting sprees that have been going in U.S.
Thank you bleak, I feel paraphrased here :-)
|
On August 28 2014 07:18 Nyxisto wrote:Crime rates have basically been plummeting anywhere. Still the US completely outranks every other developed country when it comes to gun related violence.
Other places don't have a thriving black market fueled by the war on drugs. Other countries don't have a prisons that act as a revolving door, arresting harmless drug offenders and introducing them to the hardcore criminals. Other countries don't have Detroit, L.A., or Chicago.
On August 28 2014 07:19 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 07:12 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 07:07 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 06:57 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 06:53 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 06:01 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:52 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 05:46 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 05:42 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
How is teaching a child from a young age to respect a firearm "toxic"? Firearms are a fact in our society so we teach our children about them. It's the responsible thing to do but if you want to bury your head in the sand be my guest. The child is 8 years old and uses an uzi. Teaching to respect firearms can also be done without learning how to shoot, just like you don't already learn an 8 year old to drive, or to behave sexually. She could be learned everything about shooting with a toy gun. Some things can be talked about at a young age, but not 'experienced'. At least it's worth discussing, in my opinion. Neither of our posts really had anything to do with an 8 year old shooting an uzi. You made a general point that "very young children firing guns and learning how to use them" is toxic. I believe it's the complete opposite. My brothers and I were taught very young how to use a firearm and how they are to be respected. Kids are stupid and if you don't drill them on these things they don't know better. So how exactly is this toxic? How is equipping your child on how to behave around a firearm toxic? What are the ill effects from teaching them young about guns? Anything besides trying to politicize a stupid tragedy that shouldn't have happened? Well, that's what i want to discuss. I don't have experience with using guns at a young age, so your experience might be useful. I'm wondering that if a child has a non-rational age, has experience shooting guns and is stupid (as you said!), the overall safety of your family and the respect for guns you are talking about will only decrease. Especially when you teach them the 'fun' aspect of guns as well, that's what i mean with the gun culture. It's the fun in guns, which is in contrast with respect for guns. Of course children will think guns are cool and fun if they aren't properly educated on their use. Are you really trying to say it's better to stick our kids head in the sand and pretend that guns don't exist? You need to explain yourself. You could also try to reduce the number of guns, it's not like they're falling out of the sky. Why? There's no correlation between number of firearms and number of gun crimes in America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThe USA ranks higher than Nicaragua, and the number of firearm related deaths is over a magnitude higher than in the UK The number of guns and gun owners in the US has been skyrocketing, while crime rates have been plummeting. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_timeOn August 28 2014 07:10 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:58 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:55 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:39 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:32 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:27 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:
[quote]
How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired.
Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust.
In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it.
I don't think anyone will argue that guns aren't sometimes used defensively to save someones life. I do think people might generally have a problem with The Onion being used as some sort of legitimate news source to try and make a point. I know sometimes people around here like to use less than reputable sources to back up their stances, but lets not defend the use of entirely fictitious sources. Yeah, I agree. This one case did not happen. But similar cases have happened. In fact, most of the real-life cases turn out even better. Typically nobody dies. On August 28 2014 06:21 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 06:11 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I think its ultimately up to the parents to see that their children are safe with guns. It's got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Not every 8-year old is ready. Likewise, only the parents really have enough knowledge about the child to make that call.
[quote]
How many knockout games may have been foiled by armed targets? It's pretty impossible to tell, the assailants are likely to never be caught, thus hiding their motive, especially if no shots are fired.
Guns are used defensively anywhere between 55,000 times and 3.6 million times, depending on whose stats you trust.
In any reasonable measurement, the gun is also not necessarily fired, the criminal flees or surrenders just at the sight of it. I don't fully agree with that statement. In what way can the parents fully 'know' if their child is ready for that, and does not relapse into non rational behaviour. In the same line of reasoning we let people learn how to drive when they are 18 (or 16 or whatever), or we give age restrictions for buying alcohol. these restrictions also give a clear signal (to parents and child) that alcohol is not meant for young people. Just like you could argue guns are just not meant for young people. First of all, not every country has a legal drinking age. Second, it's not illegal to drink alcohol under 21, just to buy or possess it. Your parents can legally let you drink, as long as they don't let it ruin your life, which would constitute child abuse. Last, you could relapse into non-rational behaviour at any age, even one older than whatever arbitrary line you draw. That's true, but i'm not talking about any country, your country still made laws like this before. Isn't it arguable that the arbitrary sexual age of 18 years should actually be based on every case specific (or parents can decide). Next to that you don't address my point of culture again.(that's why i use the example of alcohol or driving car in the first place, remember) I would honestly agree that the age of consent is arbitrary and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some are probably mature enough mentally to handle it by 15, others probably aren't by 20. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make about culture. Teaching kids to avoid guns whenever possible, instead of teaching their responsible use is just like abstinence-only sex ed. Guns and sex can both cause big problems when people involved aren't responsible. They're both fun. And they're both readily available in the US. For me, the line between teaching your kid the respect for guns and the glorification for guns is shady, to put it mildly. We have all kinds of rules for the kids, they can't see everything (cinema ages) they can't do everything (sex, drugs, drive cars etc) but for some reason, they can shoot guns. And it's even seen normal, accepted and when i'm listening to your posts, even good. For me it feels strange, guns are so related to violence and killing things, for me it should not even be in the child's mind on that age. (the same reason as cinema rules) I think it's interesting that you guys don't experience this. Shooting guns doesn't necessarily hurt anyone though. Most gunshots are harmless fun, only soda cans, paper, or cardboard gets hit. There's nothing wrong with shooting guns. The problem starts when there's an innocent person in front of the gun. Do you support abstinence-only sex ed? Ah i had to google abstinence only sex ed. :-) No i'm not a supporter of that, I have the feeling that in the Netherlands we are very open in schools about sex (non restricted to marriage or something) on a relatively young age. For me the fun of guns (especially on very young age) destroys the respect for the guns (and decreases safety). It's just a contradiction. Just like you can't glorify alcohol and assumes your child will wait til hes 21 (18 in our country). But again, this is just my feeling about the issue. Does the fun of sex destroy the respect and decrease the practice of safe sex? I guess you can say so for a child with a young age (who doesn't understand the duplicity of the matter). you can't laugh about sex as parents and still expect your child to be serious about it when it matters, Altough you can't compare because you are not allowed to have sex in the US on young age, right? :-) Don't compare the act of sex as the fun part tough, just the associations around sex and guns, and the attitude of your peer group.
You're allowed to masturbate at a young age. Which is basically analogous to shooting tin cans.
|
On August 28 2014 07:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 07:18 Nyxisto wrote:Crime rates have basically been plummeting anywhere. Still the US completely outranks every other developed country when it comes to gun related violence. Other places don't have a thriving black market fueled by the war on drugs. Other countries don't have a prisons that act as a revolving door, arresting harmless drug offenders and introducing them to the hardcore criminals. Other countries don't have Detroit, L.A., or Chicago.
So it's better to take the shoot first and ask questions (or rather, solve problems) later approach? It doesn't seem to be working that well.
|
On August 28 2014 07:23 Millitron wrote:
Other places don't have a thriving black market fueled by the war on drugs. Other countries don't have a prisons that act as a revolving door, arresting harmless drug offenders and introducing them to the hardcore criminals. Other countries don't have Detroit, L.A., or Chicago.
I wasn't saying that guns are the sole reason for every crime in the US. But they surely don't make life safer, else the homicide rate involving guns wouldn't be as high as it is.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
