Gun Country (A Positive Article of Kids & Guns)

[kcofohio]

A new generation of American kids embraces firearms.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/26/the-gun-owners-of-the-parkland-generation

All but one were born in the decade after Columbine; like the student gun-control advocates activated by the recent massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, most are in their teens. But the children depicted here—hunters, target shooters, competitors in trap and skeet—occupy a parallel realm, where guns signify not danger, alienation, and the threat of death but safety, discipline, and trust.

A good article from the New Yorker?!
I also found it interesting of the broad group that's involved.

 

[Sistema1927]

Unbelievable. Each of those kids look like they are poised, professional, and no nonsense. May their tribe increase.

(Not unbelievable that they are, but unbelievable that the New Yorker would publish this.)

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Are we in Bizarro World, or is it Opposite Day!?

 

[RPZ]

Is is truly bizarre the New Yorker would publish this. This is probably the single most important way to consolidate our gun and shooting culture. To me it ought to be the priority focus of the NRA, all other pro gun organizations, and individuals. Get a child off their iPhones and into guns and shooting (and all things outdoors)! They are the not so distant future and beyond.

 

[Zoogster]

I like the idea of the culture being promoted, and recognize the more people part of that culture the less risk we face of having our firearms taken away. At the same time I myself am not in favor of lots off kids shooting guns.
In rural communities and especially back when most people had a family farm or relatives that lived on the family farm in the middle of a rural location going out hunting or target shooting or just goofing around with the .22 in the woods was not such a big deal. It was mainly with family, in remote locations removed from other influences.

Yet children cannot vote for a reason. A firearm is a tool for killing. People should understand more of what life is and means before being encouraged to become proficient in the skill of killing things.
The little boy out hunting with dad that gets to take the shot is different than enrolling little Johnny in firearm tournaments where they practice gunning things down. They can be taught to be skilled, show safe handling skills, and do what they are told.
In fact they can often be taught easier than adults, because they assume less and have less ego involved (often why women make easier students too) and will take direction and make faster progress.
But are they really who should be making decisions on life or death yet?

Eventually everyone has to be given that responsibility, after all they will be driving cars, and young men will grow into strong people that can kill with muscle and a heavy object as easily as something you just pull a trigger on, but I do not think it wise to start them out making life and death decisions too early. And when you give people a tool meant for killing you are doing just that. Handing them a responsibility that is beyond just safely operating the device.

 

[RPZ]

I like the idea of the culture being promoted, and recognize the more people part of that culture the less risk we face of having our firearms taken away. At the same time I myself am not in favor of lots off kids shooting guns.
In rural communities and especially back when most people had a family farm or relatives that lived on the family farm in the middle of a rural location going out hunting or target shooting or just goofing around with the .22 in the woods was not such a big deal. It was mainly with family, in remote locations removed from other influences.

Yet children cannot vote for a reason. A firearm is a tool for killing. People should understand more of what life is and means before being encouraged to become proficient in the skill of killing things.
The little boy out hunting with dad that gets to take the shot is different than enrolling little Johnny in firearm tournaments where they practice gunning things down. They can be taught to be skilled, show safe handling skills, and do what they are told.
In fact they can often be taught easier than adults, because they assume less and have less ego involved (often why women make easier students too) and will take direction and make faster progress.
But are they really who should be making decisions on life or death yet?

Eventually everyone has to be given that responsibility, after all they will be driving cars, and young men will grow into strong people that can kill with muscle and a heavy object as easily as something you just pull a trigger on, but I do not think it wise to start them out making life and death decisions too early. And when you give people a tool meant for killing you are doing just that. Handing them a responsibility that is beyond just safely operating the device.

In the 1920s and 30s it wasn't rare for boys younger than ten to be driving delivery trucks.

Most kids these days are held in arrested development. They are taught goo goo ga ga and other gibberish when they should be learning real language, and fed on a diet of cartoon nonsense and junk, and the moronic video games and soap level social media. This when they could be learning useful and relevant stuff, like skills and responsibilty.

I was out hunting when I was 15 - solo. Could not vote, sign a contract etc, but I was responsible enough to get up at 2 or 3am, and set out to the land I used to hunt on foot, hunt and come home again.

My father instructed me on pistol and rifle at about 9 years old. I was self taught with a shotgun later on. Start kids off young shooting, and by the time they are in their teens they are off and running.

 

[cologuy]

I like the idea of the culture being promoted, and recognize the more people part of that culture the less risk we face of having our firearms taken away. At the same time I myself am not in favor of lots off kids shooting guns.
In rural communities and especially back when most people had a family farm or relatives that lived on the family farm in the middle of a rural location going out hunting or target shooting or just goofing around with the .22 in the woods was not such a big deal. It was mainly with family, in remote locations removed from other influences.

Yet children cannot vote for a reason. A firearm is a tool for killing. People should understand more of what life is and means before being encouraged to become proficient in the skill of killing things.
The little boy out hunting with dad that gets to take the shot is different than enrolling little Johnny in firearm tournaments where they practice gunning things down. They can be taught to be skilled, show safe handling skills, and do what they are told.
In fact they can often be taught easier than adults, because they assume less and have less ego involved (often why women make easier students too) and will take direction and make faster progress.
But are they really who should be making decisions on life or death yet?

Eventually everyone has to be given that responsibility, after all they will be driving cars, and young men will grow into strong people that can kill with muscle and a heavy object as easily as something you just pull a trigger on, but I do not think it wise to start them out making life and death decisions too early. And when you give people a tool meant for killing you are doing just that. Handing them a responsibility that is beyond just safely operating the device.

I think that your question of kids making decisions on life or death kind of misses the mark as far as teaching kids to shoot goes. True, a firearm is potentially a deadly weapon that deserves respect, but so are minibikes, matches, lawn darts, or any number of things that we let our kids use, hopefully after some words of wisdom and some supervision from mom and dad. And firearms can be used for things other than killing, just like those other things. I'd argue that teaching them firearm skills, safe handling, and the responsibilities that go along with shooting will make them safer and better able to make decisions about when/where to shoot, at a target or a living thing. From purely a safety standpoint, I'd familiarize every child in the country with basic safe handling skills, and as a rewarding hobby I'd encourage every kid that shows the slightest interest in shooting to take it up (in a safe, supervised environment) as an alternative to video games, etc. At least shooting, properly taught to a kid, teaches some responsibility and discipline. And as far as signing up little Johnny in a tournament to practice "gunning things down", I have to wonder what sorts of tournaments are held in your area. Even in some of the 3-gun matches I've seen, with kids as young as (I'd guess from their looks) 12-13, it's some of the adults that worry me a lot more than the kids. And the 4H and other youth competitions in my area are positively placid, with more emphasis on safety, skills, responsibility, and sportsmanship than any other youth activity I've ever seen.

 

[RPZ]

And some of these kids have used firearms in justifiable defense of themselves and family in the home.

 

[RPZ]

I think that your question of kids making decisions on life or death kind of misses the mark as far as teaching kids to shoot goes. True, a firearm is potentially a deadly weapon that deserves respect, but so are minibikes, matches, lawn darts, or any number of things that we let our kids use, hopefully after some words of wisdom and some supervision from mom and dad. And firearms can be used for things other than killing, just like those other things. I'd argue that teaching them firearm skills, safe handling, and the responsibilities that go along with shooting will make them safer and better able to make decisions about when/where to shoot, at a target or a living thing. From purely a safety standpoint, I'd familiarize every child in the country with basic safe handling skills, and as a rewarding hobby I'd encourage every kid that shows the slightest interest in shooting to take it up (in a safe, supervised environment) as an alternative to video games, etc. At least shooting, properly taught to a kid, teaches some responsibility and discipline. And as far as signing up little Johnny in a tournament to practice "gunning things down", I have to wonder what sorts of tournaments are held in your area. Even in some of the 3-gun matches I've seen, with kids as young as (I'd guess from their looks) 12-13, it's some of the adults that worry me a lot more than the kids. And the 4H and other youth competitions in my area are positively placid, with more emphasis on safety, skills, responsibility, and sportsmanship than any other youth activity I've ever seen.

Kids can be taught the tie in with firearms and history as well.

 

[TomJ]

I like the idea of the culture being promoted, and recognize the more people part of that culture the less risk we face of having our firearms taken away. At the same time I myself am not in favor of lots off kids shooting guns.
In rural communities and especially back when most people had a family farm or relatives that lived on the family farm in the middle of a rural location going out hunting or target shooting or just goofing around with the .22 in the woods was not such a big deal. It was mainly with family, in remote locations removed from other influences.

Yet children cannot vote for a reason. A firearm is a tool for killing. People should understand more of what life is and means before being encouraged to become proficient in the skill of killing things.
The little boy out hunting with dad that gets to take the shot is different than enrolling little Johnny in firearm tournaments where they practice gunning things down. They can be taught to be skilled, show safe handling skills, and do what they are told.
In fact they can often be taught easier than adults, because they assume less and have less ego involved (often why women make easier students too) and will take direction and make faster progress.
But are they really who should be making decisions on life or death yet?

Eventually everyone has to be given that responsibility, after all they will be driving cars, and young men will grow into strong people that can kill with muscle and a heavy object as easily as something you just pull a trigger on, but I do not think it wise to start them out making life and death decisions too early. And when you give people a tool meant for killing you are doing just that. Handing them a responsibility that is beyond just safely operating the device.

I bring my sons shooting. They're 22 and 11. It's not uncommon for a group of us to go. I have never heard anyone from our group nor anyone at the gun club we belong to come close to referring to shooting as gunning things down. They learn the opposite, respect for firearms and the damage they can inflict on someone if used irresponsibly. My sons are also taught to respect life, so the thought of gunning things down is completely foreign to us. If kids are taught to gun things down it's via tv and movies, video games and the internet. Our gun club has classes for kids as young as 10 years old. I promise you that if one of the instructors taught kids in the manner you're describing they'd be terminated.

 

[kcofohio]

I see people/parents being more respectful of the shooting sport than I do with other sporting events. And respectful to each other. I mean, go to a little league baseball game and see how mean spirited some parents can get at the umpires and coaches, who are volunteering their time.
No, I think the shooting sports, for the most part, teaches better respect.

 

[readyeddy]

It's important for magazines like the New Yorker to inform its readers of other cultures so that there can be more understanding and less demonizing. It goes for all cultures, around the world.

It also shows that if a liberal magazine can attempt to offer a reasonable depiction of children who shoot firearms, then perhaps not all liberals are unreasonable when it comes to gun.

 

[RPZ]

In case anyone else missed it at first, like I did, there's a video backstory link on the lower page well worth watching just 6 minutes long.

And one thing not mentioned at all was that many of these kids, especially by the time they are adults, will be well capable of defending themselves if needed.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

LIke RPZ mentioned it is well to read the backstory. All the polish is gone and it is obvious the author comes from a counrty with an elitist government. Didn't check to see whether it is UK, India or whatever, but the bias that the minions are not trustworthy is there.

 

[FAS1]

In case anyone else missed it at first, like I did, there's a video backstory link on the lower page well worth watching just 6 minutes long.

And one thing not mentioned at all was that many of these kids, especially by the time they are adults, will be well capable of defending themselves if needed.

Here's the link: http://video.newyorker.com/watch/the-backstory-the-gun-owners-of-the-parkland-generation

Seems like it was an eye opener for the photographer. He was amazed at the level of safety and even said these kids were the future responsible gun owners.

 

[RPZ]

Here's the link: http://video.newyorker.com/watch/the-backstory-the-gun-owners-of-the-parkland-generation

Seems like it was an eye opener for the photographer. He was amazed at the level of safety and even said these kids were the future responsible gun owners.

Thanks for posting the link, something I haven't been able to master using this lousy phone.