youre right and Im glad I do not think like youYou probably shouldn't "assume" that I didn't read the entire thread before I posted, I did, but I believe that the quoted comment is a symptom of the real problem, and I really don't care whether others have discussed what I am implying or not. I wanted to stress that the lack of teaching personal responsibility is far more detrimental to our society than anything else. If you don't like that, well bully for you.
Further more I didn't miss your point, I just don't think your point is that important. We are not going to change the antis PoV, and honestly the whole idea that we can has proven to be foolish. Even further more I don't really care what you give or don't give a rat turd about either. I guess what I love about the idea or what America was and what it could still be is that we are not required to think or believe as others do.
Zero Tolerence
- Thread starter GambJoe
- Start date
- Status
JFtheGR8
Member
TCB in TN said:
Where did I say anything about changing an antis pov? I made absolutely no comments of the kind. I said I didn't want to give them ammo to use against gun owners. I wish we could get back to the basics of what America was intended to be but I fear those days are long gone.
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
Personally, I think the discussion should have been over at this phrase in the original post.
Again, just like gun control proponents, this statement is putting blame on an object, rather than how it is handled/used by people. In this case, I can't think of there being a single case of a gun, by its own volition, intentionally or unintentionally killing a human being.
If that is the going in point of view, then there's no rational or logical discussion to even be engaged in after that.
Again, just like gun control proponents, this statement is putting blame on an object, rather than how it is handled/used by people. In this case, I can't think of there being a single case of a gun, by its own volition, intentionally or unintentionally killing a human being.
If that is the going in point of view, then there's no rational or logical discussion to even be engaged in after that.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I can't say as I see that as a real stumbling block here. We get it, we understand what was meant. We can say it is important not to blame the gun. But NONE of us here is blaming the gun. So why bring that up?
But if we need to we can go back edit the first post to read, "...when a child is killed WITH a gun..." or even "...when a child kills another child or themselves with an unattended or unsecured gun...." Does that help us focus on the real issues more clearly?
TCB in TN
Member
Well either way I could not care any less what antis think, or use. The gains made over the last 20 years have come more from fighting to stand up to our rights rather than anything else. Far more people have come to understand that further infringement of our rights is more dangerous than anything else our society faces.
Your stance implies that if fewer children die, then gun control advocates will not have ammunition (pun intended) to use against us. That perhaps the media will start reporting the truth about guns and crime. None of that will happen. If it were going to it would have already. We have documented years of decreases in crime, decreases in accidental deaths, decreases in murders etc and what you profess to want is not happening.
Do I think that we as gun owners should act responsibly? Yes I do!
But do you really believe that even if we eliminate every accidental death that the antis will go away?
If you do then you have ignored reality for many years.
Our adversaries in this are fully invested in instituting the nanny state. They are either well meaning individuals who are ignorant and believe that the government can better take care of them than they can care for themselves, or they are the power brokers who depend upon the above to keep themselves in power. Neither group are swayed by either logic or reason.
For our nation to continue to stand, then moving back towards a belief in self reliance and personal responsibility will be required, otherwise then a continual spin downward is inevitable. I have my own thoughts on that downward spiral, but that is probably a matter for another time.
jerkface11
Member
Hundreds of accidental shootings a year? Do you have a link?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Here's one that lists 174 accidental deaths among children under 18, in the year 2000. http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesAF.htm
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Here's the most recent data, though, published this month:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Reading page 90 it indicates that in the year 2010, 207 persons between the ages of 0 and 24 years died from accidental discharge of a firearm.
The last grouping there (15-24 years) accounts for 145 of those deaths, and of course, includes a larger population of society over the age of 18 than under it.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Reading page 90 it indicates that in the year 2010, 207 persons between the ages of 0 and 24 years died from accidental discharge of a firearm.
The last grouping there (15-24 years) accounts for 145 of those deaths, and of course, includes a larger population of society over the age of 18 than under it.
Absolutely.
This is The High Road. Words mean things, and THR is above all a written language medium. We should expect, at least, that we observe that little fact before engaging in serious conversation.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Tell ya what, seeing as we've had this little chat about it and we're all clear now, (and no one else seemed confused about this matter), I think I'll just consider the matter resolved.
Sometimes our linguistic nit-pickyness, among ourselves even, becomes a little tiresome. Shall we argue magazine-vs.-clip now too? High-cap vs. "standard" capacity?
You see, the problem is that if you engage an undecided person in a discussion like this and you retort with the response, "If that is the going in point of view, then there's no rational or logical discussion to even be engaged in after that," it looks like a blad-faced, facile, and utterly transparent dodge. The sort of thing someone would say if they're looking to shut down debate through a bit of linguistic bullying so they don't have to answer hard questions. Here, on a pro-gun forum, it gets a chorus of verbal hi-fives and backslapping about how clever we are and how dumb the other side is. But out in the real world it just makes the debater for our side look like an insensitive, blustering blowhard who is afraid to engage in a real analysis of the issue honestly.
We've got to be stronger than that. Braver than that. Willing to engage sympathetically, to talk these things through and enlighten our fellows with humility and the real compassion that every one of us truly feels for the innocent lives that are lost and could be saved. That doesn't mean we have to AGREE with antis. It means we can't dismiss people's real concerns with smug linguistic weaseling.
Sometimes our linguistic nit-pickyness, among ourselves even, becomes a little tiresome. Shall we argue magazine-vs.-clip now too? High-cap vs. "standard" capacity?
You see, the problem is that if you engage an undecided person in a discussion like this and you retort with the response, "If that is the going in point of view, then there's no rational or logical discussion to even be engaged in after that," it looks like a blad-faced, facile, and utterly transparent dodge. The sort of thing someone would say if they're looking to shut down debate through a bit of linguistic bullying so they don't have to answer hard questions. Here, on a pro-gun forum, it gets a chorus of verbal hi-fives and backslapping about how clever we are and how dumb the other side is. But out in the real world it just makes the debater for our side look like an insensitive, blustering blowhard who is afraid to engage in a real analysis of the issue honestly.
We've got to be stronger than that. Braver than that. Willing to engage sympathetically, to talk these things through and enlighten our fellows with humility and the real compassion that every one of us truly feels for the innocent lives that are lost and could be saved. That doesn't mean we have to AGREE with antis. It means we can't dismiss people's real concerns with smug linguistic weaseling.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Back to the statistical issue: As I said before, I don't think statistics offer much clarity here. Were these accidents even the sorts of events that would have been prevented by keeping a gun under lock and key? Were the kids unsupervised at the time? How many were "freak" wholly unexpected issues? How many were mis-reported? Etc. etc.
The good news is there aren't very many at all, in a nation with something probably exceeding 50 million kids. The bad news is that it still happens, at all, ever.
As I said previously, to borrow from an old MADD slogan: "If you won't lock up your guns to protect your kids' lives -- at least lock them up to keep them from getting stolen!"
The good news is there aren't very many at all, in a nation with something probably exceeding 50 million kids. The bad news is that it still happens, at all, ever.
As I said previously, to borrow from an old MADD slogan: "If you won't lock up your guns to protect your kids' lives -- at least lock them up to keep them from getting stolen!"
Last edited:
Ed Ames
Member
The phrase Zero Tolerance is actually one of those hints that the person using it has a mistaken world view. It stems from an absolute misunderstanding of reality and of the actual nature of safety.
Tolerance is the ability to survive or operate despite something, in particular something undesirable. In another sense it is te capacity to endure continued subjection to something without adverse effects.
Zero tolerance quite literally means that if the least thing goes wrong it is a disaster. That's the last thing you want in any safety critical area.
The reason there are four rules is that they overlap to increase error tolerances.
The reason people working in the oil industry wear hard hats and safety harnesses is that it increases error tolerances.
In other words, they let mistakes happen but reduce the harm...because mistakes will happen.
The reason schools adopt zero-tolerance policies is that their goal is political orthodoxy, not safety. The reason some managers adopt zero tolerance policies is that they are lousy managers who want an excuse to fire employees (all too difficult, especially in union-dominated fields). The reason police departments want zero-tolerance policies is that it makes civil forfeiture easier and makes them money.
The reason individuals want zero-tolerance policies? Ignorance.
Zero tolerance, applied to anything in the real world, is simply insanity. It is a complete misapprehension of how the world works in a destructive way. Applying it to anything related to children is beyond insane and becomes endangerment/abuse.
Tolerance is the ability to survive or operate despite something, in particular something undesirable. In another sense it is te capacity to endure continued subjection to something without adverse effects.
Zero tolerance quite literally means that if the least thing goes wrong it is a disaster. That's the last thing you want in any safety critical area.
The reason there are four rules is that they overlap to increase error tolerances.
The reason people working in the oil industry wear hard hats and safety harnesses is that it increases error tolerances.
In other words, they let mistakes happen but reduce the harm...because mistakes will happen.
The reason schools adopt zero-tolerance policies is that their goal is political orthodoxy, not safety. The reason some managers adopt zero tolerance policies is that they are lousy managers who want an excuse to fire employees (all too difficult, especially in union-dominated fields). The reason police departments want zero-tolerance policies is that it makes civil forfeiture easier and makes them money.
The reason individuals want zero-tolerance policies? Ignorance.
Zero tolerance, applied to anything in the real world, is simply insanity. It is a complete misapprehension of how the world works in a destructive way. Applying it to anything related to children is beyond insane and becomes endangerment/abuse.
Last edited:
GambJoe
Member
Thanks for the support 1911. You say it better than I could.
Can I add if 180 died many more were injured. Even then not bad considering a nation of 300,000,000, but really I think we could get that number down to zero, or develop a mind set (another BS phrase) that tries. Would there be anything wrong with that?
Can I add if 180 died many more were injured. Even then not bad considering a nation of 300,000,000, but really I think we could get that number down to zero, or develop a mind set (another BS phrase) that tries. Would there be anything wrong with that?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, statistically speaking, 207 out of 50+ million IS zero. "Statistically insignificant." Sort of like counting how, if you flipped a coin 50 million times, how many times would it land perfectly balanced on its edge? Never, except that once in a lifetime or two, it does.
That's why the twin concerns of, 1) making sure it doesn't happen to YOUR kids, and 2) grasping the real damage such events (no matter how rare) do to the public image of gun ownership are truly more important than the bald statistics.
That's why the twin concerns of, 1) making sure it doesn't happen to YOUR kids, and 2) grasping the real damage such events (no matter how rare) do to the public image of gun ownership are truly more important than the bald statistics.
gamestalker
member
I would like to retract my general approach in post #27, but not the personal training tactics I used with my family. If I hadn't reacted with so much passion because I associate the "lock them up" approach with laws that infringe on how I choose to store my firearms in my home, I might have said something more along the lines of what Sam1911 has been expressing. I feel he really puts it into proper perspective, there simply is no one single correct position that can be applied to every family or child, other than to say that education is always a positive element, regardless of how one chooses to address gun storage in their home, or car.
We have always practiced good firearms house keeping, in that, it just isn't a sensible practice to leave weapons laying all over the house, at least not without some particular purpose for their chosen locations, and placement. And I think in my original post I might have implied I treat firearms with little to no respect to security, which is not the case at all. Our home has always been well structured in regard to firearms management.
I wasn't originally going to use the following example, but I think it attests to how other approaches can be 100% effective depending on the family. Anyway, in my state at age 16 yrs. a teen can carry a self defense firearm, provided that they have notarized authorization from their parent or guardian. All of my kids have had that privilege provided to them by my wife and I, but it hasn't been one of those situations, in which Jonny turns 16 and gets his notarized letter. And the letter stayed in mine and my wife's custody, and was only utilized when we felt they needed to carry. And in this respect, it was my wife or I that would be the one's to suggest they carry, kind of like don't forget to take your cell phone with you. And at some point in time / age, and likely an early age, they knew they were allowed to grab a gun and go rabbit hunting or target shooting any time they wanted. But they also knew this wasn't an activity that they could engage in with friends, they also understood with, and agreed with the reasoning.
So I just wanted to express to you that locking them up isn't the only solution, and without training and education, it could create other issues when a child is presented with the opportunity to pick up a firearm outside of your control.
GS
We have always practiced good firearms house keeping, in that, it just isn't a sensible practice to leave weapons laying all over the house, at least not without some particular purpose for their chosen locations, and placement. And I think in my original post I might have implied I treat firearms with little to no respect to security, which is not the case at all. Our home has always been well structured in regard to firearms management.
I wasn't originally going to use the following example, but I think it attests to how other approaches can be 100% effective depending on the family. Anyway, in my state at age 16 yrs. a teen can carry a self defense firearm, provided that they have notarized authorization from their parent or guardian. All of my kids have had that privilege provided to them by my wife and I, but it hasn't been one of those situations, in which Jonny turns 16 and gets his notarized letter. And the letter stayed in mine and my wife's custody, and was only utilized when we felt they needed to carry. And in this respect, it was my wife or I that would be the one's to suggest they carry, kind of like don't forget to take your cell phone with you. And at some point in time / age, and likely an early age, they knew they were allowed to grab a gun and go rabbit hunting or target shooting any time they wanted. But they also knew this wasn't an activity that they could engage in with friends, they also understood with, and agreed with the reasoning.
So I just wanted to express to you that locking them up isn't the only solution, and without training and education, it could create other issues when a child is presented with the opportunity to pick up a firearm outside of your control.
GS
justice06rr
Member
This is a hypocritical statement IMO.
Kids die from many things, whether from guns or hunger, sickness, accidents, etc. Pointing one out without the others is not a fair assessment. Children can die from pool drowning, car accidents, parent neglect (like shaking a baby), and much more. Gun deaths is just one but a small portion of that. What makes that seem like a huge deal is when many kids die from a gun related even like in Sandy Hook and it is blown up to massive proportion by the media. You don't see that kind of same attention when kids drown in a pool, get run over by a car, or drug overdose.
I work in a Pediatric Hospital and believe me there are hundreds more that die per month than a few that die in gun-related deaths in a year. Just putting it in perspective.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Sam Haleva said:
Obviously I don't know you, and can only form an opinion about you on the basis of posts I've seen you make on this forum. But, I suspect that you might be proof of the fact that the "zero tolerance - no access to guns until 18 years old" concept doesn't necessarily have to be the case in every family. You're 15 years old by your own admission, and I don't get the impression that you'd probably go out and do anything stupid with a gun, despite your rather young age (relative to most of the rest of us).
I also had access to guns from a fairly young age. I grew up in a time when it was still normal for your friend's parents to snap a knot in your ass if you screwed up, and my best friend growing up had plenty of loaded firearms in his house. I had easy access to these guns, just as my friend did, but there we were both given the same "understanding" from his parents about their expectations with the guns. I probably had fairly easy access to guns from the time I was just 10 years old, and had my own gun (a Mossberg 500) and access to it by the time I was your age. I never considered doing something stupid with it during my younger years. That comes from having a decent upbringing.
Every family situation is unique, and a one-size-fits-all attitude is rarely effective. I know plenty of people in the 18-30+ year old range that I would NEVER give firearms access to, and I know several young folks between the ages of, say, 11-17 years of age that I'd trust around firearms.
I don't have children (yet) myself, but how I'll handle my firearms around them in the future will be largely dependent on who they are as people, and how much trust I feel I can place in them at various ages.
llwsgn
Member
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm
Here are some stats. They do not support the op's reaction.
Here are some stats. They do not support the op's reaction.
- Status
