Zero Tolerence

[Sam1911]

In your opinion, when does a child cease to be a child? Legally we all understand it's 18. Should you keep unsupervised gun access from them until they turn 18? I find it a bit ridiculous when in most states a person can drive a car unsupervised at 16.

In my opinion? There's no one answer. Each family has to look at the individuals they're raising, individually and as a group, and decide if one or all of them should, deliberately, be allowed unsupervised access. Maybe that's when the youngest one is 12, 14, 16 or something like that. But it isn't a simple age-based rite of passage. That trust has to be earned in many ways.

And, for my part, I want to build in my kids worn-in paths of best safety practices that they'll follow naturally as they grow up and move on. And part of that is to keep firearms secured at all times. So, personally, I see no reason to STOP keeping my guns under lock and key even when the kids are all grown, but we're a long ways off from that yet.

 

[JFtheGR8]

This is the kind of thing that will eventually play out in the courts. When enough parents/guardians are tried and convicted for negligence due to a child accidentally shooting someone or themselves more people will think about safe storage. My 9mm is in my nightstand in a plastic case with a lock on it. I can rip that case apart in a second without even giving a thought to the lock. It is sturdy enough to keep a child from the gun though. There is no excuse for a child having unsupervised access to a firearm. Anyone that would argue otherwise just feeds into the antis' belief that gun owners are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging nut jobs. There's no need for laws to replace common sense though.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[BigBore44]

Nothing will curb a child's curiosity.....except exposure. Properly exposing a child to firearms will help curb that curiosity. I cannot speak for all, but when I was young (age 3) I was walking around the house with my fathers S&W 66 service revolver. It was always unloaded. And I always had access to it. All I had to do was ask. My father would go get it. Unload it in front of me, hand it to me, I would then verify it was unloaded. Then it was mine. Only two rules. 1. Don't EVER point it at people (he included "sweeping") 2. Don't point it at animals. He taught me how to properly hold the weapon, how the weapon worked, and he showed me what it was capable of (in pictures). He would also let me "help" clean it. I never felt the need to sneak around to "play" with it. I had toys. And I knew it wasn't a toy. I had seen what it could do. Was this the best route to take? I don't know. But I know it worked for me and my brother. Would that route work today? Again I don't know. Maybe. In some circumstances. With the right parents and the right kids. But there is no universal answer. If the parents are educated properly, and can properly teach their kids, there might be fewer accidents. But the reality is there are VERY few accidents. So the vast majority of parents are doing something right. Maybe it's locks for some. Safes for others. Proper exposure for others. Maybe scaring works for some. I don't have to agree with your method. But is it wrong if it works? Some would say that the pictures I saw were going to far for a young child. Personally I disagree. I wasn't traumatized. I was shown reality. And reality is, when firearms are used (intentionally or unintentionally) people can get severely hurt.

 

[Davek1977]

Anyone that would argue otherwise just feeds into the antis' belief that gun owners are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging nut jobs

Thanks for insulting my parents and the way I was raised. I'll credit some of that attitude due to the environment you're from...(ILL) FYI-I turned out to be just fine, and a responsible gun owner with a stellar record of safety.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"HOPLOPHOBIA" - described as an irrational fear of firearms.

Hoplophobia is an irrational fear of weapons (period) not firearms, which crosses over to silliness under arguments like Dr. Joyce Brothers that guns are phallic symbols therefore justifying bans. "The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people." (Sigmund Freud and D.E. Oppenheim, "Dreams in Folklore", International Universities Press, Inc, New York, 1958, page 33.) This quote is usually paraphrased as fear and loathing of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity (which should not be put in quotes).

A rational appreciation of danger and prudent steps to avoid accidents is not hoplophobia. But "zero tolerance" does not impress me as rational or prudent.

The number of accidental deaths from firearms is lower than that from buckets.

The number of accidental deaths from firearms <b>in the home involving children under five</b> is lower than that from buckets.

"The Atlas of Forensic Pathology" has a particular heartbreaking photo of a toddler drowned in a mop bucket that has a prominent sticker warning with drowning child illustration against leaving a full bucket unattended around children.

Look at the proposed "cure" for the gun accident problem: American Academy of Pediatrics proposed intrusive and restrictive "regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons" with felony penalties. Is that proposed for bicycles, home swimming pools, five gallon mop buckets, all of which kill more kids as a result of unintentional injuries?

"Zero Tolerance" has in my mind become a catch phrase for gun-obsessed prohibitionists, like those who expelled the student who had bitten a pop tart into the shape of a "L" that vaguely looked like a gun. If you want to promote parental responsibility for child safety, adopt another catch phrase.

 

[pockets]

Didn't we just have this discussion in another thread about 'children & guns'?
Stuck in a loop here......
.

 

[itsa pain]

I guess I read to much. One thing I run across to often is when a child gets killed by a gun. I'm not talking about a drive by, there's to many of those. I'm saying kids dying accidentally in the home, in the car, where they have access to a loaded firearm.

The numbers are there. If a gun is locked, yes it you can't get to as fast as you should. But the odds of a kid getting injured or killed are greater then your needing to get to it as fast as you can. I want to see the stats on a homeowner getting killed because he had unlock a gun when kids around.

To many kids are dying for no reason. It's not how you were brought up or the rare occasion a 6 year old saves momma's life.

It's about zero tolerance.

No social Darwinism please.

gamb joe if I was to make an anti gun ad I would hire you to write it. the only reason kids getting shot accidentally is getting so much notice is because of the anti gun people. they would never compare other ways that kids die more often such as suffocation by plastic bags drowning in a tub bee bites etc. so by bringing this up you are parroting anti gun propaganda

 

[Sam1911]

Didn't we just have this discussion in another thread about 'children & guns'?
Stuck in a loop here......

I gave the links to that thread and several similar ones in post 4.

 

[Walkalong]

In your opinion, when does a child cease to be a child?

Some never do, but at some point we have to let them try to grow up.


We owe it to our kids to protect them as best we can. That means supervision around potentially hazardous activities, like swimming, shooting, walking outside, ect, etc.

As posted earlier, unsupervised children die from so many different things it is almost tragic. The one common denominator is not guns, it is poor parenting. In other words, unsupervised children.

Do not isolate them from firearms, teach them about firearms. At the right (Only you can say) age, train them to shoot firearms. At all times protect them from accidents (Of all kinds) by keeping both your firearms and children under your direct supervision. Firearms are easy, they cannot move on their own. Children are trickier.

Be smart, be safe, be there for your children.

 

[JFtheGR8]

Quote:

Anyone that would argue otherwise just feeds into the antis' belief that gun owners are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging nut jobs

Thanks for insulting my parents and the way I was raised. I'll credit some of that attitude due to the environment you're from...(ILL) FYI-I turned out to be just fine, and a responsible gun owner with a stellar record of safety.

I'm not an anti therefore that's not my belief. I was also raised around guns and learned how to safely handle them at an early age. Trying to insult me by my location will do nothing for you either btw. Implying that someone from IL is somehow less of a person than you are kinda reinforces my point.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Lex Luthier]

We learn best in either static and dynamic ways, depending on our personality.

My dad threw me off the dock when I was a young lad. I learned to swim. Granted that may be perceived as child abuse, but the objective was achieved. One does not learn a musical instrument overnight. It takes years of intellectual and physical growth to achieve gradual technical understanding.

Guns are the SAME THING. Think about the number of people who were never taught anything about them except in the movies, and their only experience is negative, because maybe one went off near them once and they are afraid they will just go off. Think of the other kind of logical person who was taught respect for that kind of power and the potential risks it entailed. Perhaps that guy is you, and you learned a little at a time how to be good at it and approach it maturely.

What we need are better teachers. Dads, uncles, anybody with the patience and knowledge to impart logical reasoning, and be a mature witness to a youngster (or your next door neighbor) and help them grow in our interest and dispel the theatrically charged illogicalisms.

 

[Davek1977]

Yet, you said that unfettered access makes the anti's view correct, did you not? I grew up on a ranch. Part of everyday life included protecting livestock from predators. Sometimes, even as a "child" those duties fell on me. Add in the fact I was raided rurally, over 20 miles from ANY sort of law enforcement presence, and for some odd reason, my parents thought it be prudent that I have access to firearms. What is true in one situation necessarily isn't accurate in another. Guns were party of everyday life to me. They didn't need to be locked up any more than the beer fridge or knife block. I knew what was expected of me, and behaved likewise. Other people have different scenarios, and I can see why they WOULD choose to heavily restrict access. As the location comment previously...I simply meant one may be more conditioned to gun control and associated ideas than someone livng in a state with relatively few firearms laws. One's locatoion and surroundings often influences their thinking. Sorry if you took that as an insult.

 

[GambJoe]

"so what does "zero tolerance" mean in this context?

laws requiring folks to lock the guns up?"

No "Zero Tolerance" to developing an attitude that will lead to zero children getting shoot. Not mandatory locks.

Maybe I sound like a liberal but there are laws on the books already I believe even here in Texas about kids and guns.

 

[JFtheGR8]

I get what you're saying Dave. We didn't have much when I was young and hunted for food to supplement our grocery bill. I can remember shooting squirrels as early as 7 years old, with my Dad of course. Then there were the occasional opossum in the hen house or cottonmouth in the garden that needed dealt with. We had one TV with 3 channels when it was working and no video games. In this day and age most people don't enjoy that kind of upbringing. It was hard but it built character. Guns are seen very differently these days due to the media and most homes have multiple TVs with dozens of channels and video game consoles attached to them. When I was a kid a gun was seen as a tool. Now it seems the perception is more toward a deadly weapon (which it is) and even a form of entertainment to some. Very few people still see guns as a tool like we do. We were raised to treat them as such so there was no great mystery or taboo to them.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[GambJoe]

"Zero Tolerance" has in my mind become a catch phrase for gun-obsessed prohibitionists, like those who expelled the student who had bitten a pop tart into the shape of a "L" that vaguely looked like a gun. If you want to promote parental responsibility for child safety, adopt another catch phrase.

It's just another catch phrase. You see it everywhere. What would you prefer?

 

[Sam1911]

Very few people still see guns as a tool like we do. We were raised to treat them as such so there was no great mystery or taboo to them.

As I posted in the earlier thread on this topic...

Yeah? That's how I grew up as well, and I knew of two childhood fatalities from kids either finding and "playing with" guns or from otherwise poor gun-handling by kids. One boy in my elementary school shot his brother to death with their Dad's shotgun they thought was unloaded.

It DOES happen and it CAN be so easily avoided. We need to stop acting like we can't learn anything from others' mistakes.

 

[jerkface11]

But the odds of a kid getting injured or killed are greater then your needing to get to it as fast as you can.

I'm still waiting on some facts or statistics to back up that claim.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm still waiting on some facts or statistics to back up that claim.

Keep waiting.

You, of course, realize that no such statistics are compiled by anyone, anywhere. The best we can go on is the general assumptions/deductions we make about our own liklihood of being attacked in our homes (based on our area, crime rates, our habits, our home, our target profile, and our own histories and experiences, with a bit of paranoia thrown in to justify our natural desires) and then compare those notions with the presence, quantity, ages, and natures of children in our homes. And, of course, how much we really care about them. ()

Saying that there is some finite statistical probability we can lean on to justify keeping guns out and ready at all times is untrue, certainly, just as would be any claim that tries to state the probability that one of our kids is going to injure someone with a firearm in our home.

Tossing out a claim of probability where one does not exist is just as poor a debate technique as demanding concrete numbers as an artificial wedge to derail a valid argument.

 

[Davek1977]

In this day and age most people don't enjoy that kind of upbringing.

While that is true, my nephews are being raised on that same ranch, with the same type of upbringing, with the same access to guns. They are at this point 14 and 12, and have a gun rack in their room with their 20 gauge and 22 in it, and I have absolutely no qualms about that. I enjoy hunting and shooting with them because they are very safety conscious,and take correction without attitude on the rare occasion its necessary. Truth be told, they are far more safety conscious than many adults I've hunted or shot with. This is why I don't believe in generalities. While many people think the "rural" experience is largely something gone, here in South Dakota and elsewhere, its still a very real existence for a good many people. Coyotes and whatnot still need to be killed on occasion, and expecting law enforcement to arrive under emergency circumstances to do any more than count bodies is laughable. The county the family ranch sits in has a county sheriff, and 2 deputies to provide law enforcement over an area of 1310 square miles and roughly 2000 people. The odds of all 3 being on duty at any given time is roughly zero. Guns are still very much seen as a tool in these areas.

 

[GambJoe]

Look at the proposed "cure" for the gun accident problem: American Academy of Pediatrics proposed intrusive and restrictive "regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons" with felony penalties

This is one of those ultimate conclusions. As we all know it's not as simple as that. I'm trying to say there's an alternative.

"Zero Tolerance" has in my mind become a catch phrase for gun-obsessed prohibitionists, like those who expelled the student who had bitten a pop tart into the shape of a "L" that vaguely looked like a gun. If you want to promote parental responsibility for child safety, adopt another catch phrase.

It works in the oil industry. What would you prefer?

 

[JFtheGR8]

I don't disagree with you Sam. I was merely saying that perceptions have changed and the whole "I was raised to treat a gun like a tool" argument no longer works if it even ever did in the first place. Why would we resist safely storing firearms when there are kids involved? Such behavior only helps the antis to point at us and say "I told you so" when a tragedy happens. I don't leave half full buckets of water around either. Common sense goes a long way to prevent unnecessary laws from being written.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[jerkface11]

Tossing out a claim of probability where one does not exist is just as poor a debate technique as demanding concrete numbers as an artificial wedge to derail a valid argument.

The OP brought the odds of it occurring into this in the first post. That implies he knows what the odds are.

 

[Sam1911]

Right, and I agree with that.

Now, I'm not going to look at Dave's nephew's situation and say that his family is being irresponsible. I will say that their situation is highly unusual today, but with very responsible teenagers in an extremely rural environment, with close and attentive parenting, very well-ingrained safety protocols, and long guns especially, that probably is very close to a quite safe situation. I'd take things up another notch, myself, probably, but I'm not in their shoes.

For 98+% probably, even of us here at THR, that's not the situation under consideration.

 

[Sam1911]

The OP brought the odds of it occurring into this in the first post. That implies he knows what the odds are.

Yup. He used the term "odds" in a way he shouldn't have. If that means, to you, that the concept he's expressing becomes invalid, so be it.

 

[jerkface11]

If you're going to say the odds of one thing happening are greater than the odds of something else happening you should be able to say what those odds are. If not he's basing his argument on a flawed premiss.