Is it better to educate children about firearms or keep them away?

[spin]

HAMILTON — When it comes to gun safety and kids, there is serious disagreement — some people advocate letting children become comfortable with firearms, while others say to keep them far away.

“It’s about education and parents instructing kids properly,” said Hamilton police Detective Dan Stevenson. “Take the mystique away from them.” In his view, exposing children to firearms and firearm safety early on could save their lives.

Hamilton police officer Bob Gentry, who teaches local safety classes, agrees. “Take your family out and let them see how it works,” he said.

But for parents who feel uncomfortable about exposing their children to guns, the next choice is to keep the weapons as guarded as possible.

“If you’re going to have any type of tool, it’s the responsibility of the parent to protect the children,” said Joe Eaton, Southwest Ohio Chair of Buckeye Firearms Association. “The firearm should be locked away and inaccessible, and separate from ammunition.”
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/best-to-keep-guns-far-from-kids-some-say-234308.html [/div

[MineralMan]

1. Both, until they are old enough to shoot.

[Chulanowa]

45. Seconded

As many posters here know, I'm not pro-gun. But I realize that if you're going to have one of the things in the house, you're far, far better-off educating your kids about its proper handling, its dangers, and uses. if you treat it like forbidden fruit, eventually the kid's going to try to take a bite.

[Ready4Change]

73. Thirded. (Is that a word?)

My thoughts exactly.

[TxRider]

130. Fourthed, when they are old enough teach.

My dad taught me as a young kid.

I probably personally prevented 2-3 kids from having a gun accident when they got out their parents gun and knew nothing about handling it or safety.

I'm 100% that they should be taught as early as they can absorb it.

[hedgehog]

2. Yes

[Statistical]

3. Both. NRA Eddie Eagle program is good for very young children.

Pretending guns don't exists works about as well as pretending drugs or sex don't exist.

[endarkenment]

4. that's a no brainer

[Warpy]

5. Both

Kids can be awfully ingenious when it comes to getting their hands on the family guns.

It's better to teach them respect for what the guns can do from a very early age.

[derby378]

6. Educate and demystify

When teaching kids to shoot for the first time, use something simple like a hunting rifle chambered in .22-caliber. Never let kids shoot without adult supervision. If you allow them BB guns, they can do a little unsupervised target practice, but make sure they're drilled on proper safety measures.

[JuniperLea]

8. I had a single shot bolt action .22 when I was a kid...

And used it to teach my kids. It was easy to break down and clean too. Which was always lesson one, before actually shooting.

[bvar22]

48. Single Shot Bolt Action .22 was given to me @ 10 years old.

It was accompanied by a weekend with my father (retired Marine) at a hunting cabin in The Woods where we spent 2 days on shooting and gun safety.
My 2 brothers also at 10 years old.
It was a right of passage.
That was one of the things my father got right.

[JuniperLea]

72. That gave me chills!

Very much like my experience! I'll never forget those days...

My three kids used the same rifle when they learned. I think it's the perfect way. The barrel on a revolver is too short and therefore too risky with a beginner. None of us graduated to the .22 revolver until we mastered the rifle, including a complete breakdown, cleaning, and re-assemble.

[JuniperLea]

7. Both...

My step brother was kept away and never allowed to touch or even look at his grandfather's extensive collection. It became a forbidden fruit for him. One day he smuggled a couple of rifles home, along with ammo that should NOT have been kept with the guns.

Long story short, he accidentally shot some kid on the street. I say accidentally because I believe he would never intentionally draw a bead on anyone with the intention of killing them. He was so upset, he went into MY closet and shot himself in the head... after leaving a note apologizing and saying he never meant to hurt anyone. The shot came from his bedroom on the second floor, next to my room.

After pulling brains, bone and hair out of my closet for days, and throwing away most of my clothes, I decided kids need to be taught.

My three kids were taught to handle guns from a very early age, with very close supervision, and with strict adherence to the rules of safety.

Knock on wood... they are all adults now and no one has sustained firearm related injury, accidental or otherwise.

I have more "ammo" to be anti-gun than most. I choose to use my head, not my emotions, when dealing with such things.

[derby378]

10. I am so sorry to hear about your loss

Yet another reason why kids should not be forbidden from even looking at guns. They're going to grow up sooner or later, so we might as well make sure they enter adulthood with as little baggage as possible.

[JuniperLea]

12. That's my take too...

Ignorance kills. Knowledge saves lives.

Thank you for the kind words. He was 16. It was 30 years ago... feels like last week. But nothing is so bad that something good can't come from it... I keep hoping my experience will help others see the light.

[spin]

11. Tragic story, sorry for your loss. (n/t)

[JuniperLea]

13. Thank you for your kind words... eom

[proteus_lives]

15. I'm sorry about your loss.

It's great that you used it to make your life and the lives of your family better and safer.

:pals:

[JuniperLea]

21. Thank you for your kind words...

It's been a powerful learning experience for me, mostly learning that while emotions have their place and use, they shouldn't be employed when contemplating the tough questions. I'm sure you've seen that battle here in the gun forum... heads vs hearts is always an ugly mess.

[proteus_lives]

34. Couldn't said it better myself.

"It's been a powerful learning experience for me, mostly learning that while emotions have their place and use, they shouldn't be employed when contemplating the tough questions. I'm sure you've seen that battle here in the gun forum... heads vs hearts is always an ugly mess."

Exactly. I can understand how easy is it to give into fear, especially with an issue like guns. But the only thing that road leads to is darkness and the loss of rights. Like in so many other issues, the correct answer is education, safety and personal responsibility.

:pals:

[iverglas]

43. huh, that's one fine apology

I'm sure you've seen that battle here in the gun forum... heads vs hearts is always an ugly mess.

Assert that people who disagree with you are irrational ... and keep right on doing it.

Let's have some more whining about what a poor victim you are, now.

[Raskolnik]

53. Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, iverglas.

Enough. Just quit it.

[iverglas]

54. feel free

to click on by.

I'm not your keeper, nor you mine.

[Raskolnik]

56. Please see post #79.

Look at your own posts, iverglas. Something is wrong.

[SteveM]

83. Wow! Just pounding away, aren't you? Too many testosterone shots (nt)

[pipoman]

17. Wow,

I commend you for being able to see this truth through your and your family's unbelievably painful experience.

[JuniperLea]

18. Truth helps with coping...

Thank you for your kind words.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

23. just for info

The 13-yr-old son of a former steady of mine killed himself using one of the household hunting weapons.

There was no "mystique" about those firearms. The family lived in a small town and hunting on weekends was something many people engaged in. My steady worked in the justice system, and his hunting companions were members of the local bar.

The firearms were not stored securely. The boy was depressed over ongoing surgery for a deformity he had had since birth. He took one of the rifles and shot himself in the head.

Fat lot of good "demystifying" those firearms did him.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ManiacJoe]

25. You have confused firearms education with safe storage.

[JuniperLea]

29. .

[JonQ]

76. A depressed teenager kills himself

and you see that as license to ban all firearms.

I suppose you are also in favor of banning razor blades, any drug you can OD on (most of them), alcohol, cars, high places, trains, bridges, bodies of water, and anything else a depressed individual has ever used to commit suicide?

People will always misuse their rights, that doesn't argue for slavery.

[iverglas]

77. I write a post on a discussion forum

And you take it as an opportunity to make a claim you know is false, and scribble nonsense.


A depressed teenager kills himself and you see that as license to ban all firearms.

A statement that I see anything as a licence to ban all firearms is a lie.

Since I have never proposed banning all firearms, and would hotly contest any such proposal, I really don't prowl around looking for things I can "see" as a licence to do so.

My post had nothing to do with banning anything.

My post had to do with the notion that allowing/encouraging children to handle firearms protects them against harming themselves or others with firearms. I posted in rebuttal of that notion.

Did you forget to put a question mark at the end of the statement?

[iverglas]

78. this is the text of the post of mine you "replied" to

The 13-yr-old son of a former steady of mine killed himself using one of the household hunting weapons.

There was no "mystique" about those firearms. The family lived in a small town and hunting on weekends was something many people engaged in. My steady worked in the justice system, and his hunting companions were members of the local bar.

The firearms were not stored securely. The boy was depressed over ongoing surgery for a deformity he had had since birth. He took one of the rifles and shot himself in the head.

Fat lot of good "demystifying" those firearms did him.

This is what you posted in "reply":

A depressed teenager kills himself and you see that as license to ban all firearms.

Substantiate this viciously false statement or retract it.



typo fixed

[JonQ]

79. Stop playing this game

it's getting dull.

You've routinely argued against private ownership of firearms. Now you're going to say you haven't. We get it, you will deny any belief you've previously defended if you feel it will help take the argument on some tangent away from it's original starting place.

Like I said, dull.

[iverglas]

80. substantiate your vicious false statement

You've routinely argued against private ownership of firearms

or look like a liar.

[JonQ]

81. I don't really think I need to

everyone who knows you knows what you stand for. It isn't freedom of choice on this issue.

[iverglas]

82. so you look like a liar

I guess lies are better things to stand for than truth.

[JonQ]

86. So you're now trying to argue that you are pro-gun?

You're a loon iver. Entertaining, but utterly insane.

[iverglas]

87. so you've decided to demonstrate your affinity for lies some more?

It's alright, really, we get it. You couldn't tell the truth if you had a gun to your head.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JonQ]

96. It would be interesting

for you to actually post your beliefs, in clear language, for all to see.

Of course then it would be harder for you to deny you had made those claims in the future. So of course you will never do that.

[iverglas]

101. and spoil my fun?

Watching you spin your tissue of you know whats is far too entertaining.

What beliefs would you like me to post? Is this forum actually for me to post my beliefs in? I hadn't ever been under that impression, myself. I don't give a shit what anybody else "believes"; why would anyone care what I believe?

I believe there is no god. Other than that, I don't have much in the way of "beliefs". All else is history, speculation, prediction, analysis, what have you.

I won't bore you with my beliefs if you won't bore me with yours.

[JonQ]

103. For starters

do you believe that private ownership of firearms should be a right?

It will be fun watching you try to spin this one.

And what have you been doing if not attempting to force your beliefs on others through snide attacks?

[iverglas]

104. not a question of my "belief"

-- as I said. Unless I wanted to "believe" that the foundations of my society are, like, bad, or something.

I have a right to do pretty much everything my heart desires. Liberty, y'know?

Unless and until my society comes up with justification for prohibiting or limiting the exercise of that right.

Wear red socks, eat pizza for breakfast, spend my loonies in Havana, demonstrate where GW Bush is hanging out, walk backwards down the street on my hands, own a firearm.

I can't imagine my society coming up with justification for prohibiting me from wearing red socks, or limiting what I eat for breakfast. Or prohibiting me from possessing firearms -- where "me" is the general public, and not a member of a biker gang with multiple convictions for robbery or some such.

But I sure can imagine my society coming up with justification for placing limits on my conduct involving firearms possession, and on the firearms I possess. Which it evidently has done. As has yours, I gather.

And I sure do support such limits. And even a couple more than we have now.

"do you believe that private ownership of firearms should be a right?"

Silly question. Just as silly as "do you believe that private ownership of red socks should be a right?"

In a liberal democracy or a social democracy, at least, individuals have the right to possess what they choose, unless and until justification for limiting the exercise of the right is produced. That's one of the things the right to liberty is all about. Possessing what you choose to possess.

I'm a fan of social democracy, which is really no different from liberal democracy in any respect that is relevant here. So I'm a fan of one of the underpinnings of both liberal democracy and social democracy: individual liberty.

I'm not a loonytarian, though, or a right-wing asshole. So I recognize justifications for interfering in the exercises of individual rights and liberties, where other interests override the individual's interest.

I hope I've made you very happy.

[JonQ]

109. That's what I thought; more obfuscation

Everything is a right, until it isn't. Freedom is absolute, unless we choose to limit it. Liberties are ok, except when they aren't.

[iverglas]

113. just what I thought: more of you

Every once in a while, I give somebody what they ask for. Just so I can giggle when they can't deal.

Congratulations! My Friday afternoon giggle.

[JonQ]

114. I didn't ask for obfuscation and non-answers

so, no, you didn't give me what I ask for.


Do you even know what you believe in, or do you just reflexively argue with people? That may be a sign of a debilitating mental disorder.

[iverglas]

115. I believe for every drop of rain that falls ...

Do you even know what you believe in, or do you just reflexively argue with people?

Are you just naturally rude, or do you have to work at it?


I "believe in" social democracy. Not the way some people "believe in" a god, of course. They believe a god exists. I believe social democracy is good. For now.

A key ingredient of social democracy is individual liberty. Just like in liberal democracy. More key, in the case of social democracy, is protection of the vulnerable.

A key ingredient of democracy is collective decision-making about things that affect the collectivity.

I have the right to own a dog. But, where I'm at, I may not own a pit bull (unless I already own a grandfathered one, for now, and if I do, I do not have the right to take it out in public unless it has a muzzle). And I am required to have my dog licensed and vaccinated.

I have the right to have sex. But I may not have sex in public.

I have the right to get married. To pretty much any person I choose. But I may not marry my brother.

I have the right to own talcum powder. But I may not own anthrax. I have the right to own a budgie. But I may not own a parrot that has been smuggled into the country in violation of the law.

I have the right to to drive a vehicle on the public highways, but not in reverse or at 180 km/h, or without the lights on at night. Or without liability insurance, or a licence.

Seeing how it works at all?

Try this out, if you're needing more clues.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Sorry - not a single question about gunz. This might be because most people in the world, including the USofA, don't really give a shit, and do not regard the issue as one of either personal liberty or economic liberty, what the scales measure.


The issue between people who disagree on a public policy that limits the exercise of a right is usually where the line is drawn, not whether a line should be drawn. Unless you're dealing with the hardcore loony fringe on some issue, like reproductive rights.

Once you accept that speech should be limited by prohibiting perjury and false advertising, you accept limits on speech. You're just disagreeing on the specifics.

Ditto anything relating to possession of firearms by members of the public.

[JonQ]

116. Yawn

repeating your obfuscations don't make them any less irrelevant.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Both.

Restrict physical access, and teach your child 'why'.

[proteus_lives]

14. Both.

Keep them away till they are old enough to understand (the age is up to the parents) and instruct them in firearm safety and ethics.

One the most important things my dad ever did for me was when I was 6-7 years old. I had always watched him store, clean and fire his guns and was always suitably impressed. I bugged him for a long to time to let me hold one. Finally he took me out into the field behind our house and let me hold a pistol. Then he wrapped his hands around mine and told me to get ready. Then he pulled the trigger. I still remember the the noise, the smell, the shock going up my arm. Then my dad sat down with me and started explaining the real-life facts about guns.

He killed the "mystique" of guns for me that day. Drove out all the movie, book and tv nonsense. I started forming the opinions I still have of weapons today. Thanks Dad.

[pipoman]

16. I agree, both

I had my boys shooting bb guns by 5, they would go with me to the range. At 7 they were shooting a .22 rifle when we went to the range. About this time I let them each shoot my 9mm and a shotgun, neither liked it. After shooting these guns once, neither wanted to even touch them until they were 10 or 11. They had their own .22s at around 9yrs, their own shotguns at around 13. They always respected guns. We would leave a handgun laying out, unloaded, in our bedroom. I would perch a hair on the gun. Not one time (out of probably 10 times over a 10 year period) did a. the hair move or b. one of them not come running into the room where me and my wife were to tell us that we had left a gun out!, the demystification was imperative in teaching gun safety IMHO.

[iverglas]

19. it is essential to educate children to keep away from firearms

In his view, exposing children to firearms and firearm safety early on could save their lives.

Damn. Now I suppose I have to run out and buy some.

[pipoman]

26. Children or firearms?

[iverglas]

28. snork

Both, I guess. I could borrow the kids, but the guns would call for some cash outlay. ;)

[ManiacJoe]

22. Very poorly interviewed article.

It seems that all the folks who were in favor of not educating the children only wanted to talk about safe gun storage. While this is an important topic, they seem to have missed the point. Safe storage requirements are a given and a completely different discussion than firearms education for children.

Age-appropriate firearm education is a very good thing for children.

And regardless of how much or how little of that education your child gets, safe firearms storage is still a requirement of responsible firearms ownership.

[gorfle]

27. I like the NRA's Eddie Eagle plan:

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

I think this is the best approach for educating children until they are old enough to be taught how to properly handle firearms, assuming the parents wish to teach their children about them.

[Euromutt]

30. Kid-proof your guns, AND gun-proof your kids

Like various other posters have pointed out, safe storage is essential, but you can't rely on it 100%. So it's better, once they're old enough, that you at least impress upon your kids the damage guns can do, the fact that they aren't toys, and even if they're not interested in shooting, teach them how to handle them safely.

It's not a bad idea even if you don't own guns, just in case they find themselves visiting a household that turns out to have them.

[Statistical]

35. Good point on education EVEN IF YOU DONT OWN firearms.

One out of three households has firearms and they may not be securely stored.

Pretending guns don't exist because you don't own any provides no protection if you child comes across a firearm at another location.

Eddie Eagle is a good program for introducing children to firearm safety without glorifying firearms.

It doesn't promote usage; the rules are:
STOP
Don't Touch
Leave the area
Tell an adult

If it was created by VPC or Brady Bunch the anti-gun nuts would be praising how smart & effective it is. Since it was created by the NRA in some people's mind it can do no good. I haven't seen or heard of a more effective program for small children.

NRA should update the program it is starting to look a little dated.
Don't want to give any money to NRA?

The video is available free online by the NRA at youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEBrb_wRYc

Of course the video is only part of it. The program is available to schools and involves Police officer, Eddie mascot, activity books, the video, and discussion all to reinforce the concepts.

[Tim01]

31. Both nt

[JonQ]

32. Education only encourages people to try it

just like teaching kids about safe sex only encourages them to go out and try it.

It's much better to keep it forbidden and secretive, and let them figure it out on their own.

That always works out for the best. Teaching safety and responsibility is a recipe for disaster, ignorance and prohibition have stood the test of time.

[spin]

36. Damn good reply. (n/t)

[JonQ]

38. Thanks

I do what I can.

[E-Mag]

40. I was thinking almost the exact same thing n/t

[iverglas]

42. how bizarre

Education only encourages people to try it
just like teaching kids about safe sex only encourages them to go out and try it.

In the world some people live in, sexual activity and guns are so closely analogous that they should be treated in the same way.

Just imagine what would happen if some other people suggested that ...

[X_Digger]

47. Very bizarre..

In the world some people live in, education about one potentially risky behavior is analogous to education about another potentially risky behavior.

Imagine that.

eta: typo

[iverglas]

49. alrighty then

I assume that you invite your five-year-old's friends over for a night of hanky-panky occasionally?

Or at least that anyone who engages in gun fun with their five-year-old does.

[X_Digger]

50. I did learn about the birds and the bees at 5..

.. when my mother was pregnant with my little sister. As did my next door neighbor whose parents were fundies and would never talk about sex with their kids.

Firearms safety at 5 is different than at 12, just as sex ed at 5 is different than at 12. By 7, I was shooting a bb gun and playing 'doctor', too. :)

[iverglas]

51. yes ... and ...

Did you practise regularly?

Under proper adult supervision, of course.

[X_Digger]

55. Which one? LOL!!

For firearms, yes, supervised until I was 12-13. By 14, I was hiking into the woods behind my house for the weekend with a tent and a rifle. Squirrel stew, anyone?

[iverglas]

57. for your assistance

You: I did learn about the birds and the bees at 5..

Me: yes ... and ...
Did you practise regularly?


You can answer anytime.

Not forgetting that the poster I initially addressed was talking about FIVE-YEAR-OLDS using firearms.

[X_Digger]

58. Still not seeing your point (assuming you have one)..

Age appropriate training / demystification for both firearms and human sexuality is a good thing. I don't doubt I was five-ish when I first fired a gun (not by myself, but with my granddad holding the rifle steady.)

Why do you have your panties in a wad over a parent teaching their kid to shoot (at whatever age?)

[iverglas]

62. why don't you try being honest occasionally?

You might find it refreshing.


Why do you have your panties in a wad over a parent teaching their kid to shoot (at whatever age?)

Why don't you try medication for that ADD, if the problem actually is involuntarily, and address what I have said and not something you have made up?

Someone asserted that sex education and firearms "education" were analogous.

I wonder whether someone who gives their kid a firearm to "handle" at age 5 also gives their kid a sex partner at age 5.

If not, we seem to have established that sex ed and firearms "education" that involves USING FIREARMS really aren't quite analogous.

[X_Digger]

63. Thing is, if 'Thing A' were actually 'Thing B', there'd be no analogy

.. but looking at how education about the subject actually does demystify it, removes the 'taboo', and instills respect is analogous between the two subjects.

C'mon, admit it, he made a point, and you had to whinge, piss, and moan in an attempt to discredit it.

What's next, going to argue the meaning of 'demystify'? (Or 'nefarious' again?)

[iverglas]

64. venomous snake-handling

Kids should be taught at a young age.

Remove the 'taboo', instil respect.

[X_Digger]

70. Actually, I handled snakes at an early age..

.. to keep an irrational fear from forming. (not venomous, though.)

Any other random shit that you'd like to fling at this thread to salve the scored salvo?

[iverglas]

71. "Any other random shit that you'd like to fling at this thread to salve the scored salvo?"

Hey now, who was it who proposed the analogy between teaching kids about sex and teaching kids to handle guns?

I don't think it was moi, but maybe I should check ...

[JonQ]

85. This is a bizarre tangent, even for you

I suppose only someone thoroughly indoctrinated by the radical, anti-gun cult could see something offensive about education. Many cults in fact have a dim view of education in general.

There are people willing to help you, but first you must be willing to help yourself.

[iverglas]

88. perhaps if you cut back

on the booze, some of the brain cells would resume functioning.

Abstinence isn't essential. Moderation can work.

[raimius]

91. Really?

Is it neccessary to accuse other posters of being alcoholics to "win" a debate about how analogous sex ed. and firearms education are?

That appears to be an unrelated, personal attack.

Am I missing something?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[raimius]

105. Wow.

Iverglas,
Obviously, we disagree on this issue (and many others within the "guns" area). I realize that there are frequently heated and occasionally uncivil responses, but this is too much. I made an attempt to point out that you were making personal attacks against other posters, and such attacks were unrelated to the topic of discussion. It was my hope that you would read my message, cease this line of attacks, and return to the discussion. I even included a way to point out an error in my own understanding; in case I misunderstood what I believed to be a personal attack. Instead, you engaged in a personal attack against me, by questioning my ethics. That makes two personal attacks, unrelated to the topic at hand.

I had hoped to have a civil discussion about the topic. There are many ways to approach this topic without resorting to unrelated, personal attacks.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be occuring. I am rather annoyed with the situation and your actions, and have asked the moderators to review the situation.

Respectfully,
raimius

[iverglas]

107. such outrage

The post of mine to which you purport to take such offence said:

I suppose only someone thoroughly indoctrinated by the radical, anti-gun cult could see something offensive about education.

The post is a big pile of shit written by someone pretending to believe that I "see something offensive about education."

The only way someone could genuinely believe that is if they were insane, or really really stupid, or drunk.

Perhaps you think I chose the wrong option.


such attacks were unrelated to the topic of discussion

My dear fellow, lying about what someone else said is the height of personal attack, not to mention the height of "unrelated to the topic of discussion".

And falling onside with the person who did it, by accusing the target of such a lie and such an attack of launching personal attacks, is, well, a personal attack.

Your concern and attentions are needed somewhere. Not here.

[raimius]

111. Then address it as such.

If you feel offended, address the issue in a clear manner.
Were JonQ's comments polite? I don't think they were, but replying that he should stop abusing alcohol isn't the right way to resolve the situation. If you take issue with his post, say so and/or report him. Both of those options would be appropriate, as to the terms of DU discussions. Telling him to lay off the booze...not so much.

I made no lies. You made a personal attack. I pointed that out.

[iverglas]

112. I tell you what

If you're distressed, go tell someone who cares.

Better still, find someone who believes it.

[raimius]

117. More annoyed than distressed

I am annoyed that the discussion was not kept civil and personal attacks were made.
I am annoyed that my posts to try to point this out generated another personal attack as backlash.

I can see how JonQ's post offended you. I hope you can see how your post was an inappropriate response (according to civil standards and DU rules).

If you don't believe I am being honest, I assure you I am posting with sincerity.

Alas, I am posting MORE information irrelevant to the original discussion. I believe I have stated my points, and will cease.

[iverglas]

123. and I care

Not.

I can see how JonQ's post offended you.

Big whup.

Really, before you start lecturing someone about manners in their dealings with someone else, you need to know a little more about those dealings.

The individual in question has been nothing but a thoroughly obnoxious boor in his dealings with me for quite some time. There has just been a fine episode in another thread where he flatly stated that I was lying about my experience as a victim of abduction, sexual assault and what would have been murder but for fortuitous circumstances and quick thinking and action on my part. Yup, I had constructed that whole tale, complete with all the details of the offender's previous offences and the outcomes of the prosecutions, over five years ago (as evidenced from previous posts), and just hauled it around, lying through my teeth repeatedly in the most appalling way. He had to do that, you see, because he had recently spent a deal of time repeating the lie that I had said various things about the offence of rape, and about rape victims, that I never did say.

I hope you can see how your post was an inappropriate response (according to civil standards and DU rules).

I am dreadfully sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not in the habit of seeing what isn't there. My post was one of many appropriate ways of dealing with an individual who has persisted -- even in the chain of posts immediately in question here -- in falsely accusing me of the most bizarre and completely non-credible things, of saying things that only the most ... I can't even begin to describe what one would have to be to say the things he alleged I said that I did not say. It really isn't even humanly possible to say something as profoundly and inconsistently and nonsensically stupid as what he alleged I had said.

You have not stated any points. You have chosen to make pronouncements and give instructions in a situation about which you evidently know nothing and can't be bothered finding out.

[rd_kent]

118. You are wasting your time, my friend

Arguing with iver is akin to slamming your head against a wall: you learn nothing and your head hurts when your finished. Good luck, though.

[JonQ]

97. And yet you advocate abstinence only education

regarding guns.

No moderation there.

Interesting.


When did you first start becoming hostile to the idea of education? That may help us narrow down when your conversion began.

[iverglas]

100. and you keep on saying things that aren't true

Until you confirm that you teach your pre-teen kids about sex, and/or advocate teaching pre-teen kids about sex, by having them engage in sexual activities (under proper adult supervision, of course) ... well, you're just a big old blowhard with nothing rational or decent to say, aren't you?

[JonQ]

102. Not really comparable is it?

The education part is, but saying you shouldn't educate children about guns because then you'd have to also start having sex with them . . . well that's odd even for you.

I suppose if you teach your kids about sex you must also shoot them.

[iverglas]

106. "saying you shouldn't educate children about guns"

Who said that?

Can you quote whoever it was?

I'd like to see the words in context, so I know whether the person needs straightening out.

[JonQ]

110. I'm sure you'll come up with your usual argument

that you should do X, except that when you shouldn't. Except that you never said you should ever do X, nor did you ever say you shouldn't do X, and in fact none of this ever happened. At which point you will either make up a sob-story about yourself, or ridicule someone else with a real sob story.

[rd_kent]

121. Game. Set. Match. Nice job, Jon!

[rd_kent]

120. I see the old "stop saying things that arent true" meme has started.

She is on a roll now. Keep up the good fight!

[iverglas]

124. if you're pretending to have put me on ignore

we both know that isn't true. And if you do put me on ignore, any and all posts that you write that refer to me will be deleted. I promise you.

So carry on making yourself look ridiculous if you like.

[rd_kent]

127. Not pretending anything here

There is NO WAY I will put you on ignore, you are TOO entertaining. I actually look forward to what you will post next! Like I said before, its like watching a car wreck, horrifying but unable to look away.

[rd_kent]

119. OOH, very nice! Excellent use of her own technique.

Well played, JonQ, well played.

[JonQ]

84. Actually the way you think of guns

reminds me of how the fundies view sex.

Pretty much evil, and if you must do it only behind closed doors, and don't talk about it afterwards (and wash your hands). Various, exotic kinds, should be banned and it should be limited (if tolerated at all) to the seemingly most harmless versions.

[iverglas]

89. Actually, the way you think

.... uh ... hmm ... no ... sorry, that doesn't make sense, no matter what I try.
Just no way to say that in a sentence.

[JonQ]

98. Well that was certainly

lame.

[Endangered Specie]

33. CorneredCat (a mother w/CCW) has a good section on kids and guns:

http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx#Kids

Interesting points:
- NOTHING is 'childproof'
- The best way to store a loaded gun away from your kids in on your person (you always know where it is that way)
- De-mystification is key, kids will gravitate towards things that they suspect they aren't supposed to know about or be doing.
- something I never thought of: don't let your kids put their hands in their mouth while at the range, thats potential lead exposure.

[iverglas]

39. and of course corneredcat

also has that charming item from the charming Mrs of Kim Du Toit.

Yes, a website prominently featuring screeds from the Mrs of one of the ugliest right-wing racists on the planet. It's my favourite place for news and views.

[claven]

37. My dad taught me to shoot when I was five or six

I remember going out in Tacoma, Washington to fire his little .22 pistol. Heavily enforced supervision. We (brother and I) were shown how to shoot, care for weapons, and store them. We knew where they were stored, but didn't have permission or access.

With a 3 year old myself, my wife and I have our firearms secured. Shotguns are placed on high shelves in masterbedroom closet, ammunition in the safe. Pistol is kept in a specific gun safe that is thumb code locked. When our boy is a little older, I'll start teaching him the same way my dad taught me.

[kimjamey69]

41. My Kids

My children have been shooting since they were 5 and 6 years old. I have taught them how to handle and respect firearms time and time again. I have complete trust in my children to do the right thing, but that has come only from teaching them and showing them how firearms operate and the damage they can do. They have also have had two great police officers in there life that talk to them about different situations (they're great friends of ours). So my stand is if you have a gun in your house make your children respect them and show them all you can about them. TEACH and EDUCATE thats all you can do. I would rather teach my children if they run across a gun NOT to touch it, without adult supervision, instead of getting a phone call telling me my child shot someone or himself.

[iverglas]

44. huh

I would rather teach my children if they run across a gun NOT to touch it, without adult supervision, instead of getting a phone call telling me my child shot someone or himself.

I guess most people are too dumb to figure that one out.

And I guess nobody who doesn't start training their kids up in gun life when they're FIVE FUCKING YEARS OLD couldn't figure that out.

[Raskolnik]

59. A shiny nickel to whoever can parse this sentence for me:

And I guess nobody who doesn't start training their kids up in gun life when they're FIVE FUCKING YEARS OLD couldn't figure that out.

Go!

[rd_kent]

122. Its not worth a nickel to have to deal with the ramifications

and obfuscations that will likely follow. If it was posted by anyone else........

[iverglas]

125. If it was posted by anyone else........

........ it would be evidence of another intelligent life form in this place. Sadly, there's only me.

[rd_kent]

128. You are right about the lack of intelligence in your post, on that we agree.

[kimjamey69]

65. HUH...

I live in a area where everyone hunts or owns a gun for protection. I personally feel that if i teach my children not to touch a gun they are safer than someone who has never been taught. I do not have to agree with everyone about the way their children are raised, everyone has the RIGHT to raise their children the way they see fit.
The profanity is not necessary to get your point across. My gun SAVED my life and the lives of my children being born because without it they would have never been here. So say what you will but EVERYONE!!!! has the right to their own opinion that is what makes this country GREAT!

[iverglas]

68. Eh???

I personally feel that if i teach my children not to touch a gun they are safer than someone who has never been taught.

Funny. I don't recall disagreeing wtih that. I recall saying something that indicated I thought it was rather self-evident.

It just doesn't seem quite consistent with what else you said, though:

My children have been shooting since they were 5 and 6 years old. I have taught them how to handle and respect firearms time and time again.

Teach them how to handle firearms ... tell them not to touch a gun. My head is starting to hurt.

I do not have to agree with everyone about the way their children are raised, everyone has the RIGHT to raise their children the way they see fit.

Perhaps not altogether the whole truth, hm? If, for instance, someone allowed their child to handle firearms unsupervised at the age of 5, I think a social services agency might quite legitimately have something to say about it. It's always a matter of where the line gets drawn.

And everyone else has the right to express opinions in public. And neither of those things actually needs to be said, I would have thought.

My opinion is that five-year-olds and firearms do not mix, and that anyone who does mix them is a fool and less than a perfect parent. And I have the right to express it.

The profanity is not necessary to get your point across.

"Necessary"?? Surely I don't have to justify my exercise of my right of free speech to you.

You don't think it's necessary. Maybe I do. Maybe I just think it's fun. Maybe I'm not interested in your comment on it. Yeah, that's it.

My gun SAVED my life and the lives of my children being born because without it they would have never been here.

Well, I guess we'll never know. Because NOBODY KNOWS what would have happened if something else hadn't happened.

So say what you will but EVERYONE!!!! has the right to their own opinion that is what makes this country GREAT!

Isn't that special. So I guess you won't be having any problems with anybody else doing the same.

[kimjamey69]

69. HUH...

Teach them to handle a gun but not touch them that makes your head hurt.


Under my supervision YES alone NO!!! they see a gun they do not touch it and NEVER to touch someone else's gun.


as far as the gun saved my life I know and I know i am the only person who matters in that matter. I know what happened and how scared I was but
of my gun I was not raped like he said he was going to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~


OPINIONS
You make me think like everyone else, thats what's GREAT about free speech
Keep it coming I like to think about things.

[BrightKnight]

46. Both and they will probably have a more mature

attitude towards guns when they grow up.

I doubt that many of the people that commit gun crimes had a parent teach them to safely handle a gun. A little supervised exposure is a good thing.

[iverglas]

52. yes, that's the ticket

I doubt that many of the people that commit gun crimes had a parent teach them to safely handle a gun.

If only they'd got to play with guns when they were five, they wouldn't be out holding up liquor stores and dealing drugs.

Or wasn't that what you meant? If not, what was your point?

[raimius]

60. Hmm...

I'd taken the post more along the lines of "people would be safer in their handling of firearms if they know the 4 basics rules of firearm safety and understand how a firearm works."

Frankly, I'm glad my parents did not have firearms in the house when I was young, since they never taught me how to safely handle a firearm. I had to wait until I was in the boy scouts before I even heard "keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire."

Everyone should learn the 4 Rules of firearm safety. Even if they do not intend to ever fire one, it is good to know how to safely pick up a firearm and if those around them are acting dangerously.

[iverglas]

67. did you

The poster said:

I doubt that many of the people that commit gun crimes had a parent teach them to safely handle a gun. A little supervised exposure is a good thing.

and you say:

I'd taken the post more along the lines of "people would be safer in their handling of firearms if they know the 4 basics rules of firearm safety and understand how a firearm works."

It's at times like this that I wish I had the special spectacles.

In this case, you seem to have entirely missed the bit of the post talking about people who commit gun crimes never having had a parent teach them to safely handle a gun. Maybe it's you needs spectacles.

Or perhaps you think that people who commit gun crimes really would have benefited from knowing the 4 basic rules of gun safety. Kinda like how people who drive drunk would benefit from being taught, oh, never to drive when you're drunk. Shame nobody does that.


I had to wait until I was in the boy scouts before I even heard "keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire."

I had to wait until I wandered into this Guns forum. Because - and I know you'll find this hard to believe - it is something I have never in my life needed to know. I kind of think I would have figured it out for myself had I, as an adult, needed to know. As a non-adult, I very definitely did not need to know. I don't know why you might think you did.


Frankly, I'm glad my parents did not have firearms in the house when I was young, since they never taught me how to safely handle a firearm.

Why would parents who chose not to expose their children to firearms in their home teach their child how to handle a firearm?

:wtf:


Even if they do not intend to ever fire one, it is good to know how to safely pick up a firearm and if those around them are acting dangerously.

If anyone around me is acting in any way at all with a firearm ... well, they won't be, because I won't be there. And I would not want a kid of mine there either. And if said kid was there when someone was acting in some way with a firearm, said kid would be under instructions to leave - not to hang around and critique the way it was being done.

[raimius]

90. yes and no

In this case, you seem to have entirely missed the bit of the post talking about people who commit gun crimes never having had a parent teach them to safely handle a gun.
Point taken.
I do wear glasses, fyi. ;)

Why would parents who chose not to expose their children to firearms in their home teach their child how to handle a firearm?
Simple, I had an interest in them, and multiple households that I regularly visited had firearms.

I won't be there. And I would not want a kid of mine there either.
That is completely up to you and them. I'd just like to point out that target shooting is an enjoyable hobby, and telling your children to avoid it will prevent them from taking part in said hobby...but that's your choice.

[iverglas]

93. See? Is it that you can't, or you won't?

You purport to quote and reply to me:

me: I won't be there. And I would not want a kid of mine there either.
you: That is completely up to you and them. I'd just like to point out that target shooting is an enjoyable hobby, and telling your children to avoid it will prevent them from taking part in said hobby...but that's your choice.


But here's how it REALLY AND HONESTLY AND TRULY went.

you: Even if they do not intend to ever fire one, it is good to know how to safely pick up a firearm and if those around them are acting dangerously.
If anyone around me is acting in any way at all with a firearm ... well, they won't be, because I won't be there. And I would not want a kid of mine there either.

I wasn't talking about being at a shooting range -- because I'm not at a shooting range, and never have been. So how could I be talking about people around me TARGET SHOOTING?

And very obviously, when I said "I would not want a kid of mine there either", I was talking about a kid being somewhere I was not. Because if I was there, the kid wouldn't need to know anything about "how to safely pick up a gun", would it now?

You knew fucking well what I was talking about, and you chose to pretend I said something I didn't.

That's not called honesty. And people who do it aren't called ethical.

Btw, it is not at all good for a child to "know how to safely pick up a gun", "even if they do not intend to ever fire one", because that necessarily involves A CHILD PICKING UP A GUN, for no reason whatsoever. Fucking duh.


So when I see a post of yours now, I know what to expect.

And what that ain't is honesty and integrit.

[raimius]

108. I cannot predict all situations.

In some cases, it would be wise to physically move (or remove) a firearm. Without proper information on how to safely do so, people could put themselves in danger. I've been in several situations where I have asked someone to give me a firearm so that I could safely clear it and put in in a case (because I did not have confidence they could do so without breaking the 4 basic rules of firearm safety).

Frankly, I cannot predict what situations a child will face involving firearms (especially at other's homes). Fortunately, before I knew basic firearms safety, my friend (who had learned) prevented me from handling firearms in a dangerous manner.

How is this knowledge detrimental?

Not all target shooting occurs at formal shooting ranges.

[tortoise1956]

131. Gee, conselor

I find it ironic that you blather on about the lack of honesty in other posts. You rarely answer qestions head-on, preferring instead to redirect said qestions into blind alleys. I assume that you had little or no formal training in debate.

BTW, do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own and keep firearms in their home? I don't recall seeing you respond to that query...

[iverglas]

132. who the fuck are you and why are you calling me "conselor"?

My username is attached to my post. Can't read?

Can't spell, I expect.

And been reading too much of my press on the net. You don't want to believe it, unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. You're finding it at places that NewsMax wouldn't touch with a bargepole.


I assume that you had little or no formal training in debate.

:rofl:

Well, I did win all the grade 2 spelling bees, honey.


BTW, do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to own and keep firearms in their home? I don't recall seeing you respond to that query...

I'm curious about your sex life. Do you have one? Or do you find it difficult to find willing partners? Is that because you're kinda smelly and illiterate? I don't recall seeing you respond to these queries.

[tortoise1956]

133. Dear Iverglas

I was trying to refer to you as "Counselor", but my "u" key is acting up. I did this becase I thought I had read that you practiced law at one time. If this was incorrect, I apologize for the mischaracterization.

Now, as to your reply. I find it fascinating that you can navigate away from the topic at hand so quickly. However, you are being kinda repetitious. I mean, really: can't you do better than repeating the same old ad hominem and distraction fallacies once again? I have seen you, on occasion, actually engage in spirited debate, and it was rather refreshing.

As far as your questions: I am afraid that I will have to pass on answering them out of respect for those in this forum who couldn't care less about your obsession with my sex life. I appreciate your interest, though. If my wife ever decides to kick me to the curb, I will be happy to come visit you. Hey, maybe we could go out on a target shooting date...as long as you promise not to use me as the target!

[spin]

74. Self delete. Reply to wrong post. (n/t)

[kimjamey69]

66. Thanks GREAT POST!

Thanks a lot!! I agree with you completely!

[marybourg]

61. It would be best if guns were safe, legal and rare. IMO of course. nt.

[spin]

94. Back in the late fifties and sixties when I was growing up...

guns were legal and fairly rare. They were not as safe as firearms manufactured today.

I saw few handguns at that time. Some people owned rifles or shotguns for hunting. Few, and none that I can remember, owned firearms for self defense.

Of course, drugs were not as common back then.

[spin]

75. A very important lesson for children...

is to show them what happens when you shoot a weapon at a target. They tend to remember the lesson.

One such example is this video of a .357 mag vs a water melon. (Much more impressive in real life.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HggwFlu4n8w

[Xenotime]

95. Keep them away.

Violence only creates more violence.

[Euromutt]

99. If only it did

I can cite no end of historical examples in which aggressors were stopped only by judicious application of violence in response. The belief that violence will be met by violence is the most effective deterrent to bullies of all stripes, from an individual level all the way up to an international level. I hate to sound like a right-wing reactionary, but experience has taught me that there are indeed some people who can only be brought to reason by violence.

What generally completely fails to stop bullies is attempting to appeal to bullies' better nature. There's room for that after they've been stopped from victimizing others, but not before.

Besides, there are other applications for firearms than against other humans, you know.

Edited to add: There's something to be said, in a society in which private firearms ownership is fairly prevalent, like the United States, for teaching your kids--or having someone tech them for you--how to safely deal with firearms in the not unthinkable event that they encounter one. "Safely deal" can range from the Eddie Eagle "Stop - don't touch - leave the area - tell an adult" approach for younger kids, to teaching older ones to clear and safe a firearm, and possibly shoot some cans of soda or a watermelon at the range so they can see for themselves what bullets can do. Nothing promotes a safe approach to firearms better than a tangible demonstration of what a bullet will do to you, or somebody else, if handled in an unsafe manner.

[Indy Lurker]

126. Here the cub scouts teach / use BB guns and archery

Boys can join cub scouts at age 6.

Firearms / range safety is taught with bb guns.

I think this is a good way to learn the basics.

[spin]

129. BB guns or pellet guns are excellent for teaching children firearm safety...

under adult supervision.

The more expensive pellet rifles and pistols are capable of amazing accuracy.

With an Olympic-grade 10-meter rifle like the Walther Alutek or a target air pistol like the Aeron B98, five-shot groups measuring only a few HUNDREDTHS of an inch in width are possible. That's at 10 meters, which is about 33 feet. With a sporting rifle such as the Webley Longbow, a group size of one-tenth of an inch is possible, if the shooter uses the correct technique. Use a sloppy technique and you can easily see a half-inch group from the same gun at the same distance. Some of the top sporting rifles like the BSA Super 10 MK II will give even smaller groups at this distance, rivaling the target guns.
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/articles/accuracy/