Happy Independence Day

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
GravelRider said:
I wonder if the parents of those 6 year olds thought it was absurd that Nancy Lanza taught her son how to use an assault rifle?

In a debate about guns and gun safety, ignoring incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting is illogical and inappropriate. In other words, absurd.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's absurd that Ted Bundy's mother taught him how to use a knife?

Or that Nadal Hassan's parents took him to a mosque as a child?

I can go on and on with the histories of crazy people, and it's absurd that you're essentially indicting millions of people who carry out law-abiding activities that have no correlation with violent activities.

Stop using Sandy Hook as a crutch for politics. That kid had Asperger's and likely schizophrenia before the incident. Maybe we should look at more than the use of an inanimate object here based on your feels, dontcha think?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Random Resident said:
Do you think it's absurd that Ted Bundy's mother taught him how to use a knife?

Or that Nadal Hassan's parents took him to a mosque as a child?

I can go on and on with the histories of crazy people, and it's absurd that you're essentially indicting millions of people who carry out law-abiding activities that have no correlation with violent activities.

Stop using Sandy Hook as a crutch for politics. That kid had Asperger's and likely schizophrenia before the incident. Maybe we should look at more than the use of an inanimate object here based on your feels, dontcha think?
Click to expand...

It's a debate about guns and gun safety. Sandy Hook happened...as did countless other similar incidents. Ignoring that is irresponsible when debating gun safety. I have not revealed my actual opinion on gun control, but I do think these incidents need to be taken into consideration.

By your argument, all people with Aspergers and schizophrenia cause horrific violence? I don't understand your post. At the beginning you say you can't jump to conclusions based on what a parent does while raising a child. However, at the end of your post you jump to a conclusion stating that Aspergers and schizophrenia was the reason for the Sandy Hook shooting. You can't contradict yourself like that.
 
GravelRider said:
It's a debate about guns and gun safety. Sandy Hook happened...as did countless other similar incidents. Ignoring that is irresponsible when debating gun safety. I have not revealed my actual opinion on gun control, but I do think these incidents need to be taken into consideration.

By your argument, all people with Aspergers and schizophrenia cause horrific violence? I don't understand your post. At the beginning you say you can't jump to conclusions based on what a parent does while raising a child. However, at the end of your post you jump to a conclusion stating that Aspergers and schizophrenia was the reason for the Sandy Hook shooting. You can't contradict yourself like that.
Click to expand...

You're joking. You must be, because I find it hard to believe you can't distinguish gun safety education from an intrinsic mental illness and mental disability that would skew one's thought process. The gun safety or use of the weapon was not the catalyst for sandy hook. You're arguing capability, which is moot when simple box cutters can kill several thousands of people.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If I've taken anything away from this thread, it's that I'm glad I'm not FFP's kid. Woulda been a boring childhood. :D
 
Random Resident said:
You're joking. You must be, because I find it hard to believe you can't distinguish gun safety education from an intrinsic mental illness and mental disability that would skew one's thought process. The gun safety or use of the weapon was not the catalyst for sandy hook. You're arguing capability, which is moot when simple box cutters can kill several thousands of people.
Click to expand...

A box cutter was not used at Sandy Hook, an assault rifle was. Bombs aren't intrinsically bad, should we all own bombs? Small Pox isn't intrinsically bad, should we all have access to vials of small pox? The constitution says the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say which kind of arms. I want a nuclear warhead on my front lawn...it's my right (you brought the weapon argument down in scale, so I purposely brought it up in scale).

Again, no one is trying to separate you from your precious gun. This is a debate about gun safety and training children how to use guns. Sandy Hook happened. As awful as it was, you cannot forget it and it most certainly needs to be brought up when talking about gun safety. One nut job puts a bomb in his shoe and now every time I get on a plane, I have to take my shoes off. One nut job murders a classroom full of 6 year olds and the NRA has everyone convinced that it was an isolated incident and we shouldn't let it skew our judgment of gun safety.

Also, please reread my posts. I never once said guns are intrinsically bad. I also never said guns are the sole reason for these mass shootings. Like most things, it is likely multifactorial. Access to guns is certainly one of the factors...with mental illness and the role of the media being others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
GravelRider said:
A box cutter was not used at Sandy Hook, an assault rifle was. Bombs aren't intrinsically bad, should we all own bombs? Small Pox isn't intrinsically bad, should we all have access to vials of small pox? The constitution says the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say which kind of arms. I want a nuclear warhead on my front lawn...it's my right (you brought the weapon argument down in scale, so I purposely brought it up in scale).

Again, no one is trying to separate you from your precious gun. This is a debate about gun safety and training children how to use guns. Sandy Hook happened. As awful as it was, you cannot forget it and it most certainly needs to be brought up when talking about gun safety. One nut job puts a bomb in his shoe and now every time I get on a plane, I have to take my shoes off. One nut job murders a classroom full of 6 year olds and the NRA has everyone convinced that it was an isolated incident and we shouldn't let it skew our judgment of gun safety.

Also, please reread my posts. I never once said guns are intrinsically bad. I also never said guns are the sole reason for these mass shootings. Like most things, it is likely multifactorial. Access to guns is certainly one of the factors...with mental illness and the role of the media being others.
Click to expand...

We do own bombs from time to time. At least I buy them legally in my state every 4th of July. If you want a nuclear warhead, have at it. But just because it's a weapon doesn't mean it's the same as arming yourself for protection. I think you know this and are just using it for hyperbole purpose.

You are projecting your feels about guns and sandy hook on the parenting of members here. I never argued about you or anyone else "taking my precious gun away." That was never part of the conversation here, until just now when you posted.

I'm willing to bet in 20 years, the gun owners here who have educated their kids on gun safety won't have children who are mass murderers. Want to know why?
 
Twiggidy said:
3562119-young-man-pointing-up-and-looking-upwards-on-white-background.jpg
Click to expand...

Weak sauce.
Not even mild.
 
pgg said:
I'm confident that it's how my kids work, but it's really a moot point since they don't have access to my guns. Should they ever find one at a McDonalds or a friend's house, I'd rather they have the benefit of instruction, familiarity, and respect than nothing at all.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
I only know of one friend of mine growing up who's dad had a gun, although I'm sure lots of others did and we didn't know. His dad took him shooting and showed him safety. And as soon as we had a chance, we found it in his room and took it out and pointed it at things. I was honestly terrified handling it, but it was a rush. I don't know if it was loaded or had a safety on or anything, all I know is it was a pistol. My friend definitely didn't impart any wisdom on me and he pointed it all around too. We were in the 8-10 range I think.

I'm not saying your kids are as dumb as we were. We were no geniuses, for sure.

pgg said:
Or are you really suggesting that absolute faith in kids' decision making ability is a prerequisite for teaching them something?
Click to expand...
We're not just talking about "something", we're talking about an easily handled instrument meant to kill. In my opinion a young kid's only impression of guns should be that they're terribly dangerous and NOT meant for "fun".
 
How have we made it this far into the thread without someone posting this?
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Fair enough.
I only know of one friend of mine growing up who's dad had a gun, although I'm sure lots of others did and we didn't know. His dad took him shooting and showed him safety. And as soon as we had a chance, we found it in his room and took it out and pointed it at things. I was honestly terrified handling it, but it was a rush. I don't know if it was loaded or had a safety on or anything, all I know is it was a pistol. My friend definitely didn't impart any wisdom on me and he pointed it all around too. We were in the 8-10 range I think.

I'm not saying your kids are as dumb as we were. We were no geniuses, for sure.
Click to expand...

The problem there wasn't how smart or dumb you and your friends were at age 8. It's where the gun was stored.

Your friend's dad apparently left his pistol under his pillow. Mine are in a TL-30 safe. Even if my kids had gone looking for my guns, they would've needed a plasma torch to get their hands on it.

Your friend's dad wasn't a lousy parent because he tried to teach his kid gun safety or because they enjoyed some time at the range together. He was a lousy parent because he left a gun laying around where an 8 year old could get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
SaltyDog said:
If I've taken anything away from this thread, it's that I'm glad I'm not FFP's kid. Woulda been a boring childhood. :D
Click to expand...
Dude, as I said, parents should be parents, not (just) their kids friends. Also, parents should be punished for the harm their kids inflict because of bad parenting: bullying, assault, shooting, driving under influence etc. One doesn't just make kids; one is supposed to raise them, and that takes time, and effort, and sacrifices, and it shouldn't be always fun. Why do we expect dogs to be house-trained, vaccinated, castrated, muzzled etc. but we are so liberal about how people raise their kids? Kids do more harm than dogs.

I am sorry you disagree, but this is the cost of civilized society. One doesn't just let one's child do whatever s/he wants, grow up like a weed, just because it wouldn't be "fun" otherwise.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Dude, there's a huge difference between growing up like a weed and growing up being taught safety and discipline. Freerange parents are not usually the ones working hard with their children to instill ideas of safety and responsible use.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile
 
psychbender said:
Dude, there's a huge difference between growing up like a weed and growing up being taught safety and discipline. Freerange parents are not usually the ones working hard with their children to instill ideas of safety and responsible use.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile
Click to expand...
Sorry, but safety and responsibility don't really go together with shooting rifles at the age of six, IMO. It's wishful thinking, lack of child psychology knowledge.

I was a very good kid, I had great parents and grandparents, and still I did a ton of stupid things in my childhood. Teaching a kid how to shoot is like teaching a kid how to drive; it's enabling. They don't belong behind a gun the same way they don't belong behind the wheel, supervised or not. They simply lack the responsibility and maturity for either. While it makes for a lot of fun and nice childhood memories, it's still enabling.

Expecting minors to think and behave like adults is as preposterous as charging them in criminal courts for adults.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
Sorry, but safety and responsibility don't really go together with shooting rifles at the age of six, IMO. It's wishful thinking, lack of child psychology knowledge.

I was a very good kid, I had great parents and grandparents, and still I did a ton of stupid things in my childhood. Teaching a kid how to shoot is like teaching a kid how to drive; it's enabling.
Click to expand...
This argument proves too much. Just as it's true many kids are immature and irresponsible, it's likewise true many adults are immature and irresponsible. Just as it's true many kids do stupid things, it's likewise true many adults do stupid things. If it's true we should restrict or ban guns based on immaturity, irresponsibility, or the tendency to do stupid things, then we should restrict or ban guns in general. And why stop at guns? This could be applied to other things as well.

We shouldn't specify an age at which it's appropriate or inappropriate for a child to use a gun (e.g. age six). That depends on the child. Some kids are very mature and responsible, more so than even some adults, whereas some kids obviously are not. That's up to mature and responsible parents to decide. Good parents are the ones who best know their kids. Good parents can decide if and when their child is mature and responsible enough to be taught how to use a gun - or not.

And we shouldn't punish the majority of law-abiding, mature, and responsible gun owners for the sins of the minority, so to speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pgg said:
The problem there wasn't how smart or dumb you and your friends were at age 8. It's where the gun was stored.

Your friend's dad apparently left his pistol under his pillow. Mine are in a TL-30 safe. Even if my kids had gone looking for my guns, they would've needed a plasma torch to get their hands on it.

Your friend's dad wasn't a lousy parent because he tried to teach his kid gun safety or because they enjoyed some time at the range together. He was a lousy parent because he left a gun laying around where an 8 year old could get it.
Click to expand...
It was under his bed. In a shoe box or something. He was otherwise a good dad I think, other than he cursed like a sailor even around kids. That was a different time, though. And I remember being appalled even as a little kid that he was a vocal Mondale supporter. My parents were both liberals and even they succomed to the 80s cult of Reagan infallibility.
Big tangents. Sorry.
 
scutdoc said:
And we shouldn't punish the majority of law-abiding, mature, and responsible gun owners for the sins of the minority, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. We also shouldn't cancel surgeries for a meager 5-10-20% risk of severe events either. I mean, that's a really small minority. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
Absolutely. We also shouldn't cancel surgeries for a meager 5-10-20% risk of severe events either. I mean, that's a really small minority. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To that point, what % of gun owners have committed a crime with a gun?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
 
pjl said:
To that point, what % of gun owners have committed a crime with a gun?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
Click to expand...
I wasn't pleading against gun ownership. I was pleading for keeping guns away from kids.

To answer your question, it would be much more pertinent to ask: does gun ownership increase the chance of committing a violent or gun-related crime, and by what percentage?

And here's the answer: every 1% increase in gun ownership increases firearm homicide rate by 1.1%, and total homicide rate by 0.7%.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
Absolutely. We also shouldn't cancel surgeries for a meager 5-10-20% risk of severe events either. I mean, that's a really small minority. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's an argument from analogy minus the argument. You assert but don't argue how keeping guns away from kids and canceling surgeries due to risks are relevantly analogous to one another.

Also, you don't interact with the other points in my comment, which would be relevant to consider.
 
scutdoc said:
Sorry, that's an argument from analogy minus the argument. You assert but don't argue how keeping guns away from kids and canceling surgeries due to risks are relevantly analogous to one another.
Click to expand...
I am just saying that we refuse minimal risk in other areas (and maybe I didn't use the best analogy, maybe I should have mentioned canceling surgeries for sugar of 300 or for chewing gum), but God forbid we talk about risk when about guns and other favorite American pastimes (e.g. box, football).

The simple fact that every percent of gun ownership increases violent crimes by 1% should be enough. That's a lot of human lives.
 
FFP said:
And here's the answer: every 1% increase in gun ownership increases firearm homicide rate by 1.1%, and total homicide rate by 0.7%.
Click to expand...
Did FFP of all people just confuse correlation and causation? :)

Just because guns are involved doesn't mean we can quit being scientists.
 
pgg said:
Did FFP of all people just confuse correlation and causation? :)

Just because guns are involved doesn't mean we can quit being scientists.
Click to expand...
Sure. Firearm-related homicide and firearm ownership are simply just correlated; nothing else in common there to even suspect causation.

It's like saying that car numbers and car accident numbers have no cause-effect relationship. It's so common sense... one shouldn't even need a study to "prove" it.

And even if we err on the side of correlation, what does that say? That gun owners may become more violent when they own more guns per criminal, or when they have more people owning guns around. Both of which tend to contradict the favorite tenet of NRA, that more guns mean more security (if only there was a good guy with a gun there blah-blah).

P.S. Natural born naysayer here. The more you contradict my common sense, the more I have to get informed, and the more you'll convince me of something I did not really care about initially (i.e. you are making a progressive out of a libertarian). :D

I am going to take a break here. I just hate to argue with friends about politics. Have a nice weekend at the shooting range. I apologize if I pissed off anybody on Independence Day, including @periopdoc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FFP said:
I am just saying that we refuse minimal risk in other areas (and maybe I didn't use the best analogy, maybe I should have mentioned canceling surgeries for sugar of 300 or for chewing gum), but God forbid we talk about risk when about guns and other favorite American pastimes (e.g. box, football).

The simple fact that every percent of gun ownership increases violent crimes by 1% should be enough. That's a lot of human lives.
Click to expand...
I have no problem talking about risks when it comes to guns. However, for starters, as I said above there's a distinction between mature and responsible kids and their parents vs. immature and irresponsible kids and their parents. Not all kids (or adults) are alike. Presumably a mature and responsible kid is in general at less risk than an immature and irresponsible kid when it comes to handling firearms (among other activities). Things like maturity and responsibility should also be factored into the "risk" equation.

Also, again as I said above, good parents who know their kids well would take into consideration their kid's level of maturity and responsibility. Being a wise and good parent with mature and responsible children under healthy supervision when learning to use a firearm is consistent with gun ownership.

"Every percent of gun ownership increases violent crimes by 1%" is a vague statistic. For example, does it take into consideration mature and responsible vs. immature and irresponsible gun owners? Is such a thing quantifiable?
 
scutdoc said:
I have no problem talking about risks when it comes to guns. However, for starters, as I said above there's a distinction between mature and responsible kids and their parents vs. immature and irresponsible kids and their parents. Not all kids (or adults) are alike. Presumably a mature and responsible kid is in general at less risk than an immature and irresponsible kid when it comes to handling firearms (among other activities). Things like maturity and responsibility should also be factored into the "risk" equation.

Also, again as I said above, good parents who know their kids well would take into consideration their kid's level of maturity and responsibility. Being a wise and good parent with mature and responsible children under healthy supervision when learning to use a firearm is consistent with gun ownership.

"Every percent of gun ownership increases violent crimes by 1%" is a vague statistic. For example, does it take into consideration mature and responsible vs. immature and irresponsible gun owners? Is such a thing quantifiable?
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I was as mature and responsible as a kid could probably be. Still I did enough stupid things, especially when in a group. Small stuff, with no real consequences, yet definitely more risky stuff than as an adult. Kids are not to be trusted tempted, period.

Regarding the impact of gun ownership on crime, I tend to believe that fewer firearms equal fewer firearm-related crimes. That's common sense. Do they also equal fewer (or more) violent crimes in general? I have no idea (but this thread has woken up my curiosity).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, kids do stupid things, which is why firearms and other dangerous things should be locked up when not used. The idea is to teach discipline and safety in a fully supervised setting, then keep the weapons locked up. With familiarity, respect, and a bit of fear, firearms are less likely to be seen as a toy or something cool to play around with with your friends. If you're going to keep weapons in the home, it actually behooves you to familiarize your children with them, to decrease the chance of misuse. My father was also military, and kept firearms in the house, but securely locked away and hidden, and taught me proper respect for his weapons, and the dangers they can pose.

TLDR: Familiarity and proper handling/storage decreases risk

I get that this seems weird to you, FFP, as you've stated previously that you did not grow up around firearms, and don't really know much about them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pgg said:
Did FFP of all people just confuse correlation and causation? :)

Just because guns are involved doesn't mean we can quit being scientists.
Click to expand...

It's against the law to study gun violence scientifically. Congress has not allowed the CDC to study any relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. Everything we know about gun safety comes from the NRA. That's like the pharmaceutical companies approving their own drugs without oversight.
 
The NRA is a powerful political lobby. Like any other powerful political lobby (think about the AANA), they use propaganda and payouts to politicians to push an agenda. (That was a sweet alliteration).
 
GravelRider said:
The NRA is a powerful political lobby. Like any other powerful political lobby (think about the AANA), they use propaganda and payouts to politicians to push an agenda.

Yeah, that's why CRNAs give money to the AANA, and it's why I give money to the NRA. Money is the only voice that gets heard.

GravelRider said:
(That was a sweet alliteration).
Click to expand...

It was.
Click to expand...
 
pgg said:
Yeah, that's why CRNAs give money to the AANA, and it's why I give money to the NRA. Money is the only voice that gets heard.
Click to expand...

My problem with it is that because of it, we do not get any unbiased information about the possible role gun availability and gun safety have in gun violence. All we get is anecdotes and a lot of emotion. There is a complete lack of objective evidence...on both sides...that would allow us to make a truly informed decision and come up with legitimate solutions. Instead we are in this cycle of mass shootings, nonstop media coverage, and a lot of yelling on both sides of the issue.
 
FFP said:
Respectfully, I was as mature and responsible as a kid could probably be. Still I did enough stupid things, especially when in a group. Small stuff, with no real consequences, yet definitely more risky stuff than as an adult. Kids are not to be trusted tempted, period.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and I appreciate your reply. It's helpful to see different perspectives.

As far as your point about you being mature and responsible as a kid, I'm glad to hear it. However, as I'm sure you know, it's a faulty generalization to argue from some instances of a phenomenon (yourself) to therefore the phenomenon being true in many if not most instances (many or most other kids). In other words, "I was a mature and responsible kid but I still did stupid things as a kid, therefore other mature and responsible kids will do stupid things too" is not necessarily true. The latter does not necessarily follow from the former.

Also, even if it is true many or most mature and responsible kids will do stupid things, kids doing stupid things doesn't necessarily mean kids will do stupid things when handling firearms. For example, it's possible kids who stupid things in one situation will not do stupid things given a different situation. Imagine a generally mature and responsible kid who sometimes doesn't keep quiet at home but runs his or her mouth at inappropriate times. However, if the kid realizes he or she is in a library, then he or she could very well keep quiet, because he or she realizes the import of silence in the context of a library. Similarly, a generally mature and responsible kid who sometimes does stupid things when not around guns could behave extra cautious and careful and so forth when around a gun because the kid has been taught to realize the seriousness of handling a gun.

And we can't leave good parents out of the equation. In other words, even if it is true that many or most mature and responsible kids will do stupid things, they would be under the supervision of a good parent who has knowledge and experience in handling guns. Imagine a good father teaching his son how to appropriately handle a gun. A good father could serve as a protective factor against the son doing something stupid with a gun even if it's true the son might do stupid things at other times.
Regarding the impact of gun ownership on crime, I tend to believe that fewer firearms equal fewer firearm-related crimes. That's common sense.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that's true, but it's true by definition, which isn't a meaningful metric. It's like saying if no one had bows and arrows, then there would be no bow and arrow related crimes. Obviously that's true, but it's trivially true. It doesn't address the real issue which is why certain crimes occur (e.g. violent crimes as you point out) and if fewer firearms would necessarily mean fewer violent crimes (e.g. murders, rapes).
Do they also equal fewer (or more) violent crimes in general? I have no idea (but this thread has woken up my curiosity).
Click to expand...
At least according to this FBI table, murder has decreased by almost half from 1993 to 2012 despite "nearly twice as many guns in the average gun-owning household today as there were 20 years ago" according to this Washington Post article.
 
pgg said:
The problem there wasn't how smart or dumb you and your friends were at age 8. It's where the gun was stored.

Your friend's dad apparently left his pistol under his pillow. Mine are in a TL-30 safe. Even if my kids had gone looking for my guns, they would've needed a plasma torch to get their hands on it.

Your friend's dad wasn't a lousy parent because he tried to teach his kid gun safety or because they enjoyed some time at the range together. He was a lousy parent because he left a gun laying around where an 8 year old could get it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying to be a responsible gun-owning parent you need a safe that costs thousands of dollars? Safe manufacturers must be in bed with all the racist, classist politicians who wants to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and the poors
 
vector2 said:
Are you saying to be a responsible gun-owning parent you need a safe that costs thousands of dollars? Safe manufacturers must be in bed with all the racist, classist politicians who wants to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and the poors
Click to expand...
Of course not :)

My TL-30 is a used McDonalds cash safe. Ugly but certainly not $1000s.

A safe isnt even necessary. Trigger or action locks are cheap and meet even California's requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

DrAmir0078
Happy Thanksgiving Day
Replies
2
Views
516
DrAmir0078
DrAmir0078
P
Doctor’s Day, do you know the history?
Replies
2
Views
647
woopedazz
woopedazz
U
Happy Physician Anesthesiologists Week!
Replies
19
Views
2K
Anesthesia_Guy
A
J
Happy new year!
Replies
1
Views
713
nimbus
nimbus
B
Scared about independent practice
Replies
30
Views
3K
coffeebythelake
coffeebythelake
Top