|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Exactly: an edge state that is fundamentally meaningless in context of general discussion. In much the same way that general dissuasion of using metal objects to penetrate skulls is in no way countered by the possibility of neurosurgery.
[fuck context]
[ 07. October 2015, 23:30: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:
"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
Amen.
You might believe this, but I do not. The UK is
not less violent than the US, but fewer people are shot. The answer is gun control.
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
The rest of the article doesn't bear that interpretation out, IMO. I think what he is saying is, when we do get gun laws changed, we will still have an attitude problem that needs to be adjusted.
Gun control and a reassesment of values. There is a difference between having occasionally to deal with violence and being constantly up to your neck in it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Yes, it sure is. When I was a kid in scouts we had a well supervised shooting range at camp and used single shot 22s. Shooting shotguns, though, is recommended for kids 13 and older because of recoil and the like. However, the kids must use just the guns provided and they can't bring their own guns and/or bows.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I'm sure it's perfectly possible to find a way to paint myself fluorescent green safely.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
No, that is not my take on the article. To be honest, I did not read the link, I did not notice it. I was reacting to the bit you quoted. I've now read the article and it does not change my reaction.
This quote quote:
We need stricter gun control laws, no doubt. But we need so much more than gun control. We need models who will lead us toward a massive shift in our culture.
from just before the one in question is phrased much better, IMO. Unfortunately, he continues and emphasises culture change more than rational gun laws.
I agree that a culture shift is needed, but reducing the easy access to guns will reduce deaths without that iffy shift.
Think of it like reducing weight.
Self-control is more assured when the temptations are not readily at hand.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
Nonsense.
You are right - guns are dangerous. They are indeed designed to kill people, by propelling small bits of metal very fast out of the pointy end.
They are not, however, indiscriminately dangerous. If you're not standing in front of the business end, then barring some kind of freak gun explosion failure, you are perfectly safe.
Accidental deaths occur because some "trained adult" has done something very stupid, and because people expect "trained adults" not to do that kind of thing, there's nobody to intercept the error before someone gets hurt.
A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for "accidentally killing someone" is to have the muzzle of your gun pointing at them. On a shooting range, in controlled conditions and with adequate supervision, it is easy to prevent this from happening.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Accidental deaths occur because some "trained adult" has done something very stupid,
Despite your scare quote, this is the point. All it takes is a momentary lapse. With guns, it is not if, but when. Proper training and repetitive, redundant safety measures reduce incidents. But they will never eliminate them.
You are saying your choice is more important than the lives of others. Plain and simple.
[ 08. October 2015, 02:08: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I know your solution is probably to simply be a household that doesn't own guns. However, if you are a household that does own guns (and here is one of the better things I've read about why one might choose to do so) and you are a household that has children, IME you have two options:
1) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Tell them that they are only for adults.
IME, childhood curiosity being what it is, this means that at some point the child is going to attempt to get into the box and play with the glamorous adult thing when you are not there.
2) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Teach them to always assume the gun is loaded, to never point it at anything unless they are willing to see that person or thing die, and to never touch them unless there is an adult in the room supervising them. Teach them safe handling of the weapon and shooting as it seems developmentally appropriate to each child.
Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I'm reminded of the unfortunate trend to have kids trained up in MMA - mixed martial arts. Cage fighting for children. Who would Jesus ground and pound, and make to tapout?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
Sure. We teach them about knives, matches, electrical sockets, and all sorts of other things that can hurt or kill.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
No, that is not my take on the article. To be honest, I did not read the link, I did not notice it. I was reacting to the bit you quoted. I've now read the article and it does not change my reaction.
This quote quote:
We need stricter gun control laws, no doubt. But we need so much more than gun control. We need models who will lead us toward a massive shift in our culture.
from just before the one in question is phrased much better, IMO. Unfortunately, he continues and emphasises culture change more than rational gun laws.
I agree that a culture shift is needed, but reducing the easy access to guns will reduce deaths without that iffy shift.
Think of it like reducing weight.
Self-control is more assured when the temptations are not readily at hand.
Ok, I still see him as generally supporting gun control, but wanting to look at why we are so violent, exceptionalist, capitalist, etc. to begin with. He is a minister, his invoking introspection does not surprise me. What is needed for the flock to do is a lot different than what is needed for the nation to do.
Maybe I will have the energy to compose a post later about the scary level of ingrained violence I am currently seeing in the kid population I am working with, but for now, trust me that, for a certain sector of society, the call to model community, reconciliation, and resistance to violence is a lot more than just an academic excercise. It is vital to survival-- mental and (perhaps) physical.
I wiil say this- I believe every child I am currently working with is suffering from some form of PTSD, purely from the chaotic environment they live in. Gang/ gun culture is a large part of that. Territorialism and hyper- individualism is, too.These kids see escalating fights on their doorstep, a lot of times in their crowded houses, and in some places I have worked they hear neighborhood gunfire about three or four times a week. ( Fourth of July was heartbreaking-- every time a pop was heard, kids would grab a teacher in terror.)
So-- fuck, yeah, bring on the next peace movement. Bring on next new Gandhis. Please.
[ 08. October 2015, 02:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
Must contradict. I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt. It is possible for children to use guns safely. But it takes a lot of infrastructure, including in our case the sifting process of becoming and remaining a Boy Scout.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
Because it's a fun contest of hand-eye coordination to see if you can hit closer to the bull's eye than your fellow scouts. It's a difficult skill to master, which makes it even more fun. And it's a lot less painful than archery, in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I don't hear of boy scouts killing anybody on their rifle range. There was some dumbfuck that put an automatic weapon into a child's hands and paid for it sometime back. But single-loading .22 rifles in the very controlled environment of a Scout camp are much less dangerous by factors of 1000 than playing football, which destroys many young people's spinal cords every year.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
Must contradict.
[followed by personal anecdote of not experiencing a gun accident]
What part are you contradicting?
- A gun is a very dangerous object - seems pretty non-contraversial to me.
- one that is designed to kill - ditto
- Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them - plenty of stories get reported about trained adults still having accidents with guns, sometimes fatal
- Children using them will only increase this - in plenty of other areas of life accidents increase with decreasing level of skill of the people involved. Accidents are more likely when children help out in the kitchen with sharp knives, get allowed to light the touchpaper on fireworks, when as young adults they first drive a car, etc. Why should it be any different with guns?
Just because your experience of supervised gun use at Scout camp has never included an accident does not mean that accidents never happen. Nor does it mean that there might have been other safeguards that could have been included. All it means is that you were lucky (albeit in this case in a situation where the chances are significantly improved through good practice).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Personal tales of not dying are all kinds of confirmation bias, and statistically N=1.
Translation: worthless.
I have varied personal tales of not dying from operating motor vehicles in illegal ways; should those be supportive arguments for such actions? No. Traffic mortality rates overwhelm the stupid.
I have a couple tales of surviving mostly unscathed from unfortunate choices in proximity to grizzly bears and cubs; does it then make sense for me to assure that therefore it can be fine to do so? No. Because it's just too stupid to mention.
Stop being so fucking stupid. Guns don't keep any civilian safe in any meaningful way. Because they're not about being safe. Which is why they should be carefully regulated, like everything else that is dangerous. Like every other fucking country in the world does.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because your experience of supervised gun use at Scout camp has never included an accident does not mean that accidents never happen. Nor does it mean that there might have been other safeguards that could have been included. All it means is that you were lucky (albeit in this case in a situation where the chances are significantly improved through good practice).
The "albeit" you slip in at the end is where my entire conversation consisted. "Children should never be allowed to touch guns, even if you did and lived!" is what you're saying. I say bunk. It's scaremongering.
[ 08. October 2015, 04:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No, it's called risk assessment.
It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
Yes, with suitable precautions the risks associated with using guns can be significantly reduced. We then get into the numbers game, how frequently is it acceptable for something to go wrong? 1 in every 10,000 rounds fired? 1 in every million? What are the consequences of something going wrong? In the worst case, that's someone dead. And, every thing is a balance, what are the benefits from this activity and do they justify the risk? If the benefits are very small then even a very small risk is hard to justify, if the benefits are greater perhaps one could justify greater risk.
Although, as anyone who has every had any experience with risk assessment and risk communication will know, no matter how much we try to quantify things ultimately these things come down to subjective matters of judgement.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's called risk assessment.
It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
In which case it's fatuous to use lack of 100% safety as a club to beat it with. Nobody should ever skydive, or ride horses, or play sports, or go on amusement park rides, or go to Who concerts. These things have all taken more lives than Boy Scout camp shooting ranges.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ugh. Look, I'm for strict gun control, but making something like very carefully supervised shooting at Boy Scout Camp off limits (while keeping rappelling down cliffs, hiking for miles in the Midwest summer, camping in tick-infested and mosquito-ridden West Nile virus prone areas, etc.) is just silly.
Of course there's a greater than null risk. There is a greater than null risk to just about every activity, and turning 18 is not going to magically convert a person into a safer shooting trainee. If there are Boy Scouts interested in hunting, better they learn how to fire a gun safely and properly under trained and paranoid supervision than that they try to pick it up somewhere dodgier.
Seriously, the Scouts don't bring the guns, they don't take them home, they don't lay a finger on them unless they are in the proper location doing the proper thing under trained supervisors (yes, this is what Mr Lamb was forced to get into bed with the NRA for, and I am currently fending them off as they call freaking DAILY in the hopes that he'll re-up--as if. He needed certification to handle this Scout activity in conjunction with other also-trained leaders--in spite of 7 years service in the Vietnam War, and two years of training before that. They take safety seriously in the Boy Scouts.
It so happens that LL isn't interested in shooting (hates loud noises), but I'm fairly sure it's one of the safer activities he could do at Scout camp. And far better than turning guns into utterly forbidden fruit, which always glamourizes things.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's called risk assessment.
It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
In which case it's fatuous to use lack of 100% safety as a club to beat it with. Nobody should ever skydive, or ride horses, or play sports, or go on amusement park rides, or go to Who concerts. These things have all taken more lives than Boy Scout camp shooting ranges.
I'm not sure anyone is stating that such activities shouldn't be done just because they're not 100% safe. If you can point to anyone using a "it's not 100% safe" club here, please do so. Because actually, most of what I've read has been the other way round - well supervised shooting ranges are very safe so shouldn't be banned.
Safety is part of the package of considerations that go into deciding if an activity should go ahead, or if my child should be allowed to participate. I've already mentioned judging what the benefits are. There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
I read your post that way too.
As for increasing social acceptability--
I think I'm going to wait to worry about that one until we can get the constant gun violence off TV and out of the movies, as well as out of the neighborhoods. Scout shooting seems to me to be mentally placed in the context of hunting, not keeping a handgun at home to blow away intruders. There are still plenty of Americans who routinely go hunting to fill up their family freezer, and who help keep the exploding deer population at least a tiny bit more under control. (I'm told venison makes good chili.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
That sounds very social-engineering to me. No, Boy Scouts can't do blah-blah-blah because they could grow up to be such-and-such.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
That sounds very social-engineering to me. No, Boy Scouts can't do blah-blah-blah because they could grow up to be such-and-such.
Just part of the package of things to consider. Part of it may be how the Scout leaders present the exercise. I can see a very reasonable "guns are very useful tools for hunting for food, and we're going to teach you to use them responsibly" type approach - fitting in well with the lighting fires etc activities. I can also see a (to me) less reasonable "it's really good fun to shoot things" type approach - and, of course, Scout camps also include lots of things that are just for fun.
Depending on how it's presented, the same activity can have different wider social implications. "Guns are fun things to have to shoot stuff with" is a much less socially responsible attitude to give than "guns are a useful, though dangerous, tool to be used responsibly and carefully".
Besides, what's wrong with social engineering? We teach our kids all sorts of stuff that is effectively making sure they're equipped to live in society. Most of the time those are all entirely positive (good manners, respect for others etc). But, I'm not sure anyone will want to ban debating societies because the kids might turn into politicians or other social scum.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Scout shooting seems to me to be mentally placed in the context of hunting, not keeping a handgun at home to blow away intruders. There are still plenty of Americans who routinely go hunting to fill up their family freezer, and who help keep the exploding deer population at least a tiny bit more under control. (I'm told venison makes good chili.)
My wife (here in East Anglia) had a young lad in her class who would regularly go hunting with his dad from an early age. I think he was given his first "very own" shotgun at the age of about 10. This was perfectly legal as there is no age restriction in the UK for getting a shotgun licence if the parents approve the application. (Not many people know that).
They only killed for meat (which they ate themselves or sold to a local "Game Meat" company that supplies several farm shops); or because farmers wanted to get rid of vermin (e.g. foxes). The boy is now a teenager and left the school; my wife recommended that he follow a career path as a gamekeeper. As far as my wife was concerned, the family was highly responsible in its approach to these guns.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You do all know that the Scouts and Guides in the UK can offer rifle shooting as an activity? It's provided on some the scout camps sites along with archery and a whole lot more. There are nationally provided risk assessments to do it, properly trained instructors and all the other checks.
And then there are the Air Training Corps, Army Cadets (and probably Sea Cadets, but I don't know for them) who all learn about guns and how to handle them.
We give a lot of our youth opportunities to play with guns legally in the UK too.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Well, the Scouts use air rifles, not shotguns. But I take the point.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I know your solution is probably to simply be a household that doesn't own guns. However, if you are a household that does own guns (and here is one of the better things I've read about why one might choose to do so) and you are a household that has children, IME you have two options:
1) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Tell them that they are only for adults.
IME, childhood curiosity being what it is, this means that at some point the child is going to attempt to get into the box and play with the glamorous adult thing when you are not there.
2) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Teach them to always assume the gun is loaded, to never point it at anything unless they are willing to see that person or thing die, and to never touch them unless there is an adult in the room supervising them. Teach them safe handling of the weapon and shooting as it seems developmentally appropriate to each child.
Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
Look, none of this is terribly controversial, and in fact some of it is law in Australia.
But I don't see that teaching/warning a child about guns when there are guns present, in their house, when the adults in the house have legitimate reasons for the guns, is at all analogous to what I was reacting to which was a situation where children were being given guns to use. As a recreational activity of some kind.
Now, kids learning to use guns is in fact possible in Australia, but it is extremely tightly controlled. I'm pretty sure that if a Scout troop wanted to run a gun-shooting activity (and my troop sure as hell never suggested such a thing, nor have I ever heard of that idea here*) I'm pretty sure the only way they could possibly do it would be to go to a licensed range. I also think the minimum age is something like 14, though I couldn't swear to it.
* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
That's the part that doesn't compute for me either. It's not so much why not as why?
It reminds me of all the mothers of 4 year-old beauty pageant queens. They say it helps build confidence in the child and gives the mothers and little girls a shared activity, just like all the men in West Virginia who can't wait to take their little boy hunting for the first time. Aren't there better things to do together?
Here's some things my parents did with my brothers and me: Made gigantic kites and flew them, went camping, pitched tenets built fires, grew apple trees, made applesauce, built a roller coaster down the hill in the back yard with tracks and carts on roller skates, built soap box derby cars, made clothes, took dance lessons, took piano lessons, learned to paint, played basketball, played baseball, made puppets, put on a play.
So many ways to learn hand-eye co-ordination, spend bonding time together and have fun without ever learning how to use a weapon made for killing things.
[ 08. October 2015, 11:06: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I'm not sure anyone will want to ban debating societies because the kids might turn into politicians or other social scum.
[looks thoughtful] You know, you've got an idea there.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Gun control and a reassesment of values. There is a difference between having occasionally to deal with violence and being constantly up to your neck in it.
This. A thousand times this.
The problem we're having on this thread is a microcosm of the problem we have here in America - people tend to look at the gun issue (and a host of others) in a binary, black-or-white way. The solutions aren't either-or, they're both-and.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
1) Learning gun safety and proper handling at a young(ish) age, in a strictly controlled environment, leads to less accidents later on.
2) Shooting teaches hand/eye coordination, breath control, and discipline.
3) It's fun. And it's fun to try and outdo your buddies.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm reminded of the unfortunate trend to have kids trained up in MMA - mixed martial arts. Cage fighting for children. Who would Jesus ground and pound, and make to tapout?
That's just crazy. I study martial arts, and I'm generally in favor of children studying them, as well - but this is just insane. Children that age's bones haven't finished developing yet; injuries can lead to lifelong problems. It's the same reason kids under 16 shouldn't train on a heavy bag - permanent damage to the wrists and elbows is a possibility.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
GodDAMN, I'm about to sound like a right-wing, red-blooded 'Murican right about now. Wooohooo, bring on da gunz!
But if you're handwringing over Scouts learning target practice, you're out of your ever-loving minds.
It's not just that it's a controlled, safe environment. It's that the whole point of the exercise is control. From the moment you arrive at the gun range to the moment you walk away, every movement has to be regulated—and not just by the rangemasters, but by yourself. You move differently, your focus is more intense, you have to regulate your breathing, sync it with your movements, all coming down to an instant, with proof of your self-control thirty yards away.
It's also a chance to see guns used in a way that isn't glamorous—indeed, is kinda boring. Seriously, that description up there sounds halfway like yoga with a bang. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets hurt. No beers are consumed, no highway signs get shot, no windows are broken, no yelling is allowed—heck, you don't even get the deer camp experience of your uncle telling off-color jokes. If there's anything that deglamorizes gun use and glorification, it might just be getting to use guns. You're taking away the mystery, replacing it with a series of repetitive motions and breathing exercises.
Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.
I haven't had the chance to shoot a rifle in many years, but I'd be interested to see if I've still got it.
It's like so many other things—the tool will be used as its owner intends it to be used. For some, it's a test of skill on a range. For others, a tool for harvesting game or protecting livestock. It can be a weapon in the hand of a self-proclaimed "sheepdog," a self-justifying vigilante without a shred of humility or self-doubt, or an emblem of rural roots, a connection to the land and a past fading into memory.
As should surprise nobody, I'm not a Second Amendment type—I have no wish to return to the gang wars of the '90's, and really, really wish the States weren't doing such a great job exporting guns to countries like Mexico that really don't need our own problems exported with them. Frankly, gun culture scares the bejesus out of me, especially in the stark terms in which it justifies a sort of "shoot first, think whether you should later" vigilanteism and moral irresponsibility. I really do think the world would be a better place with fewer guns in it, especially my neck of it. I really don't much care for the way we have become slaves of our tools, cowering before their power.
But, if you're a civilian, that's what guns are in the end—tools. Maybe sporting equipment, if you want to draw a distinction. When I look through a Remington catalog, it's a window on a way of life I'm connected to through my family and vaguely understand but never lived myself, a life where hunters and ranchers need these tools like I need my pedal wrench and shaping ribs.
That may be part of the cultural shift we've been talking about, but I'm afraid things are too far gone for that to happen. I'm pretty sure what I wrote above will be seen as gun nuttery here, but would be mealy-mouthed liberal indecisiveness leaving us open to violence to others.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
That's the part that doesn't compute for me either. It's not so much why not as why?
It reminds me of all the mothers of 4 year-old beauty pageant queens. They say it helps build confidence in the child and gives the mothers and little girls a shared activity, just like all the men in West Virginia who can't wait to take their little boy hunting for the first time. Aren't there better things to do together?
Here's some things my parents did with my brothers and me: Made gigantic kites and flew them, went camping, pitched tenets built fires, grew apple trees, made applesauce, built a roller coaster down the hill in the back yard with tracks and carts on roller skates, built soap box derby cars, made clothes, took dance lessons, took piano lessons, learned to paint, played basketball, played baseball, made puppets, put on a play.
So many ways to learn hand-eye co-ordination, spend bonding time together and have fun without ever learning how to use a weapon made for killing things.
It may not compute THERE, but this country still has a lot of open space suitable for hunting, often close by--and a number of dangerous animals (e.g. bears, mountain lions) which you want to keep in the back of your mind when you're planning that hike / camping / hunting trip way out in the boonies. So it's a bit different here. And in neither case (hunting / protection) is the gun intended for "having fun". It's a working tool, and subject to a shitload of precautions just as any dangerous tool is.
As for bonding activities--
I'm talking about families where the parents go hunting as a matter of course to feed the family (also fishing etc.) whether there are children or not. Naturally the children take part in the family activities once they are old enough and properly trained. This isn't something cooked up to serve as a bonding exercise, it's just a normal part of the work of the year--plant the garden in spring, pick peaches etc. in summer, do canning at harvest, go hunting in fall, etc. Forbidding a teenager to have anything to do with hunting is in this sense more like forbidding them to go grocery shopping than like forbidding them to be in a beauty contest. Yes, they may find it pleasurable, but the point is practical and not just "let's find a recreational activity to do together."
And the Scouts we've been talking about are a minimum of 12 years old, not four-year-olds or whatever.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
It's also a chance to see guns used in a way that isn't glamorous—indeed, is kinda boring. Seriously, that description up there sounds halfway like yoga with a bang. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets hurt. No beers are consumed, no highway signs get shot, no windows are broken, no yelling is allowed—heck, you don't even get the deer camp experience of your uncle telling off-color jokes. If there's anything that deglamorizes gun use and glorification, it might just be getting to use guns. You're taking away the mystery, replacing it with a series of repetitive motions and breathing exercises.
Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.
YES! Yes! Yes!
The whole boredom thing is why I am always glad when the Scouts decide to do something else, almost anything else, when we're at camp. Watching mud dry, for instance.
And re your last paragraph--this is why I loved archery growing up.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.
That sounds like me - although I tend to prefer inside to out!
About 15 years ago our family went on a holiday in Scotland which offered some fun, not-too-serious activities in the "package" such as a bit of dinghy sailing with the owner, a couple of gentle horse rides, and some clay-pigeon shooting.
My wife laughed herself silly at my riding but, rather to my surprise, I was quite good at the clay-pigeon shooting. But, after 4 sessions of 20 shots (spread over 2 weeks), I found it rather dull and I've never wanted to do it again.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Where I come from (WV/Ohio) It definitely is something cooked up for fun in about 90% of cases. Sure they may send that deer someplace to be turned into sausage to then be put in the freezer after one meal and left until it's thrown away next year. Mainly it's a macho coming of age tradition where father takes out son to do what his father took him out to do at the same age, and the kid gets the thrill of shooting the gun and takes that step beyond instinct where he pulls the trigger and knows what it feels like to kill something. He probably goes home proud and ashamed in equal confusing measure.
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one. How many teens who are thinking about killing themselves or their classmates are going to think of using a gun if they don't know how to shoot one and there isn't one in the house? Some will still manage to get them and learn how to fire them, but I think it's probably less than the ones who learned all about it somewhere with that oh so fun -- no wait, boring -- target shooting.
I don't know how many families in America use hunting as their main source of family food. I expect, outside of Alaska, it's probably a very small number. We have to ask ourselves if their protein supplement and the gun sportsman's fun is worth 33,000 lives in America every year.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one.
Unless what you're envisioning here is wholesale banning and confiscation, that dog doesn't hunt (sorry, couldn't resist).
What happens when said 12 year old is at a schoolmate's house, and finds a gun unsecured? (The person who left it so needs attention, but that's beside the point I'm making here.) If said 12 year old has learned a thing or two about them on the Boy Scout rifle range, the chances are pretty good he's not going to pick it up, wave it around, and accidentally shoot someone - he (or she) knows what it is and what it does, and can treat it with the caution and respect necessary.
If, on the other hand, the only exposure to firearms said 12 year old has had is video games and TV, there's a lot more cause for concern, to my mind - s/he has no real concept of what it does, and that this isn't just for play.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt.
Yes, exactly this. This is safe - it's as close to 100% safe as is achievable, or basically any activity. It is safer than many of the activities that we do every day without thinking about it, such as walking across a car park.
(I did much the same thing as a child in the UK, under similar conditions. I was a reasonable shot, but not fantastic. I haven't fired a gun since, but it's not impossible that I might choose to at some point.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Upthread there was reference to doing activities in the "boonies" and dangerous animals. IT's the wrong way of thinking. Having spent months at a time in areas which have plenty of "dangerous animals", and no people, we have never ever taken guns. Completely unnecessary, and an approach to the bush that is opposite to ours. Only two animals intimidate and require us to go away: grizzly bears and moose. It is their territory, and we move along. Others, like black bears, cougars and wolves, proper care of cooking and campsite will mean no issues. These are areas where few people travel, there are no facilities at all, and no organized campsites. If idiots (we call them that as a label when we come across what they did) have been careless in an area, the drill is to clean it up, and not to camp there.
I have owned guns, I have fired guns. Long guns, shotguns, pistols, revolovers. The long guns are only useful for hunting, but I gave that up nearly 30 years ago. The handguns are useless for hunting. I used to shoot about 3 or 4 bullets per year per gun I was using. A couple at a range, a couple at a deer, moose or elk. I regret the gratuitous shooting of skunks, porcupines, gophers, magpies, crows, coyotes, foxes, rabbits we did when we were young. We shot at anything you didn't need a license to shoot. This is unfortunately an ongoing pattern and the opposite to what we adopted. Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
I don't think anyone has said that it did. The only thing that the two have in common is the fact that both activities involve both one or more guns, and one or more people.
There do seem to be some people arguing that because it's not safe for kids to wander around school with handguns, it must also be not safe for them to shoot .22s on the range, which I think is false.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
I don't think anyone has said that it did. The only thing that the two have in common is the fact that both activities involve both one or more guns, and one or more people.
There do seem to be some people arguing that because it's not safe for kids to wander around school with handguns, it must also be not safe for them to shoot .22s on the range, which I think is false.
Which is entirely beside the point isn't it? The kids shooting single shot 22s at Scout camp is barely peripherally relevant. Yet you're posting about it in a thread that is about how guns cannot be controlled in the USA because idiots do walk around with guns there. Something to do with idolatry regarding the constitution you have apparently, which is accepted as tightly as flat-earthing biblical fundamentalists do the bible - nothing can be changed in the received text as if it is God's word, notwithstanding that "amendment" would indicate change. Could you folks have a constitutional conference or something?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Upthread there was reference to doing activities in the "boonies" and dangerous animals. IT's the wrong way of thinking. Having spent months at a time in areas which have plenty of "dangerous animals", and no people, we have never ever taken guns. Completely unnecessary, and an approach to the bush that is opposite to ours. Only two animals intimidate and require us to go away: grizzly bears and moose. It is their territory, and we move along. Others, like black bears, cougars and wolves, proper care of cooking and campsite will mean no issues. These are areas where few people travel, there are no facilities at all, and no organized campsites. If idiots (we call them that as a label when we come across what they did) have been careless in an area, the drill is to clean it up, and not to camp there.
And when you live in an area where the coyote the government introduced to control the deer population and bear sometimes come up to the house in order to steal the chickens? What then?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Which is entirely beside the point isn't it? The kids shooting single shot 22s at Scout camp is barely peripherally relevant. Yet you're posting about it in a thread that is about how guns cannot be controlled in the USA because idiots do walk around with guns there. Something to do with idolatry regarding the constitution you have apparently, which is accepted as tightly as flat-earthing biblical fundamentalists do the bible - nothing can be changed in the received text as if it is God's word, notwithstanding that "amendment" would indicate change. Could you folks have a constitutional conference or something?
No, we're not likely to have a constitutional conference.
Part of the argument against additional gun control laws is the question of how effective they would be given the number of guns already on the ground. They might very well help in the long term.
In the short term, however, I actually think it might help to de-glamourize guns to the people who have only ever seen them on screens, and teach those people proper gun safety. In which case, people's experience in Boy Scouts is relevant.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And when you live in an area where the coyote the government introduced to control the deer population and bear sometimes come up to the house in order to steal the chickens? What then?
What government where introduced coyotes? Never have heard of gov't introducing coyotes anywhere. They have re-introduced wolves that were exterminated from their normal territories in a number of places. But not introduced, restored. Its incumbent on the humans to adapt and safeguard.
In terms of bears coming up to the house, for starters, the chickens shouldn't be in your house, nor in a building attached to your house. Second, if it's the bears' territory, you have to adapt your construction to be properly secure against them, or you will shoot the first bear, and another will come along to take it's place. FWIW, we have a second home in a wildlife active area: coyotes, bears, moose, deer, wolves, squirrels, raccoons. Someone shot a bear in the townsite last year, if I heard right, they seized his gun and truck as well as fined him $2K and banned him from hunting and using a gun for some period of years, and they will auction his truck and gun off. Which sounds about right. We normally trap them. If the environment ministry wants to destroy an animal, that's their job, not our's, outside of hunting season.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If the environment ministry wants to destroy an animal, that's their job, not our's, outside of hunting season.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) And that just shows how different how different both our cultures and our governments are. Here state's have sometimes had coyote bounties, where they pay people to kill coyote (though not often because the money has to come from somewhere and it runs out quickly).
You can say the US should just be Canada as many times as you like, that doesn't make it a realistic possibility.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And that just shows how different how different both our cultures and our governments are. Here state's have sometimes had coyote bounties, where they pay people to kill coyote (though not often because the money has to come from somewhere and it runs out quickly).
You can say the US should just be Canada as many times as you like, that doesn't make it a realistic possibility.
I never said USA should be like Canada.
We do make lots of money from camo-clad Merkin hunters who arrive at airports all suited up. Can spot them a mile away.
We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...
We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
Canada has coyote bounties as well as coyote killing contests.
Seems like extermination to me, but I'm sure it's all about ecology, natural cycles, and learning from original peoples. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one.
Unless what you're envisioning here is wholesale banning and confiscation, that dog doesn't hunt (sorry, couldn't resist).
What happens when said 12 year old is at a schoolmate's house, and finds a gun unsecured? (The person who left it so needs attention, but that's beside the point I'm making here.)
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?
I don't think you realise this just illustrates a nutty culture rather than nutty individuals, which is what a couple of us have been saying. The very fact that guns are normalized is why these issues even arise.
You're rather reminding me of a friend who wanted a four-wheel-drive, because being higher up and in a sturdier car made her feel safer on the road with all the 4WDs. So you end up with more and more people in the city driving 4WDs for no reason other than a bunch of people in the city initially bought 4WDs.
Twilight's observation still stands: the safest way to handle a gun is not have one. The safest way for a society to deal with guns is not have many of them around. The best way to deal with the effects of pollution is not to pollute in the first place.
You can argue for all the effective band-aids you like, but they're all fundamentally going to be based on the premise that cutting yourself is a desirable first step.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt.
Yes, exactly this. This is safe - it's as close to 100% safe as is achievable, or basically any activity. It is safer than many of the activities that we do every day without thinking about it, such as walking across a car park.
(I did much the same thing as a child in the UK, under similar conditions. I was a reasonable shot, but not fantastic. I haven't fired a gun since, but it's not impossible that I might choose to at some point.)
My Scout troop was 100% safe from guns. By not having any.
I'm also 100% safe from being injured by being chased by bulls in Pamplona. So far I have a 100% success rate of not getting a woman pregnant and I'm fairly confident of maintaining that record. My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I have. My father is the person who tends to get called in as an expert when an archery death happens. Three in the last decade in Victoria, to my knowledge - one of those a child accidentally shooting his next door neighbour.
They're not common, but they happen.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In a school athletics lesson I had this misfortune to be involved in an accident involving a shot put. Big heavy lump of metal impacting a head is not good (fortunately a large bump, trip to hospital for check out and an all clear). Accidents happen, but we learn from them. In this case the lessons were 1) don't let me try the shot put again, and 2) in future lessons move the class an extra couple of steps back from the person actually trying to throw this heavy lump of metal in one direction in case it manages to go backwards.
The biggest frustration about guns in the US seems to be that there isn't a culture that follows every incident with an inquiry that seeks to learn from the incident to reduce the chances of it, or something similar, happening again. To err is human. To willfully refuse to learn from our mistakes is idiocy, and when those lessons could help save others verging on evil.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
