11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[K. A. Pital]

You list items with known negative attributes and no useful purpose for children.

Wait, guns don't have known negative attributes and they have useful purposes for children? I guess that sums up the debate

"Recreational" isn't "useful" - smokers and drinkers also enjoy their bad habits. The addiction even makes enjoyment greater. But maybe gun addicts are also merely addicted to deadly weapons.

There are ages where alcohol and tobacco are allowed, typically the age of majority (18 mostly in the USA, or 21 for alcohol). I can't say for cigarettes, but many children in families that drink alcohol allow their children to have "a sip" from time to time or even pour them a small glass of wine on special occasions.

I can't believe you're bringing up people who let their children consume alcohol and tobacco as a positive example. My entire point was that people who do it are reckless and selfish; they project their harmful desires and bad habits on kids, who may even not be physically, much less emotionally, mature to handle it.

Yes, they may or may not, but as far as I know letting kids drink is a law offense.

[Coyote]

There are ages where alcohol and tobacco are allowed, typically the age of majority (18 mostly in the USA, or 21 for alcohol). I can't say for cigarettes, but many children in families that drink alcohol allow their children to have "a sip" from time to time or even pour them a small glass of wine on special occasions.

I can't believe you're bringing up people who let their children consume alcohol and tobacco as a positive example. My entire point was that people who do it are reckless and selfish; they project their harmful desires and bad habits on kids, who may even not be physically, much less emotionally, mature to handle it.

Yes, they may or may not, but as far as I know letting kids drink is a law offense.

Read it again carefully-- I never said that people who give children tobacco are good examples. In fact, earlier I said that there was zero gain from kids smoking. Please do not distort what I said for cheap gain.

I said that there are families who allow children to have small, regulated amounts of alcohol under certain controlled circumstances. Please do not assume that means they hand the kid a bottle of whiskey and shove them out the door. A small amount (like a shot glass worth in volume) of beer or wine a couple times a year is not the same. While technically, it is a law violation, but it's not the sort of thing law enforcement would really worry about unless it was connected to other problems which would alert Child Protective Services.

[Beowulf]

There's actually a fairly good argument that our puritanical approach of preventing alcohol consumption until age 21 is actually harmful, as it presents a forbidden fruit aspect that results in alcohol abuse amongst 14-24 year olds.

[Alyeska]

You still have to come up with a reason why kids shooting potentially-deadly guns -proper supervision and instruction or not- is necessary at all. Don't think I forgot that, even if you happen to have done that for the last 18 posts.

Necessary? What the fuck sort of arbitrary bullshit is this now? Very little of what we do is necessary and you fucking know it. Entertainment and hunting purposes is more then suitable.

None of those are potentially lethal... are you being purposefully dense or something?

Hence using appropriate safety precautions numbskull.

[Alyeska]

Wait, guns don't have known negative attributes and they have useful purposes for children? I guess that sums up the debate

"Recreational" isn't "useful" - smokers and drinkers also enjoy their bad habits. The addiction even makes enjoyment greater. But maybe gun addicts are also merely addicted to deadly weapons.

Way to go cherry picking the argument and completely ignoring everything else I said. Fucking answer my positions or shut the fuck up asshole. I tried being polite in this thread but people ignored my position and lied about things I have said. So I am not going to be polite anymore. Enough with the bullshit strawman arguments and cherry picking debate style. Answer my fucking arguments.

[K. A. Pital]

Answer my fucking arguments.

Your only argument so far has been "guns are legal, therefore, they can be given to children". You haven't made a single point why we should give guns to children in the first place for recreational use. You haven't been so keen on tobacco and alcohol, both legal substances - but also illegalized for minors - which only shows the hypocrisy of your argument. At least others were more consistent and their arguments have a degree of logic about the problem of illegalizing substances at arbitrary age.

The initial question was what's the difference between any other industrial tool of high danger, including the aforementioned examples of cars, airplanes, industrial equipment, and explosives - and guns. The former are mostly restricted from child use; and of course a child does not have routine access to such industrial machinery.

Your only argument has been "guns are legal, prove we need to restrict them" - sorry, but that's an argument from legalism. Legalism is not even a moral position.

Moreover, you repeatedly ignored the point that it's perfectly viable to ban a recreational activity for a minority of responsible users to save the lives of the irresponsible. You cannot be earnest when you claim all parents can adequately safeguard the weapons - as it was shown, they cannot - and so your whole argument is based on a shaky foundation of personal experience. Way to go.

You also repeatedly ignored the point that at smaller ages, the physical and psychological maturity of an organism can be not adequate for handling the device; making it always highly dangerous to place said device in the hands of a minor, controlled or not. Not all children age the same; and it won't be a large stretch to say many, if not a majority, are physically and psychologically immature.

[Flash]

Yes. They aren't children. And until they're old enough to not be children, they gain nothing from using potentially lethal ammunition. So get them a BB gun or something. That's still pushing it, but at least its difficult to kill someone with one of those.

They gain nothing from playing video games. They gain nothing from watching movies. Thats a bullshit excuse and you know it.

The difference here of course, is that if the child makes a mistake playing a game, or has a lapse of concentration watching a movie, the child or others is highly unlikely to be injured or killed.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yes. They aren't children. And until they're old enough to not be children, they gain nothing from using potentially lethal ammunition. So get them a BB gun or something. That's still pushing it, but at least its difficult to kill someone with one of those.

They gain nothing from playing video games. They gain nothing from watching movies. Thats a bullshit excuse and you know it.

None of those are deadly or even dangerous if mis-handled, moron.

[Darth Wong]

There's actually a fairly good argument that our puritanical approach of preventing alcohol consumption until age 21 is actually harmful, as it presents a forbidden fruit aspect that results in alcohol abuse amongst 14-24 year olds.

That's a social problem, not a legal one. Parents are legally permitted to let their own children try alcohol, although they can't serve it to others.

Frankly, I blame beer company advertising. Teens insist that they are not unduly influenced by advertising, but that's frankly bullshit. Teens are not magically immune to psychological conditioning techniques, and the average person will see thousands of beer company ads by the time they're old enough to drink. All of those ads repeat the same meme: that "partying" means "beer". This high-repetition image association technique forms a similar association in the mind of the viewer, to the point that the viewer can't help but think of beer when he thinks of partying. It's not even other drinks; nobody thinks of wine coolers when they think of raucous parties; they think of beer. Pavlov would have been proud.

[Ryan Thunder]

Frankly, I blame beer company advertising. Teens insist that they are not unduly influenced by advertising, but that's frankly bullshit. Teens are not magically immune to psychological conditioning techniques, and the average person will see thousands of beer company ads by the time they're old enough to drink. All of those ads repeat the same meme: that "partying" means "beer". This high-repetition image association technique forms a similar association in the mind of the viewer, to the point that the viewer can't help but think of beer when he thinks of partying. It's not even other drinks; nobody thinks of wine coolers when they think of raucous parties; they think of beer. Pavlov would have been proud.

That's an interesting line of thought to go down. What could be done about it, though?

Is it worth starting another thread over? <_<

[salm]

I don´t know. Beer ads here don´t advertise the party element of beer. But people still think of beer when they think of parties.

[Darth Wong]

I don´t know. Beer ads here don´t advertise the party element of beer. But people still think of beer when they think of parties.

It's also in movies and it's been a part of pop culture for a long time. However, teen binge drinking is out of control in North America (particularly on university campuses), and beer ads must be a contributing factor unless teens have somehow eliminated the entire phenomenon of conditioned association, which seems rather doubtful.

[Ryan Thunder]

I don´t know. Beer ads here don´t advertise the party element of beer. But people still think of beer when they think of parties.

It's also in movies and it's been a part of pop culture for a long time. However, teen binge drinking is out of control in North America (particularly on university campuses), and beer ads must be a contributing factor unless teens have somehow eliminated the entire phenomenon of conditioned association, which seems rather doubtful.

It may simply be a self-perpetuating thing at this point. The ads caused people to associate beer with parties. Now that beer is associated with parties, removing the advertising wouldn't change that for a long time.

[Alyeska]

Your only argument so far has been "guns are legal, therefore, they can be given to children". You haven't made a single point why we should give guns to children in the first place for recreational use.

WRONG. I gave a stated reason of both recreational and hunting purposes.

You haven't been so keen on tobacco and alcohol, both legal substances - but also illegalized for minors - which only shows the hypocrisy of your argument. At least others were more consistent and their arguments have a degree of logic about the problem of illegalizing substances at arbitrary age.

Tobacco has no benefit of any sort and only causes detrimental harm, hence its a no brainer that a child should not have it. Alcohol is highly addictive and causes more deaths every year then any other substance. On the other hand firearms have uses that are not hazardous. And if you have fucking bothered to read my posts I agreed that children would have to be evaluated for competence which can easily be done with education and training.

The initial question was what's the difference between any other industrial tool of high danger, including the aforementioned examples of cars, airplanes, industrial equipment, and explosives - and guns. The former are mostly restricted from child use; and of course a child does not have routine access to such industrial machinery.

"Mostly" and "Routine". Nice qualifiers. Guess what asshole? I am NOT advocating unrestricted access. I have consistently stated that children should have restricted access determined by education and training and weapons appropriate for their size. Just like children can fly airplanes but have to prove themselves, so should they prove themselves before they can be given access to guns.

Your only argument has been "guns are legal, prove we need to restrict them" - sorry, but that's an argument from legalism. Legalism is not even a moral position.

You are fucking lying again. I have repeatedly pointed out that I believe children should operate under restrictions, but that they should not suffer a blanket ban. That said, I am also pointing out that in an environment where guns are legal the burden is on YOU to justify banning them. I am not talking about restrictions. My position has been and always will be that restrictions are JUSTIFIABLE. You have pretty fucking clearly disagreed with me on this since I have fucking stated it on every single fucking page of this thread, so my conclusion is that you disagree with restrictions and want to BAN children from weapons COMPLETELY. Since that is your position, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a ban is justifiable when proper safety and restrictions are also an option.

Moreover, you repeatedly ignored the point that it's perfectly viable to ban a recreational activity for a minority of responsible users to save the lives of the irresponsible. You cannot be earnest when you claim all parents can adequately safeguard the weapons - as it was shown, they cannot - and so your whole argument is based on a shaky foundation of personal experience. Way to go.

Ban things with mind altering capabilities or zero positive attributes. Guns do not fall under those categories. As already demonstrated both heavy machinery and explosives are not BANNED from being used by children, just restricted. The burden is on you to prove that a ban is necessary for guns when restrictions work for other dangerous substances. And do remember that explosives are more dangerous then guns, but children are not banned from using them.

You also repeatedly ignored the point that at smaller ages, the physical and psychological maturity of an organism can be not adequate for handling the device; making it always highly dangerous to place said device in the hands of a minor, controlled or not. Not all children age the same; and it won't be a large stretch to say many, if not a majority, are physically and psychologically immature.

Another fucking lie. I have already stated that both psychology and physical reasons should be taken into account. Did you not read the post where I described an 8 year old is not physically capable of using an Uzi safely? Or did you completely ignore every single fucking time I stated that children should demonstrate themselves through education and training first?

Every single fucking thing your trying to argue with me about is fucking bullshit because they are positions I do not take. Can you even fucking read Stas? Seriously, get some fucking glasses you blind asshole.

[Alyeska]

Yes. They aren't children. And until they're old enough to not be children, they gain nothing from using potentially lethal ammunition. So get them a BB gun or something. That's still pushing it, but at least its difficult to kill someone with one of those.

They gain nothing from playing video games. They gain nothing from watching movies. Thats a bullshit excuse and you know it.

The difference here of course, is that if the child makes a mistake playing a game, or has a lapse of concentration watching a movie, the child or others is highly unlikely to be injured or killed.

Different argument, so a nice red herring. Flash made the argument that they "gain nothing". Your argument is safety, and that can easily be addressed with education and training.

[Darth Wong]

Different argument, so a nice red herring. Flash made the argument that they "gain nothing". Your argument is safety, and that can easily be addressed with education and training.

As a general rule, a child with training is not going to be as safe as an adult with training. Do you disagree with this statement?

[Erik von Nein]

It's also in movies and it's been a part of pop culture for a long time. However, teen binge drinking is out of control in North America (particularly on university campuses), and beer ads must be a contributing factor unless teens have somehow eliminated the entire phenomenon of conditioned association, which seems rather doubtful.

But how much of a factor does it play? I would think social inertia plays an even bigger role now than advertisements and pop culture iconography, simply because that's what friends of these people do when they have parties, so those people do the same, and their friends pick up on it, and so on down the line to newer and younger people.

[Alyeska]

Different argument, so a nice red herring. Flash made the argument that they "gain nothing". Your argument is safety, and that can easily be addressed with education and training.

As a general rule, a child with training is not going to be as safe as an adult with training. Do you disagree with this statement?

I do not. That is why I believe a child should also be supervised. The more potential danger involved, the greater the degree of supervision. If a parent doesn't feel comfortable with the supervision, then its a deal breaker and the kid can go back to playing with water pistols. There is a potential for non supervision with an older child, but that requires a demonstration of maturity and experience.

[Vendetta]

I don´t know. Beer ads here don´t advertise the party element of beer. But people still think of beer when they think of parties.

It's also in movies and it's been a part of pop culture for a long time. However, teen binge drinking is out of control in North America (particularly on university campuses), and beer ads must be a contributing factor unless teens have somehow eliminated the entire phenomenon of conditioned association, which seems rather doubtful.

The link between alcohol and parties isn't really to do with pop culture or advertising, it's certainly as old as european civilisation, and probably older, since one of the things that pretty much every human society ever has come up with is fermentation. The ancient Greeks were overindulging in wine and chucking the furniture around long before the first frat party was ever held.

[Darth Wong]

It's also in movies and it's been a part of pop culture for a long time. However, teen binge drinking is out of control in North America (particularly on university campuses), and beer ads must be a contributing factor unless teens have somehow eliminated the entire phenomenon of conditioned association, which seems rather doubtful.

But how much of a factor does it play? I would think social inertia plays an even bigger role now than advertisements and pop culture iconography, simply because that's what friends of these people do when they have parties, so those people do the same, and their friends pick up on it, and so on down the line to newer and younger people.

Perhaps, but we know that movies can play a big role in creating social paradigms (the whole "diamond engagement ring" thing is a perfect example) or strengthening existing social trends (eg- the campaign to put more smoking in movies). Perhaps more to the point, this heavily reinforced imagery means that it's that much harder to break the conditioning, even if you try. I personally have a psychological association of partying with beer even though I never drink beer and I dislike the entire drinking culture. What does that say?

[K. A. Pital]

That is why I believe a child should also be supervised.

How are you going to enforce standars of supervision? Do you agree that even a supervised child is more dangerous, with an industrial tool, than a trained adult in the same place?

I gave a stated reason of both recreational and hunting purposes.

Recreational activities can be banned if it is shown people cannot adequately control their recreational tools. Hunting is basically a recreational activity. Who the fuck relies on it to live in the modern world? Psycho primitivists?

I agreed that children would have to be evaluated for competence which can easily be done with education and training

Yeah, but NOT BY THEIR FUCKING PARENTS. By a professional commitee? Sure, why not. Also, some ages simply have inadequate physical and psychological maturity no matter how you cut it - the muscles and brain of an 8-year old is really underdeveloped compared to an adult.

"Mostly" and "Routine". Nice qualifiers. Guess what asshole? I am NOT advocating unrestricted access.

A gun is stored at home. It has been shown that most common storage devices are unsafe and prone to easy failure. The child is at home at all times, or most times. It is also routine access if the daddy takes his kiddie out for shooting often. I doubt daddy takes a child to operate a carier excavator often, so that's certainly nothing even close to the routine of gun use.

I have repeatedly pointed out that I believe children should operate under restrictions, but that they should not suffer a blanket ban.

What's the point of making complex restrictions if you can just ban the use of guns by children? Your recreational activities and "hunting"? Yeah. You impressed me. You failed to bring up a real reason for children to train to operate deadly tools, unless you're training them for sports or actually make child soldiers out of them.

As already demonstrated both heavy machinery and explosives are not BANNED from being used by children, just restricted.

Yeah? This "restriction" is for the most part equivalent to a ban. Real industrial machinery is not to be employed or operated by children. Children can drive real cars, but that mostly arrives at a high degree of maturity (over 14) and parents do it to train them for an activity that hardly qualifies as 'recreational' since the car is a necessary industrial tool for many.

I stated that children should demonstrate themselves through education and training first?

Yeah. Which means parents have no fucking business to evaluate their own kiddie. And for the most part, it would be easier to just ban it alltogether because there's no valid necessity for the use of guns by a child, outside of recreational activities which mean jack shit. End of story.

[Alyeska]

How are you going to enforce standars of supervision? Do you agree that even a supervised child is more dangerous, with an industrial tool, than a trained adult in the same place?

Start with existing systems that work and expand from there. We already have programs in place such as Drivers Ed and you have to take a test just to get a Drivers License. We can expand that idea. Many states and local communities have what is called Hunters Ed. In essence it is a gun safety class that you take. For child hunter it is typicaly required to hunt in the first place. You have to have a hunting license to hunt, you have to either be 18 years of age or have Hunters Ed if under 18 years of age. Expand on this concept. Required education with a working educational standard that emphasizes safety. When dealing with children you use age appropriate calibers.

Recreational activities can be banned if it is shown people cannot adequately control their recreational tools. Hunting is basically a recreational activity. Who the fuck relies on it to live in the modern world? Psycho primitivists?

With the current economic crisis in this country, you would be surprised. There has been an increase in people obtaining hunting licenses country wide as a means to try and cut back on living expenses. Yes recreational activity can be banned if it is sufficiently dangerous and poorly used. But you need extraordinary proof to ban controlled recreation. Its easier to ban people from shooting out their back door than it is to ban people from shooting on a firing range.

Yeah, but NOT BY THEIR FUCKING PARENTS. By a professional commitee? Sure, why not. Also, some ages simply have inadequate physical and psychological maturity no matter how you cut it - the muscles and brain of an 8-year old is really underdeveloped compared to an adult.

I quite agree. I would never hand a large caliber weapon to a child or a novice shooter. A child shooting a .22 is going to be quite adequate. The .22 will seem powerful for the child due to reasons you already stated.

A gun is stored at home. It has been shown that most common storage devices are unsafe and prone to easy failure. The child is at home at all times, or most times. It is also routine access if the daddy takes his kiddie out for shooting often. I doubt daddy takes a child to operate a carier excavator often, so that's certainly nothing even close to the routine of gun use.

Extraordinary care should be taken in firearms storage with children. You are right that its a common problem, and its one that needs to be solved. There are some possible answers. Safes with dial combinations. Guns required to be kept with breech locks with individual keys. Keys be kept in another dial safe. Guns kept outside of the house if conditions similar to these cannot be met.

What's the point of making complex restrictions if you can just ban the use of guns by children? Your recreational activities and "hunting"? Yeah. You impressed me. You failed to bring up a real reason for children to train to operate deadly tools, unless you're training them for sports or actually make child soldiers out of them.

You cannot dismiss a valid reason simply because its not one you would use.

Yeah? This "restriction" is for the most part equivalent to a ban. Real industrial machinery is not to be employed or operated by children. Children can drive real cars, but that mostly arrives at a high degree of maturity (over 14) and parents do it to train them for an activity that hardly qualifies as 'recreational' since the car is a necessary industrial tool for many.

No, it is not a ban. Children of suitable maturity and capability can and do achieve these goals.

Yeah. Which means parents have no fucking business to evaluate their own kiddie. And for the most part, it would be easier to just ban it alltogether because there's no valid necessity for the use of guns by a child, outside of recreational activities which mean jack shit. End of story.

I never said they should. A parent should have some degree of responsibility in this no doubt, but they are not the evaluator. If they know things that are important for the evaluator to be knowledgeable about the child, they have a duty of responsibility to report this information.

Easier to ban? So you would restrict civil liberties just because you find it easier then trying to allow the safe use of something? We let children fly, but because I think guns are difficult lets ban them entirely. And recreational activities are not jack and shit. We do a great deal for recreational purposes and you do not get to ignore this simply because you don't like it. Its a valid reason and if you want to BAN something rather then work with reasonable restrictions, the burden is on you to prove such a ban is the best course of action. Your arguments already betray this as you admit there can be rules that are effective, if extremely restrictive to degrees. But instead of trying to address the problem, you actually try and ignore it. Rather then heal the broken hand you would rather amputate the arm just to be done with it.

[K. A. Pital]

Rather then heal the broken hand you would rather amputate the arm just to be done with it.

Basically, it depends on your point of view. You see a recreational activity as a hand, as something vital - that is already wrong in my view. I see that creating sensible regulations will be rather hard (not least because many people are downright reckless and neglient when it comes to gun storage and gun safety - they are the problem, not part of the solution, not even those for whom the solution is designed). Perhaps from a cost-benefit point of view, banning will yield greater benefits avoiding the costs of a complex regulatory program, child screening, parent screening and training boards.

I would also have little objections from instituting a training program for reasonably adult organisms, at ages 16 and above probably, at state shooting ranges, kind of like we would do with other tools if we needed to have underage people use them.

However, I do not see a need to train those who are below a maturity age that can be reasonably established by a professional commitee of physiologists, psychologists and medics. That's probably all, and a nice summary of my position.

I might not hold recreational activities to be of great importance; and perhaps you're right, I'd cut off an arm rather than treat it, but that's only when I see the sickness of said arm as a gangrene, and not, say, herpies.

[Alyeska]

Basically, it depends on your point of view. You see a recreational activity as a hand, as something vital - that is already wrong in my view. I see that creating sensible regulations will be rather hard (not least because many people are downright reckless and neglient when it comes to gun storage and gun safety - they are the problem, not part of the solution, not even those for whom the solution is designed). Perhaps from a cost-benefit point of view, banning will yield greater benefits avoiding the costs of a complex regulatory program, child screening, parent screening and training boards.

Here is the problem. Essentially no law is going to solve reckless parents. They are going to do what they want to do and they won't give a shit about the law. So you are trying to create laws to deal with the worst parents who already don't give a shit. If they by definition won't follow the law on proper gun storage and training, just what do you expect they will do? Suddenly give up their guns? I sincerely doubt that.

And do not confuse recreational with vital. I do not consider gun ownership vital or necessary. I am not a believer that the 2nd amendment protects the rest. I consider it a luxury that is worthy of respect. Respect due to its potentially dangerous nature, and because it is fun. Calling something dangerous and writing it off and banning it is a copout. We already have established precedent due to fireworks being legal for children to you, so you cannot argue that children are not allowed to use explosives. They are. Allowing children to use firearms under highly controlled environments is a good thing. But when it comes to the idiot parents, even banning children from firearms just won't cut it. The parents just won't do what you want them to do. So you punish the law abiding families while the ones you are concerned about still do what they do. And any suggestion you make in regards to passing laws requiring gun registration to ensure parents won't get firearms is not going to reasonably occur. You have to work within the realistic legal framework in this country. Have realistic goals as to what you can really change. Yes you might pass a law to ban guns from childrens usage, in some states. But its going to be symbolic as the parents you are most concerned about will either ignore it, or take their children shooting in a state that does not have such laws.

I would also have little objections from instituting a training program for reasonably adult organisms, at ages 16 and above probably, at state shooting ranges, kind of like we would do with other tools if we needed to have underage people use them.

I fully agree. Course finding shooting ranges can be difficult in some locales, but that is a known issue gun owners take when they take up the sport.

However, I do not see a need to train those who are below a maturity age that can be reasonably established by a professional commitee of physiologists, psychologists and medics. That's probably all, and a nice summary of my position.

Do we utilize such things for children before they shoot fireworks? No. And we can create an environment where young children can shoot small caliber firearms that is safer then fireworks. And such a system wouldn't even require a committee. Specially designed weapons can be created which are usable in such a fashion that the child cannot under any reasonable scenario be in danger or cause danger. Rifles fixed to a bipod that cannot be detached. Or range instructors who are in physical control of the rifle and youth at all times. Don't over analyze the situation Stas.

I might not hold recreational activities to be of great importance; and perhaps you're right, I'd cut off an arm rather than treat it, but that's only when I see the sickness of said arm as a gangrene, and not, say, herpies.

Firearms ownership and usage is not a sickness. Think about it Stas. You are telling people that their recreation is a disease. How do you think they will react to your suggestions?

[Vendetta]

Do we utilize such things for children before they shoot fireworks? No.

Twelve states ban firework sales entirely, a further six allow only small commercial fireworks to be sold.

The UK certainly has laws against the sale of fireworks to children.

So actually yes. Yes fireworks are restricted, more stringently than guns in some states, which are far more dangerous.