Kids With Guns!

[SmilezRoyale]

I was thinking about it, every now and then they'll be a thread about younger kids and sexual activities. Most recently you have that planned parenthood thing but i recall poxpower making other threads criticizing more conservative veiws on the sexual behaviours of younger children. If you've been on the BBS long enough you know they pop up every now and then.

I want you to think in your head what age you think is appropriate for a person to learn about sex, if you have certain particular preferences with regards to specific knowledge about sex. (i.e. is the age that it is appropriate to learn about X sexual topic not necessarily the same as Y sexual topic) Consider what your reasoning is also. THINK about your justification.

I want you to then think about the age that you think it is appropriate for a person to engage in a sexual activity, and the same thing about particular preferences also applies.

Now i want you to answer me this. But before you come to any conclusion What age do you think it's appropriate for someone to learn how to fire a gun? I can imagine many people who are perhaps very loose with regards to their restrictions on sexual behaviour are scared at the idea of teaching a child how to fire a gun. DO NOT post a reply until you read the rest of my post. Kthxbai

Note that I'm not asking what age is it appropriate to GIVE a child a gun. Only to TEACH them how to fire it. It's like the difference between teaching something what masturbation is and giving them an actual pornographic magazine.

I'm also not saying that the gun needs to be loaded with live ammunition. You can load it with blanks. But the child will be familiarized with the recoil affect and how to handle the gun, as well as getting used to the sound of it firing. Sexual education isn't the same as actually having students engage in sexual activity with one another.

I'm also not actually ADVOCATING that the government teach children how to do this. I don't advocate that the government do anything (lol) But I do want to get people's reaction to this.

Ok... possible objections?

1) possibly injury from recoil even when teaching to fire with blanks:

True, but the same if not worse injuries could occur if you teach a child to ride a bike. Obviously you're not going to give the child a weapon that has an incredible recoil or is too large for them to handle like a magnum or something.

2) There's no purpose teaching a child to fire a gun.

then there's no use teaching a child to use a condom either, at least not from a PURPOSEFUL sense. You can say that teaching them, even if they don't use it any time soon, keeps them safe, i would say the same thing applies here.

3) Kids should be taught that guns are dangerous and they shouldn't be touched, but they shouldn't be taught how to use them (even how to use them responsibly), that sort of thing should be left to the adults.

Kids should be taught that sex is dangerous and they should only commit to abstinence, and leave sex to the adults.

Ignorance about the safe way to have sex is ignorance about sex itself. Likewise ignorance about the safe way to at least handle a gun is ignorance about guns themselves. The idea is that the more you know about something the greater your chances are to make an informed decision.

4) Kids are stupid, if they're taught how to handle a gun they'll go shooting each other irresponsibly.

This is a self defeating argument, obviously. It's a boomerang argument.

Keep in mind that i don't imagine that you'll see stories in the news about a kid in school stopping a school shooter heroically with a gun that his Uncle taught him to fire, at least not regularly. For the same reason i don't imagine you'll often see stories about ten year old having sex because they taught them to do it in school.

I'd like to hear from the people that are in the military/armed forces, and what they think to this amusing proposal.

[Gunner-D]

At 2/20/10 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: DO NOT post a reply until you read the rest of my post. Kthxbai

I only glanced at the rest.

But it is up the the law and the parents, plain and simple.

[gumOnShoe]

The first time I fired a weapon was probably when I was 8 or 9, but I know plenty of responsible people that were doing it around 6 or 7 years of age. Its something the parents need to come to a consensus on and it depends on the maturity of a child. If you've got a kid who's a sociopath, you probably shouldn't teach them how to shoot, but again its a personal thing and its family oriented.

Sexual education is different in a lot of ways. Its easier to understand death and killing, imo, than permanently destroying your life by acquiring a disease or having a kid when you weren't ready for it. Also, what with STDs it makes sense people should learn about safe sex and the risks inherent in sex. There's not a whole lot of motive for a school to teach kids how to shoot a gun. If we lived in a hunter/gatherer society I'd probably feel different.

[camobch0]

its pretty easy if you aren't brain dead or sarah palin.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/21/10 07:21 PM, camobch0 wrote: its pretty easy if you aren't brain dead or sarah palin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

good one!

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/21/10 12:02 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: The first time I fired a weapon was probably when I was 8 or 9, but I know plenty of responsible people that were doing it around 6 or 7 years of age. Its something the parents need to come to a consensus on and it depends on the maturity of a child. If you've got a kid who's a sociopath, you probably shouldn't teach them how to shoot, but again its a personal thing and its family oriented.

I'm actually surprised. What weapon did you fire? Because Most people would consider me a libertine yet i would be uncomfortable with having MY child firing a gun at age 6-7.... but hey if the firing range guy thinks it's safe, then it's safe.

Sexual education is different in a lot of ways. Its easier to understand death and killing, imo, than permanently destroying your life by acquiring a disease or having a kid when you weren't ready for it. Also, what with STDs it makes sense people should learn about safe sex and the risks inherent in sex. There's not a whole lot of motive for a school to teach kids how to shoot a gun. If we lived in a hunter/gatherer society I'd probably feel different.

It varies from society to society, american entertainment is violent but not as sexual as german entertainment, which is not very violent.

____________________

Sadistic unless you actually LIKE Sarah Palin, an attack on her is not an attack on liberty and it's not an attack on you. If she ever does become president she'll likely institute nationalized healthcare, increase national defense spending, and establish a federally controlled education system.

[Bacchanalian]

At 2/20/10 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: then there's no use teaching a child to use a condom either, at least not from a PURPOSEFUL sense.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/21/10 08:11 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/20/10 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: then there's no use teaching a child to use a condom either, at least not from a PURPOSEFUL sense.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I'm just saying that there's no MORE use for teaching someone to handle a gun versus a condom, since you can make a case that both have their 'critical' uses.

[RydiaLockheart]

The Amish and Mennonites around here tend to teach their sons how to shoot when they're fairly young, since many of them go hunting with the men in their families. Dad said he once saw a 10-year-old Amish boy bag his first buck. Considering they hunt for food and pelts and not sport, I see why those groups teach their sons about guns when they're fairly young.

Anyone else, though, I guess it's up to the parents and the individual child, as in, their own maturity level. While any parent who would take their 4-year-old to the range is a fucking retard, children should be taught gun safety at a young age.

[NeoBlueFalcon]

Like it's been said before, it's up to the parents to decide.

But then again, what happens when the parents won't tahe responsibility for their child's actions? Who would it fall upon then?

[Bacchanalian]

At 2/21/10 08:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm just saying that there's no MORE use for teaching someone to handle a gun versus a condom, since you can make a case that both have their 'critical' uses.

How often is someone put in a position where proper gun use is critical vs. how often is someone put in a position where safe sex is critical?

[gumOnShoe]

At 2/21/10 08:04 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm actually surprised. What weapon did you fire? Because Most people would consider me a libertine yet i would be uncomfortable with having MY child firing a gun at age 6-7.... but hey if the firing range guy thinks it's safe, then it's safe.

Honestly, it was just a bb gun the first time, but my dad's a hunter so it wasn't long after that that I learned how to shoot a shot gun. The friend I was referring to still does hand gun competitions. His dad coaches people and everything. They don't hunt anymore, but his father was in the military, literally a rocket scientist. They teach their kids guns aren't toys, they are dangerous weapons. I couldn't even convince him to play paint ball with me, even though he's fine with video games like Halo. But honestly, when you're taught to respect life like that and the tool for what it is then its not a problem.

I'm not a big fan of the shoulder bruises, so I haven't shot anything in a few years, but I don't have any moral objections to safe uses of weaponry, recreational or for hunting.

Just like its better if your kid is going to have sex that he knows the risks before he'd start doing it.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/21/10 10:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/21/10 08:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm just saying that there's no MORE use for teaching someone to handle a gun versus a condom, since you can make a case that both have their 'critical' uses.

How often is someone put in a position where proper gun use is critical vs. how often is someone put in a position where safe sex is critical?

It depends upon where you live. If you live in a high crime area, or if you happen to have a gun in the house for hunting/defense purposes, instructing someone in proper gun use at the age of 10 is probably more relevant to their safety in the short term than Condoms. Whereas in other places where, FOR example, AIDS rates are very high, safe sex is likely more critical. There's also the importance of danger, unsafe handling of a firearm very likely is more likely to actually KILL someone than unsafe handling of a Condom. I am aware that there are STD's like Aids exist and are life threatening, but again the risk depends on location.

[Bluenile]

Gun safety should be taught when young, but children should not be able to actually even hold a gun until they are at least 8-9 years old.

Then again I shouldent be talking since I fired a gun when I was 6-7, and learned about sex from family guy

[sirsicklick]

Sexual Education in schools is taught by morons.

[Ravariel]

Where I grew up, hunting was the "national" pastime, so most kids learned about guns very early. 8 to 9-year-olds were taught how to shoot .22 rifles early on, and home gun safety (i.e. "no touching daddy's gun, it's like the stove, it can hurt you if you're not careful.") was done as soon as the kids were old enough to go wandering around and get into trouble. I have absolutely no problem with this mentality. Education is what makes everything safer. This applies both to guns and sex. A 10-year old won't go on a shooting spree because he was taught how to use a gun any more than he'd go out and bang every chick in his class because you taught him about condoms.

If/when I become a parent, I plan on teaching my child about sex, guns and everything else in a completely neutral way, to remove as much possible taboo about the subjects and educate as much as possible about risks, rewards and all the rest. If a child asks about sex, or is seen to be having some interest in that area (playing doctor, doll make-out sessions, whatever) then they're ready to be taught and given information. If guns are in the house, then education needs to start almost immediately because of the dangerous nature of the item (similar to teaching them about the stove or electrical sockets).

[kazumazkan]

At 2/23/10 04:57 PM, sirsicklick wrote: Sexual Education in schools is taught by morons.

sure is

[fatape]

sex: when they are mature enough to have a vauge understanding of the information they are given

guns: when there physcally old enough to handle a gun without injury and mature enough to undertsnad why one would use a gun

the difference between these two things is that sex is almost nessacary to teach children and guns are not, now if you say to teach them self defence then that's a differnt story.

[Wolf-Raven]

Child Soldiers are awesome.

They're cheep. They're great to sleep with and the LOOOVE shooting up their home villages.

Considering a child can't really understand the consequences of their actions, and actual childhood is now something that is leaving rapidly from our society's psyche, yet is an important psychological competent to a healthy mind, i don't think we should give children the ability to deal out life and death.

[Wolf-Raven]

At 3/2/10 09:28 PM, Wolf-Raven wrote: Child Soldiers are awesome.

They're cheep. They're great to sleep with and the LOOOVE shooting up their home villages.

Considering a child can't really understand the consequences of their actions, and actual childhood is now something that is leaving rapidly from our society's psyche, yet is an important psychological competent to a healthy mind, i don't think we should give children the ability to deal out life and death.

Edit: Unless, of course, they choose to. But there should be taken into consideration still that they don't fully know the consequences of their actions.

[fli]

At 2/20/10 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm also not saying that the gun needs to be loaded with live ammunition. You can load it with blanks. But the child will be familiarized with the recoil affect and how to handle the gun, as well as getting used to the sound of it firing. Sexual education isn't the same as actually having students engage in sexual activity with one another.

except, a gun and a condom is a whole different thing.

You can't shoot an std...
Where as comprehensive sex education tells is about CONSEQUENCE...

Gun advocates are nearly always about the BENEFITS.

I mean, I guess people could compare oranges and apples together... but in the end... one is an orange... and the other is an apple.

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

think of a condom like a silencer for a gun and your gun is your dick.

When your gun cums than boom it is going to be messy!

[JackOfShadows]

Your comparison between sex-ed and gun doesn't make much sense, sorry to say.

Sex is something you're expected to do, and around 17 if you're a virgin you're under huge pressure by your peers to pop your cherry. Later in life, sex is something you have to do to make children, which is considered an essential part of leading a proper life by many.

Gun - you can live 110 years and never fire a gun. You won't be shunned or laughed at. No one will call you a gun-virgin. At 50 if you don't have kids, chances are you aren't very good with people. If at 80 you've never fired a gun, chances are you live a content life.

Sex-ed is meant to protect children from sexual abuse and from unsafe sex. Sex-ed helps kids with anxiety linked to periods, nocturnal emission, erection and so on. All this stuff will happen, and most likely there won't be a adult around to explain.

What you should compare sex-ed to is gun safety. Yes, you should teach young kids not to touch guns or rounds. Explain that guns are dangerous and that pulling the trigger is a bad idea. Letting a kid fire a gun is another thing completely.

Also, around here everyone knows how to fire a weapon. In fact, much of our youth spend 3 years with an assault rifle slung on their back. I still see no reason why a child should know how to use a weapon.

[satanbrain]

At 3/12/10 05:07 PM, JackOfShadows wrote: Sex is something you're expected to do, and around 17 if you're a virgin you're under huge pressure by your peers to pop your cherry. Later in life, sex is something you have to do to make children, which is considered an essential part of leading a proper life by many.

not by few religions and ideologies. knowing how to defense yourself is more essential.

Gun - you can live 110 years and never fire a gun. You won't be shunned or laughed at. No one will call you a gun-virgin. At 50 if you don't have kids, chances are you aren't very good with people. If at 80 you've never fired a gun, chances are you live a content life.

what do you consider a 'content life'? self-deception?

Sex-ed is meant to protect children from sexual abuse and from unsafe sex. Sex-ed helps kids with anxiety linked to periods, nocturnal emission, erection and so on. All this stuff will happen, and most likely there won't be a adult around to explain.

and being shot by a terrorist, this won't happen?

Also, around here everyone knows how to fire a weapon. In fact, much of our youth spend 3 years with an assault rifle slung on their back. I still see no reason why a child should know how to use a weapon.

More they train, more they'll be skilled soldiers.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/4/10 03:24 PM, fli wrote:

except, a gun and a condom is a whole different thing.

You can't shoot an std...
Where as comprehensive sex education tells is about CONSEQUENCE...

Gun advocates are nearly always about the BENEFITS.

A Benefit simply describes avoiding negative consequences or enjoying positive ones.

Knowing how to use a gun and how to use a Condom are a matter of avoiding negative consequences. Ignorance about the safe and appropriate uses of both is necessarily dangerous.

[JackOfShadows]

At 3/12/10 11:47 PM, satanbrain wrote:

not by few religions and ideologies. knowing how to defense yourself is more essential.

What kind of a religion doesn't expect you to have kids? Please don't bring up all kinds of cults or mention priests. I mean normal, average people.

what do you consider a 'content life'? self-deception?

Nope. Just being reasonably o'kay with thew way you lead your life.

and being shot by a terrorist, this won't happen?

Not as likely as you having sex. Besides, knowing how to use a gun won't save you. Carrying a gun just might. Kids aren't allowed to carry weapons (which is a good thing) so the knowledge alone won't help them any.

Besides, firing a round or two off doesn't make you a marksman. Some people require weeks of training.

So, the next time you're assaulted by a terrorist, you should tell him all about how you could've shot him, if only they let you fire off a few blanks back in kindergarten.

More they train, more they'll be skilled soldiers.

Right, that should be the main focus of the entire nation - creating an endless army of the best trained soldiers in the Universe. Heck, if they start practicing martial arts at 6, shooting training at 8 and jogging cross country in full gear at 10 they can be drafted as young as 16 and kick anyone's ass.

Yep, I see no reason to teach kids to shoot guns. Other than the fact that they might wanna do it again in a less controlled environment. I mean, you teach them how to do it in class, right? There can't be bad, if you teach it in school, right?

[satanbrain]

At 3/13/10 08:27 PM, JackOfShadows wrote: What kind of a religion doesn't expect you to have kids? Please don't bring up all kinds of cults or mention priests. I mean normal, average people.

normal is too abstract.

Nope. Just being reasonably o'kay with thew way you lead your life.

same as self-deception

Not as likely as you having sex. Besides, knowing how to use a gun won't save you. Carrying a gun just might. Kids aren't allowed to carry weapons (which is a good thing) so the knowledge alone won't help them any.

why is that a good thing? not letting a kid chance to protect himself worth the risk of getting killed?

Besides, firing a round or two off doesn't make you a marksman. Some people require weeks of training.

then, they should be trained.

More they train, more they'll be skilled soldiers.

Right, that should be the main focus of the entire nation - creating an endless army of the best trained soldiers in the Universe. Heck, if they start practicing martial arts at 6, shooting training at 8 and jogging cross country in full gear at 10 they can be drafted as young as 16 and kick anyone's ass.

exactly!

Yep, I see no reason to teach kids to shoot guns. Other than the fact that they might wanna do it again in a less controlled environment. I mean, you teach them how to do it in class, right? There can't be bad, if you teach it in school, right?

so teach them not to do that in a 'less controlled environment', if you educate them well enough, they'll never do that.

[JackOfShadows]

At 3/15/10 09:24 AM, satanbrain wrote:

normal is too abstract.

Just humor me, o'kay? No one likes a smartass.

same as self-deception

If your idea of happiness is lying to oneself, I don't think you're going to have much of a happy life.

why is that a good thing? not letting a kid chance to protect himself worth the risk of getting killed?

There's a much higher risk of the child shooting someone, either by mistake or on purpose, because little children aren't all that good at figuring out consequences.

then, they should be trained.

Now you're just exaggerating.

Right, that should be the main focus of the entire nation - creating an endless army of the best trained soldiers in the Universe. Heck, if they start practicing martial arts at 6, shooting training at 8 and jogging cross country in full gear at 10 they can be drafted as young as 16 and kick anyone's ass.

exactly!

Correct me if I'm wrong here. You're trying to prove me wrong by sarcasticaly agreeing with me? If so, you should note that I don't think that turning people into killing machines is good.

so teach them not to do that in a 'less controlled environment', if you educate them well enough, they'll never do that.

Exactly my point. As I've already said, you should teach not to touch guns at all. Letting them fire weapons will have the opposite effect.

[bcdemon]

Due to personal reasons I don't care for guns. That said I did let my 5.5 year old shoot a pump action BB gun with my best friend and his daughter. I trust my friend to teach my son how to shoot properly. If it weren't for that friend, my son wouldn't have learned to shoot. I still don't like guns, but I can take solace in the fact that I know my son knows how to operate a gun, safely.

He still laughs at his erection, so he isn't ready for sex ed yet. But I will probably talk to him around 10 or 11 years old.

That and I don't think comparing the age to talk about Guns and Sex is a fair thing, kids will be more interested in guns at an early age as opposed to sex, due to its availability, so the need for early education is important.
And no, education is not placing an Uzi in the hand of an 8 year old. Who subsequently died from a head shot, and who's parents sued the gun club, promoters and the 15 year old kid who handed the 8 year old an UZI (That sounds fucked up right there, 15 yr old handing an 8 yr old an UZI???). In the end, Christopher is still dead, and the parents assume absolutely ZERO responsibility in his death, it's ALL the fault of the event promoters.....