ABC 20/20 next Friday 01/31/2014 small Children finding firearms at homes.
- Thread starter rifleshooter474
- Start date
Well...we have science that has discovered that the brain doesn't develop the capacity to deal with risks rationally until adulthood. and while some might develop slower than others, that is no reason to allow children unsupervised access to a loaded firearm. It's just a reason not to allow the slow developer unsupervised access to a loaded firearm as well.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Again everyone misses, a gun is a mechanical device not good, not bad, the factor everyone overlooks is use your brain, practice safety. All of my kids grew up around firearms, not so of the neighbor kids, you don't let children play with knives or boiling water because they can kill or harm you. Guns same rules apply, it's about smarts not mechanical parts.
wolf_fire
New member
So please, define "slow developer". Are we to have all children tested to see their developmental rate so that the government can interfere with how a parent raises their child?
Also, does this mean by your statement, you are in favor of the government intruding on how parents raise their children?
While I agree, this is most likely good practice in most situations, is it a reason to have a law where the government tells parents how they are to take care of their children. The more government interference the less rights we have.
Seamsealer
Member
It's the take your guns crowd doing the 20-20 piece, it won't be worth watching.
Once again, the fact that individuals develop at different rates is no reason to ignore that the great majority of individuals develop at similar rates. We don't let the exceptions emasculate the rule.
"The government" is us. Our laws are the laws that we the people have enacted through our elected representatives. Part of living in a civilized society is that everyone is expected to abide by the rules adopted by the society even though everyone doesn't agree with all rules.
I agree that we should keep society's intresion into family affairs to a the absolute minimum, but children are not property of their parents.
We the people will not allow individual parents to expose their children to abuse or life threatening risk like driving drunk with children in a car or allowing children access to a loaded weapon.
"The government" is us. Our laws are the laws that we the people have enacted through our elected representatives. Part of living in a civilized society is that everyone is expected to abide by the rules adopted by the society even though everyone doesn't agree with all rules.
I agree that we should keep society's intresion into family affairs to a the absolute minimum, but children are not property of their parents.
We the people will not allow individual parents to expose their children to abuse or life threatening risk like driving drunk with children in a car or allowing children access to a loaded weapon.
That , my friend , is a very slippery slope.
rifleshooter474
New member
Well here it is Friday the 31st, and tonight we will see and hear what ABC 20/20 has to show and tell.
wolf_fire
New member
The children are definitely NOT the property of the Federal, State, nor local governments. If a parent is abusive to a child then yes, intervene for the sake of the child. If that parent has raised that child correctly, like so many have done in years past, so the child knows how to hand a firearm safely, that is absolutely no business of the governments, and shouldn't be. By doing so, you deny a child that is mature enough to protect him/self from doing so.
It seems as if the two of us will not agree on this. You have stated quite clearly that you think no child should have access to a loaded firearm, regardless of the circumstances. I however, if that child is to be taken by force from his/her home, or worse by some predator, believe that the child should be able to defend him/herself if the parent deems them mature enough to handle the firearm.
B
Bikenut
Guest
A rant...
What annoys me is folks (media or individuals) making blanket statements about what other people should not be "allowed" to do simply because they think they are so superior, so much more intelligent, and so divinely anointed to tell everyone else what is best.
It doesn't matter what that statement is about... whether about children should not have access to guns ... or about felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns... or whatever the controversial topic happens to be at the moment... it still boils down to:
The one making the statement wants everyone else to adhere to his/her own personal opinion of what is and what ISN'T "reasonable", "appropriate", (and their desire to be in control of what is.. and most importantly what ISN'T)...."acceptable".
Sadly I've noticed throughout my 65 years of life that there are a multitude of people who consider themselves so superior, so intelligent, so important, that God Himself will be calling any day for an appointment so He can get their advice on how to run the universe.
End rant.
What annoys me is folks (media or individuals) making blanket statements about what other people should not be "allowed" to do simply because they think they are so superior, so much more intelligent, and so divinely anointed to tell everyone else what is best.
It doesn't matter what that statement is about... whether about children should not have access to guns ... or about felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns... or whatever the controversial topic happens to be at the moment... it still boils down to:
The one making the statement wants everyone else to adhere to his/her own personal opinion of what is and what ISN'T "reasonable", "appropriate", (and their desire to be in control of what is.. and most importantly what ISN'T)...."acceptable".
Sadly I've noticed throughout my 65 years of life that there are a multitude of people who consider themselves so superior, so intelligent, so important, that God Himself will be calling any day for an appointment so He can get their advice on how to run the universe.
End rant.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Well, this might interest some here.....
Posted 1/30/14
By: David Codrea
Excerpt only - more at link:
...They were “unloaded,” the report assures viewers, although the late Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the foremost authorities on gun use and safely, taught as his most basic principle that “All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.” That ABC and the police deliberately put children in a position to ignore not only that cardinal rule, but also the remaining three concerning where the muzzle is pointed, keeping fingers off triggers and being sure what is beyond the target, is grossly irresponsible, and the excuse that the police provided expert assurance rings hollow in light of how many negligent police shootings (invariably deemed “accidents”) have been documented in this column’s companion WarOnGuns blog.
Beyond such inexcusable jeopardizing of children’s lives, the segment may actually violate the law.
Florida Statute 790.174, “Safe storage of firearms required” mandates “A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm ... and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
“It is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... if a person violates [the above] by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor's parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law.”
So ABC, like NBC and David Gregory before them, have no problem with violating a law on TV dealing with child safety and guns in a propaganda effort to have the actions of law-abiding gun owners criminalized. Nice, huh?
Here's where Gov. Scott and Pam Bondi can bolster their "conservative" bonafides. Everyone associated with making this propaganda piece should be prosecuted, or at least objectively investigated. HA! Anyone else have any good jokes they'd like to tell? LOL
Blues
Link Removed
Posted 1/30/14
By: David Codrea
Excerpt only - more at link:
...They were “unloaded,” the report assures viewers, although the late Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the foremost authorities on gun use and safely, taught as his most basic principle that “All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.” That ABC and the police deliberately put children in a position to ignore not only that cardinal rule, but also the remaining three concerning where the muzzle is pointed, keeping fingers off triggers and being sure what is beyond the target, is grossly irresponsible, and the excuse that the police provided expert assurance rings hollow in light of how many negligent police shootings (invariably deemed “accidents”) have been documented in this column’s companion WarOnGuns blog.
Beyond such inexcusable jeopardizing of children’s lives, the segment may actually violate the law.
Florida Statute 790.174, “Safe storage of firearms required” mandates “A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm ... and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
“It is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... if a person violates [the above] by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor's parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law.”
So ABC, like NBC and David Gregory before them, have no problem with violating a law on TV dealing with child safety and guns in a propaganda effort to have the actions of law-abiding gun owners criminalized. Nice, huh?
Here's where Gov. Scott and Pam Bondi can bolster their "conservative" bonafides. Everyone associated with making this propaganda piece should be prosecuted, or at least objectively investigated. HA! Anyone else have any good jokes they'd like to tell? LOL
Blues
So I watched the 20/20 “special” tonight and to be honest my reaction is mixed. It’s not nearly as blatantly anti gun as the “If I Only Had A Gun” story they did a few years ago but it’s still Diane Sawyer so I know it’s in there.
The experiments all seemed really staged to me, it’s like they did every thing they could short of coating the gun with candy to entice the kids to pick it up and they picked some really extreme examples to make their point I mean who in their right mind leaves (as in that’s where it stays all the time) a loaded gun on the kitchen table with kids in the house.
But having said all that I still can’t fault their basic premise, kids shouldn’t have unsupervised access to guns. Loaded guns should not be left unsecured in a house where children are present. But even though I agree with that it doesn’t mean that I support the idea of mandated safe storage laws; which, in all fairness 20/20 never mentioned once.
As I said earlier, because it’s ABC and because it’s Diane Sawyer I know there was an agenda I’m just having a hard time picking it out. Was the first 55 minutes a set up to ease us into the idea that we should be asking our friends and neighbors if they have guns in their home?
The experiments all seemed really staged to me, it’s like they did every thing they could short of coating the gun with candy to entice the kids to pick it up and they picked some really extreme examples to make their point I mean who in their right mind leaves (as in that’s where it stays all the time) a loaded gun on the kitchen table with kids in the house.
But having said all that I still can’t fault their basic premise, kids shouldn’t have unsupervised access to guns. Loaded guns should not be left unsecured in a house where children are present. But even though I agree with that it doesn’t mean that I support the idea of mandated safe storage laws; which, in all fairness 20/20 never mentioned once.
As I said earlier, because it’s ABC and because it’s Diane Sawyer I know there was an agenda I’m just having a hard time picking it out. Was the first 55 minutes a set up to ease us into the idea that we should be asking our friends and neighbors if they have guns in their home?
I must agree that their fact of the number of children injured or killed by guns must be old data. The last I heard it was under 100 not 300+. Still owners must be vigilant not to let young children get their hands on guns without adult supervision, that only makes common sense and is practiced in my home
Watch your back no matter what, it's a jungle out there!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Watch your back no matter what, it's a jungle out there!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
FAS1
Member
Link Removed
Cnon
New member
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I didn't bother watching the propaganda piece on ABC when it aired, but I did just read Mr. Lott's response to it. Very useful and informative piece. Thanks for posting it.
Blues
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
I haven't gone through this entire thread or watched the piece but, I will say that I have two young children (4yrs & 2yrs) and more weapons than any pawn shop I've ever been into... I teach my children that firearms are tools that can be used by good people and bad people, that they are for "Mommies and Daddies" only and that they are never ever to be treated as toys. I teach them that if they ever touch one of the firearms (which are either in a safe, gun cabinet or hidden from their little hands) I'll beat the snot out of them. To date, both my children know what a firearm is (at least by sight, if not actual function) and neither one has ever attempted to touch any of them... much less show an interest in them.
I will not hide my children from firearms but, I will damn sure teach them the proper use of them! That is MY business, not the governments! Ever! Now, to the thread for some reading...
I will not hide my children from firearms but, I will damn sure teach them the proper use of them! That is MY business, not the governments! Ever! Now, to the thread for some reading...
You really think threatening to beat the snot out of your children has any impact?
They won't appreciate it until you have beat the snot out of then at least once.
So have at tonight. Let 'em know what they'll get in case they ever disobey you.
That way you will be able top continue your fantasy about being intelligent enough to be a parent.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.