07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 169170171172173 ...
tools
  1. plumbrich's Avatar
    I wonder how the study would be if done in a rural area say in South Georgia? Kids growing up in an armed shooting family versus a kid growing up in a non firearm family?

    Education is the key to all things mechanical. If you grow up around firearms you would be more educated about firearms and more likely be more safe handling them.

    I would not want any teenager to have only a 30 min safety class on how to drive a 2 ton plus vehicle them leave them the keys and walk away. There safety and the general publics safety would be in grave danger.

    Firearms, vehicles, unprotected sex and drugs are everywhere these days. At some point in your kids life they will be in contact with these, please teach your kids responsibility there life may depend on it. Banning these things will not make them safer education on these things will.

    When driving down the highway at 65mph an oncoming truck passes by you within 4 feet with a combined speed of 130mph. You don't know this person and with the thousands of people killed each year in head on collisions you still trust they will not hit you. Even though you are 10+ times more likely to get killed in a car crash than shot. Then someone doesn't trust you to have a gun in your house. Seems weird to me..
    01-29-2014 04:12 AM
  2. Fairclough's Avatar
    When were driving we don't have 5 year olds on the roads do we? In one of the videos they produced with planted guns in the room straight after the education lesson on guns they were being held in their own faces pulling the trigger. Curiosity kills the cat. Just say if particularly with young ones surely more precautions must be taken. As for the young adolescents something else might need to be done.

    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux.
    01-30-2014 07:42 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm still waiting for you to give a link to that follow-up study. I have some suspicions about it, but I don't want to jump the gun without seeing it.

    Yes, pun most definitely intended.
    01-30-2014 07:56 PM
  4. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I am also waiting for the study with the children that were left with the gun in the room to be produced before commenting.

    The other numbers are not surprising. You can look at it as either we need to ban guns, or we need to demand responsibility of the parents. As per the current trend of society, I doubt that choosing more responsibility will be what is chosen. The failure of a society we are dictates that responsibility is too much to ask for anything.

    I grew up with guns in the house. Almost every child i knew growing up did as well. Yet magically, i have never known of a child being harmed by one. Sure i have seen news stories, but the sampling of a few hundred children that I have taken personally says that there is not a problem. If you really want to curve this trend, increase the punishment for parents allowing their children to be hurt by firearms. Then stop the gang problems that get teenagers shot.

    Having a gun in the house is a risk. Just like anything else. Driving with your children in the car is a risk too. One that can be made worse by not making the child wear a seat belt or not putting them in a proper car seat. Just like you can leave a gun unsecured instead of locked up or leaving yummy looking drain-O in a place a toddler can easily access.

    Teaching children respect for firearms is imperative and is not something that can be instilled in a 5 minute class. It has to be a lifestyle. Growing up, i knew from a young age exactly how to access the guns in my parent's house. I NEVER thought as a child to get one out. I never thought to even look in that direction. I knew exactly what they were capable of and was scared of them. I have to this day never touch one of my father's guns without him first handing it to me. Yet today i am an enthusiast and own my own firearms. Respect is everything
    01-31-2014 08:47 AM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I just got finished watching a 20/20 special titled Young Guns, and part of it was similar to that study mentioned of kids playing with guns even after taking instruction about not doing so. I don't know if that was the same study Fairclough mentioned, but I'm guessing similar results. With the exception of kids around 10 years old, there were quite a few that still played with the gun. So here's my issues with it...

    First, they're kids. Their curiosity is going to get the best of them, no matter how much you tell them. Even if they've already lived around guns, kids at those ages are still unable to restrain themselves from temptation. Second, the guns were placed in a kids backpack. I could see that alone being enough to disarm a kid's restraint. After all, stuff in their backpack is safe to play with right? In their minds it is, and they don't yet have the mental capacity to realize something isn't right about the situation.

    That being said, the special was otherwise pretty fair and brought up some valid points from both sides of the kids and guns debate. The second segment was devoted to the other side of the debate, focusing on families where the kids were active shooters. I'm personally not opposed to kids shooting and learning with parental and/or instructor supervision, but I also agree the guns should be kept locked up and unloaded at home when it comes to kids. They also brought up the situation of a certain "My First Rifle" that looked like a pink toy gun, but was very much a real one. I'd never let my kids have a real gun that looked fake and make sure they understand any gun that isn't an obvious toy (I.e. with an orange barrel cap or something like a water gun) should be treated as a real one.
    Fairclough likes this.
    01-31-2014 10:27 PM
  6. palandri's Avatar
    I am also waiting for the study with the children that were left with the gun in the room to be produced before commenting.

    The other numbers are not surprising. You can look at it as either we need to ban guns, or we need to demand responsibility of the parents. As per the current trend of society, I doubt that choosing more responsibility will be what is chosen. The failure of a society we are dictates that responsibility is too much to ask for anything.

    I grew up with guns in the house. Almost every child i knew growing up did as well. Yet magically, i have never known of a child being harmed by one. Sure i have seen news stories, but the sampling of a few hundred children that I have taken personally says that there is not a problem. If you really want to curve this trend, increase the punishment for parents allowing their children to be hurt by firearms. Then stop the gang problems that get teenagers shot.

    Having a gun in the house is a risk. Just like anything else. Driving with your children in the car is a risk too. One that can be made worse by not making the child wear a seat belt or not putting them in a proper car seat. Just like you can leave a gun unsecured instead of locked up or leaving yummy looking drain-O in a place a toddler can easily access.

    Teaching children respect for firearms is imperative and is not something that can be instilled in a 5 minute class. It has to be a lifestyle. Growing up, i knew from a young age exactly how to access the guns in my parent's house. I NEVER thought as a child to get one out. I never thought to even look in that direction. I knew exactly what they were capable of and was scared of them. I have to this day never touch one of my father's guns without him first handing it to me. Yet today i am an enthusiast and own my own firearms. Respect is everything
    20/20 had a real good program tonight 1/31/2014 on kids and guns. Sometimes what you're talking about works, sometimes it doesn't. I hope you're able to catch a rerun of it and give us your opinion.
    Fairclough likes this.
    01-31-2014 11:02 PM
  7. palandri's Avatar
    I just got finished watching a 20/20 special titled Young Guns....
    I just watched it too.
    01-31-2014 11:03 PM
  8. saint satin stain's Avatar
    In the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court clarified that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm without requiring service in a militia. People can own firearms for legal purposes, especially for self-defense at home.
    The Supreme Court was wrong, though we have to live and die with its decision. I believe an amendment is in order because a state militia could serve an important role in case of flood, tornado, hurricane, forest fires etc. Plus the firearms training from law enforcement and national guard may prevent folk from shooting themselves and loved ones in the foot or worse. My reading of the founding folk was that arms were thought of as more than a right, an obligation. You could defend yourself, your neighbors, your state and federal governments. The amendment gives the governments the power to regulate the right, say universal background checks; with that one regulation, I'd not require any others except no certified crazy folk, felons, or suspected terrorists homegrown or foreign could legally possess guns.

    I live in Alabama where you can legally carry a visible gun without a license or permit; you need a permit to carry concealed. That law saved me 20 dollars. Then it gets weird, that laws says you have a permit, you cant carry your gun visible. You have a concealed permit you have to keep gun concealed. Humans are weird animals.


    I like that law and I'm a liberal, progressive libertarian. The law says that law enforcement can't hassle you.

    I only carry a pistol when I go bicycle touring and camping, mostly for varmints. BUT all persons should be subject to background check when they buy a gun any place, even from a friend. You ask a friend, Fred, you have a clean background check? And you get notarized (notaries dont read documents, only verify identity person signing) paper, could be home stationary. You dont want to have law enforcement charging you with homicide; the notarized statement protects you from indictment and civil suits. That person lied; you, an individual, neither required, nor do you have the resources, to do the background checks.
    02-01-2014 04:18 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    The Supreme Court was wrong, though we have to live and die with its decision. I believe an amendment is in order because a state militia could serve an important role in case of flood, tornado, hurricane, forest fires etc.
    Amending the Constitution is difficult. We may see a few laws restricting firearms, but they will probably be overturned due to the precedent set by recent court decisions.
    02-01-2014 08:37 PM
  10. Fairclough's Avatar
    I had a similar programme aired here but not sure if it was the same. I wasn't able to find the actual study online though.

    Maybe we do get a lot of the same documentaries inter country.

    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux.
    02-02-2014 06:40 PM
  11. _Zguy__'s Avatar
    I think if you have a young kid and a gun you need to take proper precautions like anything with a young kid. A kid will find the evil side of a tv stand, cabinet or table to think they wont do the same with a gun is dumb, but is the staircase at fault when a child gets injured falling down them?
    02-03-2014 08:19 PM
  12. SteveISU's Avatar
    Responsible gun owners don't leave their guns "laying" around the house like a pair of socks.
    02-04-2014 10:26 AM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Responsible gun owners don't leave their guns "laying" around the house like a pair of socks.
    Or like researchers trying to bait kids into playing with them.
    02-04-2014 01:24 PM
  14. SteveISU's Avatar
    Or like researchers trying to bait kids into playing with them.
    I'd also like to know what guns they are using that 3yr olds can **** and fire. My wife can barely pull the slide back on my XDM .40 S&W
    02-04-2014 01:58 PM
  15. NoYankees44's Avatar
    20/20 had a real good program tonight 1/31/2014 on kids and guns. Sometimes what you're talking about works, sometimes it doesn't. I hope you're able to catch a rerun of it and give us your opinion.
    Finally got time to look into this. A poor quality copy is on YouTube.

    Generally nothing they found was surprising. I am actually glad they aired it. Many people are stupid and ignorant with their guns and should have their eyes opened. It was unfortunately hopelessly bias though. They made only half hearted attempts to tell the other side of the story.

    A couple of issues:
    1. There was 0 gun education in the "briefing" of the children. It was all "guns are scary. Do not touch". You are begging children to be curious with that kind of teaching. It is like putting a shiny new toy in front of them and telling them they cannot have it till their birthday and then leaving the room. Children need to satisfy their curiosity in a safe and controlled manner. If these children had actually undergone a proper gun safety education, I speculate that you would have seen vastly different results.

    2. They never actually showed someone with proper security protecting their firearms. They just showed the ***** way and all the misfortune that accompanies it.

    3. We really need to define what an "assault weapon" is...

    4. People that "hide" loaded guns around their house are idiots.

    5. OMG they let a 4 year old shoot a 22 in a safe environment in his father's lap. O the humanity.
    02-04-2014 06:34 PM
  16. Mooncatt's Avatar
    A couple of issues:
    1. There was 0 gun education in the "briefing" of the children. It was all "guns are scary. Do not touch". You are begging children to be curious with that kind of teaching. It is like putting a shiny new toy in front of them and telling them they cannot have it till their birthday and then leaving the room. Children need to satisfy their curiosity in a safe and controlled manner. If these children had actually undergone a proper gun safety education, I speculate that you would have seen vastly different results.

    2. They never actually showed someone with proper security protecting their firearms. They just showed the ***** way and all the misfortune that accompanies it.

    3. We really need to define what an "assault weapon" is...

    4. People that "hide" loaded guns around their house are idiots.

    5. OMG they let a 4 year old shoot a 22 in a safe environment in his father's lap. O the humanity.
    1. I didn't see the "education" at the very beginning. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and agree with your point.

    2. Fair point, though they did show the one guy in that timing simulation near the end.

    3. The left already has. It's a gun that looks scary.

    4. Agreed

    5. How dare they!
    02-04-2014 07:07 PM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    It's real simple, if you spend $700 on a weapon, you should invest in a good safe to protect that weapon and others from it (ie...stay out of walmart). If you live in a neighborhood that requires you to keep a loaded gun on the nightstand to protect you and the baby mama + the 4yr old, 3yr old, 18mo old all sleeping in the 2nd bedroom, then maybe you should look into moving.
    02-05-2014 10:03 AM
  18. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Stag arms has introduced an ar15 that is compliant with the NY safe act, this rifle is legal to own in NY.

    Post Ban Configuration | Stag Arms LLC | USA

    New York

    Rifle Information: Crowned barrel, FRS 15 buttstock with cheek riser, no bayonet lug.
    Model series 4, 5, and 3G are not available in a NY post-ban configuration. The plus package is also not available for NY configured rifles.
    Magazine Capacity: 10 rounds
    Attached Thumbnails Firearms and self-defense-ar15pic.jpg   Firearms and self-defense-stag-arms-restricted-guns-new-york.png  
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-16-2014 09:46 PM
  19. _Zguy__'s Avatar
    This is what happens when the uneducated get emotional support and do something they no nothing about. The limited magazine makes sense, the "Assault Rifle" is a figment of the lefts imagination, from a Hollywood land where looks are more important than action.
    02-16-2014 09:49 PM
  20. Live2ride883's Avatar
    This is what happens when the uneducated get emotional support and do something they no nothing about. The limited magazine makes sense, the "Assault Rifle" is a figment of the lefts imagination, from a Hollywood land where looks are more important than action.
    The limited magazine does not make sense...
    02-17-2014 12:11 AM
  21. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I have to say. The change was very simple.
    02-17-2014 01:50 AM
  22. _Zguy__'s Avatar
    The limited magazine does not make sense...
    Of the "gun control" issues it makes the most sense, using 3 10 round mags would slow a shooter down at least a few seconds over a 30 round mag
    02-17-2014 06:39 AM
  23. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Of the "gun control" issues it makes the most sense, using 3 10 round mags would slow a shooter down at least a few seconds over a 30 round mag
    It would also slow down someone trying to defend themselves and their family from harm....
    02-17-2014 09:01 AM
  24. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Of the "gun control" issues it makes the most sense, using 3 10 round mags would slow a shooter down at least a few seconds over a 30 round mag
    Unless you are going to destroy every "high capacity" mag in existence and every means of modifying existing mags, it is a stupid and pointless sanction that only effects law abiding citizens.

    A criminal does not care that the law says that the magazine in his gun is illegal. He will use a 30 round mag that he had before the sanction, buy one legally somewhere else, modify a 10 round mag, or obtain a 30 round mag illegally. This law does absolutely nothing to stop this. It is merely another law meant for criminals that only effects law abiding citizens. But you have the idiots in Washington that have stated on record that they believe magazines are only one use devices writing these laws.

    We need common sense gun control. Not garbage like this that stems from irrational fear and was written by people that know nothing about what they are talking about and don't care.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-17-2014 11:34 AM
  25. Timelessblur's Avatar
    It would also slow down someone trying to defend themselves and their family from harm....
    1. If you need to use more than 10 rounds in defense you have bigger problems or you do not know how to use your gun right. You should never have to be unloading more than a 4-5 rounds at most in self defenses. That is quick firing and you should be done.

    2. Rifle is horrible for home self defenses. It is way to long and heavy to manage in confined space of a house. It is a long range weapon (aka not good for self defense.

    Between reason 1 and 2 your bases is well crap and what I will call FUD (standard tactics of ***** GOP).

    In terms of public safety that means to shoot 30 rounds in an attack that puts them more chances to screw up loading. I believe in Sandy hook the guy was taken down when he screw up putting in a new clip. Now imagine if that happen 3 times sooner.
    nolittdroid, Scott7217 and jdbii like this.
    02-17-2014 11:38 AM
4,617 ... 169170171172173 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD