Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 16:55:38 -0400
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> >> >
> >> Most toddlers (under the age of 4) would have a hard time opening a desk >drawer, lifting the gun and pulling its trigger, so within this age group, >drowning deaths are greater than gunshot deaths. Most unintentional self- or >other-child-inflicted gunshot deaths of minors (unintentional including >bang-bang games where the child does not understand the reality of the result) >occur in ages 6 - 12, during a dip in child drownings, and in this age group, >when drowning in five-gallon buckets is much less of a danger, gunshot deaths >are most likely greater. For ages 15-24, when drowning deaths once again spike, >intentional firearm homicides and suicides are also higher than for those >younger or older.
> >My 3 year old nephew is quite capable of all sorts of mischief and is
> >quite strong,
> What about a 2 year old? A one year old? Where is the cutoff point from the general conclusions you draw from your particular, private and personal anecdotal evidence?
it all depends upon the child, the weapon, and the trigger pull. And no,
I don't advocate leaving guns lying around for little kids to get their
hands on, but I don't advocate locking them all up either.
> >so no, I contest your dismissal of toddlers, now that it
> >has been proven that your hysteria with regards to them is not supported
> >by the statistics. Anyone on this list with kids that age can probably
> >contest your claims on that score.
> Anyone with kids capable or incapable of same under the age of 4 please indicate the age of their kid and whether (s)he is capable or incapable of opening a desk drawer, removing a pistol from it, and pulling it's trigger. Let's establish a consensus cutoff age.
Of what? To handle firearms or use 5 gallon buckets? I advocate a law
mandating child safety locks on all 5 gallon buckets...
> >The rise in 6-12, 12-15, and 15 and
> >up shootings can be directly correlated to the decrease in the number of
> >children who are taught responsible gun safety from an early age. I shot
> >my first 22 at age 7, and safety, responsibility and the consequences of
> >shooting were taught to myself and every other child in my family.
> This is your belief basd upon your personal experience and your personal > interpretation of that experience, but Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would
> maintain that it is because the supreme court removed christian
> from our schools, and many other "reasons" can be given. What makes
> particular reason objective rather than subjective (and the expected
> subjective, given your personal baseline on gun-related issues)?
The fact that the government's own evidence supports my contention.
> > Since
> >the governments own studies support the contention that children who are
> >raised thus are far less likely to either cause accidental shootings or
> >commit intentional shootings, and the once plentiful and popular
> >shooting programs at public schools are now mostly non-existent, I think
> >its quite obvious that we need firearms safety back in schools as much
> >as we need sex safety, drug safety, and driver safety.
> The kind of firearm safety course we need in school is NOT an NRA type >how-to-shoot and political indoctrination aimed at creating new NRA members, but >rather the instruction for children not to touch any gun they find, but to warn >any other children who might have seen it to keep their distance, and to report >it to a responsible adult, bringing the other children with him/her, if >possible.
You are obviously totally ignorant of the Eddie Eagle program the NRA
provides free to all schools that request it. What you describe as
proper instruction is EXACTLY what the Eddie Eagle program teaches. I
suggest you educate yourself as to what you are talking about before you
go spouting off again. It only makes you look more foolish, because
there are plenty of people on this list who know, just like I do, what
the Eddie Eagle program is all about.
< Parents should have the choice to train and supervise their own
>childrens' introduction to firearms, or to refrain from doing so; would you, as >a civil liberetarian, authorize your hated big gobvernment to usurp that >parental right? AIDS, drugs and automobiles kill when people use them wrong, >but firearms kill if they are used right (and this does not refer to ethically >or responsibly, but in the sense of technically correct).
Considering you think that the 2nd Amendment requires that the militia
(i.e. the entire voting population, according to Blacks Legal Dictionary
of the period) must be 'well regulated' (i.e. trained and skilled in the
use of arms, according to that same publication, and supported in US v.
Emerson & US v. Miller), then it is obviously the legal duty of every
person who wishes to become a voter at the age of majority (i.e. 18) to
be well trained and skilled in the use of firearms. Thus firearms
training should be a curriculum requirement of every civics course in
high school. At least there is a constitutional basis for that, while
driver ed, sex ed, and drug ed do not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:26 MDT