http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-popular-activities-that-should-be-illegal-kids/
What part of "kids aren't just mini adults" is so hard to understand? And just why the hell is America so desperate to sexualize kids in the first place?
Ericthebearjew wrote:http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-popular-activities-that-should-be-illegal-kids/
What part of "kids aren't just mini adults" is so hard to understand? And just why the hell is America so desperate to sexualize kids in the first place?
Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
Jack Road wrote:The flaw in teaching "gun safety" to kids at an early age by teaching them how to use guns, is that knowing how to use guns doesn't teach anyone about gun safety.
Tesseracts wrote:I don't think the issue with kids and guns is that kids don't understand how dangerous guns are. It's that kids are not really mature enough to understand the concept of danger in the first place.
Tesseracts wrote:Also, there is the problem of emotionally disturbed kids who want to hurt people. No amount of safety lessons is going to solve that.
I never said children should be forbidden from using guns, or doing other dangerous activities. I can understand the argument that kids shouldn't be prevented from doing risky things. There are of course benefits to learning how to be responsible for something serious. After all, we let 16 year olds drive, and that's probably more dangerous than gun use. However, I don't think there's any point in denying there is a risk in the first place, and that risk is inevitably greater with a 16 year old than with a 30 year old, all other things being equal. I'm just trying to make a point about how kids think. I guess the reason I'm arguing about this is, I don't want to deny that kids are kids.JamishT wrote:Tesseracts wrote:I don't think the issue with kids and guns is that kids don't understand how dangerous guns are. It's that kids are not really mature enough to understand the concept of danger in the first place.
This is where I disagree. I think children can understand danger well enough. I think that protecting children from all danger is in fact dangerous. I'm not saying that letting them run wild and jump into fires or something is the best idea, but there needs to be a balance between "free range" (I just made that title up) parenting and helicopter parenting. In most things, children learn best by experience. Again, I'm not condoning letting kids jump into fire, I condone supervising them playing with fire.Tesseracts wrote:Also, there is the problem of emotionally disturbed kids who want to hurt people. No amount of safety lessons is going to solve that.
I agree, no amount of safety lessons will solve that, but I just can't see that justifying banning parents from choosing to teach their children how to handle guns. A parent who cares enough to teach their child how to properly handle a gun is a parent who cares enough to either recognize dangerous emotional disturbance or prevent the emotional disturbance to happen to that level to start with.
JamishT wrote:Tesseracts wrote:Also, there is the problem of emotionally disturbed kids who want to hurt people. No amount of safety lessons is going to solve that.
I agree, no amount of safety lessons will solve that, but I just can't see that justifying banning parents from choosing to teach their children how to handle guns. A parent who cares enough to teach their child how to properly handle a gun is a parent who cares enough to either recognize dangerous emotional disturbance or prevent the emotional disturbance to happen to that level to start with.
Tesseracts wrote:I never said children should be forbidden from using guns, or doing other dangerous activities. I can understand the argument that kids shouldn't be prevented from doing risky things. There are of course benefits to learning how to be responsible for something serious. After all, we let 16 year olds drive, and that's probably more dangerous than gun use. However, I don't think there's any point in denying there is a risk in the first place, and that risk is inevitably greater with a 16 year old than with a 30 year old, all other things being equal. I'm just trying to make a point about how kids think. I guess the reason I'm arguing about this is, I don't want to deny that kids are kids.
Tesseracts wrote:And actually, you may have just made up the phrase free range parenting, but people have been using it for a while.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests