Jonathan Turley wrote about how his family won first place in the neighborhood Labor Day parade for the realistic Conestoga wagon they replicated, all the way down to the hand-sewn canvas and plastic toy rifles inside. But “as soon as one mother spotted the toy rifles inside the wagon, she pulled her screaming children out of the event, announcing that she would not ‘expose them’ to guns.”
Having lived in western Kansas, where everyone and his grandma have at least one gun, I have noticed that people in more urban areas tend to call firearms “weapons.” Weapons are firearms that are used to attack or to defend oneself against attack.
In small-town Kansas, they’re mostly used for hunting game and for shooting sports. The children don’t seem to be any more violent than city kids — however, they seem to lack the fascination with guns that many city kids have, because here they are taboo and mysterious.
People who think that protecting their children from exposure to guns is going to make them less violent and less tolerant of violence are barking up the wrong treestand.
Posted by Patrice Hein
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
61 Comments
Funny stuff – I wonder if Mrs. Overly Protective Mother lets her children watch television or go to the movies.
Guns are fine in the hands of people that know how to use them, just like hammers or computer keyboards.
The problem with guns is only with those that feel that a gun is a substitute for brains.
That would include those on both sides of the law.
Good topic, Patrice.
I know some parents just like the ones in your story – they seem to think they should demonize guns to their children and the kids aren’t allowed to play with squirt guns – not even pink ones! So much for the childhood games of ‘cops and robbers,’ or ‘cowboys and Indians.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Patrice: I suspect you haven’t served in the military. Army recruits are taught three important things on the first day of basic training: (1) location of the chow hall, (2) don’t stand with your hands in your pockets and (3) refer to your rifle as a “weapon,” not a gun.
That mother missed a very valuable teaching opportunity for her child.
Police officers will tell you that 1/2 of all children will encounter a gun during their youth. And how many will have a parent around when doing so is questionable. The best thing to teach is that whether it looks like a toy or not, they need to assume it’s real, leave the area, and get an adult.
It probably didn’t send a good message to have a bunch of kids around a bunch of toy guns.
One night I had a man come in and asked where the cap guns were, I took him over to toys and to my surprise we did not have even one! I asked the department manager when I saw her in the morning where they were? She said that Bentonville had all the cap guns pulled and Wal-Mart no longer carried cap guns.Some anti-gun violence group had convinced them that cap guns promoted gun violence.
When people look for a simple answer to a tough question they often pick on something that is not a real cause. But then we all know that killing, robbery and rape did not occur until the invention of the firearm.LoL another Wal-Mart story, one day a ex-husband went to a Wal-Mart in Oklahoma and bought a RIFLE and a box of shells. Then waiting in the parking lot until his ex-wife can to work that afternoon, he shot her dead in front of a crowd of people as she walked in. The next day bowing to pressure from “Handgun.inc”, Wal-Mart decided to stop selling HANDGUNS!
SHEESH! This dingbat needs to learn some history. I suppose she tells her kids that steaks come from steak plants instead of cattle too.
p-mom also raises a good point. Kids need to be taught what a gun is, and ‘don’t pick it up.’ I would extend that to a few other things they might come across – needles/syringes and used condoms. Sad facts if life …
A disappointing thread from you Patrice. The last sentence in particular DRIPS with prejudice.
Why didn’t you just use a pic of your NRA membership card as a companion photo?
I am inclined to doubt the validity of your story as well. IF it is true, the reaction of the woman IS a bit shrill. But again? I’m doubting it.
Children should be taught that certain things like guns, liquor and motor vehicles are for ADULTS and off limits to them. I am a strong 2nd Amendment person and I think that ADULTS that are not felons or mental cases are entitled to own and carry as many guns as they want. But they should be off limits to children under 18 unless under the direct supervision of an adult and under 16 period. I don’t believe in taking children out in the woods or to target ranges. They don’t have any business there because they are no mature enough to responsibly use a lethal item of any kind- whether a gun or a car.
I don’t know kev … I think a lot of 14’s might be ready for CLOSELY SUPERVISED use of a 22 or similar.
We’re talking about plastic TOY guns here, folks, in a community parade! It’s the Mac-30’s in the hands of gang bangers that concern me — And I agree, Ben, many 14 year old, under close supervision are mature enough to handle a .22. And, even though I’m not a hunter, I would still rather go hunting with Dick than riding with Ted.
When my grandchildren were small their mothers didn’t want them to play with guns. They didn’t buy guns and let the grandparents know their wishes, etc.
So the kids used sticks and such to improvise when they played cowboys & Indians or other games kids have been playing for eons. Later water guns were added to the play at the pool.
Their mothers quickly saw that denying play guns wasn’t accomplishing their goals. So they made sure the kids understood all the rules of gun ownership, the dangers, taught them not to assume anything was a toy, NEVER aim a gun (toys included!) at a person or pet… They talked about their fears, when guns were used, safety and care and such. I don’t think they ever bought one of their children a toy gun but they realized they had to do more than not buy toy guns. Good parenting, education, communication, guidance was required.
Wonder if they would be up for banning pencils to rid us of misspellings.
They are always happy to ban guns for shooting people.
I want to own a nuke. I should be able to as it’s protected in the constitution.
It doesn’t specify guns.
I hate to waste time knocking down a straw man, but as soon as you can afford a nuke, go for it.
p-mon – it’s much easier for most of us to make chemical and biological devices. Materials are readily available.
How exactly is it a straw man argument? Please explain.
So, JR, you are accusing Patrice of lying because you don’t like the content? You are basing your accusation on what? Or, do you just accuse people of lying anytime you disapprove of what they say?
Good editorial. The best way to overcome one’s fear of guns is to have one and to learn the proper way to handle ‘em. I’ve had real guns since I was 10. Must be a Western Kansas thing. ‘Course I learned to drive when I was 12.
When I was 7 years old, I wore my dual six-shooter to school for halloween. I believe I kilt every bad guy/indian/commie/ in sight. Since then, I have given up killing indians and have instead taken up killing shills, as soon as I find out what a shill is, and when open season is.
Are “shills” the same as snipe? LOL
I hope the mom lets the kids eat with a spoon only. A fork and butter knife can be weapons too.
There was a news special a few years ago showing that no matter what a child was taught about guns, if a gun was placed within his/her reach the child would pick it up and play with it. Our society has created such a mythic fascination with guns and other weapons that you can’t expect education or experience to overcome it.
My son is facisinated with guns, but OTOH, he has been taught about gun safety. It’s no big deal to him to be around them or handle them.
Kids are smarter than most people think. The adults wouldn’t let the kids have guns so they used sticks
I was brought up around guns. My first lesson on their proper use is when I shot a squirrel and left it laying. I told my father about it and he took the 4-10 shotgun away from me and said, “If you weren’t going to eat it, there is absolutely no reason to shoot it.”
The point was well taken and lesson learned. haha!
It’s the whole “won’t happen to MY kid” mentality.
Get a bunch of rednecks beer and give em guns, that’s dangerous as hell.
I’m sure the parent of the boy who shot a girl in the head while playing with it (he was 17, she 16) years ago would have said the same thing. Kids do stupid stuff on a regular basis. And it only takes a split second of bad judgement.
Let me see now . . . this thing has a trigger (firing mechanism), a barrel, a stock/grip and it fires projectiles . . . so it is called a “gun” which includes everything from a missile launcher to a BB gun, be it a pistol, revolver or rifle. It could be mounted on an airplane, tank, water vessel or inside your pocket.
The gun banners only focus on “civilian” weapons. But it is perfectly OK for these same gun banners to sanction weapons of mass destruction! Why? They are either stupid civilians or idealogs who want your freedom on a silver platter!
Americans – Beware of BOTH!
“But it is perfectly OK for these same gun banners to sanction weapons of mass destruction!”
Just where the Hell did you come up with that line of bull shit, Bumper?
raptor
I did not call Patrice a liar.
I DID note a sense of bias in her writing. That last sentence in particular.
I questioned the validity of the story, which was second hand. She is telling us about someone else’s experience. At least for me the link to that story does not work.
SO I did a little digging.
Heh heh do a google on Jonathan Turley. He isn’t exactly what I’d call an unbiased source. His “story” could very easily be an exaggeration…..or a lie.
The link to the article does not work………… hard to do any research. I do agree with J R that the mother’s response SEEMS to be a bit exaggerated.
You telling me a gun can’t be a weapon of mass destruction?
Please!
A bomb that goes off in the desert is less dangerous than an automatic weapon in the hands of a bullied high schooler.
What was it the Columbine boy’s father said “well he had this interest in guns and I wanted to give him something positive to focus on”.
Ah hem.
What you don’t trust me with a nuke?
I feel sorry for the frighten mother and her child.The child has already seen what guns are and is curious about them and now more so then before because the mother has restricted him.Without proper exposure to the dangers of guns (if her son does not enlist into the military), the child will grow up thanks to the mother’s fears uneducated and maybe ill-responsible about it when that person comes across guns again and we will not have any good proper sons or daughters willing to join the military forces to defend this country.
Defense of a society by own its people and military armies has been with us since the beginnings of recorded times, it has always been that way and sadly will be that way well into the future.
One stupid mom.
End of story.
Really nothing to see hear.
Here is something I have never understood- if I as a parent leave a loaded gun laying out in plain sight and a 6 year old picks it up and kills the neighbour’s kid with it, I cannot be held criminally liable but if I leave a pint of Jack Daniels out and the 6 year old drinks it, I will be charged. Not only that but if the the parents of the dead kid sue me my homeowners insurance will cover it fully while victims of hurricanes that were no fault of their own are denied. I just don’t get it!
Exactly wise, I want to protect my country from President Bush, now where do I get my nuke?
Ok Political Mom –If you want your nuclear bomb, it is going to come at a high price.We will start with getting your plutonium.Assuming a price of $80 per kilogram of natural uranium, uranium-235 is worth about $11,200 per kilogram. Six to ten kilograms of reactor-grade plutonium would suffice to make a nuclear bomb, making the fuel value of one bomb’s worth of plutonium between $67,200 and $112,000.However, the value of the plutonium would undoubtedly be far greater than this on a potential black market where the objective would be to make a weapon.The danger of plutonium diversion to a black market is particularly acute in Russia where the weakening of central control, combined with the rise of organized crime and poor economic conditions heighten the chances of diversion, so I will need to begin with from you a total of $14 million, I think that this will cover everything as far as just purchasing the fuel and that does not include handling charges.Then there is the……………
Not a problem, I’ve only been pretending to be a poor sap lol.
As long as I can own one I’m happy.
All of those of you who think that YOUR child has been taught about gun saftety and that s/he would make the right decision in the presence of a weapon should read this scientific study:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/e109
Children and guns are a BAD idea, PERIOD.
Come to think of it, guns are a BAD idea.
PERIOD.
The United States has the highest rate of pediatric firearm-related mortality of any industrialized country.
“In stark contrast to parental expectations, investigations staged by experimenters as varied as child psychologists and television journalists have demonstrated that most children will readily handle a firearm, given the opportunity, regardless of how much previous gun safety education they have received.”
cited from Hardy MS, Armstrong FD, Martin BL, Strawn KN. A firearm safety program for children: they just can’t say no. J Dev Behav Pediatr.1996; 17 :216 –221
“…The majority of respondents who did not think their children would pick up or play with guns they found offered reasoning that fell under the category of “they’re too smart for that.” These responses were based on faith in children’s good judgment or abilities to appraise risk, rather than specific (or even nonspecific) instructions… Parents who gave the “they’re too smart for that” response revealed unrealistic expectations of children’s ability to predict consequences, weigh costs and benefits, resist peer pressure, and make rational, informed choices. By assuming that children could be trusted not to pick up or play with guns because they had been told not to or were “too smart” to do so, parents inadvertently place the burden on children to be responsible for their own safety, rather than the adults in their lives.”
Don’t present them with facts, Delsol, it just confuses them.
The more guns, the safer their little world is.
That’s why Baghdad is so safe . . .
I have a license for conceal and carry, so don’t call me a hypocrite PoliticalMom.
Let’s play a hypothetical game where we change the word “gun” in this story to “pornography.”
“Having lived in western Kansas, where everyone and his grandma have at least one porno, I have noticed that people in more urban areas tend to call illicit sexuality in media “pornography”…In small-town Kansas… the children don’t seem to be any more sexual than city kids — however, they seem to lack the fascination with pornography that many city kids have, because here it is taboo and mysterious.People who think that protecting their children from exposure to pornography is going to make them less sexual and less tolerant of sexuality are barking up the wrong adult book store.”
Which story do you find yourself more concerned about?
Capn,
Something really interesting about that conceal and carry law:Have you noticed how many institutions (every public school and university/hospital/gov. building) and private organizations (businesses) have made policies against bringing “firearms” onto the premises since the law was passed?
Kinda funny, huh? It’s still legal to conceal and carry, as long as you are IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.
Like it should be.
??? Why would I call you a hypocrite Capt?
Are you feeling….guilty of it?
I don’t have any problem with gun ownership. I DO have a problem with kids and guns. I DO have a problem with those who scream SO much about the second amendment to own any high powered type of gun- they need automatic weapons to blow the head clear off their rodents I guess.Which is why I’m asking why there is a difference between owning a gun, an arsenal of assault weapons, or shoulder fired missles, to nukes.
IF the second amendment was to protect ourselves from government, we’re screwed.
P_Mom–
When you hear something stupid that doesn’t sound like I would write . . . that’s ’cause I didn’t write it.
Click on my nic. A picture of Worst. President. Ever. will appear on the cover of London’s Daily Mirror asking how 57 million Americans can be so dumb.
That’s an authentic CapnAmerica post.
P–Mom–
Some one has hijacked my typekey account.
Don’t trust any post made under my name until I give you notice that everything is okay.
Hehehe, good one!
Well, you’re not completely stupid, I’ll give you that.
Annoying, yes.
This is kinda like that episode where Captain Kirk has been cloned into two Kirks and Spock has to guess which one is which.
And since my troll is the geek of geeks, I’m sure he’ll get the reference.
gotcha capt 1 and capt imposter.
JR -
It’s an “editorial.” It’s SUPPOSED to be biased. Duh.
Of course, as usual you believe that bias only exists when the writer disagrees with YOU.
The story, of course, is just another example of our tendancy to, when dealing with a problem, targeting symbols and symptoms rather than the disease.
P-mom, we gotta talk. Yes, the 2nd Am. was designed for exactly what you ridicule. If you don’t get it, well, you haven’t learned much history.
Sorry GMC
Jonathan Turley has just as much bias as you THINK I have. He is NOT an objective source.
But no one has made my “bias” the subject of a thread.
All the comments here GMC and you zeroed in on me……..again! Yeah I can feel the love tonight. It makes me kinda queasy!
—–
GMC,The mom in the story may have been over the top, but children cannot differentiate symbols from the real.
Which is why most repsonsible parents DO restrict their children’s exposure, especially to things scary, sexy, and violent.
It’s funny how many conservatives advocate “exposure” and “teaching” for something as blatantly dangerous as a gun..but when it comes to sex education and homosexuality even later on, total sheltering is the right way.
I wonder, which is more dangerous…a loaded gun;learning that violence is how we solve problems;
or, at the appropriate age,learning that some people are different;learning about how our bodies function and how to take care of them.
Your kids are gonna grow up and learn allabout sex and violence anyway. Why not teach them how about these things which by the way are an inavoidable fact of everyday life in the world we live in?
Because if you teach them that too early they will not understand it, goofball. My daughter is 3 and already has kids who hit and punch in her daycare.
Yes, they have to be taught about sexuality eventually; it’s a matter of necessity. But when do they have to be taught about guns and violence? Only in the context of avoiding them, because they are UNNECESSARY.
Only the gun-mongering NRA freaks think guns are a “fact of life.”
My great-grandma was from Sweden and died from a rattlesnake bite on the family farm near Lindsborg.
Wish she would have some kind of weapon to protect her at the time. Especially a gun! I’m sure it was back at the house.
Guess what? Kansans used to have guns in real life back then!
First of all, the mom in the story probably over-reacted, but that is her job: protect her children as she determines is needed.
As for comparing Western Kansas to urban areas; that argument just doesn’t wash. The cultural significance and practical usage of firearms in rural areas does not compare equally to that in urban areas, since there ARE NO practial uses by citizens in urban areas.
For gun-nuts to say ‘guns are safe in all areas; just look at the country kids’ is as stupid as others saying ‘guns aren’t safe anywhere’.
Gun restrictions in urban areas are legitimate and needed. Gun restrictions in rural areas are of less consequence and should not be as stringent.
That’s why our “concealed carry” law is so wrong: communities should be allowed to ban guns. That’s the way it REALLY ‘used to be’.
Let’s face it, folks: even in the old Wild West, almost EVERY community required cowboys to ‘check ‘em at the door’. Different laws for different needs.
There was a big gunshow at the Coliseum over the weekend. Table after table after table of guns and knives and swords and bullets. Lots of gun-nuts and macho-men and rednecks there.
Why isn’t the media covering all the mayhem that occured as the result of this lethal mixture?
Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any. Another blow to the logic of the anti-gun left.
Roscoe, you can cherrypick anecdotal evidence all you want, but the macro statistics are not on your side.
Few who have posted have doubted that adults can, most of the time, control themselves around guns (although this country’s violent crime rate, the highest in the industrialized world, might challenge that assumption).
But we also have the highest child injury by firearms rate in the industrialized world. Let’s see…we are one of the only industrialized countries that allow guns; we lead the world in gun deaths and injuries. Seems logical to assume that where there are more guns there are more deaths.
Roscoe
Didn’t the Columbine shooters pay a visit to a gun show shortly before they tried to kill their entire high school?