Speaking Different Languages

My family grew up with guns, no big deal. We were educated about safety, and very supervised. I do not have the paralyzing fear that many feel around guns. I have friends that are afraid of cops "because they have guns." A sentiment I will never understand.

This thread is like a tractor trailer full of live poultry, overturned on the freeway. I know I SHOULDN'T look. I don't WANT to look... but I just can't seem to look away.

I'm a parent, a gun owner, and a paramedic. I was married to a nurse, and I'm engaged to a nurse. My daughter is 9, but she's an immature 9. She gets to shoot the 22 at pop cans, but it's single shot, and I load it for her, and clear it afterwards. Every time I hand her the rifle, I review the four rules with her. If that means repeating the rules fifty times in a session, that's what we do.

Nurse K said: "Lots of good crayzees on this thread."

I assure you I am not a "crayzee", nor am I anything like the idiots referenced in that video. For the record I am Jewish, have a B.A. in Philosophy, and have fairly "liberal" views on a great many things. And I own guns. My family growing up was quite anti-gun; I'm certainly the first one in six or seven generations to own a gun (2 great grandfathers died for the Kaiser in WW 1, but they were conscripts). So if anyone has the credentials to be against firearms, it should be me.

As for AD teaching his daughter how to shoot, I don't understand why this is any different than a father taking his 16 y.o. daughter to an empty parking lot so she can learn to drive, parallel park, and get comfortable USING controls she has only watched used before. If he tossed her the keys and said "Drive us to the other side of Manhattan" I would object, as would most people. As for the CP, that is a handicap which can be compensated for; I've known a lot of drivers with far greater disabilities who were licensed to drive.

Please answer this: if KatyBeth is too young to be taught safe gun handling, how old would she have to be for you to approve? 10? 14? Never?

David

I stumbled on this by accident and found the thread extremely interesting. One of my greatest childhood memories was learning to shoot a gun at summer camp under the direction of a qualified instructor. I was nine at the time and proudly obtained marksman first class. I live in Missouri where two weeks prior to hunting season a weekend is made available for children to go hunting with their parents or delegated gaurdian after all necessary safety and training requirements are met. This done under the supervision of the Conservation Department and is done to promote gun and hunting safety. My neighbor took his nine year old son hunting in which he got his first buck. My neighbor demonstrated the highest level of supervision and promotion of safety in taking his son on his outing. Re the comment you don't need to shoot to eat, well, in my neck of the woods most hunters I know do rely on deer meat to supplement their food supply. The conservation department also runs a program where if the deer is not wanted for food, for a small fee, can be processed and donated to a food pantry. It's hard for some people to believe but shoot to eat is very much a reality. From your post, it just seems you are introducing your child to a sport you love with all the safety factors in place and age appropriate use. I

WOW! 132 comments later and NurseK is still unconvinced of the wisdom in teaching children how to responsibly handle firearms.
She has her opinions and no amount of logic or anecdotal evidence will change her cherished, though hoplophobic view or her bias against challenging differently abled children to achieve more than the minimum amount of proficiency in any arena.
As for her view that spanking is child abuse, well that's just her own, perhaps survivor, history talking . She is to be pitied for her limitations.

Nurse K,

I hold a BS degree from a highly respected university in Texas, own a home, car and have been gainfully employed since graduation in 1991. I have been a Concealed Handgun License holder since 1997 and have 3 handguns and 1 shotgun available to me. I am also female and grew up with guns in the house. I knew where the guns were, where the ammo was stored and not once did I attempt to 'play' or 'show off' said guns when the adults were not present.

All three of my young uns started shooing when theywere kids. We got them their own single shot bolt action .22 rifle and taught them gun and range safety. I knew they knew what they were doing when my eldest wanted to give a show and tell presentation about firearm safety at school and the youngest would critique TV shows on their gun handling: "ooh, that man gots his finger on the trigger but he's not aiming at nuffing! That's not right, is it mama!? Somebody oughta tell him that's dangerous!"

I am a big fan of children being familiar and competent with firearm, firearm safety and range rules and I find that the people who are opposed to it usualy have very little first-hand knowledge - they base their opinon on other people's perceptions.

Alright.

First, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting AD and Katybeth not long ago, and observing range practice and presence. I observed safe conduct, greater awareness of range and firearms safety on KB's part than I have observed with some adults, and in general saw a devoted father giving his daughter a fairly broad range of major gifts.

As a former classic grade klutz and nerd through my formative years, gifting Katy with a physical skill that she can be confident in that requires serious hand/eye/mental coordination is a pretty major gift both practically and as a confidence builder.

And, when KatyBeth is older, and out in the world...knowing how to shoot is not such a very bad thing for a mobility-impaired twenty-something, and it's good to develop muscle memory early.

Kids are different from each other. One size does not fit all. KatyBeth is a good kid, and well-supervised. I reserve the right to modify my comments if we begin discussing others.

If only AD's posts on EMS issues could draw such passion. (and volume) sigh.

:)

They do in some circles. ;-)

Valerie

I think nurse k has jumped the shark on this topic.
Move on folks nothing to see here....

Steve

People with firm beliefs will often go to great lengths to "prove" that they are right. It takes a lot of maturity and self-esteem -- two things many people do not have -- to be able to admit that they even *might* be wrong and to be willing to learn something different than what they sure is correct.

Friends of mine are very pro-gun. Since they could walk the children have been taught: You do not "play" guns, you do not 'pretend' you have a gun, and even toy guns are treated like the real thing and only allowed to be used under adult supervision. The children are growing up understanding that guns are dangerous things that wield an awesome power -- but have their uses. Target practice is how you get better, hunting is one way to get meat.

You don't teach children to drive a car by handing them the keys and saying, "here, go to the store." No wise parent lets a child use a knife -- in the kitchen, in a multitool, etc -- without supervision at first. Kids need to learn that dangerous things *are* dangerous and why. That doesn't mean that kids shouldn't use dangerous tools, it just means that their parents should be there to make sure safety is the primary concern.

In my unhumble opinion, AD, you're doing just fine, and KB is lucky to have you for a dad.

p.s. Nurse K's idea that a gun shouldn't go to a "child with CP" is some of the nastiest bigotry I've seen in ages. Disabled people actually learning to do things that "normal" people do! THE HORRORS! Please let me rudely say that on behalf of all the people with disability out there, let me say: BITE ME, NURSE K.

A lot of my outrage was based on a comment by totwtytr said:

"Second, thee was no play acting at all. AD sat KatyBeth in his lab and steadied the fore end of the rifle. KatyBeth gripped, sited, and shot the rifle. She hit the cans consistently with AD doing nothing more than calling out where her misses were (High, Low, Left, Right). That's not play acting, that's real shooting."

To me, sounded dangerous given her poor control of her left hand, which is where the concern really was. There was no mention of shooting rests, assisting her weak arm, nothing. Then, of course, later on, AD backed off and declared that, no, they did use a shooting rest and he helped her weak hand. So...what was I supposed to think? I would hope disability advocates would wonder as well why first-grade children with arm weakness were shooting without assistance. Instead, everyone chose to rip on me. This is why I said that there are some problems in your "culture". You would rather automatically rip me a new one then say, "Yeah, hey, why IS this child shooting without help or a shooting stand?"

I will not bite you. I stand by my comments.

No mention of shooting rests at all?

". . . steadied the fore end of the rifle."

Um, that's a "rest". Organic, in fact -- which should make the tofu-crowd all happy.

"There was no mention of shooting rests, assisting her weak arm, nothing."

Because it's already obvious to us shooters that there were shooting rests and that there would be help with KB's weak arm. How else would someone with a disability be able to shoot a rifle without aid?

The problem is, you didn't think. You just automatically assumed that KB would be flailing a gun around in her weak hand while her right hand was on the grip. The fact that you call us crazy already tells me that you've already made up your mind about gunowners. Therefore, that fact that you're still arguing your point(s) is moot.

Please, don't let your personal biases interfere with the facts.

Okay, so when I ask direct questions and a scary answer is given, I have to assume that in reality the scary answer should be eliminated and replaced with a reasonable answer. That sounds logical.

Do you let your kids shoot rifles like the child in the video? Yes, sometimes. = "No, never, that would be stupid."

Do you train your children to shoot to kill people in first grade? Yes, I don't want them to be victims. = "No, I don't, that would be silly."

Who was the first President of the United States? Abraham Lincoln. Oh, okay, he said Lincoln, but meant George Washington, because, duhr, everyone knows that. --Gun Owners

That's what's called a "strawman". They usually appear when people find out they have no clue about the facts and need to have something that they can at least pretend to be a factual basis for their claims. They consist of totally ignoring any form of factual argument from the other side, and instead construct something made up, that will allow ones own argument to sound better in comparison.

Using made up questions and answers with a retort is a very crude form of this though, usually never seen in mature people above the age of 12. Fascinating really.

Nurse K,
I've followed this thread for it's entirety. During this discussion you've changed your position so many times my head whirls. All I can gather is that you're opposed to AD shooting with his child because you seem to think that "whatever" limits her. Myself, I see AD as teaching KatyBeth that the only limits she has are the same ones we all have, the ones we impose on ourselves. In this regard she by all accounts is far ahead of you.
In truth I think your mind's so narrow your ears touch.

My opinion has been quite consistent. Allow me to summarize.

I am in disagreement with the concept of 7-year-olds shooting guns in general (I said tween and I meant tween based on just general maturity upgrades around that age), but the law in AD's state doesn't support that, so what am I gonna do? People are still going to take their kids shooting...

From what AD had told me about KatyBeth previously, it sounded like she would need some sort of assistance handling a gun, so I asked about what he did, and Too Old To Work responded on his behalf that she doesn't get any assistance other than verbal, and then it was on like Donkey Kong because in addition to the general danger associated with guns and children, you have someone who might not be able to properly control a gun only getting verbal assistance. [Then AD said that was a "j/k" situation, that she gets quite a bit of help---not sure if I believe that.]

Also, I have many side opinions as it relates to ignorant things like, "My Daddy did it to me, so it must be okay" (ie the circle of child abuse) and "hitting a kid with a belt is not child abuse if they do something wrong" (from a mandated reporter!!!) and "kids should be trained to shoot to kill burglars at age 7" and "we had guns all over the house not locked up and we were okay".

Seriously, I've shown this thread to a few random people, and it's like, "Uh, is this a big practical joke on Nurse K? Are these people serious?"

Wow, my daughter's fourth birthday present must make Nurse K's head explode. (Crosman 1377 pistol -- the ONLY thing she had asked for for the last several months.)

As must the fact that she started shooting (albeit not well) at age 3 1/2, with the neighbor kid's pellet rifle. (Of course, she was shooting at a very large target at very close range.)

In all cases with me within a half arm's reach and ready to grab the gun if it ever wavers from a safe direction.

But this is the kid who knows the 4 rules (her mom regularly gives her pop quizzes while driving to day care), knows HOW to clear a range, knows WHY to clear a range, knows she has 100% authority to declare a CEASE FIRE, just like anyone else at the range, and practices better safe handling than a LOT of cops I've observed on the range (frequently as a Range Officer).

"From what AD had told me about KatyBeth previously, it sounded like she would need some sort of assistance handling a gun, so I asked about what he did, and Too Old To Work responded on his behalf that she doesn't get any assistance other than verbal, and then it was on like Donkey Kong because in addition to the general danger associated with guns and children, you have someone who might not be able to properly control a gun only getting verbal assistance" -Nurse K


Nurse K, this whole kerfluffle might have been avoided if you had simply looked at the photographs in the original article. In the picture which shows KatyBeth shooting, she is cushioned and supported by her father. This would lead an observer to think that, perhaps, support and direction IS being provided. This would also not rely on interpreting what was said by a third party.

-Jesse

Not to mention the fact that she decided that someone saying something "on his behalf" is obviously "settled science" and decided that it must be interpreted the worst way possible. She decided that there was absolutely no way that even if it was in fact the case that the child handled the gun without assistance, perhaps the child actually was able to do so and had proved that to the parent. No, a response from someone else would of course be interpreted in the worst possible light, no benefit of a doubt or anything.

You know, if I had gotten a similar question, i might very well also have responded the same way, because the child got no assistance with aiming and firing accept verbal. I'd simply not refer to supporting the arms as "assistance" in that sense. But Nurse decided that this was not just a remark by a friend but instead had the validity of a legal testimony under oath, and the "truth" of this interpretation could not be disputed. Because she knows what the "truth" it, so let the facts be d**ned.

Nurse K, as Moe once said to Curly, "Every time you think, you weaken the nation."

"Random," as in "people who agree with my views and have just as selective a memory," you mean.

Uh as if everyone on this blog doesn't worship, agree with, and personally know you.

ERP was one of the people who I said "go check this shit out" to, and he and I pretty much only agree on ER stuff and nothing else related to politics or child-rearing (but he doesn't care that I rip him a new one when he talks about giving his kid nitrite-free sausage and organic milk out of fear of colon cancer).

"Uh as if everyone on this blog doesn't worship, agree with, and personally know you."

I tend to limit my worship to actual religion--and in point of fact, I've never met AD....I googled "tooth to tattoo ratio" one day, and there it was: A Day in the Life of an Ambulance Driver. Love his writing, disagree (occasionally) with his politics, admire his ability to argue a point (usually with humor, often in a self-deprecating tone, and--unless strenuously provoked--tactfully)...and I can't believe you're still trying to salvage this whole thing after showing your ass.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh......it's quiet time now!!!

Wow. I don't worship, don't always agree with, and I have never met AD, but I am teaching my chlidren how to shoot, how to "kill" should the need arise, and associate with many - many other people just like me, even out here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. I have an engineering degree from the University of California, Davis, and a MBA. I was born and raised in the city so I'm not your typical country bumpkin redneck, although I do prefer to associate with them than nurses, like you.

Ahhh.. now the picture becomes much clearer. You make a habit of telling others how to raise their children.
Do you have chidren that you are raising/have raised? If so, I REALLY hope someone else taught them sex education.

Well, ERP was at least civil, even if ill-informed on the subject.

And of the various commenters here, I only know about three personally.

Like I said before, this argument goes nowhere, because we're speaking two different languages.

Your broader opinions on discipline and child rearing aside, your mind is not going to be changed on the subject of guns in general, and kids shooting them, specifically. That's because you've already formed your opinion, and typical of you, you don't give a damn about how dubious the information it's based upon.

Reason and logic mean nothing to a person whose entire argument is based upon emotion and opinion.

BS. You've been repudiated and now you're trying to paint it otherwise.

Didn't you say, oh about 50 comments ago, that you were done making a fool of yourself?

"Disability advocates" do not spend their time wondering how people handle their disabilities, but instead make help available *if asked for*. Your attempt to cover up for your blatant bigotry is appalling. Nobody needs the disability police running around making sure us poor suffering disabled people are properly acting like helpless waifs. That AD felt he had to justify his actions speaks more to *your* issues than any disability out there.

I wasn't aware that 7-year-olds have to "ask" to have their disabilities accommodated when handling a deadly weapon. Pardon me. I'm sure your average 7-year-old has that type of insight.

Lots of good crayzees on this thread.

My 7 year old can ask foe anything he needs. Why do you think KatyBeth is different?

I am so sorry to do this but after reading the comments to this post I feel I must.
First, I was raised by a very loving set of parents. My parents never hesitated to paddle my butt if I did something that they felt was a safety issue. Did it scar me for life? No. Did it make me remember next time I was in that situation? Yes. I do not believe in "beating' a child but a spanking is a teaching experience. Did I do the same thing to my children? Yes. Did they grow up to be responsible adults? Yes? I do NOT feel that a spanking is abuse and having lived through it no one is going to convince me that it is.

As for the shooting? I grew up around guns and was taught from an early age to respect them. Where I grew up we had varmit control and it was our job to help with said varmit control. Was my Dad present? Yes. Was there ever an accident during these forays? No. The reason? My Dad started teaching me weapons and respect for them at and early age. What age you might ask? Try age 5. Did it scar me for life? No. It taught me self reliance and self respect.

I have watched AD and Katy at the range and I have NEVER seen a more attentive Dad. Katy is learning to respect these weapons and loving it! The shooting is something she enjoys and will work hard at that HELPS her motor skills. I have seen her correct adults about the 4 rules. This little girl is very intelligent, well behaved, and hard working. If you have never been around the child I don't see how you can say that she is not old enough to do anything. Telling a child that she CAN'T do something is teaching her to limit herself. Katy and I had several conversations while she was here and I can say that AD has done an EXCELLENT job raising her! Anyone who doesn't know the child has no basis to claim otherwise.

Nurse K wrote: "She shouldn't be put in the situation of having to defend herself against raging methheads looking for stuff to steal to buy drugs at age 7, ... "This is the kind of stuff that makes me worried...people taking the good idea of guns in the house for self-defense to some weird extreme where now children should be expected to shoot-to-kill too."

Do I understand you correctly to mean that she would be better off as the victim of one of those "raging methheads" than to be able to defend herself? Better to be a victim than to be a traumatized survivor?

I agree wholeheartedly that no seven-year-old should be put in such a position. But the news and police reports make it clear that, desire it or not, the world we live in is a place where the safety of no child can be taken for granted. I tell people I live in "Mayberry," yet not so very long ago a neighbor two doors down was stabbed and left for dead in the road after having his door kicked in by three strangers, some of those raging methheads you mention. That, sadly, is reality no matter how much we wish we could just visualize whirled peas and all get along.

My own two children were taught the use of guns and gun safety from the time they could walk. They were also taught to respect other people's property and to keep their hands off of my guns unless I was there to supervise or they needed them to save their lives. My daughter, now twenty, is a second-degree black belt in Shoinryu karate, having taken it since she was five. My son, now twenty-nine, started Tae-Kwon-Do at age seven and is now a first-degree black belt in Shoinryu-karate. They were taught to protect themselves because, in this world, while we may not want them to confront raging methheads we want even less for them to be victims should that confrontation occur.

In order for your scenario to be viable, KatyBeth would have to be home alone, have sufficient time and judgement to identify this situation as dangerous, have access to the keys to the gun cabinet (why would she know where those were?), load the weapon (probably in the dark), aim, and fire it at the intruder all without them doing something to her. That doesn't sound like a very safe/practical alternative to hiding out in the closet, calling 911, sneaking out a window, or something like that, does it? Plus, lots of troubles could be had if every 7-year-old with gun training thought that it was their job to shoot intruders and having access to ammo/gun cabinet while home.

So, you're saying KatyBeth is too stupid to know danger? Any idiot knows danger when someone they don't know comes crashing through the door, full of meth-fueled rage, intent on harming the home's occupants.

Oh wait, I just remembered who I was addressing.

Given that most burglaries don't happen during normal business hours, maybe you're upstairs sleeping and are awoken by a noise...what's that noise? Was it the dog? Was it the wind? Hopefully you're not thinking 7-year-old should lock and load every time she hears some noise. As someone whose had my house broken into 10 times, I know those noises, and I've heard similar noises which weren't from Bad Guys. Hopefully KatyBeth doesn't have a huge frame of reference on these types of issues at age 7.

Again, lots of good crayzees on this blog. Lovin' it. Keep the comments coming.

Actually, the vast majority of residential burglaries happen during the day. A neighbor sees a van pull up to the home next door, and the occupants enter the house. Must be a handyman.

Oooh, you're gonna hate this, but here goes...

1. She wouldn't have to load a gun, because the guns I keep for self-defense in my home stay loaded. I don't use trigger locks, either. Then again, those guns also stay on my person, so they're never just lying around.

2. No, she doesn't have keys to the gun cabinet, nor, at this stage in her life, the fine motor skills to use them. Then again, the self-defense guns aren't locked in a cabinet unloaded.

3. She doesn't know what to do when she's home alone and an intruder breaks in, because she's never home alone. She's not old enough to be home alone, and I have serious doubts as to whether a nine or ten year old is old enough, either. Then again, kids mature at different rates.

4. When she is old enough to be home alone, she will be instructed to 1) run to a closet and hide, taking the phone with her to call 911, and 2) to bring a weapon with her, and 3) to shoot the bastard if he opens the closet.

5. When, in my judgment as her parent, I believe Katy is old enough to handle the responsibility of being home alone, she will be allowed access to those guns, and taught to use them to defend herself.

6. Neither you, the AAP, police, courts or CPS is going to decide when Item #5 is appropriate. I'm the parent. I decide. And fortunately, I live in a part of the country where that right is still respected.

I KNOW that self-defense guns are kept in quick-to-open drawer safe-type things at the bedside and are loaded or are on your body (remember, you're not home in this fake scenario). Remember, this is why I took the gun class, so I could defend myself in this particular situation. I would assume you didn't give Katy the code to the gun safe with the fully loaded weapon(s) and the keys to the gun cabinet either, so, I was just illustrating how silly Chris' comment was. Kids in first grade should not be treated as home-invasion snipers. This is not f'in Saudi Arabia.

That's right.

Because when they reach the age of 15, 16, 18, or whatever you've arbitrarily decided is an "appropriate" age to be home alone and possibly faced with an intruder, they will magically have developed the skills and confidence needed to safely and efficiently handle a firearm in a high-stress situation, without having had years of exposure and use.

Oh, usre -- many people HAVE managed to pull off the "defend life without good training" schtick -- that IS one of teh reasons why guns make good defensive tools. But frankly, having had teh "shooting" part down cold and nearly reflexive through years of practice means that the rest of her brain can concentrate on critical details like "hide", "grab phone and call 911", etc. -- rather thna having to devote large chucks of a VERY stressed brain to "How do I handle this thing safely and make it do what I want?"

At what age does the magic knowledge fairy give the needed skills. Just because she is too young(in your opinion) to need those skills, does not mean that she shouldn't start learning them. No after action report ever says " I should have had less training, less ammo, and a smaller gun.

I was home alone starting when I was nine, living on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in some of the roughest neighborhoods around me. My parents taught me to be self-reliant and self-sufficient. Just because the freak-out-at-the-slightest-things parents these days aren't raising their kids right, doesn't mean that there aren't still parents out there that are.

So....You were trained to kill at age 7? Realize these people appear to be literally advocating children learn how to kill at age 7 and actually be expected to do so. Not the same as being allowed down to the corner store to buy candy, to go to the park with your friends, and to walk to the bus stop alone (which is controversial these days too).

Was anyone here trained to kill human beings at age 7 or thereabouts? Totally interested in this. Didn't realize sniper training for first-graders existed or was acceptable.

At age 7, I fished. Later on, I hunted squirrel and pigeon. So yeah, I *killed*. And we all partook in eating what I *killed*.

I was 5 years old when I entered 1st grade. If you entered 1st grade when you were 7, you really started late - I was already in the 3rd grade by then. This would explain your stunted capacity for logical discourse - "Criminals use guns to do harm, therefore, blame the gun (never mind the criminal)."

My mom taught me to bite, scratch and kick if I was ever accosted by a stranger. She also said to go for the eyes. She also bought me my first pocket knife - the little chrome plated one made by Trim and had a 1" blade and a file. And yeah, I brought that to school with me every day starting when I was 9. And no, it never magically jumped out of my pocket whenever I got picked on, because she also taught me to turn the other cheek (until I had no more cheeks to turn, which never happened). I seriously would not want to be one of your kids and be taught by you to just curl up, give in to attackers and die.

See, what YOU don't understand is that my parents fled their homes in China when the Japs invaded during WWII, something which YOU never had to do. Yeah, you're probably going to chime in here about escaping Hurricane Katrina a few years ago, but you never left in the middle of the night, under the cover of darkness, bribing train conductors and boat operators to take you out of China and into Hong Kong (which was a British colony at the time). We're survivors in my family. Seems to me like you and your family are nothing but sheeple.

There's a trend in America that started in the 60s with the hippies and that's the pussification of America. It's sickening and people like you are a major part of the problem. If your family had to depend on you for survival in a real life or death situation, they'd be dead. You live your life with your head in the sand, in denial that there are people out there that want to do you harm.

I want to have the means to be able to defend myself with the utmost efficiency and there's nothing more efficient than a gun. Sure, I can just as easily grab a bat, but that's a lot of wasted energy and there's no guarantee that I'd even make contact with the attacker, because it's kind of hard to swing a bat when you're trying to back away quickly (not that I'd retreat, but you would). But a gun is a great equalizer - it can take an 80 lb old lady and put her on equal footing with a hulking attacker.

See, I've already wasted a bunch of time trying to explain to you what the real world is like. I really shouldn't have to; you're a nurse, so you probably should already know.

If you don't wish to own a gun for self-defense or otherwise, that's YOUR decision. Don't try to take away MY right to own one.

Nurse K modus operandi:

1. Take one statement from debate opponent.
2. Twist, misinterpret, fold, spindle and mutilate said statement until it bears no resemblance to original.
3. Use this Frankenstein's monster version of a statement as the launching point of a new volley of snark and condescension.
4. Repeat as necessary.
5. When someone calls you on it, claim ignorance or misunderstanding, or claim that your original statement was misinterpreted.

You know, you really aren't all that different than Happy Hospitalist. Equally full of shit, just nastier in showing it. Some people find your blunt manner refreshing. Personally, I just think you're missing the "tact and politeness" gene.

Show me, anywhere in Wai's previous statement, that he was "trained to kill at age 7." First of all, the listed age was NINE, and being taught to be self reliant does not equate to "trained to kill." And sniper training? WTF???

You know, your reading comprehension sucks almost as bad as your debate skills.

Nurse K, I've been teaching disabled and handicapped shooters for well over two decades. Most are in wheelchairs or using walking aids (cane, crutches, walking frame, etc.). Many have upper body or arm limitations in terms of strength, mobility, etc. Their ages range from teens to geriatric. I've never found any problem in helping them select a gun appropriate to their physical condition, and training them to use it effectively in a defensive situation. (Three of them have so far had to use their gun 'the hard way' to put an end to an attack. Score: My students - 3, bad guys - a sorry 0. Works for me!)

I've found that many of them can only use a .22 pistol, because their physical limitations preclude coping with the recoil of anything heavier. It's still a viable defensive option, despite its lack of serious power. I ask them to put a minimum of 5,000 rounds through the gun during training, until they get to the point where they can hit a rolling ping-pong (table-tennis) ball on a level surface, ten to fifteen feet in front of them, with 9 out of 10 shots. When they reach that standard, I advise them on appropriate defensive ammo selection, encourage them to put a couple of hundred rounds through the gun every month to maintain their proficiency, and turn them loose. Ever wonder how a bad guy feels when he finds ten rounds, rapid fire, aimed at the bridge of his nose? Three have so far found out, but it's no good asking them, because they're no longer capable of answering . . .

Katy-Beth is doing just fine. I know the young lady, and love her to bits. She'll make a good shooter when she grows up, precisely because she already knows what she's doing, and has an excellent foundation on which to build. Her father's a jewel, too (yes, AD, I love you, man! :-) ) I'm delighted that he's investing so much care and attention in his daughter. Both she and he are better for it. Also, just think of the fun and games when KB grows up and starts dating. Both she and her father will be able to outshoot the boys! Talk about an ego deflation!

One can't generalize about when someone's old enough or mature enough to start shooting. In my opinion, KB is just fine at this age. On the other hand, I know some men in their thirties, forties and fifties who are so immature and egotistical that I wouldn't want to be in the same county as them if they got a gun in their hands!

See, Peter sounds reasonable, someone who isn't afraid to admit that people with disabilities may have limitations while shooting a deadly weapon, and accommodating that appropriately rather than trying to gloss over the disability and proclaim the person able to handle anything someone else could and anyone who says otherwise be damned. If I had a teen with some disabilities, I would certainly allow him/her to take your classes just based on this comment.

I've noticied a commen thread oozong form nurse K's blog....she is the point at which all commen sense revolves. I've read her blog for both enjoyment and knowledge; but at present I've grown past her prattlings.
Her writing has turned into my sister attitude....always right and you had better not dare try to tell me different!
As far as my sister is concerned; she has that narrow attitude so as to not slip into her "madness". Seems to me that nurse K needs to hold on to something that she feels is very concrete.
Steve

“Love ya, AD, but totally don’t agree with 7-year-olds + big guns.”

WTF? I don't remember seeing Miss KatyBeth toting a Howitzer or anything. I've seen her with a Crickett and a .22 AR. Where's the big guns?

;)



tweaker

You know it saddens me that the joy of giving your daughter the gun as a birthday present resulted in this "no win" discussion with Nurse K.

Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never met anyone who has told me that it is irresponsible for me to take my girls (6 & 8) shooting. I've never had anyone suggest that they would report me to children's services for doing such a thing and I guess that it really surprises me that someone who has obviously read your blog for awhile should hold these opinions.

I guess all I can say is there is a lot of us on here who support you and would love to give you a slap on the back and say "keep doing what you're doing because you're doing good!".

I live in a very different country that doesn't have the same level of gun acceptance as yours. The fact that you gave your child a gun as a birthday present completely and utterly horrifies me. However the fact that your child is around guns and could possibly gain access to them the only responsible course of action is to teach them the damage guns can do and how to handle them safely. I don't believe the statement "guns are inherently dangerous" because that same rule can be applied to a car, a knife or even a plastic bag. If handled incorrectly many so called 'safe' items can kill you. So while I don't personally agree with what you are doing I do respect that its your child and if you aren't breaking any laws then you are entitled to give her and teach her what you see fit.

The "guns are inherently dangerous" thing amuses me. So are knives. And a lot of other things. Thus the need for children to be brought up with handling them responsibly, rather than in ignorance.

I just don't understand why you even bother with Nurse K, AD. I've been bored at work tonight, and yes, I do work in a Trauma I ER, and took some time to read some of her postings. They all seem to be of the extent that she knows better than everyone, works harder than everyone, and is smarter than everyone. One of the morepPretentious, self-important nurses that I ever did see. Actually, I think I might work with her, or her twin sister. She obviously knows what's best for YOUR child. AD, you simply can't have civil discussion with people who are always right. Best of luck to you.

I grew up overseas and from a very young age (6), and could tell you where we kept the "Go" bags that contained travel documents, medicine, and cash for immediate departure from the territory we lived in.

I knew the room we were to fall back to in the event of an attack, and how to use the weapons to stop anyone from hurting my mum and sister if my father was away, and the patrols had failed. We were taught where the rally points were if an attack took place and we were away from our home during the day.

We have a lovely picture of me heading off to school in my uniform in 1st grade. I am with the driver and the armed guard who went with me. His weapon is highly visible in the photo.

I grew up with rifles and pistols, and was taught how to use them. I don't currently keep a firearm in my residence because I believe they do get used accidentally, but I do have a beautiful chainsaw (Stihl MS 361), that sits in my closet. It is the rare child that accidentally starts a chainsaw, and if you do have an intruder, and they hear the sound of this baby going, they've been given fair warning of my intentions.

If someone wants to teach their child how to use a firearm, that becomes a private decision. I happen to think that the majority of hunters who teach their children how to use a firearm are more thorough in their instruction, and diligent in their enforcement of their safety rules than the majority of parents who allow their children to drive. I worry more about my family being struck by an inexperienced, overconfident, distracted teen driver than I am by a teen waving a firearm.

The 2nd amendment protects your right to own a firearm, it doesn't protect your right to be wise in your behavior. Our founding fathers though that was up to the individual.

I'm done with this discussion after listening to AD drone on and on on IM about how it's just plain wonderful to beat your kids for whatever reason with a belt and how police/judges should do nothing about this and nurses should not report it because beating one's children is just part of the culture. If that's the case, your "culture" is too fucked up for me, hope it works out fine for ya down there having children being beat up and shooting 12-gauge shotguns and no one giving a rip-roaring crap.

Your standard MO: overgeneralize every statement, and twist it totally beyond recognition. It's a Nurse K. specialty.

If that's *your* culture, you're welcome to it.

Ambulance Driver (11/28/2009 3:21:26 PM): I was whipped with a belt. I don;t consider it abuse. I don;t use a belt with KatyBeth, mainly because my voice is all I really need.
crasspollination (11/28/2009 3:21:36 PM): yeah, that is child abuse
crasspollination (11/28/2009 3:21:38 PM): not cool
Ambulance Driver (11/28/2009 3:21:44 PM): In your opinion.
Ambulance Driver (11/28/2009 3:22:17 PM): Down here, you can call CPS about all those issues, and at most it'll get a raised eyebrow and a "Yeah, so?"
crasspollination (11/28/2009 3:22:18 PM): well, it's illegal, so also the opinion of the cops/judges
Ambulance Driver (11/28/2009 3:22:31 PM): Cops/judges in your area, maybe.

Spanking with a belt is illegal where you live?

Are you a Masshole or a Comiefornian? Do you live in Shitcago?

Seriously. ILLEGAL?

Here is the minimum statute that **all states** must adhere to as stated in The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA):

Physical Abuse

Physical abuse is generally defined as "any nonaccidental physical injury to the child" and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 36 States and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare.

Notably, if AN AMBULANCE DRIVER or similar health care worker FAILS TO REPORT THIS, they could be subjected to punishment as well despite what the "cops and judges" in his "culture" think.

I'll borrow a Nurse K tactic and selectively highlight something here:

Physical abuse is generally defined as "any nonaccidental physical injury to the child" and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 36 States and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare.

SImply enough interpreted: If the corporal punishment or discipline results in physical injury, it can be classified as abuse. I define physical injury as signs of trauma immediately apparent to visual or physical exam: bruises, swelling, obvious deformity, etc.

And yes, if I saw it, I'd report it.

Otherwise, none of my business. Luckily, the culture here doesn't consider temporarily bruising a child's self esteem a physical injury. Apparently, yours does. No doubt, there are a great many children in your neck of the woods with wonderful self-esteem.

But probably ill-behaved pussies otherwise.

Well, if it is deliberate (such as hitting) and it causes pain, I would consider it an injury even if I don't see a mark. If the judge wants to say there isn't enough evidence to do anything about it legally, then that's his decision, not mine. If the kid was smacked and it's a relatively minor injury, a lot of times, the parents will get anger management and parenting classes, which might help to prevent worsening/escalating violence before it happens. If someone is willing to belt-whip a kid, what else is he capable of?

Also, AD, if a child reports to you that he is being hit with a belt or smacked around for wrongdoing or a parent threatens to hit a child in your presence, you have to report that, even if it's in the past. It's not just "seeing is believing or it's none of my business" and "ignore the child unless there's bruising".

So.. umm. Please define injury? You would call CPS because I spanked my kid? Hint: spanking causes pain. That is the point. Yes, I have spanked my son. I have applied my hand to his ass as needed(rare, he knows that I will so I will so I don"t have to do it much). You would turn me in for that?
"Well, if it is deliberate (such as hitting) and it causes pain, I would consider it an injury even if I don't see a mark." So you are heaviy invested in private prisons?

Now we're even, Nurse Petty.

You were peeved because I posted *about* an IM conversation we had, and you just directly posted a transcript. Pot, meet Kettle.

Difference is, I stand by my statements. And the more you try to twist them the more you just look shrill and strident.

And while we're lobbing cheap shots, have you noticed how every debate you have with someone always seems to turn to the subject of abuse in one form or another?

If you don't, everyone else in the blogosphere who has argued with you certainly has noticed it. You might want to seek help about that.

Your problem is, you are incapable of seeing nuance, or shades of gray. You are the most black-and-white thinker on the blogosphere. And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, or, as you put it, "retards."

Nice choice of words, by the way, Miss Former Neuro Nurse.

There's a name for people who see things in black and white, and refuse to allow for differing opinions or interpretations.

They call them fanatics.

"And anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, or, as you put it, "retards." "

Liberal Debate 101. I'm surprised you didn't recognize it.

"Liberal Debate 101. I'm surprised you didn't recognize it."

CBEMT, as a moderate liberal (and, incidentally, as a Yankee and a nurse), I respectfully beg to differ--those who disagree with me over topics like this are (very often) my closest friends. We call it CIVIL discourse, and when handled in that fashion, it is educational and enjoyable for both participants.

Nurse K, on the other hand, (to quote AD) IS sounding increasingly shrill & strident...and more obnoxious (and certainly less civil) with each post. Her arguments reflect a lack of tolerance that this embarassing to me, professionally, politically, and geographically, and I would prefer not to be identified with such inappropriate tactics.

I, like her, am uncomfortable with guns, and wary of the damage they can do. I, like her, have some difficulty seeing the value of privately-owned assault weapons. I was not raised in a household with guns, and freely admit that this colors my perceptions. HOWEVER...if I were ever lucky enough to have a child, I would send him/her to my brother (an avid hunter) to learn, safely and in a controlled setting, what needs to be learned about proper gun handling--and I would do it as soon as he or she began to demonstrate curiousity on the topic. My defense is that education is a better approach than just hoping for the best. (And to those who argue for gun lockers, I promise you this--a curious child can get into anything in your household with a little time. There was no object in our home, however carefully hidden or locked, that wasn't explored by my brother when we were growing up.)

The kids I knew who grew up with guns also grew up with gun rules that were written in stone. I clearly remember that we didn't even point fake guns at each others' faces--and that wasn't because I knew the rules, it was because they knew and enforced them, even at play. It was a culturally accepted set of behaviors, and it the behaviors stuck, even when adults weren't present.

AD is teaching his daughter a safe approach to a potentially dangerous element of her daily life. She would have been exposed to guns (his, and others') one way or another. NOT teaching her to handle them responsibly might have been the more reprehensible approach. Incorporating that education into a mutually enjoyable pastime is logical, and more than that, it's good parenting.

(And, Nurse K: You posted once too often...actually, probably about thrice too often. You've diminished your stance beyond salvation. Time to move on.)

Fair enough Nurse B, fair enough.

I do, however, take issue with your use of the term "assault weapon." There is simply no such thing. "Assault weapon" is a classification of firearm literally MADE UP by the (wait for it) *liberal* anti-gun, for the purposes of scaring people (like, say, you). Its mostly based on the physical appearance of the weapon, believe it or not.

Since we're all about education here, I thought you might like to know that. ^_^

Sorry, CBEMT, I'm also well aware that my weapons terminology is lacking. I believe my issues (you may apply that term as you wish :-) are based on automatic vs. non-automatic weaponry. That is to say, I'm making reference to function, not appearance (because I couldn't truly tell you what most guns look like according to their function). I'm less comfortable with private ownership of automatic weapons. I realize that we probably will disagree on the topic. Works for me. My point remains that civil discourse isn't all that difficult--and I appreciate you helping me make that point.

The only documented case of a lawfully possessed machinegun used since teh 1934 law was passed was a COP, who shot a drug dealer why trying to rob him.

Have found a second case. Doctor murdered a neighbor with his lawfully registered machinegun. Both cases in Ohio.

What he means, Nurse B, is that what the media (and those ignorant about guns, but then, I repeat myself) refers to as "assault weapons" are functionally no different than Grandpappy's duck hunting shotgun or deer rifle, and "sniper rifles" are no different than the many millions of bolt action rifles used for big game hunting every day.

Armor piercing bullets are far less lethal than standard big-game hunting ammo, as another example, yet much hue and cry is made about "cop killer" bullets, and no law enforcement issue body armor is capable of stopping any rifle round, anyway.

An "assault weapon" is a military weapon capable of fully automatic fire. What you see in the news (and in Katy's photo that started this ruckus) is simply a weapon that resembles an assault weapon in aesthetics only. It's scary looking.

Nor can they, despite common misconception, be easily modified to shoot full auto, and to do so is a Federal offense - against the law already, and it's kinda hard to make something illegaler, isn't it?

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did absolutely nothing to ban assault weapons, which is why the let it sunset without renewing it. That ban only limited the sale and manufacture of scary looking weapons.

Ownership of fully automatic weapons in this country have been limited to police agencies and a small number of fully vetted, licensed individuals since 1968, at least.

And those weapons are so rarely used in crimes that the incidence of such events is literally infinitesimal. Getting struck by lightning on the same day you win the lottery is a more likely event.

Nurse B, anything can be used as an "assault weapon." That term is misleading and is made up by the anti-gun groups to scare you into thinking it is something it's not. If a person gets bludgeoned to death with a hammer, is that hammer not now classified as an "assault weapon?"

Civilians do not have access to fully automatic firearms unless they pay an exorbitant amount of money for a Federal Firearms License to own one, and unless you live in a state that allows you to own one, then civilians can't really get them. Criminals, on the other hand, by their definition, do not obey laws anyway, so what good is getting guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizen if criminals can always get them and use them against others?

An AR-15 may look like an M-16, but the function of the AR-15 is strictly semi-automatic. What's more, the bolt action rifles of today were yesterday's weapons of war.

Do yourself a favor and research your facts before you start telling us how you "feel" instead of giving us facts.

Eeeasy, big fella.

She's being civil, unlike Nurse K.

She's ignorant, not stupid. Ignorance, we can cure, as long as our lessons aren't delivered with a snarl.

Okay...I'm sorry. <hanging head>

So...what am I misconstruing? AD thinks it's not abuse, judges/cops don't think it's abuse and respond to reports of it as abuse with nothing more than a "so what". After a few "so whats", nurses like me aren't going to bother to report it as abuse and it'll keep happening. You repeatedly defended this even when I gave you a few chances to change your mind or back off.

Let's just drop this, Nurse K.

It's patently obvious we're both speaking two different languages, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

Try to resist your natural urge for a parting shot, because all it's going to do is start a flame war, with both of us saying things we'll both regret.

Let's just go back to being friends with differing outlooks, who happen to disagree on some things.

Yes, I owed you one (1) IM posting. Duhr. I tried to post ABOUT what we said then you called me a liar essentially, or at least an exaggerator which, to me, is the same thing. Remember these are little people who developmentally are designed to make mistakes (hence, the need for parents) and don't even know what they are doing is wrong half the time and you want to hit them for it or at least don't care when others do and expect others to not care as well.

I was with you, Nurse K.....pretty much, until this.

First qualifications...

Parent
ER Nurse
Liberal

While they may be little people, they are not dogs. Dogs have no long term memory, children do. Now I don't advocate hitting with a belt as it is excessive use of force, however, a well placed smack on the butt can go a long way toward solidifying a message. When words fail to be heard, next up? A spanking. Not in anger and with plenty of warning about what comes next. Most parents I know don't like to repeat themselves and those who do, spend a lifetime doing it.

Oh and I live in Washington State where hitting with an open hand is perfectly legal provided there is no bruising.

Oh yeah and I have a condition in my hands that does not allow me to straighten my fingers, in fact I am often been asked if I have rheumatoid arthritis, nope. Have had it all my life, yet have handled weapons, tools and am often asked to make the difficult IV starts in the ED when I am around. I also discovered, young, that they made good fists, fast, especially around those whom figured I was handicapped, people like you making judgments on your experiences but not with Katy Beth!!! So Katy Beth has a handicap. Big deal. She and her Dad appear to deal quite well with it, doing something they both enjoy. Your perfect enough to judge them? Yeah...right...

I saw AD and Katy shooting at Blogorado a few weeks back, and I didn't see anything remotely akin to irresponsible behaviour on the part of either party. In fact, when the signal was called "range is hot" Katy was sure her ear protection was on even when she and I were well away from the range and sticking on pretty girlie fake fingernails. At one point, we used our fingers like guns and pretended to be two of the other ladies at the range. GC counted down for us, and we "aimed" at a rock. I said "pow pow" while Katy just pantomimed pulling the trigger. I said "I think that rock's sufficiently dead." Katy corrected me: "it's not dead, it's a TARGET." Wow, I've been corrected by a little kid and she was right. I'd said Katy is smarter than a lot of adults who shoot, and safety is built into that practice by a loving and protective father. Furthermore, AD is a friend of mine and an incredible father, and I know he'd cut off one of his own limbs before he'd let harm come to her. It's a pity some people are missing out on all the fun and sense of accomplishment one gets from aiming and hitting a mark. It's obscene they want to prevent others from enjoying same.

...if I heard about this as a nurse "I took my 7-year-old daughter with cerebral palsy to go shoot her gun, but, don't worry, she followed all the safety rules and I was there...", I'd at least have to report it to CPS. I

Really? That seems a bit..extreme. Given that even completely unproven allegations tend to seriously screw up someone's entire life. "I don't agree with their parenting choices/that's not what I would do" seems to be an awfully narrow reporting margin.

Is it that she's 7, or that she has CP? Or is it just that you don;t care for guns?

My husband is a Fed. We have several firearms in the house -- his, mine and ours. They are locked up, ammo and guns separately stored when not in use. Both of us shoot fairly regularly, and we take our 8-year old periodically, We plan to start taking out son when he turns 8, and our youngest daughter when SHE turns 8.

Would that be worth calling CPS on us, as well?

Well in AD's state there isn't anything illegal about taking your kid to the shooting range and teaching him/her how to shoot, so, assuming your laws are the same in your state, cranky, I wouldn't report it. My little buggy ears would go up with "age 7" "arm weakness" and "cerebral palsy" and "shooting her gun by herself", however. I guess it would depend on a general impression of what was going on, the degree of disability, and why they were in the ER. It would certainly be in my mind, though. If I don't at least consider what's going on if a disabled (but very sweet) child reports to you that she shoots a gun at age 7, I wouldn't be doing my job, and that's just the way it is. Each case is different.

If she was just in the ER for an asthma attack or something like that, and she went on and on happily about going to the shooting range with dad earlier in the day and how she gets asthma with ragweed, then I probably wouldn't.

My late father somehow acquired a pre-WWII 7.65 mm Mauser pistol. Until he passed away, I was never given the opportunity to learn how to use it. He and my mother did, however, buy me all manner of science kits as a child. One experiment involved electrolysis, showing how to hook up a 1.5 volt dry cell battery to separate salt water into its constituent elements. But that took too long. You'd be amazed at how much faster the process goes when you plug the wires into a wall socket instead.

You would also be amazed at how large a hole you can create by burying a vitamin bottle full of match heads in the dirt and then lighting an improvised fuse salvaged from a dud firecracker.

In the interest of "science", I built an electromagnet (again, an offshoot of a sanctioned experiment outlined in one of my science kits). Well, I tried. 20 or so turns of #12 stranded wire wrapped around a steel chisel and again, plugged into a wall outlet doesn't work nearly as well as you'd think.

Among other antics, I managed to set my bed on fire (and extinguish it before any large-scale damage ensued). I learned about capacitors by unbolting a Faraday cage from the backside of a 1940's era radio and touching the air-gap capacitor enclosed therein (I'd taken care to unplug the radio first so that it would be "safe").

I could go on, but my point is that without access to a firearm or any other "dangerous" implements, I managed to endanger my life and my home on a regular basis as a child just following my own curiosity. Given my experience (and, I suspect, the experience of most curious children), I'm far more reassured to see AD teaching his daughter safe weapons handling skills.

The "other things are dangerous" argument is tired. I know other things are dangerous, but I'm not talking about other things. Obviously car crashes are more dangerous overall than guns (but almost everyone rides in a car nearly every day and only a small % of all people shoot guns on a regular/daily basis, so hard to know what the actual danger-to-users ratio is). Obviously, sticking a fork or whatever in an electrical socket is dangerous. Duhr duhr duhr.

Also, should be known that giving your kids things to take apart is a really cool thing to do and good for the brain cells...One of the lost things of childhood these days is "finding stuff to do on your own to entertain yourself" like taking stuff apart and learning about it, building something in the backyard with whatever is laying around in the garage, or whatever.

"Also, should be known that giving your kids things to take apart is a really cool thing to do and good for the brain cells..."

I'm so glad you agree!

Because the next step, after learning to shoot her AR15, is learning to field strip and clean it. After that, my 1911 handguns, and maybe my Glock, and come to think of it my Sig Mosquito is a bitch to clean, too...

If I do this right, KatyBeth gets lots of free occupational therapy, and I'll never have to clean my guns myself ever again!

Great thinking, Nurse K.! Thanks!!

Perhaps the "other things are dangerous" argument is tired. So is the "guns are dangerous" argument. I know guns are dangerous. That's why I'm pleased to see AD taking the approach that he is - actually *training* his daughter in safe practices.

As to your argument that "almost everyone rides in a car ... small percentage of all people shoot guns ...", well, it's due to the fact that so many folks have bought into the whole "The police will protect you" paradigm. Imagine what we'd be like as a society if we refused to train folks to safely operate a vehicle, instead insisting that "cabs and busses will take you wherever you want to go - leave the driving to the professionals".

The truth of the matter is that the police mostly get to the scene of a crime in time to draw a pretty chalk outline around the perimeter of your now-dead body, and are under no particular obligation to protect you at all. See these links for details:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28sc...
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp

There are other links as well, but the bottom line is this: You are responsible for your own safety and security, and that of your family and loved ones. Thus, it seems to me that AD is providing the better parenting here - teaching his daughter both safe handling techniques and giving her skills to protect herself later in life.

Hopefully you're not implying that KatyBeth should be trained to shoot-to-kill if a burglar/someone she doesn't know enters the house at age 7? If not, totally irrelevant to the discussion.

So you completely ignored the "guns are rare" topic? And should the unthinkable happen and someone breaks in while AD's not around, please tell me what you think KatyBeth should do?

She shouldn't be put in the situation of having to defend herself against raging methheads looking for stuff to steal to buy drugs at age 7, and I'm sure AD doesn't leave her alone in the house so she has that opportunity. Moot point.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me worried...people taking the good idea of guns in the house for self-defense to some weird extreme where now children should be expected to shoot-to-kill too. She's a KID, people.

Yet you have stated that if you encountered a patient who took their child shooting you would report them to CSD. This seems to me as if you are letting your opinions which are based on your fears dictate how you think others should act.

"People taking the good idea of guns in the house for self defense to some weird extreme ..." So presumably, having guns in the house alone is sufficient to guarantee that no one will ever be required to use them for self defense?

Also, please address the "guns are rare but vehicles are not" point that I originally raised.

The fact that we are not completely terrified of motor vehicles has to do with the fact that they are a normal part of society. We would be less terrorized about guns in general (and guns being wielded by young, but properly trained and proficient shooters in particular) if they were more widely seen in the general population. Again, my point is that we've drunk too deeply from the fountain of "the police will protect us".

"The "other things are dangerous" argument is tired."

Tired or not, it's certainly more valid than "NO kids with cerebral palsy should be allowed to shoot guns because they'll hurt themselves."

First it was because KatyBeth is a child, then it is because she has CP. What's next? Because she wears corrective lenses? Change your tactics all you like Nurse K, I'll still never agree one iota with your opinion or buy into your paranoia.

Valerie, Alaska

CP and a child, but I didn't want to post the CP stuff initially. He thought it appropriate to post a private IM conversation without my permission, so I guess I can post the full version of my opinion now.

I'm so letting my buddies 8 year old shoot my AR15 and my Saiga AK next time he's out...

Just because I know that there's people like Nurse K about that'll get the vapors over just the thought of it.. I'll take pics too..

Great! Wow, sounds like a fabulous idea to use children as a pawn! Remember, AD says all gun owners are 100% responsible and never, ever do things like give guns to an 8-year-old to shoot to "prove a point" and other such willy-nilly reasons.

It is not ok to give a 5 year old a weapon unsupervised. It is imperative to teach your 3 year old to be safe. You may not own guns but how about your neighbors? Your kids friends? Would you not teach your children about poison? Crossing the street? Wildlife, steak knives,dogs, bikes, hammers, rocks...

Your premise is flawed. You start with the thought that guns are special because they are dangerous. They are only dangerous if misused. THEY ARE ONLY A TOOL! The shooting sports are some of the safest sports. The fatality rate for cheerleaders is greater than all of the shooting sports combined.

I just asked for someone to tell me why it's okay at age 5 (isn't that when she started shooting?) to give a deadly weapon to a child with CP. Explain to me why this falls under the heading of "good idea". "You don't understand, you Yank" is the only answer I seem to be coming up with around here. Okay, mission failed, didn't learn anything.

I read the entire thread of comments before commenting. Just sayin'

I don't like guns. I am not fond of them, and do not have them in my home. This is my choice. I have no personal desire to learn to shoot. Yes, guns scare me.

That said, I think that my fear started when I was a child and heard about the boy across the street who had blown off two of his fingers with a pistol. My childish brain recorded "home-made" pistol, but I may be wrong there.

When a friend of mine came to me upset that her brother had given her son a toy gun for a present (she is very anti-violence, despite having grown up in an area where hunting was necessary for food), my first suggestion to her was to take the boy up to visit his grandparents and have grandpa teach him about gun use and safety. Done and done, Grandpa set up some targets in the back field and they shot bb's at them after a long course on gun handling and safety.

The boy went over the course of one weekend from shoving his toy gun in everyone's face and "pow, pow, you're dead, Bad Guy" - to only playing with the gun in his room and comments like "Look out, Mr. Rabbit - you are going to be dinner tonite!!".

The boy was 4.

My grandmother taught me to cook from an early age. I have always had great respect for hot oil, sharp knives and preheated ovens. Teaching with direct adult supervision is far different than just handing a dangerous tool to a child and turning your back.

What I don't understand is that you don't seem to have a problem with AD being an emergency medical provider - you seem to trust his judgement and abilities as a paramedic, and yet you think he would put his own, obviously extremely loved daughter at some risk of injury?

That is the part that makes no sense. Putting a gun in a man's hand does not automatically turn him into a raging lunatic who will murder at the least provocation, or put their children at risk. When AD goes to the shooting range, he is still the same AD that worked furiously to save the life of one of those "raging methheads" not long before.

To suggest otherwise is ... STUPID. I hope I never, ever end up in your ED, because I really don't tolerate stupid, and a stupid nurse could potentially kill me much faster than AD or his daughter.

Oh, and Snookiedimples? I live in Chicago. They don't come much more yankee (or lib'rl) than me.

First of all it wasn't "given" to the child. You seem to imply that someone tossed a fully loaded machinegun to her and said "y'all git out'n have fun now hun". Having a child take part in the same activities as grownups, while supervised, is beneficial in so many ways. It makes the child feel more mature and builds self esteem. It makes her a part of the group rather than standing beside watching the others and feeling left out. It also makes for a great time between parents and child, sharing a fun experience. I see nothing different with this than I would taking a child hiking, fishing, throw catch, biking, or any other physical activity. All of them have some danger to them, but supervised they are all still safe.

Unless your argument is that children should be kept in cages until they are 21, and then turned free and learn everything on their own.

As for my "hillbilly" status. I'm not even american. I am scandinavian, born and raised. I have a university degree and work in the IT industry.
Every house I ever lived in has had guns, when I was a kid they werent even locked up. They stood in a corner or hanged on a wall. That's how life was, and kids learned from the time they could walk that the gun was not to be touched without parental supervision. Kids saw it as a badge of honor and a sign of maturity to be trusted to not touch it, and noone ever did. I know lots of people that had a shooting competition at family gatherings, where kids got to shoot from the age they could aim the gun with the help from the parent.

Again, this is Scandinavia, home of the nanny state. To try and make the argument that this is something that only "guncrazy americans" do is just stupid, and shows a total lack of knowledge about other countries. If you tried to make a similar argument in Scandinavia (outside of the extreme left ofcourse) you would most likely be laughed at.

you know, I used to follow your work, and had a fair amount of respect for you. Granted, I'm a nobody, so it's not like it matters to you that I no longer respect you. Seriously, this is on a par with me judging -you- on your level and quality of care as a nurse. and I barely know how to apply a band-aid.

I'd rather be disliked for who I am than liked for who I'm not. What you get with me are my opinions straight-up.

You fail to adress the key point of the statement. Which is that you -dont- know what you are talking about. I dont know anything about medicine, except that it's extremely complicated, and occasionally very expensive, and -always- nice to have. I'm not going to attempt to argue HIPPA with you without some -serious- homework on my part. You, however, feel perfectly fine with jumping in, and making decisions about other peoples children, without knowing a single thing about the subject. Oh, and I notice you've stooped to not-quite-threatening people with CPS. Very nice. to steal from Animal House. "lady, afraid and ignorant is no way to go thru life."

I will be happy to answer your question Nurse K, and you'll forgive me if I have my doubts that you will find the answer satisfactory: it is okay to give a firearm to a child - under strict adult supervision, which is why AD is in most all of the pictures with KB and the damn guns - because AD is her father and he decides what is best for her. No one - and I mean NO ONE - knows that little girl like he does, so he's as in tune with her capabilities as one can be. Does it mean she will never screw up? No. But, by God, AD is the Alpha and the Omega as far as KB is concerned, and that is that. No one gets to tell people what they can and cannot do with their children (don't EVEN go into matters of obvious immorality like slavery, etc. with me). Not with my daughter with no diagnosable issues, nor with AD's kid with CP.

And I'll have words with anyone who says otherwise.

If there's anything left after AD's done.



tweaker

I'll answer that: It's NOT okay.

Then again, no one "gave" KatyBeth a deadly weapon at age 5. Actually she started at age 6, and she shot with an adult supervising every step of the way, and showing her the proper techniques.

So no, my answer isn't, "You don't understand, you Yank."

My answer is, "You make baseless assumptions, which you are often prone to do... you Yank." ;)

There is a difference between "giving a child a deadly weapon" and teaching a child, or anyone, how to use a tool that can be dangerous if used improperly. No one is advocating handing a child a gun and saying "here, have at it."
It is important, and, in some environments, imperative to teach everyone, from an early age, to respect such tools, and to handle them safely and appropriately.
In every story I've read that AD has posted, or picture I've seen that he has posted, having to do with KatyBeth and guns, he is RIGHT THERE supervising and assisting.
He is NOT saying, as you suggested in another comment, that 100% of gun owners are responsible. But your comments suggest that you believe 100% of gun owners are irresponsible, or that using a gun, in and of itself, is a bad thing, and that is not the case. All evidence in this particular case points to a responsible parent teaching his child to be responsible.
Where, exactly, is the problem with that?

You would do well not to assume that every child with CP is the same. With you being a nurse I would think you had seen enough CP patients *not* to make such an assumption.

Go ahead, lady. YOU go tell KatyBeth that she CAN'T do something because she's DIFFERENT.

I'll wait.

"Because you don't want to offend the child" is your answer. Okay. Anyone else?

Nurse K why is it that AD should NOT teach his child a discipline that is perhaps the most demanding, both physically and mentally of any.
You've expressed your fears. I fail to see why they should influence the actions of any one else.

I don't think they should influence anyone really. I said I don't agree with it and don't find the danger, even if it is small, acceptable for a child. It's not illegal, so I can't do anything about it other than express my opinion. There are lots of things that are a little weird re:kids that I might say something about like my lesbian friend who told me she and her lesbian lover sleep in the same room as the lover's 9 and 14-year-old kids. There's nothing illegal about that, but it just isn't something I agree with, especially when there are other rooms available. They can blab at me that it's "normal" to do this in their house until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

That's a toughie, and one we've discussed before.

I think it's weird, too. But it's not my place to say what's weird for another person. But where shooting is concerned, you *do* presume to do just that. See the double standard?

I suppose it's a matter of degrees. SLEEPING in a communal room, I wouldn't say anything about. On the other hand, HAVING SEX with your unmarried lover, no matter what their sexual orientation, with your minor children in the room, is not kosher.

But you fail to distinguish the degrees here when it comes to shooting. You pretend that teaching a child to shoot, under direct supervision, is the same as turning your child loose, unsupervised, with a weapon.

It's not, no more than sleeping in the same room is the same as having sex in front of your children.

Has nothing to do with offending her. It's about the fact that you think she's different than other kids.

As a former neuro nurse, many of my patients had CP to varying degrees; everything from mild arm weakness and relatively normal intelligence to, obviously, total-care and profound mental retardation. At the very least it would seem that one would need full strength in both arms in order to shoot a weapon not on a stand. Is this not a requirement of safe gun handling?

They make these things called "bipods" and "shooting rests." Shooters with physical limitations use them all the time.

The fact that you don't know of such things is further proof that you're arguing a subject of which you have zero knowledge.

I did say that, dingdong..."not on a stand". I called it a stand and not a "shooting rest". Pardon me. You made it sound like she was just standing there shooting with you standing there next to her.

So you did. My apologies.

But she WAS doing all the shooting. I was supporting her weak left hand, and making sure she gripped the weapon properly, but otherwise it was all Katy.

It is not ok to give a 5 year old a weapon unsupervised. It is imperative to teach your 3 year old to be safe. You may not own guns but how about your neighbors? Your kids friends? Would you not teach your children about poison? Crossing the street? Wildlife, steak knives,dogs, bikes, hammers, rocks...

Your premise is flawed. You start with the thought that guns are special because they are dangerous. They are only dangerous if misused. THEY ARE ONLY A TOOL! The shooting sports are some of the safest sports. The fatality rate for cheerleaders is greater than all of the shooting sports combined.

"At the very least it would seem that one would need full strength in both arms in order to shoot a weapon not on a stand. "

Newp. I have CP on my right side and I can handle a rifle just fine.

Well that's the shooting hand vs. the hand to hold the barrel.

So you would presume to tell me I shouldn't be shooting rifles either?

You're an adult, you can do whatever you want.

Oh well AD, I will gladly join you in the ranks of Irresponsible Parenthood, as will my husband & my father. There were guns in the closets of every room of our house when I was growing up. I was taught to shoot at an early age and guns never held a mystical power over me like they did some of my classmates who's families didn't believe in having guns. I never touched one unless Daddy was there & said I could.

In my house, there is a gun in every room. Both my children have been shooting with complete supervision since they were big enough (and responsible enough) to do so safely. Before that, they were allowed to handle the guns under strict supervision, thus taking away the "fun of the taboo". Where some little kids would go "Ooooooh, a gun!" and grab it, mine weren't of that mindset. (Oh and I don't mean our guns were out when our children had company- it wasn't any of our guns I was referring to!)

Now, thanks to years of supervised experience with guns, I have no fear allowing my nearly 15 year old son to tromp off into the woods with a rifle or a shotgun, with or without his little sister in tow. Not to mention, when the coyotes are yowling in the yard at o'darkthirty, I don't fear he'll shoot me in the process of helping me get rid of them.

Guns in every room not locked up! Good idea! [Am I fitting in yet?]

No, no you're not. Keep trying and be a little more connescending and you'll get there.

Good Grief!! Guns are a tool and I was 7 or 8 when handed my first BB gun by my Grandfather after being instructed on the rules and the biggest one is treat it with respect and never ever aim it at anything you do not intend to shoot, then turned loose to roam the farm at will!! It is pretty damn simple and if a kid does not undrstand that, they do not even touch a gun until they do! Nurse K come off yur pedestal and accept the fact that AD has every right in the world to teach his daughter how the safely use a gun and enjoy it!! As do I and I have two sons, now teens, whom have been shooting for years! And they have no clue how to get to their weapons unless I am there!! Man, people that try to dictate what others should or can do pisses me off!! And working as many years as I have in EMS ER Nurses are te worst!!
You continue to teach your daughter AD! From what I can read you are doing a helluva job at it!!!

"Obviously most people would see that driving/riding in a car is a necessary risk, riding a bicycle or skateboard provide exercise and could be considered necessary risks for that reason..."

This is why you'll get nowhere arguing with this type. For any counterexample you give, you'll simply get "that's just _different_".

We encourage kids to engage in lots of activities with injury (and _serious_ injury) rates a thousand times greater than range shooting, which statistics show is extremely safe. ""It's obvious that those activities have physical benefits, so it's different!". As if recreation isn't a good enough reason, shooting also gives great benefits in hand/eye coordination, breath control, and fine motor control. "It's _obviously_ different because other sports give _cardiovascular_ benefits!" My daughter actually competes in the biathlon, so she gets plenty of cardio with her shooting. "Well, that's _obviously_ different because other sports don't involve an excise tax on their equipment. I shouldn't have to explain this to intelligent people!"

No matter how close your analogy, there'll always be _some_ difference (obviously; that's how analogies _work_), and in Nursek's mind that difference, however trivial, will be a huge, fundamental, defining characteristic that you'd understand if only you weren't so dense.

Honestly, in my experience, as soon as somebody trots out "common sense" you can be fairly sure you aren't having a reasonable conversation. "Common sense" generally means "this feels a certain way to me, so it should feel that way to you too. And if you _don't_ feel the same way, that means you're stupid."

Rip me all you want. Obviously most people would see that driving/riding in a car is a necessary risk, riding a bicycle or skateboard provide exercise and could be considered necessary risks for that reason and the usual injuries if you're wearing proper safety gear aren't much worse than a broken bone most of the time.

This falls outside of my definition of common sense, and if I heard about this as a nurse "I took my 7-year-old daughter with cerebral palsy to go shoot her gun, but, don't worry, she followed all the safety rules and I was there...", I'd at least have to report it to CPS. I'm sure it's as safe as it could be with you, but that's still outside of my definition of common sense.

With the dogs/kids thing, I assumed that you took her shooting in a hunting-type situation as well.

Notably, AD informed me that HIS gun ranges are so special that NONE of these hundreds/thousands of people with hundreds of videos of kids getting hurt shooting big-ass hunting rifles and, I crap you not, AK-47s, and things would EVER cross paths with him. Gotta like all his absolutes. Having a gun/shooting a gun is inherently dangerous and the four rules and training are designed to reduce the danger, not eliminate it. Some people like me wouldn't be comfortable with "some danger" as it relates to a 7-year-old, but, obviously you are, so, okay. Have at 'er. It's not illegal.

PS Why would I ever think the gun culture could use a little help when you have people like Lisa on the previous thread bragging about the thrashings she got as a child for not handling a gun safely and the fact that her family's guns were never locked up and she didn't get killed and no one is like "uh, Lisa, thrashings are not proper gun safety training".

"I took my 7-year-old daughter with cerebral palsy to go shoot her gun, but, don't worry, she followed all the safety rules and I was there...", I'd at least have to report it to CPS.

Hey Nurse K. I'm a frequent reader of your blog and find you intelligent, capable of critical thinking and hilarious. I think this topic of gun safety is a very difficult one to tackle, and I often find myself on the side you're arguing. I think there are valid arguments on both sides, hence why I have had trouble defining my own attitude towards it.

My husband works for a shotgun/rifle company. My brother-in-law is in the army. Hunting is part of the culture where we live. We have 4 guns in the house under lock and key. Plenty of ammo, too. Grandpa bought my son a play pop gun from Cabela's when he was 3 years old. He has foam light sabers and swords, and all that play pretend kiddo stuff.

Reading this discussion has actually helped me crystallize my opinions on the matter, and a lot of it has to do with that quote I posted above.

In addition to the many other things we do in life, we're avid downhill skiers. In fact, both my husband and I consider skiing to be our religion. Before we had our son, we had both been ski instructors for a decade. I specialized in teaching very small children to ski. The youngest child I taught to ski was 18 months old. That may sound impossible, but it's a matter of what your goals are for children of that size. When they're 18 months old, the expectation is that after 5-6 times on snow, that they may be able to take steps with skis on their feet, and balance while gliding down a very gradual slope. Would you report that child's parents to CPS?

Ditto for expectations of children with guns. I always anticipated that I would teach my son gun safety and target practice. Each kid is different. My own son was not able to ski @ 18 months owing to just not having the patience for it. He's also not a candidate to play with his pretend pop-gun right now, and it's been put away in a closet with his light sabers, swords, and other pretend weapons. He hasn't been able to prove his maturity with those items and follow the directions given to him. Until he can show maturity with a water gun, his pop gun, and other "toys" around the house, there's no way we'd ever introduce the real thing to him.

However, there are many kids who do have the attention span and patience to listen and follow directions at young ages. I happen to have a very spirited little one, and these lessons aren't appropriate for him yet.

Skiing is also a very dangerous sport. I had a group of 5 year olds who skied every weekend together who would give most adults a run for their money on double black diamond bump runs. They were thrilled to leap and jump into the air and eager to learn tricks that the big kids do. There were rules. Look before you leap. inspect the take off and landing on your first run, make sure it's safe and you know what the surface was like. Then, if you followed the rules of the road (i.e. you weren't about to crash into someone and cause an accident) you could take the jump on your next run.

There were very few kids who had the patience to go through each and every step @ age 5. And some of them jumped anyway. That feeling of nausea that came over me when I watched them go for it was terrifying, even if they were careful enough to inspect and look and be safe about it. Those who didn't follow the rules got to go ski with kids who weren't as good as them on the bunny slopes for the afternoon, and they learned pretty quickly that you follow the rules or else. I also worked in a Trauma I ED in ski country, and saw the devastating results of kids who didn't follow the rules or were just unlucky enough to be a statistic. TBI, kids who will never walk again, dead kids. Ugh.

If the child has shown the maturity to respect safety rules required for shooting, I see no reason why there should be an issue in teaching the child how to shoot. Safety is pretty much the main focus of all early lessons - I just learned the other week, actually. The entire day was devoted to the parts of the rifle, the mechanics, how it works, etiquette of the range, and then I actually fired the weapon 8 times. That's as an adult. For a kid, I'd imagine there's probably less shooting than that to begin with.

So thanks for helping me sort my own thoughts out here. I think that in general, the social stigma attached to guns prohibits people from thinking logically about topics such as teaching kids to shoot. It's an emotional subject, and whenever we let our emotions prevail, it clouds our ability to come to rational conclusions. There's nothing inherently wrong with an emotional conclusion. If you can't ever convince yourself otherwise, there's no reason why as a parent you should let your child participate in something you aren't 100% comfortable with. But it is my opinion, that from a logical perspective, learning to shoot is no different from learning to play hockey or ski.

I'm not even going to address the issue of AD's child having CP. I think it's a non issue. Kids with disabilities have shown that they can perform at a top level in all disciplines, and certainly sports are not exempt from that generalization. It's a case by case thing, obvs, but certainly CP is not in and of itself disqualifying for the sport of shooting. I think that's been sufficiently addressed and covered already.

My $.02 FWIW.

I learned to shoot a 22 before I was old enough to go to kindergarten; was packing a 22 rifle and hunting rabbits at seven. Never played with guns, was always careful in their handling. It's all in how you're raised.

The Bear has her own BB gun now (Red Ryder, represent!), and will be getting my first gun -- a .22 -- at ten. We drill the Four Rules, and she's been to the range several times with her daddy and with me. In another two years, her brother the Shark will join us, and Biscuit will follow on in due time.

Better I teach my kids proper gun safety and operation than another -- or God help us, TeeVee.

With knowledge, fear lessens. If you're afraid of something , you can't respect it.

As far as I'm concerned, from now on it's "Snurse K". If you know what I mean and I know you do.

No clue what that means, but could you email me at crasspollination@yahoo.com? I want to ask you something. (Don't see your email on your blog/profile)

You know, I often disagree with you, and I don't own guns and don't want to (despite being a farm girl from out in the sticks).

But. There has never been a doubt in my mind that KatyBeth is well-behaved and well-taught and well-supervised, and having fun, too! I mean, really. Anyone who has read your blog should know what an intelligent and attentive father you are. Come to think of it, the Jet-Ski story was probably more dangerous (one of my favorite posts, btw).

Another thing to consider is that kids learn how to operate firearms pretty quick, by watching TV. Or at least they learn to cock it, where the mag/cartridges goes, and where the bang switch is. Gun safety is highly lacking on that end though.

And psychologically, teaching makes it less of a taboo/mystery, they're not going to be so curious about it "ooh a real gun, let's try it *bang, shoots neighbors kid*". Also teaching them to respect it makes them less likely to abuse it. This works for martial arts too, there's been very successful programs for getting problem kids out of violent behavior by getting them into dojos.

Dunno, AD. I can see a reason for not teaching your kid to shoot.


...


...


...


...ammo's 'spensive, bubba!

Seriously, man, some people you just can't reach. They KNOW they're right, and no amount of facts, anecdotes, or rational thinking will sway them. They saw something on TV, or had a friend of a friend who once went to a gun show, or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

They can't be reached - but others watching the debate from the sidelines might. That's why it's critical that we take the high road when debating them - which you have done well, my friend...

Keep on taking KatyBeth to the range. This year I'm bringing TheBoy; perhaps the next time you wind up north of the Manson Dixon line we can get the two together at a range... ;)

You've got it right, there is no rational argument which will sway people like this Nurse K.

Jim

It's very hard to get someone to admit they have irrational fears.

I'm with you on teaching kids about guns, and safety. Personally I shot pelletguns first time when I was around 7-8, but I didn't learn proper safety and handle real firearms until I was 14. It's second nature to me still, though I don't get nearly as much shooting time as I'd like(tough gun control here). Heck I shot my first real pistol a couple of years ago, on vacation. Still, I'm lucky I had an older friend who was a hunter when I was 14-16, so I got to shoot anything from .22LR, to semi-auto 12gauge shotgun and hunting rifles. The silver lining to the gun control here is that we always had the range to ourselves. He still drilled me in safety and range etiquette.

*rambles*

I have an idea where these people are coming from, but I still don't really get it. My daughter loves shooting her BB Gun and my airsoft guns. She's looking forward to getting a .22 and going to the range with me (or other public area). At 7, I think she's at that right age to understand what I'm telling her and why it's important. Even the BB Gun she knows to keep safe when it's not pointed down range and I'm proud of that. If my guns are out because I've been cleaning them or haven't had a chance to put them away after shooting, she knows to leave them be unless I'm next to her and have made sure they're safe.

Personally, I'm more worried about the kids that she associates with that AREN'T learning how to properly be around weapons of any kind.

Be sure you don't teach her about poisons around the house either. She might go all Lucy Borgia on you. I also have a 7 tear old. I made sure to remove the taboo of guns early. He can touch any gun he wants(that I can that is) anytime THAT I AM THERE AND HELPING HIM! ( caution: this may lead to trips to the range)

As AD has done my child also was taught about firearms from a very early age. By 8 he had started a small collection of his own guns and knives. He is now 24 years old. There has never been an incident of him being unsafe. Never. But he is a damn fine shot and can carve up whatever needs be.

Nurse K will never acknowledge that children can be taught responsibility. It is easier for her to chant her mantra, protect her paradigm and in general not allow children to grow and learn.

Valerie, Alaska

You should give Nurse K. a big box of bubblewrap for Christmas, with the note: "Here's to keeping your kids safe from the world. Now go bubblewrap them."

My dad was always pretty strongly anti-gun, and there was no way I was learning to shoot before I moved out on my own.

Lemme tell ya, the danger I managed to find around the house was much, much greater than any danger I would've been in shooting supervised at the range. The world ain't safe, and trying to remove everything that could possibly be dangerous is not only completely futile, it's doing our kids a disservice.

All three of my children learned how to shoot guns when they were in early elementary school. They started with BB guns in Cub Scouts. They worked their way up to shotguns, rifles and black powder guns while in Boy Scouts. They know how to safely use guns. My daughter's boyfriend couldn't believe his luck that he had a girlfriend who wanted to do target practice and go hunting.
For those of you who think girls can't be in Boy Scouts, check out BSA's Venture Crews.

She's what is known as a hoplophobe - a person that has an irrational fear of weapons.

I know some people, who have been to the ED once, but feel they are qualified to comment on what goes on in the ED, but I am sure that is a completely different critter.

The dangerous weapon, that we all have, is the brain. We can train people to use inanimate objects safely, or we can create anthropomorphic excuses for bad behavior. "It was the evil gun/knife/car/alcohol/drug/video game/rock music/ that made the bad thing happen."

The more we teach people that they are not responsible for their actions, that it is the evil object that made them do the bad thing, the more dangerous we become.

So, how is it dangerous to teach children to be responsible?

My daughter is six and she's more knowledgeable about guns and gun safety than many - many adults. Nurse K can continue being a victim, my kids are learning responsibility and self reliance.

I don't have to read what Nurse K. says . . . . I know all about nurses.

I see 'em on TV all the time.

I fear that some people have forgotten that supervision means paying attention and being engaged rather than being nominally in charge and giving orders. Keep on being the coolest redneck dad to that lucky little girl.

"I also was not aware that she was the only 7-year-old who could behave in a rational, calm, adult-like manner all the time, and follow rules 100% of the time that, if not followed, could results in death."

Most adults can't behave in an adult like manner, does this mean they shouldn't have guns too?

My profession involves teaching children to use a weapon.
I believe all children- all people- should be taught to use guns safely. Just as I believe they should be taught to use knives, and the safe and appropriate use of all appliances in their house.
The more people know about how a gun works, what it does, and what it does not do, the less likely they are to use one inappropriately or dangerously. If they are taught to respect a gun as a tool, rather than to irrationally fear guns, or to consider them toys, the chances of misuse, whether accidental or intentional, are greatly reduced.
Nurse K- yes, there are irresponsible adults out there who don't supervise their kids, and/or who aren't teaching them to be safe. The world is, unfortunately, full of assholes. The problem isn't the guns, it's those adults. I suspect anyone who allows their child to use a gun without a solid grounding in safety and respect, also have a variety of other parenting issues, many of which are at least as dangerous.
But that doesn't mean that a responsible parent should not teach their child how to use a weapon safely. It's a lot better to start when they're young, and bring them up with safety second nature.

Growing up, I was always "safely" around guns. My dad has a "gun room" in the house, which was always locked, and we wern't allowed in, unless he was with us. He took us to shooting ranges and taught me how to shoot. And you know what I learned? To respect guns! Knowledge is power, and most of the time, fatal mistakes made with guns are from people who didn't know what they were doing, and didn't teach their child properly.
Good job AD! This Canadian girl thinks you are teaching your daughter well!

(Also, my dad was never more proud then when he took me shooting and I was 8 month pregnant, and still got better scores then the guys!)

Shooting a gun can be dangerous. So can driving a car. So can swimming. So can walking down a sidewalk. The world is a dangerous place, and is actively trying to kill you regardless of what you're doing. So you can either accept the risks you're willing to take to do what you want to do, or you spend your days in a padded bubble where you'll be hit by a piece of space debris.

I have a four year old. I let him play on a swing, climb jungle gyms, ride on the tractor with me, and took him horseback riding today. He also swims, and I'm teaching him about guns and what they're for. He's willing to try stuff that other kids won't. I never understood the tendency of people today to try to bubble-wrap their kids.

In my head I replaced 7-year old with 15-year old and gun with car and then re-read your posts. I think I don't speak the same language as Nurse K. I hope she isn't offended.