Selling a new generation on guns

21 million bucks. 21 million. That’s how much the NRA spent on grants to youth groups like the Boy Scouts last year for shooting programs. I really want to type it a third time. 21 million. Dollars!

Is there any possible universe where encouraging children to shoot guns does not lead to children shooting guns? I’m kind of over it with the whole children shooting thing.

Reading the article, you’ll have your “No no no, it cannot be this is tooooooooooo much!” moment when this comes up:

“The shooting sports foundation, the tax-exempt trade association for the gun industry, is a driving force behind many of the newest youth initiatives. Its national headquarters is in Newtown, just a few miles from Sandy Hook Elementary School, where Adam Lanza, 20, used his mother’s Bushmaster AR-15 to kill 20.

Source


Clearly this article presents a position not everyone agrees with but nonetheless, I am really interested in hearing from all of you in relation to what it says.

Feel free too look at the sublinks before you respond.

he used pistols,no rifles. Glocks unless I am mistaken.
"THEY' just don't particularly like AR15s so the rifle has become a new boogyman dejure to make you mad.
Apparently it's working.

reply to post by Kashai


I was in the scouts, and then explorers, then the Army infantry. I guess their training paid off for the military industrial complex. If they do not want to produce soldiers from children then they might want to think about not being in the policing the world business any longer. They would be hard pressed to do it without all of us gun culture folk.

I started shooting even before boy scouts. My dad and my uncles taught me, my brothers and all of my male cousins how to shoot. Now, aside from active military duty, care to guess how many people I have killed? Get it through your head. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

reply to post by Kashai


Hmmmm what is that, a dollar and a half or less per high school student?

Really threatening with that kind of big bank indoctrination money .... LOL

reply to post by Kashai


Unless some data can be shown of how many BSA trained "kids" used weapons in some sort of crime ect then this is all blather.

What the writer fails to comprehend, is that the NRA isn't ARMING children! And the money that they are putting into education, is going to groups who ALREADY incorporate shooting guns, into everything else that they promote!

If teaching a child about gun safety is bad, then arrest me!!!

My kids started learning about guns and gun safety, the very first day that they asked me about mine!!!!

This article is so slanted it isn't even funny. Not even sure what the point of the article is at all as a matter of fact. From what I gather the author of the article would rather the children of this nation be completely uneducated when it comes to firearms so that when they do come across one instead of treating it with respect and safe handling, they will likely injure either themselves or a family member or friend.

It's ignorance like this that I just don't understand. I completely support programs like the apple seed youth shooting program that teaches children proper handling and safety of firearms while also allowing them to enjoy the pleasures of target shooting and plinking.

The NRA bogeyman is a myth created by the globalist corporate media, often referred to as the "liberal media." The NRA is mostly made up of normal people who pay dues and buy their merchandise. And I certainly appreciate their ability to protect my 2nd amendment rights as a lobby in Congress.
As for teaching children to shoot, that is what responsible societies do. A kid who knows gun safety and how to shoot tends to grow up into a personally responsible adult who understands how to use and respect a firearm.
Perhaps it is just a cultural thing, but down here in the South guns are a natural part of culture.
I tend to think the opposite of the OP is true. They are currently conditioning children into a culture of entitlement and dependence(ie, the government will feed and protect you...until it collapses under its own weight), something a personally responsible and ideally self reliant culture would reject.

Oh no! The secret is out. Now everyone will know that the NRA is really big into gun safety and spends alot of money teaching people how to properly handle guns. If you've ever taken a gun safety course or a hunters ed course, the NRA had somethiing to do with it.

Please understand I did not come here with the intention of starting an argument, and I would ask anyone posting to maintain the same posture.

I have one issue with this in relation to clinical findings and this does not mean it would be a problem to most people. The reality is there for the most part those of us who own guns are responsible people. But among every one of us in consideration to race, creed and culture? There are those of us who are not running on all cylinders, as well as those of us who are but still do really bad things.

The human brain does not actually fully develop until the age of 21. There are parts of the brain related to judgment that are not yet finished. So while teaching a child to use a gun is no problem for say 93% of this countries population there is still a 7% chance that person could become a criminal or be psychotic.

This issue of those that are psychotic could perpetuate into a response with our current technology

It has to do with our technology to apply DNA analysis. You see one way of making sure our
concerns about people who are psychotic killing people is not a problem? Would be to preform
a DNA analysis and perhaps then that child does not get born.

This is not a problem for today but over the next 50 to 100 years it could be very possible.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Where's the data suggesting that young people predisposed to gun safety are more likely to murder?

Bet the op likes these kids learning about guns and tyranny.






so they can then do this to "our" kids.





--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

Yep, I'd believe $21 million. My kids had the Eddie Eagle program which is a gun safety program sponsored by the NRA. My son, now 13, can still recite the "what to do if you find a gun" - don't touch, leave the room, get an adult. Well worth the under $2 per child.

reply to post by Kashai


Yes, I have some thoughts! I don't understand, unless for agenda, why the coddle the child faction of psychology keeps pushing the "they aren't fully developed thinkers, and therefore can't, until they are past puberty. Without even going through the psychological premises behind my theory, I'll just break it down in parent speak . . . When you tell a child something is bad and to be avoided at all costs, as well as telling them they will get in trouble if they go near one (you know prohibition), they will immediately develop a facisnation with that thing. If you teach your kids about guns and gun safety and let them see these "killing machines" up close, even shoot one, the fairy tale is debunked for them . . . it's no big deal and more likely to be responsible around them.

If you are interested in the basic psychological principle behind this "phenomenon", start here . . . it actually ties right in with our current discussions on rights.

Reactance Theory

Psychological reactance occurs in response to threats to perceived behavioral freedoms.[1][2] An example of such behavior can be observed when an individual engages in a prohibited activity in order to deliberately taunt the authority who prohibits it, regardless of the utility or disutility that the activity confers.

Originally posted by danneu89
reply to post by Kashai

 

Where's the data suggesting that young people predisposed to gun safety are more likely to murder?

I am arguing from the point of view of statistics in respect to what a child with access to guns as a child does as an adult, as well as onset of psychosis for most individuals (as adults) to present psychotic symptoms.

As an example schizophrenia and bipolar disorder which shows up in human usually between the ages of 21 to about 35. I am not saying people who learn to use guns as a child are more prone to this issue.

I am saying that in relation to a population and in this case we are talking about the United States about 7 and perhaps 10% at most exhibit either criminal or psychotic behavior.

To be clear I have never heardof any specific research on the specific subject. but in all sincerity and to be fair to everyone?

Doing research on something like that would need to encompass the entire planet. A good reason relates to the ethics of presenting data like that if it did not encompass an entire population.

My premise is that it is possible that in the near future the idea of have a child whose DNAidentifies them as having Psychotic or even Criminal traits, could become a problem.

reply to post by Kashai


I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts. Never had an urge to go on a shooting rampage. I'm really.. really.. really tired of constantly hearing about how guns, just holding a gun, will make someone want to shoot someone. No, it doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Kashai

 

I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts. Never had an urge to go on a shooting rampage. I'm really.. really.. really tired of constantly hearing about how guns, just holding a gun, will make someone want to shoot someone. No, it doesn't work that way.

And you are correct, but not everyone feels that way.

reply to post by Kashai


In relation to your thoughts on genetic markers, for possible violence . . . if you are testing for that you will probably be running screens for all issues. If that's the case, it sounds like we are getting into Eugenics and I don't see the purpose in even opening that possiblility. For instance, how do we know the gene for violence or anything label detrimental won't be advantagous in coming generations (in case of environment or societal change) . . . with out the ability to adapt that these genes provide for some and allow us as a species to go on, we simply die out.

Don't mess with nature kid!

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Kashai

 

In relation to your thoughts on genetic markers, for possible violence . . . if you are testing for that you will probably be running screens for all issues. If that's the case, it sounds like we are getting into Eugenics and I don't see the purpose in even opening that possiblility. For instance, how do we know the gene for violence or anything label detrimental won't be advantagous in coming generations (in case of environment or societal change) . . . with out the ability to adapt that these genes provide for some and allow us as a species to go on, we simply die out.

Don't mess with nature kid!

No doubt.
If this was already in place.. most of our sitting government would be either aborted or not allowed to play with sharp instruments.