IKEA apologises for child shooting a gun

That was you

Unfortunately humans come in every variety of risky and research and the American Academy of Paediatricians have come out in favour of no guns in the home

https://www.aap.org/en-us/aap-voices/Pages/Guns-in-the-Home.aspx

 

Yes but that relies on statistics and research which you and I have disagreed on in the past

 

So Police Officers should not have Children ?
I don't get that one.
I was a Police Officer and had a Gun safe in case of a burglary.

Securing ones firearms, of course the people you quote use criminal statistics on which to base those assertions.

 

Ah, no... I have yet to provide my opinion regarding blame in the IKEA incident.

I don’t care the age. You can start engaging Children in participating in their safety in the 3-5 age range. That doesn’t mean a child of 3-5 can clear and breakdown any gun, but it does mean you can begin teaching children why they shouldn’t touch guns, why they shouldn’t be quiet when other children do, and take opportunities to lay the foundation for logical and rational thinking; learning starts young, never ends, and children will rise to the bar you set if you hold the line of integrity that draws their respect (something children sense very young... have that, and children are more likely to want your respect as well).

As for your last question in regard to both of my girls from 3 on, the answer was yes. Someone else’s, without knowing the parents relationship with their children and how involved they are with teaching their children life skills... no, and certainly not one whose parents didn’t demonstrate responsibility and exhibited irrational fear toward firearms.

 

No firearms in the home is an irrational fear of firearms.
A phobia even.
And that is unreasonable.
I can see a valid reason to have a safe and secure firearms as you often get people in your home, that you don't want handling your firearms.

Prohibited People and unstable people etc...

 

You can do your best to provide a safe environment and mitigate risk, but no matter what you do you can’t cover everything and mitigate every risk. Teaching a child to rationally navigate life’s risks is part of parenting, and that sometimes means providing opportunity for a child to excersize responsibility you’ve helped install to build their confidence, and self esteem, acknowledging when they have done well and reinforcing appropriate behaviors. Insulate a child from all risk and you create a product that can’t survive without aid.

 

Good thing fire arms don’t have eight legs, some just being black causes screams.

 

And once again, the definitive explanation of firearms from the long ago past..

***********************
Much of what Cesare Beccaria wrote in "On Crimes and Punishments" in 1764 still holds true today.

Beccaria’s work has become the foundation on which many criminology theories use to build and expand.

Often laws are promoted not by criminologists or "dispassionate students of human nature" but by passionate organisations with narrow minded goals and missions. With a desired end result of introducing legislation that suits their purpose only.

One thing that is essential to any laws regarding criminal justice is that the laws be created by a "dispassionate student of human nature". Beccaria stated that many of the present laws were just "a mere tool of the passions of some, or have arisen from an accidental and temporary need." There is little doubt that the same holds true today.

Laws should be enlightened, rational, logical and should be the greatest good for the greatness number. He felt that criminal laws should be formed with rational thought and not passions.

On legislation; Let the laws be clear and simple, let the entire force of the nation be united in their defence, let them be intended rather to favour every individual than any particular classes of men; let the laws be feared, and the laws only. The fear of the laws is salutary, but the fear of men is a fruitful and fatal source of crimes.

On the assumption of guilt; No man can be judged a criminal until he be found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it have been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right, then, but that of power, can authorise the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt?

On oaths; Oaths are useless, because it will not make a liar tell the truth, "every judge can be my witness that no oath ever make any criminal tell the truth"

On the prevention of crime; Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment...The more promptly and the more closely punishment follow upon the commission of a crime, the more just and useful will it be...It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This is the fundamental principle of good legislation.

Beccaria wrote a short chapter on preventing crime because he thought that preventing crime was better than punishing them. He gave nine principles that need to be in place in order to effectively prevent crime. To prevent crime a society must;

1. make sure laws are clear and simple,
2. make sure that the entire nation is united in defense,
3. laws not against classes of men, but of men,
4. men must fear laws and nothing else,
5. certainty of outcome of crime,
6. member of society must have knowledge because enlightenment accompanies liberty,
7. reward virtue,
8. perfect education,
9. direct the interest of the magistracy as a whole to observance rather than corruption of the laws.

If these nine principles are followed there would be less of a need to follow the other principles of trial and punishments.

On gun control;

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

_____________

References
Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as other medical organizations, have long made it known that they do not support firearms ownership at all. Their position on the matter is irrelevant, as it is based entirely on politics, rather than on sound medical science.

 

Because you have read and analysed the position paper that they have published and critiqued the research

Yeah sure!

Look anytime you have to allocate conspiracy theory thinking to something it is highly probable that that something is actually soundly based

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416

Lots of research in that paper

 

Agreed but toddlers are hard to tame and bloody unreliable

Is it not better to ensure a safe environment?

Look a few years ago Brisbane, not Aus just Brisbane led the world in toddler deaths. Cause backyard drowning. This was despite an active campaign teaching babies to swim. So, we mandated childproof pol fences and. Yes they are a right royal pain in the arse especially when you have a handful of food and drink and have to try and lift that catch BUT we reduced toddler deaths. Seat belts and baby capsules are mandated - why? Because they work.

Why not have the same safety thinking around kids and guns

I guess I just do not "get" how you Yanks can be so callous about this. Over seven thousand children injured or killed each year and the response seems to be "meh! They deserved it"

 

Ooooh! Yes let's go back to 1794 when child labour was in vogue and childhood mortality was extremem

 

What are you proposing based on the comparison to fencing swimming pools?

 

You are derailing, the post dealt with crime and punishment, not child labor laws.

 

To pass further firearms restrictions, no concealed carry.
Just like Australia.

 

Where we so rarely have incidents like the one above that we can count them on the fingers of one foot

 

Are you going to address my question, with regards to swimming pools and firearms?

 

It is not a matter of conspiracy to point out what their admitted position on the matter is. However their position is heavily flawed, as this incident demonstrates that an absence of firearms within the home does nothing to prevent firearm-related accidents from occurring outside of the home, especially when the parents are not paying attention to what the child in question is doing.

Beyond that matter, what they advocate for is no longer a viable position, based on the Heller ruling clarifying that firearms ownership is a constitutional right. They cannot, in all seriousness, advocate for individuals to refrain from legally exercising their constitutional rights, and call it sound medical advice. To do such would be no different from telling patients to not concern themselves with the requirements of the fourth amendment pertaining to warrants for searches and seizures.

 

The scope of the firearms smuggling and manufacturing problem in the nation of Australia, as well as the recent mass shooting to be carried out, suggests the problem has not actually been solved, only delayed. Once things are set into motion and violence begins occurring on a regular basis, there will be little the nation can do in response in terms of legislation.

 

AHHHHH HAHAHAHHAHHAH It's "Super Cop Syndrome", lmao!!

I call BS on the whole story. Stinks to high heaven...

 

Properly raising children and teaching them to behave themselves, much like learning how to safely operate a motor vehicle, is not something done overnight. But it is still something that needs to be done. Physical barriers are not a substitute for proper education, nor should be considered as such.

 

Life is a risk. Part of being a parent is protecting children from life’s risks and part is educating children to navigate risk when parents or other adults aren’t present.

 

Risk assessment doesn’t require statistics. Browns in your part of the world can represent a risk. What stats are required to know they are a risk? Further, what knowledge is required to navigate the risks of encountering one? The same kind of stats that show the risk of a burn if you stick your hand in a fire?

 

I am sure they would argue against ladders if they could get away without a red face.

 

Nice appeal to authority you ave there. Any other fallacies you'd like to present?