5 ms·

The pellet gun is not the problem. The child is the problem. Take the pellet gun away and he'll stab his victims with scissors. Take the scissors away and he'll

• mrmaddog 15y ago
  I wouldn't even argue that the kid is the problem, but rather that the kid's behavior is symptomatic of a completely dysfunctional family. At a certain age, responsibility starts shifting to the individual, but a 6 year old can hardly be considered the heart of the problem here. How to fix the deeper problem (having a mother that doesn't/is unable to care for her children) will always be an unsolved problem, but the best solutions I have seen so far involve beefing up our public school system so that the kids have a place that they can be given individualized attention.
  • DasIch 15y ago
    You cannot possibly beef up the public school system to the point that it replaces parental attention to children.
    • noduerme 15y ago
      Illiterate idiots can't raise responsible, intelligent children. Giving them free computers isn't the answer. What they need is to feel a constant sense of extreme shame for letting themselves and their situation degenerate to that degree. As it is, instead of shaming slothful, lazy, degenerate idiots, society shames itself into allowing them a free pass on the grounds that all else being equal, some people must be too stupid to figure anything out for themselves. Which turns out to be false when it comes to gaming the welfare system, cooking crystal meth or jacking peoples' shoes... but those kinds of smarts are what you get when you start coddling and nannying to the point where individuality and ambition are wiped out and the neediest and laziest survive. I hope none of my tax dollars went toward buying them a computer. In fact, I hope they eat each other. Great post, though.
      • run4yourlives 15y ago
        What they need is to feel a constant sense of extreme shame for letting themselves and their situation degenerate to that degree. Have you perhaps by chance considered that a sense of extreme shame is exactly what prevents them from changing their situations? It's quite obvious that you haven't been exposed to anything beyond the silver spoon you were born with in your lifetime. If you had some life experience you'd understand how silly your comment is, given that these are issues are much more complex than people being "illiterate idiots".
        • rglovejoy 15y ago
          I didn't grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth, and I think noduerme's comments were spot on. In fact, I wish I could give his comment ten more points, and downvote your arrogant screed by the same amount. It really isn't that much more complex than people being "illiterate idiots". Believe me, I've seen it with my own eyes.
          • cma 15y ago
            And the problem with you guys isn't much more complex than being "arrogant idiots".
            • noduerme 15y ago
              Ostracizing people socially -- rather than using bureaucracy as a method of enforcing ever more bloated statutes -- is a tried and true human tradition. It happens all the time online. Note the emergence of up-ranking news sites, for instance. Downranking is a powerful form of social censorship that helps civilize the worse traits in human nature. To rely solely on law or on bureaucracy to keep people acting in a civilized fashion is to discard thousands of years of social/moral wisdom. The argument usually begins with moral relativism -- e.g. you don't know what it's like to be XYZ, you were born ABC, and how dare you judge anybody -- and ends with the credo that all is permissible. The problem with everything being permissible is that, contrarily, in a situation where there is a refusal on the part of individuals to judge each other, no individual has any rights. Their rights are either abrogated by the police and the faceless majority, or everyone's rights directly infringe on each other's, in an anarchic context that only begs for further control. Therefore, face-to-face settlement of conflict and the boundaries between individuals is preferable to settlement by the state, and also preferable to a complete lack of settlement. And THEREFORE, we must use the best tools in the arsenal to settle such conflicts on a local basis, which most definitely include humiliating and ostracizing and, yes, JUDGING people based on how they behave.
• noduerme 15y ago
  I completely agree with this statement, but the first thing you teach is that a gun IS a tool, it is NOT a toy. I have no problem with teaching kids to shoot, hunt and defend themselves, but I go ballistic when I see 5-year-olds running around with realistic plastic .45s and AK-47s. I think their pinhead parents should be strung up by the thumbs, the idiots. Because they're teaching their kids that guns are toys before the kids even handle a real weapon. Guns -- real, pellet, bb, plastic or otherwise -- should be off-limits until a kid's shown the basic understanding of what they do, what life and death are, and that they ain't toys.
  • pmiller2 15y ago
    I agree completely with this. I got my first shotgun when I was a year older than the twins described in this article. You can bet the first lesson I learned was what happened to whatever you were pointing it at when you pulled the trigger, and the second lesson was to never point it at something I didn't want that to happen to. As it happens, I never killed anything except a sick woodchuck that wandered into our yard, but those lessons were incredibly valuable. Oh, and I never asked to go outside and "play with the guns." I always asked politely if I could go outside and "shoot targets." Guns were absolutely not to be played with, but they were fun to learn to use.
    • noduerme 15y ago
      This whole thing made me realize I'm going to run for President, btw. I think I finally realized what my views are. I'm a gun-owning conservative social anarchist libertarian that believes in improving Medicare. I think it's a unique platform. I also own an online casino. Look for me in 2016 =)