Corporal punishment & guns in a household

[sparx]

I grew up in a household where both my mom and dad gave us "whoopins". My dad with his belt, and my mom with anything she could lay her hands on, from fly swatters to yard sticks to clothes brushes. We were also slapped once in a while by mom, or backhanded by dad, but never with a closed hand.

I deserved every one of the spankings or slaps I got, and neither one ever drew blood from any of us or left anything more than a whelp (no bruises). There wasn't any drinking in the house outside of an occasional glass of wine unless there was a party, and I've never seen either of them drunk... not once. I've seen them a little tipsy after a Christmas or New Year's party, but that's it. And yes, there were always a good number of rifles, shotguns and a couple handguns in the house as well. My father NEVER hit my mom, and we were raised with the rule that you never hit a lady unless she was a stranger and was attacking you without provocation (thereby absolving the rule since that wouldn't be the actions of a true "lady").

With my dad having served as a Marine for 21 years, other kids considered our family "rules" somewhat strict, and we were taught to respect elders and immediately come when we are called (after answering "Yes Ma'am?" or "Yes Sir?"). Overall I think I turned out to be a pretty decent guy. At least everyone that I've meet, and especially those that get to know me, consider me to be an honest, kind, fair and respectful person who holds true to their word. Same goes for my brothers and sisters, who unlike me (the black sheep if you could call me that) graduated High School with honors or better (I did OK, but it was often hard to get my mind going in a direction different than my hobby interests such as backpacking, climbing, fishing and hunting... call it "one-track" I guess).

If I had a family of my own (married going on 19 years, but wife is infertile and we were relocated by the company I was with at the time so often around the Midwest during our "prime" years we never really had a chance to adopt), I would be proud to raise them in the same fashion. In my mind, strict discipline beyond "talking" or "time-outs" is sometimes needed, but abuse is uncalled for. Fortunately I was blessed with being raised in a household where that stood strong in our values and beliefs. BTW, both my parents passed away last January after 57+ years of happy marriage (he from a failed stint that was being placed in his heart, and she, who was more or less bed/sofa-ridden for the past 10 years or so, from natual causes a day after we told her Dad had passed... I guess she didn't want to be on this earth without him).

Don't feel bad about your friend's comments, Maser. I would almost put money on it that 15-20 years from now, you will be doing well and considered a respectable citizen of the community, while your friend will be blaming everyone else for all his problems and have an excuse for everything as nothing will be his fault (not that it will always happen that way, but I've seen it happen plenty of times that I have no qualms about saying the chances are higher than not that it will).

 

[Mr_Dictionary]

I'll discuss the actual question.

Maser, your use of the justifiable homocide (that's what you described), while technically correct was not wise. When dealing with someone who clearly reacts emotionally to a situation (violence in this case), it is best to avoid using examples that allow the emotional person to focus on the shocking, graphic, or personal details. A better statement would have been, "I would never think of hurting my parents. We keep our guns for self defense not murder.", or you simply could have said, "No." and moved on.

Remember, in most cases where this will occur, you're not dealing with rational and logical debate, you're dealing with deepset emotional reactions which generally lack any foundation in experience, thought, or reason. You have to move the person beyond their emotions and get them to observe the situation rationally and with thought. Providing further emotional ammunition does not further your goal of educating them in your perspective.

For this very reason, when discussing welfare reform or generational poverty, I never mention that minorities are disproportionately represented amongst the poor. The previous statement is true, but when seeking a rational and intellectual debate highlighting a group (or situation) that has an emotional response isn't conducive to rational discussion, because many people are emotionally trained to view the poor and minorities as victims and not merely as an example of a problem.

 

[Biker]

Yup, I'm 50, 6'1" and 190 lb, have long hair, a beard and a Harley and I *still* treat elders respectfully, especially ladies, as in "M'am". I open doors for women and help old guys across the parking lot at the Vet's hospital when I visit SLC. Lessons learned young and hard stick with ya.
Nuthin' wrong with that...

Biker

 

[Oleg Volk]

Could always explain to kids that people they encounter are either forgiving or not. Abusing forgiving people is unethical, abusing unforgiving people is suicidal. In short, treate friends and strangers as if they can harm you if provoked: avoid giving any avoidable provocation. Courtesy can be from the heart or from good (defensive) manners: both varieties are useful.

 

[One of Many]

NineseveN had this to say:

As an aside, I love the whole "you should not consume alcohol in a home that has firearms in it" argument, except it’s flawed; here's a hint Sherlock, avoidance is not the same as self-control.

Avoidance removes the ability to exercise self-control by never placing oneself into the situation in the first place (i.e. how can you not be faithful to your wife if you spend every hour of your day alone on a deserted island) while self control is being able to exercise good and proper judgment while being in the realm of temptation’s grasp (i.e. having a couple of beers but not losing control to the point to where you grab the 'ol .22 and start shooting the living room couch cushions for fun).

Prohibitionists and anti-gunners have a lot in common when you get right down to it, pick your poison at will, the rhetoric is mostly the same.

I assume that those comments are directed at my prior posting, in which I stated that drunkenness was a problem when guns are available, but that I did not have an issue with the moderate (Not becoming Drunken) use of alcoholic beverages. You have misstated my point, and have referred to me in a derogatory manner. You have also equated me with being an anti-gunner.

I stated that drunkenness was a problem, not that moderate consumption was a problem. I also stated that drunkenness in front of children was setting a bad example for those children.

If you want to pick nits with something that another individual posted, you should at least be courteous enough to read and understand the original point the person made, and not accredit entirely new thoughts and words to them.

IF I were anti-gun I would be presenting a completely different argument. Self control is vital whenever firearms are available. That is not an anti-gun statement; it is the essence of responsible firearms ownership.

From the posting you made with your vehement reaction to the suggestion of limiting alcoholic beverage consumption, one might infer that you have a substance abuse problem. If that is the case, I hope you seek treatment, before you "grab the 'ol .22 and start shooting the living room couch cushions for fun".

 

[orionengnr]

Oleg--a man of few words...

But they are all gems.

I almost quit at the end of page one, but I'm really glad I continued.

Oleg, that observation was a keeper. Thank you.
Biker, likewise. Great posts.

 

[NineseveN]

assume that those comments are directed at my prior posting, in which I stated that drunkenness was a problem when guns are available, but that I did not have an issue with the moderate (Not becoming Drunken) use of alcoholic beverages. You have misstated my point, and have referred to me in a derogatory manner. You have also equated me with being an anti-gunner.

Had I meant you directly, I would have been clear and quoted you…all apologies for the confusion. It’s still a silly sentiment nonetheless, but I didn’t specifically mean you, just that general idea that seems to have been out in increased numbers as of late around here.

I stated that drunkenness was a problem, not that moderate consumption was a problem. I also stated that drunkenness in front of children was setting a bad example for those children.

Bad example? How so? In what way? What harm does this do to the children to see dad watching the football game and having a 12-pack? That’s legally drunk, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to make the case that children that witness their parents drunk on occasion are more prone to crime or some other such terrible thing, back it up. Where are the studies? What proves this, because without solidifying your point, your argument appears to be "being drunk is bad” (a draconian and often-hyper religious or recovering addict opinion based more on the professor's weakness than those they wish to chastise or counsel) and that “if you are drunk in front of children they will grow up thinking it is okay to be drunk". One consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication has nothing to do with alcoholism, and one consuming such amounts of alcohol in the privacy of their own home and not operating firearms, power tools, farm animals or otherwise engaging in violenty or destructive behavior has no negative affect on anyone. So what if the kids see that it’s okay to be drunk, so long as the kids are parented properly and are taught that all things must be done responsibly (i.e. no drunk driving, no drunk gun handling etc…), where’s the harm?

There's nothing wrong with being drunk. If you have moral, ethical or religious barriers on the subject, then apply them to yourself. Using your own moral code or fears to project restrictions onto others is exactly what the anti-gunners do, hence the comparison I gave. There's no factual basis given to uphold your statement that there is anything wrong with a free individual being drunk or intoxicated in and of itself, in their won home in the presence of children and presumably other adults (that’s the taker I got from the post); just as there is no factual basis to uphold the notion that having a firearm in the home or on your person is in and of itself, dangerous. The danger lies in the misuse or irresponsible actions committed by someone engaging in such activity (i.e. using a gun to murder someone unjustifiably or waving it around carelessly and covering others with the muzzle or drinking to intoxication and then driving home, killing someone on the way and watching an infant alone with no other adults present while completely intoxicated). Both sects are blaming the perfectly legal and benign acts of many for the misuse and abuse of the few that result in tragedy and then form an opinion that guns or booze are bad because bad people misuse them and bad things happen. Both arguments are completely illogical. Do you fall into this category or not? I don’t know, you haven’t really made your case for why being drunk at home, in front of children is bad? Or being drunk, at home, in a home with firearms, despite not handling or touching those firearms (was there even any mention of drunken gun handling?), is bad.

If you want to pick nits with something that another individual posted, you should at least be courteous enough to read and understand the original point the person made, and not accredit entirely new thoughts and words to them.

As I said, had I specifically meant you, I would have quoted you directly.

IF I were anti-gun I would be presenting a completely different argument. Self control is vital whenever firearms are available. That is not an anti-gun statement; it is the essence of responsible firearms ownership.

From the posting you made with your vehement reaction to the suggestion of limiting alcoholic beverage consumption, one might infer that you have a substance abuse problem. If that is the case, I hope you seek treatment, before you "grab the 'ol .22 and start shooting the living room couch cushions for fun".

Sport, I don't drink beyond a 5-6 times per year with dinner thing, sorry to disappoint you (but nice try). But again, we see the same rhetoric as the anti-gunners...if you say you are pro-gun, you must be a bloodthirsty government hating warmonger maniac that will snap and kill people because guns are bad and they're used to kill people; and if you say you don't think drinking alcohol to intoxication is bad so long as it is done responsibly and no harm comes out of it, you must have a substance abuse problem because alcohol is addictive and often abused and thus, bad.

Now I'm relating specifically to you, feel better?

Again, what is so harmful about being intoxicated? How does a child witnessing this act in and of itself harm them? Do this without going on to wild theories about how if you're drunk maybe you slap your wife or swear a lot because that is not the conduct we're discussing, simply being intoxicated in a home with firearms contained in it is, and maybe we have a discussion. If all you have is your personal opinion, then there's no need to discuss it further now is there? It's your opinion, and how someone raises his or her own children should be none of your business. Sure, we can all comment on it, but saying it’s wrong don't make you right, nor does it make it your business. Otherwise, a better case is gonna need to be made, which is the same gauntlet we throw down to the anti-gunners who simply feel that guns are bad but cannot really prove it because the only thing that is bad about guns is bad people that abuse them and do bad things with them and harm others...the same as it is with alcohol or even drugs.

Or perhaps this a poor thread drift and we should both just hush up now…

 

[Biker]

*Burp*



Biker

 

[NineseveN]

Biker, got any Tacos to go with that?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Anyways, after a few more minutes of arguing I manage to get my friend to stop talking about it. In a way I found his argument kind of offensive because he made my family out to be some barbaric family that beats the hell out of their kids for no reason. What do you guys think? Did I handle this the right way? If you have any more suggestions I could use when I see my friend again then please tell me.

Your friend has been brainwashed.

I am from a few generations before yours. Spanking was considered normal discipline, not just in my family but in the families of all my childhood friends. Back then pretty much all households also had guns, and we didn't have any of those idiotic gun lock laws, either. Oddly enough, I can't recall a single instance of a kid shooting his/her parents over getting spanked.

You see, the deal is that we knew right from wrong. Getting spanked wasn't exactly enjoyable, but we knew damned well that when the belt came out, we had earned it and we deserved it. Being disciplined by your parents wasn't reason to KILL them.

We also knew what guns were for. Guns were for killing. Targets were for practice, but as far back as I can remember it was clearly understood that guns kill people and animals. That's their primary purpose.

Sane people do not kill their parents for exercising discipline. The thought of pulling up my drawers after a spanking and running for the closet where the gun was sitting on the shelf simply never even occurred to me. Why would it?

Back then, we lived in a more or less sane world. Today, we don't. Today we live in a world where honest people are not allowed to defend themselves against murderous scum, where parents are not allowed to discipline thier children, where criminals have more rights than their victims.

I suppose by your friend's definition I was "abused" multiple times during my childhood. Isn't it curious that I became a productive member of society, served my country honorably (albeit reluctantly) when called, actually own GUNS ... and not only do I bear no physical or psychological scars from the "ordeal," I haven't even gone on a single mass murder rampage in my entire life.

 

[TallPine]

One woman I know has little tyrants that habitually walk all over her, while she, with admirable but misplaces patience, exhausts herself trying to shepherd them vaguely in the right direction to do what she requests "without using force" while the tykes run circles around her, just out of her reach, laughing. Meanwhile, her older kid, who is way too old for tantrums, is throwing a doozy...because for her, it works.

Yeah, I have a sister in law like that
The kids were like wild animals when they were little, kicking scratching, biting, and destroying property.

And then last year, she calls us up and asks if we can take her oldest son (17.5) until he finishes HS, because his life has supposedly been threatened by the drug buddies that he supposedly was trying to withdraw from (going "straight now").

I told her flat out NO of course.

 

[sparx]

+1 Hawkmoon.

 

[real_name]

Actually pot is an issue here.
Maser claims to be 16, here and on his own website that is linked in his signature.
He claims that he already has a child.
He came here with a marijuana related email address on public display.

Regardless of marijuana posession + guns = felony we have a problem.
To any outsider or spider (ask a mod if you don't know what a spider/bot is) picking up this interesting combination of 16 years old, 420 and guns it will look very, very bad.
Myspace is regularly trawled for references just like these, how do we know THR isn't too?
I don't wish to condone this.
I don't care what any of us did (or indeed still do), we didn't run our mouths off if we had any sense. Yes, the laws against marijuana are draconian, but they are laws, same as the laws against entering this country illegally. Same difference. It is illegal.
I am not going to bust him, he is doing a good job of that himself, and from what he said previously his father knows he smokes pot, so maybe he's lying or maybe they are in deep.
Not my problem, but coming on this site and treating it like myspace affects us all.
I would have no problem with Maser if he dropped the 420 reference.
He is an enthusiastic kid, with guns that is encouragable, with pot it isn't.

 

[Haymaker]

I've seen "Masers' posts before/elsewhere

Does have a habit of stirring the pot some
The only problem I have with this post is his friend
THAT mindset is dangerous and becoming way too prevelent.

 

[Biker]

NineseveN...

No tacos yet, Bro. I never eat on an empty stomach.

Biker

 

[Biker]

real name...

Fer crise sake. Is your hobby makin' mountains out of molehills? Leave the kid be. Ain't none of your bidness and it ain't up to you to condone what he does or doesn't do in private. Lord, take a Midol.

Biker

 

[NineseveN]

No tacos yet, Bro. I never eat on an empty stomach.

I thought that's what the brew was for? Or am I doing it wrong?

 

[real_name]

Biker.
Did you read my post or skim through it?
People and automated readers are looking at what goes on here. For all we know Maser could be a cop in Georgia trying to get a few IPs for pot/gun guys while the cop at the next desk hunts down pedophiles.
I am right in not condoning his actions.
And I don't care if you think I am wrong, I know how I think is right.
You don't need to tell me to take a midol, that was uncalled for and borderline flaming/baiting.

It is my business, this is a public forum.

 

[One of Many]

NineseveN had this to say:

Had I meant you directly, I would have been clear and quoted you…all apologies for the confusion. It’s still a silly sentiment nonetheless, but I didn’t specifically mean you, just that general idea that seems to have been out in increased numbers as of late around here.

In this thread, MY post was the only reference I saw concerning use of alcoholic beverages in proximity to firearms. That is why I assumed you were responding to my post. If you were commenting on postings made in a different thread, then my assumption was incorrect.



I had grandparents that were killed in an automobile "accident", caused by a drunken driver coming around a curve on the wrong side of the road, hitting them head on and killing both almost instantly. He survived, and also was acquitted in court on a manslaughter charge, even though he was proven to be drunk at the time of the "accident". I have family that is alcoholic, and had several accidents from driving while drunk. I have been in the company of people that were drunk and had to help subdue them, because they were violent when drunk. These are all cases of drunken people in the Public arena, not confined to the security of their own homes. There is nothing to stop a drunken individual from getting in a car and driving, or from unlocking their gun safe and going on a shooting spree, if no other adult is there to intervene. You can not expect children to intervene with a drunken parent, and stop them from reckless or dangerous activities that they may attempt in their drunknness.

The Christian Bible clearly states that drunkenness is a sin; it is immoral based on the word of the God many people worship. Drunkenness is considered by most societies to be immoral, and in most it is also considered to be a crime when an individual is drunk in public. I do not believe that the Bible condemns moderate use of alcoholic beverages; it condemns drunkenness, and the loss of self control that results from imbibing in excessive quantitries of alcoholic beverages.

When people decide to set their own standards for what is considered immoral, they can justify to themselve all sorts of actions that society at large disapproves of. You have made it clear that your moral standards are lower than those I am accustomed to, and that you see nothing wrong with drunkenness, even though you yourself do not engage in drinking yourself into a state of alcoholic intoxication.

In many states, a parent that is a chronic drunk will have their children placed in foster homes, because the children are considered by the State Child Welfare Agency to be endangered by the parent that can not control themselves and their consumption of alcohol. I am not the only person that thinks children being exposed to the drunkness of their parents is a problem, and a bad example for children to emulate. I can not provide you with the proof that you want; I am not in the business of collecting case studies and statistics to justify what most people understand by common sense. Maybe common sense is becoming less common in this time, than it was a few decades ago.

People that are anti-gun are people that don't believe in personal responsibility. People that regularly drink alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication also don't believe in personal responsibility; they do things while in a state of intoxication, then try to blame it on the fact that they didn't know what they were doing, since they were drunk. That is why drunkenness is a bad example for children; it tells the children it is OK to do bad things as long as you can make an excuse, and blame someone or something other than oneself. Teenage children getting drunk and having sex - getting pregnant and not even knowing who the father is; getting drunk and stealing a car for a joyride - smashing into trees and bridge abuttments. But they didn't know what they were doing because they were drunk, and that makes it OK - NOT.

 

[Biker]

*burp*

Biker

 

[Maser]

I really wish you all wouldn't pay attention to my yahoo name. That's not the email I always use. It was my big brother who made that email/yahoo account. I don't smoke weed. I think drugs suck. For me the only high I need is dirtbiking and shooting guns.

 

[Biker]

Actually, I wouldn't have known what "420" signified if it hadn't gotten 'chicken littled'.

Biker

 

[capnrik]

And this thread represents "the high road"?

 

[silliman89]

No offense intended towards maser, but I find this guns and alcohol topic more interesting than a kid being spanked for cussing at his teacher. On that topic, I'd just say to watch out for your "friend". I wouldn't trust him if it were me. He doesn't seem to have any sense of responsibility.

One of Many -- #19

I am concerned that someone who owns firearms seems to be undisciplined enough to become drunken, and do so in the presence of children. It is certainly a bad example to children, to show them that surrendering self control is acceptable, whether it be in the form of alcoholic beverages, smoking pot, crack, meth or any other mind altering substance. The man has firearms, for which he has control (or should have), and there should never be a mixing of firearms and loss of control due to alcohol. I am not saying that moderate use of alcohol (remaining sober) should be prohibited, but drunkeness is asking for trouble when firearms are available.

My first reaction to this post was, "what, so it's better to get drunk at a bar -- you know, so you're surrounded by strangers, and have to drive home later?" Luckily a 2nd longer post clarified that.

One of Many -- #44

...
I had grandparents that were killed in an automobile "accident", caused by a drunken driver coming around a curve on the wrong side of the road, hitting them head on and killing both almost instantly. He survived, and also was acquitted in court on a manslaughter charge, even though he was proven to be drunk at the time of the "accident". I have family that is alcoholic, and had several accidents from driving while drunk.

I'm sorry to hear this. Drunk driving is a real problem. Lots of innocent people are killed every day by drunk drivers and it's disgusting that our court system turns so many loose with no more than a slap on the wrist, if even that much. But this is the reason why it is so much better, for everyone, to do your drinking in the safety of your own home. Alcohol clearly impairs your ability to drive or do many other inherently dangerous activities that we take for granted doing all the time.

I have been in the company of people that were drunk and had to help subdue them, because they were violent when drunk.

You seem to have drawn the conclusion that it was the alcohol that made them violent. I propose that these were probably violent people that you saw get drunk. We used to call these "mean drunks" when I was in the Navy. It was my experience that these kind of drunks tended to hang out in bars because they were looking forward to a good brawl.

Your personal experience may be limited, so let me explain that when I hang out and drink with family and friends (at our homes, where our guns and children are, as is natural after you reach a certain age and settle down in life) I have never seen anyone become violent, or abusive, or in any way loose control of themselves or not be responsible for what they said or did. I would not hang out with those kinds of people.

Good natured, friendly people can drink until they pass out or vomit without doing anything violent or dangerous. I'm not advocating drinking that much. I'm just saying that's as much as it's possible to drink, and there's still no violent or dangerous activity from people who aren't inclined towards same while sober.

The Christian Bible clearly states that drunkenness is a sin; it is immoral based on the word of the God many people worship.

See, here's where you're preaching. You didn't mention "sin" in the first post, but you were still preaching in a holier-than-thou tone. I've found that it puts most people off. How's it been working out for you?

People that regularly drink alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication also don't believe in personal responsibility; they do things while in a state of intoxication, then try to blame it on the fact that they didn't know what they were doing, since they were drunk.

These are conclusions you've reach, I believe erroneously, based upon your experience. My experience has been that people who have no personal responsibility will use any excuse they can, including "the alcohol made me do it". I've found that the much larger group of people who do have personal responsibility can drink as much alcohol as they want without becoming violent or dangerous.

Now, of course, everyone will get silly under the influence of alcohol. People will slur their words and laugh at stuff that probably isn't really that funny. Some people get loud. They may stumble and fall down, and will usually then laugh. I agree that these and other things should not be done in front of your children.

I object though to your characterization of the effects of alcohol as "loosing control". By depriving your brain of oxygen, alcohol impairs your coordination and thinking. Alcohol does not force you to loose control. It merely provides an excuse for people who wanted to loose control in the first place.

 

[Malice]

Hm... I have a bit of a different expierence than most I guess. A little about myself.

I am going on 20 (wow I feel old )
I am going to a university now.
I have never gotten in any trouble. No parking or speeding tickets, no arrests, no detentions or anything in school. I guess you could say I have always been "a good kid".

I smoked pot one time when i first got to college. I didnt like it, havent done it since and wont again.

I get drunk at small friendly get togethers at my apartment or a friends apartment. (I dont like big "college parties)

I drink a beer with dinner when I am at home visiting my parents sometimes. No-one bats an eye. My family I guess realizes that alcohol is not a big deal at all, if you practice SELF CONTROL. I do not think I have seen my dad drunk, but we're German and Irish so I dont think my dad could drink enough beer to get drunk and we dont keep liquor in the house. My mom has too many mimosas at brunch sometimes and gets drunk and its funny as hell. It never, ever, ever traumatized me. I promise.

Ayway.

My parents NEVER ONCE hit me or any of my brothers. We all turned out as good as a parent could hope for, or at least I like to think so.

I repeat. No spanking. No slapping. CERTAINLY no belt. I wonder if it ever occured to them. Ill ask tomorrow.

I was never even grounded. I never had the TV or video games taken away.

We were never a religious family, and me and my older brother are committed athiests.

My parents treated us like people, not children. We never had to be punished for cussing out our teachers because we never did it in the first place. One time we played catch in the house on a rainy day and broke my mom's vase. My dad didnt hit us and didnt have to because we felt so bad about it when my mom cried we never did it again. To me, looking back, if my mom had hit us when we broke that vase it would not have been punishment, it would have been retribution.

I guess I do not believe in corporal punishment. My dad would not have hit us kids any more than he would have hit his wife.

I guess I wont say I think it is WRONG. But I think there are certainly other ways to keep your kids in line. I guess, to me, if/when I have kids, I hope to never get to the point where I have to hit them. I hope to do the same thing my parents did.

Teach me what is right and wrong. Explain to me why it is wrong, why not to do it, and what the consequences could be.