Kids, cookies, pizza, firearms

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Kids, cookies, pizza, firearms

Doug Grow, Star Tribune
February 24, 2005 GROW0224

Before the gun safety training class that a Minneapolis gun shop owner is planning for Minneapolis kids, all ammunition will be "secured."

Everyone agrees that's a good idea.

After that, though, questions arise about a plan by Mark Koscielski and his friend Joel Rosenberg to offer a free gun-safety program Friday evening at Koscielski's Guns and Ammo, 2926 Chicago Av. S.

The program is for children, 6 years old and up. Pizza and cookies will be served at the class, which is to "take the mystery -- and mystique -- out of guns."

Koscielski, who seems to thrive on agitating city officials and those who support gun control, says that he and Rosenberg are motivated by good intentions. Koscielski says he's weary of reading stories about shootings based on accidents or foolish behavior.

"We had a boy killed because he pointed a pellet gun at a police officer," Koscielski said. "We've had cases where somebody gets drunk, points a gun at somebody and kills them. When I was a boy [in Minneapolis public schools] we had gun-safety training and it didn't seem like these sorts of things were happening."

Koscielski said he and Rosenberg, who are certified firearms instructors, won't be teaching children how to shoot. Rather, they'll be teaching kids what to do if they find a gun.

"We'll be telling them, 'If you find a gun, don't touch! Somebody call 911.' "

But the two men also will teach kids how to handle a gun.

"Take the mystery away," Koscielski said.

Margorie Hardy, a psychology professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fla., has a brief response to the Koscielski-Rosenberg plan.

"You're kidding," she said.

Teaching children how they should react around guns will have no impact on how they will react, said Hardy, who has done studies on children's play and guns.

"I'm sure those children will leave the store telling you it's not safe to handle a gun, but that doesn't mean they won't handle a gun," she said. "It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."

Gun safety is an adult issue, Hardy said.

Her point of view is shared by Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, which has called for tighter control of guns. Rebecca Thoman, executive director of that organization, sounded a little startled by the Koscielski plan. She is concerned that such programs lead to bad public policy.

"We end up with policy in which we believe we just need to train children rather than have tighter restrictions," Thoman said.

She said she fears a resurrection of "Eddie Eagle" legislation, a National Rifle Association-backed scheme that actually had some political support a few years ago. Under this legislation, gun-safety training would have been a part of education for kindergarten through third-grade children in the state.

But Mike Hammer, the education coordinator for the state's Department of Natural Resources, said he has empathy for Koscielski and Rosenberg. Once upon a time, Hammer pointed out, the DNR had gun-safety training programs in many of the state's school districts, including Minneapolis. But after a number of awful school shootings, anything having to do with guns -- including safety training -- fell out of favor in most school districts.

The DNR still trains about 22,000 Minnesota kids, 11 years old and up, every year. It also has training information on its website for parents and kids.

But much as he believes in safety-training programs, Hammer also appreciates the positions of such people as Hardy. Giving a kid a safety course isn't enough; adult supervision after training also is vital, Hammer said.

Koscielski hopes kids will bring their parents Friday. (Parental or a guardian's permission is required before a kid will be allowed in the door.)

While talking guns, pizza and cookies, Koscielski started recalling the good old days.

"In fifth grade at Bancroft school [in the mid 1960s], we had a Halloween parade through the hallways," he said. "I was GI Joe and I was carrying my .22 rifle. A teacher came up to me and said, 'You don't have ammunition do you?' I said, 'Nope.' She said, 'OK.' "

It's always been a good idea to keep the ammo out of the hands of kids.

Doug Grow is at [email protected]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/5257325.html
 
Nice...

And while, yes, training doesn't have a 100% success rate (nothing does), it is a cheap method to try.

"No bearing"? Then why do we teach sex ed and safe sex? I've read that a safe sex class increases condom use.

Teaching kids how a firearm works might prevent them from trying to play russian roulette with a semi-auto. It counteracts some of the myths picked up from tv and movies.

"No effect"? Can you quote the study that determined that?

"I'm sure those children will leave the store telling you it's not safe to handle a gun, but that doesn't mean they won't handle a gun," she said. "It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."

It depends on what age you're calling a "child". I generally consider ~4-12 to be a child. Before that they're a toddler, after that they're a teen. This class is for 6 years and up. Starting from when I was about that age, my mom's solution to those difficult to open childproof caps was to hand it to me. I knew better than to mess with the contents. The training worked, at least for me. What are those caps, and the fences for? They're for protecting those too young to understand, who haven't been exposed or trained for that particular danger yet. I remember that accidental poisonings actually INCREASED for a few years after they introduced the increased difficulty packaging. Why? People weren't securing or keeping their bottles as much as they used to, and those caps weren't that child-proof. If an elderly person with arthritis can open it, a child will be able to. Making them too difficult to open simply means that when the person does finally get it open, they're not going to close it up again.
 
I agree with Firethorn,
Children are to be taught to be safe. Fences and child-proof bottles are for babies and toddlers that haven't been taught.
 
the gun safety training class that a Minneapolis gun shop owner is planning for Minneapolis kids
Margorie Hardy, a psychology professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fla., has a brief response to the Koscielski-Rosenberg plan.

Anyone besides me think it’s funny that they picked a professor in Florida to respond to this? Couldn’t they find any liberal professors closer to Minneapolis? :)
 
Her point of view is shared by Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, which has called for tighter control of guns. Rebecca Thoman, executive director of that organization, sounded a little startled by the Koscielski plan. She is concerned that such programs lead to bad public policy.

"We end up with policy in which we believe we just need to train children rather than have tighter restrictions," Thoman said.

They call us unreasonable, yet they refuse to accept anything that doesn’t involve “restrictionsâ€! :banghead:
 
This is why she was contacted -
Teaching Firearm Safety to Children: Failure of a Program.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 23(2):71-76, April 2002.
HARDY, MARJORIE S. Ph.D.
Abstract:
The present study investigated the effectiveness of a skills-based firearm safety program on reducing children's play with firearms. In a randomized control study, 34 children aged 4 to 7 years participated in a week-long firearm safety program; the Control Group was composed of 36 children. After the program, pairs of children were observed playing in a structured setting in which they had access to a semiautomatic pistol. A total of 53% of the pairs played with the gun, and there was no difference in gun-play behavior between those children who did and did not receive the intervention. Interview data revealed significant discrepancies in parent and child reports of parental gun ownership and inaccurate parental predictions of their children's interest in guns. The results of the current study cast doubt on the potential effectiveness of skills-based gun safety programs for children.
 
More stupid chicken little stories from Rebecca Thoman. I guess they don't really want any children to be safer.
 
It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps.
...and child poisonings increased after the introduction of child-proof caps because everyone thought it was now safe to leave the bottles around kids.

It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools.
...so let's teach them to swim.

The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."
...for crimminals by leaving everyone defenseless.

Giving a kid a safety course isn't enough; adult supervision after training also is vital, Hammer said.
...after the training, they should be allowed to shoot, preferably at some type of reactive target like wood blocks or water-filled jugs. This will show what a handgun can do, not just be a sermon on why they shouldn't be touched.
 
I agree with and support the gun shop owner. I think a lot of kids have no idea about guns and thus have that intrigue factor. When I was a child and just started to have a budding interests in guns my dad took me to my grandfathers house where he took out a 12ga shotgun, set up a target 20 yards away and proceeded to fire one single shot. I was scared at the loud noise, and when dad had me retrieve the target, I was in awe of the dozens of holes in the target. He then took out his .22 and let me shoot.

Only when children are exposed to the sheer power that a little gun holds will they realize the damage it can do. Plus, once someone actually shoots and handles the gun the curiosity is no longer there...which is how many kids shoot their friends.

My bet is the shrink from Florida is still traumatized by movies that she saw in drivers ed years ago. You know the ones where they show the power of a car and how speed can kill you and all that stuff. There is a reason that they do that...to scare 16 year olds. The same thing works for guns...they have to learn respect for them, and they sure as hell are not going to learn respect for firearms watching TV.
 
This Hardy woman doesn't understand the problem. Yes, if you have kids you need to lock your guns up so they can't get them. However, it is imperative that you take away the mystery and ignorance of what guns are and how they operate. The situation trying to be prevented here is one of a child finding a gun somewhere it's not supposed to be. A child who has been educated to find an adult because they know the gun is dangerous is way better off than an ignorant child who says 'Cool!!! Let's play with it!' because they have no idea how dangerous it is. Why anyone thinks hiding gun safety from kids is going to help them be better prepared for an encounter with a gun is beyond me...
 
It seems to me like the more educated people are about almost anything, the better off they are.
The anti's hate programs like these because these kids are gonna grow up knowing that while guns are powerful and require responsibility, they are not evil.
 
Teaching Firearm Safety to Children: Failure of a Program.
34 children aged 4 to 7 years
I think I might have located a problem with the study. I also went to this site and looked up the study. There were a number of studies, but the oldest in their studies was the age 7. One study was only for 4-5 year olds. Another, titled Comparison of two programs to teach firearm injury prevention skills to 6- and 7-year-old children, found a different situation

Comparison of two programs to teach firearm injury prevention skills to 6- and 7-year-old children.

Gatheridge BJ, Miltenberger RG, Huneke DF, Satterlund MJ, Mattern AR, Johnson BM, Flessner CA.

Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105, USA.

BACKGROUND: Each year, hundreds of children unintentionally kill or injure other children while playing with firearms in the United States. Although the numbers of these deaths and injuries are distressing, few prevention programs have been developed to prevent gun play among children. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of 2 programs designed to prevent gun play among young children. DESIGN: A posttest-only, control group design with 2 treatment groups was used. Children were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups or a control group. For all children who did not exhibit the skills after training, 1 in situ (ie, real-life situation) training session was conducted. SETTING: Participant recruitment, training sessions, and assessments were all conducted in the children's after-school program facility. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five children, 6 or 7 years of age, were recruited for participation. INTERVENTIONS: The efficacy of the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, developed by the National Rifle Association, and a behavioral skills training program that emphasized the use of instruction, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback was evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The criterion firearm safety behaviors included both motor and verbal responses, which were assessed in a naturalistic setting and then assigned a numerical value based on a scale of 0 to 3. RESULTS: Both programs were effective for teaching children to verbalize the safety skills message (don't touch the gun, get away, and tell an adult). However, children who received behavioral skills training were significantly more likely to demonstrate the desired safety skills in role-playing assessments and in situ assessments than were children who received Eddie Eagle program training. In addition, in situ training was found to be effective for teaching the desired safety skills for both groups of children. CONCLUSIONS: Injury prevention programs using education-based learning materials are less effective for teaching children the desired safety skills, compared with programs incorporating active learning approaches (eg, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback). The efficacy of both types of injury prevention programs for teaching the desired skills could be significantly enhanced with the use of in situ training. This program, when implemented with 6- and 7-year-old children, was effective in teaching the desired safety skills.
The guy teaching the class accepts children aged 6 and up. He's also doing it in situ, the most effective training according to this study.

My conclusion: Children less than six should not be left unsupervised! Actually, I think that the age should be quite a bit older than that, but below six is "not out of your sight" age.
 
That psychologist is offering nothing more than mere biased opinion. In fact being the Star Tribune I like how they focused on her "expert" opinion more. If programs like "DARE" to inform children the dangers of drugs, the "YUCK" sticker program to inform children about home chemicals, Smokey the Bear, and McGruff are all worthless why is the government fudning such programs?

Maybe for her a more effective solution would be to put children in straitjackets instead, that way their busy hands won't get them in trouble.
 
A study using a sample size of only 34 is near useless for determining behavior averages. In addition they had a sample group that was closer to 4 with IIRC only one 7 year old. Last point is this...when I was a child my Dad verbally tought me about basic gun safety and also took me out to his plinking spot with soe reactive targets and showed me exactly what his firearms were capable of so I could see first hand the kind of damage a gun can do when used improperly. I think I was 5 or 6 when we had that meeting and I never misused any of our guns throughout my entire childhood (although various poisonous snakes and nasty varmints were removed from the gene pool by me with the family shotgun).
 
"It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."

Waitasec, something isn't right here... :scrutiny:

"It doesn't work to tell a stupid child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a stupid child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."

There we go, fixed it. ;)
 
Yes, Rebecca, in an ideal world, guns would be completely inaccesible to unsupervised young kids.

We don't live there. Although my guns are locked up tight (or on me! :)), how do I guarantee that my child will never be at the house of another kid's whose parent is less responsible than I am?

That's why my kids will learn firearms safety. I hope Joel and Mark make this an annual thing.
 
Quote:
"It doesn't work to tell a stupid child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a stupid child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."

A User's Guide To "Keeping The Environment Safe"

1) All kitchens shall, from this point forward, be built in separate areas of the home from the living quarters. Kitchens are not safe. They contain sharp knives, forks and other cutlery. They contain stoves and ovens which get hot. They contain refrigerators with CFCs in them. Kitchens are to be built in separate quarters that are LOCKED at all times. Only those over 18 shall have access to kitchens without adult supervision.

2) Garages are, from this point forward, BANNED. There are just too many nasty things like gasoline, weed killer, muriatic acid, pruning shears, chain saws, etc...in garages. You are not allowed to have a garage anymore, you weak-minded irresponsible dolt!

3) All houses shall now be built as SINGLE-STORY residences. Kids can fall out of windows and off of the roof, so we have banned multi-story houses because they create an UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT.

4) People can only leave their houses for a good reason. It is to UNSAFE to let people wander the neighborhoods willy-nilly. What with all of the unsavory individuals out there. You can, from this point forward, only leave the house to go to work, the store, the bank, or the doctor. Any leaving of the home for purpose of entertainment must be cleared with your County Sheriff's office 90 days in advance.

5) All children under the age of 18 shall be kept on a 5' leash held by an adult at all times when not in the family home. Children running free in the community creates an UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT.

6) Walking barefoot is PROHIBITED. You could stub your toe or something, dude!

7) The practice of nailbiting is now a federal offense. You can face prison time of up to 5 years if caught engaging in the self-destructive act of biting your fingernails or cuticles.

8) Smokers will be shot on sight.

9) Roving teams of "Public Safety Inspectors" will be patrolling all neighborhoods. You may be stopped, searched for dangerous items (scissors, staples, paper clips, nail files, car keys, etc.) on your person at any time. To protect public health you may have to submit to periodic "Checkpoint Health Exams" on our nation's highways which may include a pelvic exam, rectal temperature, and MRI.

10) Masturbation is completely legal and encouraged as long as proper protection (welding mask and nitrile gloves) is worn.

:evil:
 
Last edited:
"I'm sure those children will leave the store telling you it's not safe to handle a gun, but that doesn't mean they won't handle a gun," she said. "It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe."
That's why the city of Phoenix, the towns in the surrounding areas, and the state of Arizona work so hard every spring & summer to put out flyers like this:

2004 Totals: 74 Incidents (44 children / 30 adults), 29 Fatalities (6 children / 23 adults) ....

Drowning and near drowning can be prevented, and you can help! Anyone involved with the supervision of children needs to be aware of the dangers associated with any body of water. Below are some useful tips to prevent these needless tragedies.

Know where your children are at all times
Use an approved barrier to separate the pool from the house
Never allow children to be alone near a pool or any water source
Have life-saving devices near the pool, such as a pole/hook, or flotation device
Keep large objects such as tables, chairs, toys, and ladders away from pool fences
Post the 9-1-1 number on the phone
Do not allow children to play around the pool and store all toys outside the pool area
If you leave the pool area, take the children with you
Always have a “designated child watcherâ€
Learn to swim
Never swim alone, or while under the influence of alcohol or medications
Never swim when thunder or lightning is present
Never dive into unfamiliar or shallow bodies of water
Of the phone numbers at the bottom of the informational flyer, swim lessons tops the list.

How odd.

pax
 
It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe.

Aw, heck! I guess it don't hardly make no sense to send 'em to school atall, then, iffn they don't hardly learn nuthin' perfect.
 
It doesn't work to tell a child not to touch medications; that's why we have child-proof caps. It doesn't work to tell a child about the dangers of drowning; that's why we have fences around swimming pools. The only thing that's effective is to keep the environment safe.

I think it is fair to say that it is not enough just to warn children about specific dangers. You have to take additional steps, especially when children are younger. That being said, it is ridiculous to say abandon all safety lessons because they don't work %100 of the time. Well, heck, a seatbelt is %100 effective...I better stop wearing one.
 
This is why she was contacted -
Teaching Firearm Safety to Children: Failure of a Program.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 23(2):71-76, April 2002.
HARDY, MARJORIE S. Ph.D.
Abstract:
After the program, pairs of children were observed playing in a structured setting in which they had access to a semiautomatic pistol. A total of 53% of the pairs played with the gun, and there was no difference in gun-play behavior between those children who did and did not receive the intervention.

Now I think I remember reading about this. Wasn't the structured setting a room full of toys?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top