The Real Reason for Dog and Pony Shows

[Roy Harding]

agreed, I aslo agree that teenagers should learn safe practice if they take an interest in guns and other weaponry. However its still my personal opinion that preteens shouldnt be handling military weapons.

I disagree.  A weapon is a tool - so's a truck, a G-Wagon, a LAVIII.  Kids love to get behind the wheel and pretend they're driving.  They love to touch things - someone more versed in child psychology could probably explain this "tactile learning".  A weapon is just another tool - nobody is taking loaded weapons to a school, or other public display - what's wrong with letting them "get behind the wheel"?  They get to touch the thing, and the assistance of the soldier in attendance regarding handling it properly enhances and broadens the learning.

When I was a kid (in the '60s - pre-PC), the police used to make visits to the classroom (I assume they still do) - at THAT time, they brought their sidearms, and the first thing we kids wanted to do was touch a "real gun" - which we did, after the police officer had given us a demonstration of how to handle it properly, and impressing us with the seriousness of listening to what he was saying.  We also loved to handle his billy-club, handcuffs, and talk on his radio - we were IMPRESSED.  It didn't hurt anyone then, and I don't see that it would hurt anyone now.

Just for the sake of comparison, I recall one teacher, I think grade 4 or 5, who invited parents of the kids to come in and explain their jobs.  You know which ones I remember?  The ones who brought "cool stuff" we could touch and handle.  There was one father who was an oil company scout (corporate spy), he brought a core sample from an oil rig, and his binoculars.  One guy was a dentist - he brought picks and mirrors, and other pointy stuff like that.  One guy was a medical doctor - he brought his black bag, it was full of neat stuff we all played with.  My dad was an accountant - he brought a calculator - actually a comptometer (that was a big thing then - before calculators or computers had been invented, it had TONS of keys, and you pulled a handle to make it work).  I remember those guys - and that was about 40 years ago - they made an impression.  Other parents brought other things - but just about EVERYBODY brought SOMETHING - being parents they instinctively knew that kids like to touch.

The point I'm making (badly, I'm sure) is that kids learn partly through touch - and I don't understand what makes touching the tools a soldier uses any different from touching the tools a dentist uses, or a doctor, or an accountant.  What's the big deal?

Roy

Edit:  Typo

 

[PMedMoe]

Great explanation, Roy!! +1

 

[c_canuk]

I think the problem is that some people can't see a firearm as a tool, they see it as the embodiment of danger or worse, the embodiment of evil. A symptom of bleeding heartism run amok.

More people are killed every year due to traffic accidents yet no one sees the automobile as the embodiment of danger or evil, instead we teach our children that they need to be safety conscious around them. 

 

[edgar]

Reminds me of a Wizard of Id cartoon from years ago.
The guy with the spear brings a kid before the king and says: "He wants to join the army."
King says: "How old are you?"
Kid says: "14."
King says: "Come back when you're older."
Kid says: "But by then I'll know better."

Cadets, Baden-Powell's boy scouts, seems a bit dodgy to me. I hated going to high schools as a recruiter, felt a bit greasy. "Hey kid, want to make some money?" The best justification for a dog and pony is a day of class A for me. When they put me in charge I focused on secondary schools and the employment sites. Course, I fell short of my quota.
Bottom line for me is if the army does valuable work then that employment option should be presented at the same time as all the others, this means showing rifles to kids, just like showing them stethoscopes and fireman's helmets. Hoplophobes will hate you regardless, and newspapers like to sell papers to them. They know it's a hot button.

 

[Pte.Butt]

I think the problem is that some people can't see a firearm as a tool, they see it as the embodiment of danger or worse, the embodiment of evil. A symptom of bleeding heartism run amok.

More people are killed every year due to traffic accidents yet no one sees the automobile as the embodiment of danger or evil, instead we teach our children that they need to be safety conscious around them. 

The problem is, in this day and age lots of parents see the Military as a bad thing, and our tools of the trade (rifles) to be the key of death. Generally, Canadians are uneducated about our armed forces. Negative propaganda from amature journalist and TV reporters etc... certainly doesn't aid in this situation either. Sure, ATVs, cars, cigarettes and alcohol  kill probably 100x more a year then then firearms do, but fire arms are used as a tool of war, when we think war, we think Military. Unfortunately people don't see the fact that, its not the weapons that kill, it's the Soldier behind the weapon. Saying guns kill people, is like saying pencil's cause spelling mistakes. Thats my $0.02

 

[PMedMoe]

The problem is, in this day and age lots of parents see the Military as a bad thing, and our tools of the trade (rifles) to be the key of death. Generally, Canadians are uneducated about our armed forces. Negative propaganda from amature journalist and TV reporters etc... certainly doesn't aid in this situation either. Sure, ATVs, cars, cigarettes and alcohol  kill probably 100x more a year then then firearms do, but fire arms are used as a tool of war, when we think war, we think Military. Unfortunately people don't see the fact that, its not the weapons that kill, it's the Soldier behind the weapon. Saying guns kill people, is like saying pencil's cause spelling mistakes. Thats my $0.02

All the more reason for kids to see soldiers, handle weapons and decide for themselves what they think.

 

[Pte.Butt]

All the more reason for kids to see soldiers, handle weapons and decide for themselves what they think.

This is true, and I totally agree, but in general the parents(baby boomer's) of Canada today grew up in an era where our Military was at it's lowest peak, and the parents are either A) Uneducated about our military, or be B) are unaware of such a Military power.
  This generation of children will probably be a smaller generation of recruits based on the soul fact that there is a war conflict in Afghanistan, and they are taught by their parents that war is bad (which I guess is true, no one really wants a war) The lack of knowledge about our Military is present to most people, some are afraid of the inevitable which is the conflict overseas and some simply want to ignore the fact. From my 16 years on this Earth, which isn't much compared to some here, has shown me, that there are very naive people out there, that really have no idea whats going on even outside their own house. It's funny how the parents of these Children in the article we read, are probably against the Afghanistan mission, or once again, simply uneducated in the matter. I still think letting 9 and 10 year olds handle a C7 is a little far, but I agree with the idea behind it, it is a tool of the trade, and should be recognized as one just like a Police officer would have a badge and handcuffs, and a Fire Fighter has a helmet and boots, just maybe not shown off at such a young age!. Bye the way, I am not challenging what you said, my post may of sounded like I am trying to back you down! I am just enjoying a good debate! 

 

[Roy Harding]

...
... From my 16 years on this Earth, which isn't much compared to some here, has shown me, that there are very naive people out there, that really have no idea whats going on even outside their own house.

This is true.  You're also going to find that there are people out there who AREN'T naive, and DO understand, and STILL don't give a damn (no matter the issue) - because to do so would inconvenience them. 

... I still think letting 9 and 10 year olds handle a C7 is a little far, but I agree with the idea behind it, it is a tool of the trade, and should be recognized as one just like a Police officer would have a badge and handcuffs, and a Fire Fighter has a helmet and boots, just maybe not shown off at such a young age!.

 

I disagree with the age thing.  Don't kids play with toy guns anymore?  Water pistols, perhaps?  If they're playing with toy versions, why shouldn't they be exposed to the real thing?  They've already got the concept, an argument could be made that exposure to the real thing, presented by a knowledgeable individual (a soldier, in this case), actually corrects the misconceptions they may have developed by playing with the toy versions. 

Bye the way, I am not challenging what you said, my post may of sounded like I am trying to back you down! I am just enjoying a good debate! 

I know that last comment was directed to PMedMoe - but I'll state here that I don't think you're trying to "back anyone down".  I don't think you'd have much success, anyway - we're a pretty tough crowd here.  What I am taking away from your posts is a vision of a passionate young man, who is able to listen to other's opinions, and use those opinions to reconfirm or alter his own.  You're all right, Pte Butt - there's no law saying you have to agree with anything I or anyone else says, but it's refreshing to exchange views with one so young who can disagree respectfully and thoughtfully.

Game on - tell me why children of nine or ten years of age shouldn't be exposed to firearms, under the supervision of a qualified individual.


Roy

 

[Good2Golf]

...Game on - tell me why children of nine or ten years of age shouldn't be exposed to firearms, under the supervision of a qualified individual.


Roy

Nothing wrong with that at all, but they should be instilled with proper weapons discipline, so the individual handing them the weapon should explain that he is proving the weapon, and that the receiver also proves the weapon once it is handed to him/her.  Also, mention barrel discipline, that you don't indiscriminately "sweep" someone but keep barrel down or downrange.  Good habits should start at an early age.

mein 2 ¢

G2G

 

[Roy Harding]

Nothing wrong with that at all, but they should be instilled with proper weapons discipline, so the individual handing them the weapon should explain that he is proving the weapon, and that the receiver also proves the weapon once it is handed to him/her.  Also, mention barrel discipline, that you don't indiscriminately "sweep" someone but keep barrel down or downrange.  Good habits should start at an early age.

mein 2 ¢

G2G

Absolutely - no argument from me.

 

[Pte.Butt]

I know that last comment was directed to PMedMoe - but I'll state here that I don't think you're trying to "back anyone down".  I don't think you'd have much success, anyway - we're a pretty tough crowd here.  What I am taking away from your posts is a vision of a passionate young man, who is able to listen to other's opinions, and use those opinions to reconfirm or alter his own.  You're all right, Pte Butt - there's no law saying you have to agree with anything I or anyone else says, but it's refreshing to exchange views with one so young who can disagree respectfully and thoughtfully.

Game on - tell me why children of nine or ten years of age shouldn't be exposed to firearms, under the supervision of a qualified individual.


Roy

I'll take the highlighted part as a compliment!  ;D

Maybe I grew up in home that was pretty strict when it came to violence, I had a mother who wouldn't even let me watch Power Rangers, I had to buy my first paintball gun second hand because I couldn't buy a new one, at my young age I need an adult to buy on from the store, and since Mom thought that it represented everything she was against, she wouldn't bite. I know if Soldiers came to my Elementary school (which they did) and let us play with rifles and other various Military equipment, my mother would of defecated herself!
    I guess I have no real reason to why young children shouldn't handle other then the fact that most are not mature enough to understand what they are really used for, and they are not what they are portrayed like on the big screen ( A movie for those who didn't catch on  ) A lot of kids my age always though guns were ''cool'' and having pretend shootouts in the back yard was fun. Adding these kinds of children with the real thing, just doesn't click as the greatest thing to do.
    This being said, there is a proper way to educate people about these weapons as Good2Golf has pointed out.
    I guess you have bet me out on this one, I cant really give a reason other then the fact they are so young and just don't understand that these are tools, not your super soaker or your big brother's pellet gun. Some kids at that age can't comprehend that. Of course some are mature enough to understand they're not toys, I know if I had the chance I wouldn't drool over a C6 Machine gun because it goes bang just like in the movies or like in Medal Of Honor, id be more interested in what the Soldiers have to say, and I would be wondering what they have done, and what they have seen etc.... I hope I don't sound like my mother here!

Edit: I admit defeat!
   

 

[PMedMoe]

Bye the way, I am not challenging what you said, my post may of sounded like I am trying to back you down! I am just enjoying a good debate! 

Me too, my comment was just generated by reading your post.  No worries, I didn't see it as a challenge. 

 

[Roy Harding]

Pte Butt:

Your Mom sounds like an interesting woman.  My current neighbour is similarly opined.  I have a lot of time for that neighbour lady, she has her convictions and principles, and is raising her kids in accordance with them.  I was talking with her yesterday, and she's worried that her son (12 years old, I think), has expressed an interest in hunting with his uncles.  She's not going to stop him - she's well aware that he's a growing lad and needs to make his own decisions - good on her.  I'm not a hunter myself (I love the idea, but the presence of OTHER hunters out there scares the hell out of me), but I acquiesced to her request that I teach her son the rudiments of weapons handling.  I have a few air rifles that we'll start out with, and move on from there, once he obtains his FAC.

What I'm trying to say is that I have a LOT of respect for my neighbour, despite our different world views, and I suspect I'd feel the same about your Mom, should I ever meet her.  From your description, she sounds like a person who has a set of firmly held principles, and has raised you in accordance with them.  The fact that you are in the Reserves (and needed parental permission at your age) says a lot about her open mindedness.  You're a lucky kid - make sure you tell your Mom you appreciate her.

I wasn't trying to "defeat" you - I am genuinely curious regarding why you think young kids shouldn't be (properly) exposed to weapons.

Roy

Edit:  Typo

 

[Mike Baker]

Nothing wrong with that at all, but they should be instilled with proper weapons discipline, so the individual handing them the weapon should explain that he is proving the weapon, and that the receiver also proves the weapon once it is handed to him/her.  Also, mention barrel discipline, that you don't indiscriminately "sweep" someone but keep barrel down or downrange.  Good habits should start at an early age.

mein 2 ¢

G2G

Exactly! I have fond memories of years ago with the old air rifle after squirrels and such, which taught me to be very responsible for my own actions. I learned a bunch of stuff growing up with an air rifle.