OT religion and smacking

Chotii wrote:

Kate, if I may ask....since 'gun control' means making guns illegal
to keep people from killing each other, of what value are new laws
controlling guns, when it is *already* illegal to kill people (with a
gun or anything else)? I will concede that a firearm makes it easier
to kill from a distance; what it cannot do is prevent killing.

I think a more valid point is that most of the guns used to kill people are
*already* illegal. It is my feeling that increasing gun control is only
going to affect the legal gun owners and generally, they aren't the ones
killing people.

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

"Nikki" wrote in message
...
Nina wrote:
"Nikki" wrote in message
news
Nina wrote:

IMO hitting a child out of frustration isn't discipline, its
"fighting". ie "I'm mad at you, so
I'm going to hit you". Spanking is a carefully measured
punishment
not just striking out in
anger.

Sort of. I'm not thinking that I'm hitting because I'm mad.
.....
I don't feel that is correct but when I get totally frustrated
then
I spank quickly, with out thinking it through.

Thats what I mean, dont hit out of anger or frustration,
In those cases, its best to just leave and take a breather.

Yes I agree. I don't mean to say one should spank out of
frustration.
I've swatted a total of 5 times and I've regretted every one. It
isn't
something I want to do.

When I was spanked because I had
done something
wrong, I knew it was the consequence of my actions and it wasnt my
mother hitting me because
she was mad.
Its kinda like the differnece between someone being tried and hung
and
being lynched by a mob.

Maybe. It is certainly more 'civil' for the person doing the
hanging (or
spanking) but the poor guy is dead both ways....I'm not sure he sees
a big
difference.

But in the former circumstances, the dead guy is far more likely
to have been innocent or deserving of a lesser punishment. So when
it is done in haste and anger, the chances are greater that the
pubishment
is NOT appropriate for the crime. When done carefully and calculated,
or shall I say "measured" since "calculated" seems to have negative
connotations,it is very likely that the offense merits this response
and is not being meted out unfairly, unjustly, or excessively.

"Akuvikate" wrote in message
om...
I'm not going to jump into the fray too much here because I doubt
I'll
change anyone's mind. Nonetheless:
-- A gun in the home is 8 times more likely to kill a resident of
that
home in suicide than it is to be used against an intruder.
-- It is 6 times more likely to kill a resident of the home in
homicide (either by a family member or an intruder) than it is to be
used against an intruder.
I suspect that the in vast majority of those suicides and homicides,
the gun owner believed that these sorts of things happen to other
families, not his or hers.

I fear guns less in the homes of young children than in the homes of
teenagers, who as part of their developmental process often do
stupid
things. If you choose to have a gun in the home, please don't just
keep in mind safety around accidents with young children, but also
keep in mind that kids deliberately do stupid things when they get
older, and adults do stupid things sometimes too. Easy access to a
gun can seriously up the ante when people get crazy ideas. Please
be
careful.

I grew up in a family that was both southern and military. Gun
accidents
weren't much of an issue. Its like binge drinking in teens isn't a
problem in
countries where wine is habitually taken with meals. gun play isn't a
problem
in homes where guns aren't considered cool exotic macho toys. They are
tools
like hunting knives, meat cleavers etc, and are things everyone knows
how to live
with safely.
There are always some idiots who will play with dangerous things:
fire, matches, knives
bows and arrows, power tools, fast cars. But it is important to both
control access to these
things AND teach proper safety.
I have always lived with weapons and they were under lock and key,
there is no way
on earth any of us could have ever played with them, as the ammo and
the gun were in separate
areas with separate keys, and the keys weren't where we could find
them
As my brothers got older, they learned to hunt. One still does and has
his own guns, the other
doesn't, but has joined the Navy so will probably have a fair amount
of weapons training.

I do NOT believe in just having guns lying about, or in unsecure
locations.

Nina wrote:

So when
it is done in haste and anger, the chances are greater that the
pubishment
is NOT appropriate for the crime. When done carefully and calculated,
or shall I say "measured" since "calculated" seems to have negative
connotations,it is very likely that the offense merits this response
and is not being meted out unfairly, unjustly, or excessively.

That make sense.

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

"Tine Andersen" wrote in message . dk...
This whole discussion is extremely painful to me. After spending a lot of
time on this newsgroup, I have finally arrived to the conclusion that
Americans are not as primitive and savage as we think, but this conversation
bombs me back into prejudice again.

You say primitive like it's a bad thing :-) I think we do (generally
speaking) operate a little more on instincts than you based on what
other people said about all your kids being in daycare. My instincts
make it intolerable for me to be separated from my small children. I
sympathise for all who have to.

Wanting to protect ourselves also is a very strong instinct that many
people in the US choose to heed with gun ownership. I think the death
penalty also for me at least is governed by the instinct of wanting to
protect myself. I don't want even the chance of some people to get
back out into society.


It keeps going in my head:: what can you
expect from citicens of a country that still considers guns in private homes
normal and approves of death penalty. We considered this in-human 60 years
ago (or more).

You can expect a free coountry where people have a right to protect
ourselves. Now that you reminded me that many places in the world do
not have all the rights we have I am extra glad to live here.


I have never felt it necessary to hit. I have children who rage at me, but
they recognize my superiority never the less. I do shout once in a while,
but they know it's over in an instant. Where does hitting of any kind fit
with AP'ing?

I have frequently wondered what AP'ing and day care have in common.

KC

"Akuvikate" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
If it makes you feel better, I'm strongly anti-death penalty and
*very* pro-gun control. I come from a city with a major gun violence
problem (over 100 homicides last year, 85% among black men under 25
years of age) and have worked on anti-violence initiatives. There are
those of us who agree with you! On the flip side I went to a shooting
range recently with my father-in-law and rather enjoyed it. I figured
given my opinions (which didn't change) it was all the more important
for me to experience the other side.

You may not believe it, but I went to a shooting club once and dit enjoy it
very much. That doesn't mean I want them in my house.

And you did make me feel better.

Tine, Denmark

"Nikki" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Tine Andersen wrote:

By the way....I don't think there is anywhere that an American would
be arrested for 1-2 open handed slaps to the butt. Almost anything
else could/would be considered abusive.

Probably not even in Denmark. But technically it is illegal and has
been for 10 years.

I wouldn't want to clog up an already over taxed system by hauling people
into jail/court or over burden child protection for swatting their kids
but
I would support a strong message that it was not OK. A strong
anti-spanking
campaign sounds good ;-)

That's actually what we have. The law enforces that we mean it.

Tine, Denmark

"KC" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
"Tine Andersen" wrote in message
. dk...
This whole discussion is extremely painful to me. After spending a lot
of
time on this newsgroup, I have finally arrived to the conclusion that
Americans are not as primitive and savage as we think, but this
conversation
bombs me back into prejudice again.

You say primitive like it's a bad thing :-) I think we do (generally
speaking) operate a little more on instincts than you based on what
other people said about all your kids being in daycare. My instincts
make it intolerable for me to be separated from my small children. I
sympathise for all who have to.

Please remember that here small children is usually 13 months or older. They
are not entitled to day care before that and we have long maternaty leaves.

Wanting to protect ourselves also is a very strong instinct that many
people in the US choose to heed with gun ownership. I think the death
penalty also for me at least is governed by the instinct of wanting to
protect myself. I don't want even the chance of some people to get
back out into society.

It keeps going in my head:: what can you
expect from citicens of a country that still considers guns in private
homes
normal and approves of death penalty. We considered this in-human 60
years
ago (or more).

You can expect a free coountry where people have a right to protect
ourselves. Now that you reminded me that many places in the world do
not have all the rights we have I am extra glad to live here.

That's probably part of the difference. We are not supposed to - I even
believe it's illegal - protect ourselves. Or rather - not supposed to
revenge.


I have never felt it necessary to hit. I have children who rage at me,
but
they recognize my superiority never the less. I do shout once in a
while,
but they know it's over in an instant. Where does hitting of any kind
fit
with AP'ing?

I have frequently wondered what AP'ing and day care have in common.

I admit I don't consider myself AP'er, and it probably doesn't. Apart from
that: I was talking about psysical punishments - not all other aspects of
life. You can't make a intelligent discussion by just saying: I may be doing
this and that, but you are doing something much worse, so there!

Tine, Denmark

Chotii wrote:


Kate, if I may ask....since 'gun control' means making guns illegal to keep
people from killing each other, of what value are new laws controlling guns,
when it is *already* illegal to kill people (with a gun or anything else)?
I will concede that a firearm makes it easier to kill from a distance; what
it cannot do is prevent killing.


I wouldn't necessarily equate "gun control" with making guns illegal.
I'd be in favor of one form of gun control - basically, treating a gun
like you do a car. If I have a car that I keep and drive only on my own
property, I don't need a driver's license, I don't need to register the
car, I don't need a car tag, I don't need to insure the car. Once I
take it out on a public road, I'm *much* more restricted in what I can
do with that car. I would have no problem at all in making people get
licenses to take guns (any guns - not just handguns) off their own property.


Clisby

(Akuvikate) wrote in message . com...
I'm not going to jump into the fray too much here because I doubt I'll
change anyone's mind. Nonetheless:
-- A gun in the home is 8 times more likely to kill a resident of that
home in suicide than it is to be used against an intruder.
-- It is 6 times more likely to kill a resident of the home in
homicide (either by a family member or an intruder) than it is to be
used against an intruder.

Yes, but suicides and homicides are still pretty low, and make up a
very, very small minority of gun crimes/deaths, MOST of which are used
by criminals (outside the home) on innocent people.

In anything you own, or anything you do, there is inherent risk in
taking on the responsibility. A person who owns a butcher knife has a
higher risk of having an accident or deliberate injury or death than
one who doesn't. Same for cars. Cars in fact, kill many, many more
people than guns do.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01