# Ok, I've finally seen everything...



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

http://my.yahoo.com/rogers_y_frame.php?mh=0&url=http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30708.aspx


Now, please I don't want this to be a pro/no gun debate. I'm just posting an interesting article. A sad commentary isn't it? Let me know what you think the sadest part of this one is?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

9kkhhd WAIT YOU AIN'T SEEN ME NAKED! hwopv


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Well, there is the case in Westfield, Massachusetts, where a moron took his 8 yr old kid to a gun nut show (can you tell which side of the fence I'm on?) and wanted a pic of him firing a ****ing Uzi. While fumbling for his camera, the kid fires the gun and shoots himself in the head. 
Guns don't kill people...but it sure helps.

http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/121020/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gz2LY0KLVxcDKjYzoaIVzjhJzjEQD9533CI00

The saddest part (aside from death of an 8 yr old because dad has penis insecurity issues) is that clearly laws were broken (children are not allowed to hande automatic weapons in MA), it's turned into a gun nut "from my cold dead fingers" show. 
Asshats.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> 9kkhhd WAIT YOU AIN'T SEEN ME NAKED! hwopv


*Starbuck said No talkin' about the size for your gun.*


_In america ya got food to eat 
Don't have to run thru the jungle and scuff up your feet. 
_
*well sitting around all day and drinking wine has really paid off * *eh*


----------



## GuyB (May 2, 2008)

The sadest part for me is that a 4 years old instantly thinks that shooting at somebody is a way to settle a problem. Where, from who did he learned that from ?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuyB said:


> The sadest part for me is that a 4 years old instantly thinks that shooting at somebody is a way to settle a problem. Where, from who did he learned that from ?


Not to mention that he knew where to get the shell and how to load the thing.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Hmmm .... what could be sadder than a 4-year old having access to a gun and ammo and huntin' a guy named Beavers in a double-wide....... Betcha everyone in that trailer had a mullet. If the kid hadn't just winged the guy I might have called it Natural Selection kkjuw


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You know, in the wider debate about what you show or do in front of a kid, whether it is live behaviour, video games, movies, TV shows, or even let them read, the missing part in the equation is what kids think can be generalized to normal life. A 4 year-old can watch their grandma chop up vegetables lightening fast with a ridiculously lethal knife and know that, well, "chopping vegetables is for grown-ups". They can watch Bugs Bunny and know that the laws of physics can be suspended in cartoons, but not in normal life. So, it's not JUST the fact that the child had observed something and copied it. They have to believe it is a legitimate thing for them to emulate, or at the very least perceive no restrictions/limits on where and when that behaviour can be emulated. *

How does a 4 year-old come to a point where they assume that use of a firearm for resolution of simple disputes is just "what you do in real life", regardless of age or circumstance? There's something missing at home, and it only *begins* with a gun lock.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

mhammer said:


> You know, in the wider debate about what you show or do in front of a kid, whether it is live behaviour, video games, movies, TV shows, or even let them read, the missing part in the equation is what kids think can be generalized to normal life. A 4 year-old can watch their grandma chop up vegetables lightening fast with a ridiculously lethal knife and know that, well, "chopping vegetables is for grown-ups". They can watch Bugs Bunny and know that the laws of physics can be suspended in cartoons, but not in normal life. So, it's not JUST the fact that the child had observed something and copied it. They have to believe it is a legitimate thing for them to emulate, or at the very least perceive no restrictions/limits on where and when that behaviour can be emulated. *
> 
> How does a 4 year-old come to a point where they assume that use of a firearm for resolution of simple disputes is just "what you do in real life", regardless of age or circumstance? There's something missing at home, and it only *begins* with a gun lock.


Good point, Mark. Somehow, not having a gun in the house would not have guaranteed that poor boy would not have done something so stupid. It would only have prevented this one occurrence. Granted, it might have made it easier to find a baby sitter later on!

If a family is THAT stupid then it would be a miracle for that child to grow up without some similar tragedy! Sadly, if a population is large enough there will always be a significant number of such stupid people.

I hate to sound callous but maybe Darwin was on to something.The only solution I can see is for that 4 year old to be given to a better family but that's a whole new can of worms!


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I believe the key phrases are "mobile home" and "Jackson Ohio"


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

All things being equal, this incident would have been much less dangerous without the presence of a handgun.


Trigger locks, safes et cetera are band aids, better than nothing, but still not a root cause solution.

You can dig out a story like this pretty much every week.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> All things being equal, this incident would have been much less dangerous without the presence of a handgun.
> 
> 
> Trigger locks, safes et cetera are band aids, better than nothing, but still not a root cause solution.
> ...


I dunno Milkman, I find it extremely disturbing that a *4* year old could *load a gun!*


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> You know, in the wider debate about what you show or do in front of a kid, whether it is live behaviour, video games, movies, TV shows, or even let them read, the missing part in the equation is what kids think can be generalized to normal life. A 4 year-old can watch their grandma chop up vegetables lightening fast with a ridiculously lethal knife and know that, well, "chopping vegetables is for grown-ups". They can watch Bugs Bunny and know that the laws of physics can be suspended in cartoons, but not in normal life. So, it's not JUST the fact that the child had observed something and copied it. They have to believe it is a legitimate thing for them to emulate, or at the very least perceive no restrictions/limits on where and when that behaviour can be emulated. *
> 
> How does a 4 year-old come to a point where they assume that use of a firearm for resolution of simple disputes is just "what you do in real life", regardless of age or circumstance? There's something missing at home, and it only *begins* with a gun lock.


It goes back to what I was saying in some other posts. There has to be something wrong. Increasing as time goes on? Maybe. The whole video game and violence thing, I am not sure about that. I maen, my brother and I along with a whole generation grew up watching Moe run that saw across Curly's head a million times. But we knew that if we tried it the saw blades would not bend like they did on Curly's head. We also knew you could not take a hammer or wrench and twist someone's nose 360 degrees without really causing some damage. So to me, there has to be something going on here. Have we twisted some genes along the way? I don't think there can be an argument that across the globe the average age of violent offenders is dropping big time. Maybe I am wrong, just seems that they are getting younger and younger.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> I dunno Milkman, I find it extremely disturbing that a *4* year old could *load a gun!*


It's a lot tougher to load one when it isn't there.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> It's a lot tougher to load one when it isn't there.


Well of course that is the case, howvere that does not negate the fact that the parents are responsible for obviously doing this in front of an impressionable youngster. The fact that the po-lice in this case don't quite know what to do about this situation? I'm with Paul, get him a good home.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Well of course that is the case, howvere that does not negate the fact that the parents are responsible for obviously doing this in front of an impressionable youngster. The fact that the po-lice in this case don't quite know what to do about this situation? I'm with Paul, get him a good home.


If there's nothing wrong with having a handgun and ammunition for it in your trailer, why should a parent hide from their kids when they load one?

It's pretty simple to load a couple of rounds into a revolver. A kid can learn that from watching TV.

Leaving a gun and ammo unsecured, and in my opinion, HAVING such things in a residence at all are the biggest failings of those parents.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Although there's not a lot of information in the article there's enough to paint a picture of the child's environment:



> Beavers was watching the child at the mobile home of the boy's grandmother when the incident occurred. Several other teens and a few additional kids were also present


The child was being watched by a *bunch of teenagers (as well as other children) in his grandmother's mobile home *- no parents, many unsupervised children present ------ in a trailer!!!!!! And grandma keeps a gun and ammo close by.

No parents ..... no grandmother ...... several other teens and a few additional kids ........ and a gun. 

You want to blame parents and modern suburbia and video games? C'mon folks - do I need to get out my water colours?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> The parents put that child in that environment.


They put the gun there as well. Should it be that easy?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> You are correct of course. The parents created, or helped to create, all aspects of that environment, and then left their 4 yr old poorly supervised in it. With the gun, it's almost criminal negligence in my head, (akin to drinking and driving - what did they think could happen???), and even without the gun, was that the best choice of baby sitting?


Have you considered the possibility that there are no parents? It sounds a whole lot like that to me.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> You are correct of course. The parents created, or helped to create, all aspects of that environment, and then left their 4 yr old poorly supervised in it. With the gun, it's almost criminal negligence in my head, (akin to drinking and driving - what did they think could happen???), and even without the gun, was that the best choice of baby sitting?


I guess the point I'm making is that this looks like a bad situation all around.

Add a gun to the mix and how could it be anything but much worse?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of the things I became interested in over time, and probably would have conducted research in, had my life not taken a different turn, is the impact of parental explanatory skill on child development. That is, the way in which parents filter the world and experience of children so as to make them growing "experts" in the world.

We are quick to blame parents, and quick to associate socio-economic status with child-rearing practices, but the facts of the matter are that kids can grow up fabulous in the most dire of circumstances, and wretched in the most opulent and advantaged of circumstances. They can grow up terrific and resilient in the midst iof parents that seem cold and aloof, and completely dysfunctional in the presence of parents that sincerely believe they love their kids with all their heart and soul. Overall, though, there is a small linear relationship between income level and outcomes. Why? Personally, I think that link is mediated a bit by the common relationship between both income and developmental outcomes with parental explanatory skill. People who are good explainers tend to ascend in life, and also tend to get important ideas across to children effectively. Having your parents _care_ about your safety is great, but you still have to be able to reason about when to run cross the road and when not to, when to go near the stove and when not to...and when to steer clear of weapons and sharp objects.

Let me emphasize that a "good explainer" does not mean the same thing as "intelligence" the way you'd measure it with IQ tests, nor does it necessarily mean articulate and well-spoken with a huge vocabulary. What it means is that you're able to connect the right bits of knowledge and experience together for people at the right moments so that things click for them. It could be as simple as proclaiming "You see that, right there? THAT's why you shouldn't do X.". I must also emphasize that I don't mean simply telling them how the world is, as in "these folks are good and those folks are bad". What I mean is coaching them on how to assess situations, and port over principles from one situation to a similar or analogous one. You can teach them about intersections with lights, but they still need to figure out what to do when there are no lights, or no intersection, or no adult around. Understanding the principles underlying safe traversing of roads, and anticipating traffic, is what you explain to the kid (though obviously in simpler terms), not "When you're here, do this". Life is not sheet music, it's a jam, and they have to know how to improvise and cooperate with the rest of the band.

It doesn't take much more than a casual stroll through any shopping mall to see examples in abundance of parents who are appallingly bad explainers, or whose capacity to convey what needs to be conveyed to their kids is easily exceeded if they are under stress or time pressure, or simply distracted. I'm not saying it is always easy to explain things well to kids, but I will say that it is always important to do so, and the manner in which one does so shapes the way, or default strategy, the kid uses to analyse problems when you're not around to interpret the world for them. 

Until you're kids are grown up, YOU are a prosthetic for their mature understanding of the world, and strategies for handling it gracefully. Your goal, as parent, is to shape those same skills in your kids. In the case of this 4 year-old, that skill was clearly lacking in the caregivers of the child.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> You want to blame parents and modern suburbia and video games? C'mon folks - do I need to get out my water colours?


Hey. This was a TRAILOR PARK. Just outside of the _city _of Jackson, Ohio, pop. 6,100, in the southern part of the state just north of Kentucky. The demographics are over 98% white. Totally different mentality and culture than what we are used to. 

I have a co-worker who has a sister who lives around the rural central part of the state. She was helping her sister run a yard sale. She was just blown away by how many people asked "Got any guns?" "Got any bullets?". Everyone hangs an American flag from their barn in that area. Her sister hung a smaller Canadian flag below the US one and the neighbours wouldn't talk to her for a year. Yes, they do live up to the stereotpes there.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> One of the things I became interested in over time, and probably would have conducted research in, had my life not taken a different turn, is the impact of parental explanatory skill on child development. That is, the way in which parents filter the world and experience of children so as to make them growing "experts" in the world.
> 
> We are quick to blame parents, and quick to associate socio-economic status with child-rearing practices, but the facts of the matter are that kids can grow up fabulous in the most dire of circumstances, and wretched in the most opulent and advantaged of circumstances. They can grow up terrific and resilient in the midst iof parents that seem cold and aloof, and completely dysfunctional in the presence of parents that sincerely believe they love their kids with all their heart and soul. Overall, though, there is a small linear relationship between income level and outcomes. Why? Personally, I think that link is mediated a bit by the common relationship between both income and developmental outcomes with parental explanatory skill. People who are good explainers tend to ascend in life, and also tend to get important ideas across to children effectively. Having your parents _care_ about your safety is great, but you still have to be able to reason about when to run cross the road and when not to, when to go near the stove and when not to...and when to steer clear of weapons and sharp objects.
> 
> ...


Mike, you are splendidly articulate in a way I could never ever be. I think you're right in this case. I also have read many books on child rearing (my child doesn't sleep well, much to my detriment) and one thing that really struck me was one Dr who suggested that you should always be at your childs level when explaining something important or chastising them for any reason. That way you're not towering over them and you get to look them straight in the eye. I pratice that and aside from not sleeping well, my daughter is extremely articulate and very well adjusted, she's a real pleasure to be around, AND she doesn't know how to load a gun! May or may not be due to my parenting skill, but she's very definately my priority.

Lisa


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Mike, you are splendidly articulate in a way I could never ever be. I think you're right in this case. I also have read many books on child rearing (my child doesn't sleep well, much to my detriment) and one thing that really struck me was one Dr who suggested that you should always be at your childs level when explaining something important or chastising them for any reason. That way you're not towering over them and you get to look them straight in the eye. I pratice that and aside from not sleeping well, my daughter is extremely articulate and very well adjusted, she's a real pleasure to be around, AND she doesn't know how to load a gun! May or may not be due to my parenting skill, but she's very definately my priority.
> 
> Lisa


While we wouldn't expect adult choices of a 4 year old, it would be a mistake to blame parents totally for the mature product. There's still the element of free choice in our lives.

There is an old parable that goes like this:

A neighbour has noticed that twin brothers that live in his area are dramatically different and sets out to ask them why.

The first twin was a model citizen and when asked why he stated "My dad was violent, a drunkard and a thief. I didn't want to grow up to be like him in any way."

The second twin was a lush who was always in trouble with the law. His answer was "My dad was violent, a drunkard and a thief. Is it any wonder I turned out like him?"

We may have little control over what life dishes out but we have total control over how we cope with it.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks, Lisa. Much appreciated.

Certainly part of the explanation that parents have to accomplish with kids is developing their understanding of other people. That certainly helps is avoiding the sort of conflicts that resulted in theis shooting incident. But it helps in other areas, too. I explained to my two kids that you don't run across the street because drivers try to figure out if they should keep driving fast or slow down; when you run, they think they can keep driving fast, but when you walk they know they HAVE to slow down. On the surface, it is a strategy for crossing the street safely. But underneath, there is a lesson being taught about how the human mind, and people, work. I suppose if I was a child-development researcher, I'd make a distinction in scoring the explanations I see parents give between explanations that only refer to the events, objects, or material consequences, and explanations that also invoke how people think.

Just FYI, there is a voluminous literature these days on what is referred to as children's "theory of mind" ( http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&c...q=Children's+Theory+of+Mind&btnG=Search&meta= ), that addresses how kids come to an understanding of what others think, feel, believe, perceive, mean, etc. Obviously it all starts with the child's experience of understanding their *own* mind. For instance, simply knowing that you know something, or knowing that you can remember, and being consciously aware of it, or experience a discrepancy between what you expect and what happens, and being aware that you have been surprised. (_I remember well seeing the expression on our older son's face as an infant when he would wake up from a nap, look around and respond with a "WTF?" look on his face. A month earlier, he woke up and was wherever he was, with no expectations. At 5 months, he HAD expectations, and consequently the experience of confusion upon awakening._) The child who responds to having their foot stepped on with a gun obviously has little understanding of the intent or implications of the action carried out by the babysitter. You have to know what others intend or understand in order to be able to calibrate your response to them appropriately. And grownups have to help you learn what others are likely thinking, feeling, intending, etc. As a parent, you must be familiar with the stage all kids go through where they attribute simple benign differences between what is said and done as "lying". Eventually, they come to distinguish between deliberate manipulative mistruths, and mistruths spoken out of honest-but-mistaken belief or misinformation or good intentions. They do learn some of that on their own, but they learn it faster and more comprehensively with our help.

Mark


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> While we wouldn't expect adult choices of a 4 year old, it would be a mistake to blame parents totally for the mature product. There's still the element of free choice in our lives.
> 
> There is an old parable that goes like this:
> 
> ...


I like that perspective. It's convenient and popular to blame the parents for everything their kids do. Naturally a four year old is a special case, but when teens turn bad, it's not always the parents who are to blame.

There are many factors involved. Deal with a problem child for a few years before making judgements.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Milkman said:


> There are many factors involved. Deal with a problem child for a few years before making judgements.


And one of these factors is the obsession with the right to bear arms and keep a loaded shotgun ready to defend ones self and property.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

There ARE "problem children", just as there are "problem parents". In the case of kids, the "problem" is the special care required to thread them through life's needle. I like to distinguish between what I can dandelion, rose, and orchid children. Dandelion kids, well just TRY and stop them. They seem to thrive against all odds for whatever reasons. Rose kids thrive with a bit of help, and I imagine represent the majority. Orchid kids are those which need just the *right* circumstances of nurturing or else everything turns out wrong. Orchid kids are not necessarily mentally handicapped or physically challenged, either. They could be kids who are sensitive, or kids who simply aren't touchy-feely, or kids who struggle with intuiting others (e.g., folks who are just at the edge of Asperger syndrome). If you have a dandelion kid, then it doesn't matter what kind of parent they have. If you have a rose kid, then as long as the parents are within some range of child-rearing skill and sensitivity to child needs, you'll get a reasonable outcome. If you have an orchid kid, then you need to be a very special kind of parent. I suppose if you want to extend the needle-threading analogy, some kids have frayed edges and have to be wetted down and twisted into shape to pass through the needle, while others come like nylon monofilament.

The problems that occur, occur when you have a mismatch between what's needed in the way of parental skill, and what's supplied. Given that the majority of kids are of the rose type, the frequency with which such discrepancies crop up in the form of kids with psychosocial or adjustment problems should not surprise us. Sadly, because the most important and formative lessons in how to interpret the world come from parents or other primary caregivers, if those people aren't equipped to understand and handle the world themselves, chances are pretty good that you won't be either. I make no assumptions about heritability here. Rather, if your primary caregivers handle conflict with others by means of aggression (often through attributing hostile motives to others whom you don't understand very well), or by substance abuse, or by imploding (depression), the chances are pretty good that the vital lessons you need to learn at that point in your life when they will have the most profound impact simply aren't going to be learned very well, or the *wrong* lessons will be learned at a point in development where they'll have the most deleterious impact. Hence, familial patterns. Fundamental to all of this, however, is the parental ability to understand what THIS kid needs, as opposed to THAT kid, or as opposed to THIS kid at a different age. If they don't have enough social insight themselves, don't expect them to know what to teach to kids, or how.

Personally, I elect not to divide the world up into problem kids and non-problem kids, but see it in terms of easily soluble child-rearing situations and more difficult ones. Some kids are just gonna take more work, and more careful monitoring, to get the job done. If someone is not the "right" parent for the job, then more hands are needed.

About 10 years ago, I was teaching a course on adolescent development, and managed to get the adoptive mother of Ottawa's first drive-by shooter to come to my class. She was a terrific mom. Thoughtful, articulate, considerate, brave. We should all be so lucky to have one like her. Trouble was, she was only one person, earning a living, and her adopted kids were a brother-sister pair from a Brazilian orphanage who needed about 5 or 6 additional parents like her to get the job done. The boy strayed in ways she had no control over, short of giving up her job, and reverting to welfare so she could monitor him 24/7. He did something stupid for a lark, during a joyride, and a decent young man ended up with a 22 bullet through his heart. The mother set a great example, but unfortunately, as she indicated, the kids had initially grown up in the absence of any consistent parental figure at the orphanage (rotating caregiver staff), in a world where what their peers thought and did was more important than anything else. As a result, it was one tough gig to get them to view what adults do as important to emulate. In other words, they had very little automatic vested interest in the good example she was setting. One of those "orchid" situations.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Paul said:


> Just like the kid given the name Adolph Hitler Campbell by some ever so thoughtful parents


I agree. Campbell is a horrible surname to bestow on any child ! ! !


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> I agree. Campbell is a horrible surname to bestow on any child ! ! !


Ha! And how bout the daughters name? Aryan Nation?? You think they might be white Supremacists?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

bagpipe said:


> I agree. Campbell is a horrible surname to bestow on any child ! ! !


MacDonald lover! :sport-smiley-002:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

mhammer said:


> ...The problems that occur, occur when you have a mismatch between what's needed in the way of parental skill, and what's supplied....


Very nice summary of what Winnicott called "good enough parenting" and a good way of looking things.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> I agree. Campbell is a horrible surname to bestow on any child ! ! !


One of my favourite films is the rather dry 1959 Scottish film "The Bridal Path", featuring actor Bill Travers (who later became famous in Born Free) as strapping young Ewen McEwen who needs to seek out a bride elsewhere, because the elders of his tiny island have declared that "there is too much consanguinity" on their wee isle. In their wisdom, they supply Ewen with a list of characteristics to keep in mind as he travels the mainland in search of a suitable bride. "She canno' be a Campbell", the list declares. "She canno' be a CAH-tholic. She must have wide shoulders for the carrying, and wide hips for the child bearing." The list continues on, and every time he finds a lass who provokes his interest, he whips the list out of his breast pocket and compares what's on the list with the woman in question. It's like he's shopping for a computer using recommendations from an article and going "Okay, 2.8ghz dual core, check, 2 gig DDR2, check, 500G SATA drive, check...". Precious.

Favourite line, delivered to a bank teller when he lands ashore and proceeds to withdraw the savings out of his account at the start of his search: "What denomination?", says the teller. "Church of Scotland, but ah don' see what that has to doo with it."


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

OK.........I've been quietly following this thread..........the thread appears to have crossed all the boundaries starting with ******* sterio-typing, and now borders on downright racism...........no where in the article does it state the childs name..........now we've got this youngster wearing a kilt and playing a bagpipe............shame............and I don't recollect the article mentioning a double wide come to think of it........and after all the baby sitter is named Beaver.........which is a common American boy's name , at least while growing up..............do I think the parents are negligent.........you're darn tooting.........at 4 years old he should have had proper weapons training.......he obviously barely hit his target .............................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

RIFF WRATH said:


> at 4 years old he should have had proper weapons training.......he obviously barely hit his target .............................................................................................................................................................................................


But he did get two of them with one shot ........


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Still ain't seen me nude!

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-07.html

Point is, bad (amd stupid) things happen all the time, everywhere, and this is not the worst I have heard of or seen. I had a friend some years back who's son was extremely ODD. Oppositional Defiance is not the "Rosa Parks said No" bit, it is the extreme of doing the opposite of what is told to you to do and usually being rather violent in that 'not doing'. Her son tried to knife her in her sleep. Her son wasn't in kindergarten yet. Any kid knows A LOT MORE than any parent ever wishes to give them credit for. People that think "oh, but its only a child" is deluding themself. Mark has said some very good things. Parents DO have to show and explain and exemplify to their childeren from the very start of life how to become a functional member of society, and sometimes there are issues that do not relate to the parent but do to the child. 

The article itself though went well around NOT saying things. Why was the child at the grandmothers home (trailer)? Why was the child being tended to by a babysitter? Why was that babysitter doing a mass party with others? Why was there a gun on the floor (I assume this, 4 year olds do not tend to be able to clime without ladders) of a closet and bullets in a dresser? There are lots of unanswered and unexplored questions, and these should be explored and answered. BUT IT'S THE USA, they as a nation don't care.

What I saw and read that struck me more was how the police are quoted, "*Cops are now investigating, but agree the alleged culprit may be too young to be charged.* "  The police reflect the values of a society; and in this state, they think they can stick a charge on a four year old (and again, nothing new there, it is the USA). Isn't there an expression of apples and trees? Only, you need to know what tree it is the apple fell from.

The idea that the USA is any great or noble nation is a load of bollocks. In the USA, this is pretty much commonplace and normal (for all such stories over the years that I have seen come from there). The US is a nation of humans that are turning or have turned feral, just like wild dogs, the carnage is just a normal outcome of that. As far as I ever feel about these stories from the US, it is no more than a "omg, that is a horrible story, glad I'm Canadian."

Oh, and the child had a wee little gun, by the time he gets growed up, he could join the US government and have hisself some Mothers of All Bombs to drop on hospitals and schools in third world countries.....

**EDIT** I have to add that I do know a lot of people in the US that I do call friends. I just feel that how the US nation as a whole is governed is reflected in the actions of it's citizens, right down to the youngest of children (the top never looks down to see how to behave, but the bottom sure looks up). Until a massive change in US government happens there is little that will stop, alter, prevent, or make stories like this one a thing of the past.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

little boys are very impressionable- looking up to older boys for instruction in the way theyre supposed to behave. if he was bieng watched by teenagers, who knows what his mind was absorbing.
once i was returning from someplace with my girlfriends 4 yr old- all the older niehbour kids used to kinda dismiss him- they and his older brother were around 8- he was a baby to them, but he followed them and parroted everything they did.
as were pulling up to the driveway, i hoist him into my lap, i worked the pedals and he steered us in. 
man, when he got out of the car the other kids ran up all excited, and that little guy looked like he was on top of the world. puffed his chest out a bit even. lovingly ran his hands along the hood of the car as the older kids asked him questions and all. that little boy gained something that day, and the other kids treated him better for it.
what if id let him hold my gun instead?
at that age its all about adult supervision- responsible adult supervision.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> *Still ain't seen me nude!*
> http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-07.html


You think _anybody's_ going to click that link with that intro?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

devnulljp said:


> You think _anybody's_ going to click that link with that intro?



:bow: I SO SHOULD LEARN TO NO BE EATING WHEN I READ YOUR POSTS!

/me gets wash cloth for the monitor...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

fraser said:


> little boys are very impressionable- looking up to older boys for instruction in the way theyre supposed to behave. if he was bieng watched by teenagers, who knows what his mind was absorbing.


One has to always remember that humans are nonstop "learning machines". I don't mean that they operate like machines (too simplistic), but rather that there are very few occasions when they are NOT learning. That learning can involve formation of new associations and concept, or the further entrenchment of existing associations and concepts. As a parent, a sibling, a babysitter, a teacher, a neighbour, a public figure, or as any other type of potential example, you have to always ask yourself "What inferences about the world would/could a child draw from my behaviour?". 

That doesn't mean that you have to deliberately *intend* those inferences. For instance, walk in the door and announce the best news you can think of, peppered with expletives, in front of a 5 year-old, and what they draw from it is evidence from folks they respect that such language is acceptable in any and all circumstance, even though that was NOT the "lesson" you were trying to convey.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Hmmm .... what could be sadder than a 4-year old having access to a gun and ammo and huntin' a guy named Beavers in a double-wide....... Betcha everyone in that trailer had a mullet. If the kid hadn't just winged the guy I might have called it Natural Selection kkjuw


LOL+1 9kkhhd


----------

