Appropriate Age for a Gun?

[franklin]

Teenagers and men over 70 are the fastest growing groups of suicide by gun. Suicide is the second leading cause of death along teenagers in Utah. I do think precautions should be taken for everyone to lock up your guns and slow down the process. People of all ages have things set them off. Delaying access prevents suicide. Guns are by far the most effective means of suicide. So if people try something else it is likely to be unsuccessful and most people who have a failed suicide do not try it again. Suicide is on the rise very quickly. Teenagers and young adults are an at risk group.

I guess I'd rather try to be an attentive parent, lock the guns up if my child shows signs of trouble then, hope he doesn't find a rope or dive off a cliff like the kids I knew growing up did. Just because it's the most convenient does not mean locking something away is a deterrent.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I guess I'd rather try to be an attentive parent, lock the guns up if my child shows signs of trouble then, hope he doesn't find a rope or dive off a cliff like the kids I knew growing up did. Just because it's the most convenient does not mean locking something away is a deterrent.

It is a huge huge huge deterrent. Yes people can still commit suicide other ways but that doesnt mean that it wont deter most not to. Teenagers who commit suicide other ways tend to have more external signs and a much longer process of thinking it out and more determined to do it. The vast majority will not commit suicide if they do not have access to guns.

Sure being an attentive parent is always great and I think if your a parent who is not you are a terrible parent or had way too many kids. However the signs are not always there or obvious or something small sets a teenager off and they act rashly on it before people have a chance to help. Many attentive parents have lost a kid to suicide. Why take an unnecessary risk?

There is no good reason to give a teenager access to guns. If they want to go out shooting or hunting, great. They should not be out alone doing that and you can unlock the gun and let them go out and lock it up when they get back. I think a responsible adult should be with them to go shooting but at the very least other responsible kids their age. Although I would not let my teenage kid do that simply because teenagers are dumb and like to goof off, shoot stupid stuff and generally not safe without adults around.

However the idea that he will find another way is incorrect. Chance of committing suicide are way less common and they are way less effective. Like I said if a teenager is unsuccessful than chances are they will never try again. Every study has shown the more complex or difficult suicide attempts are the less likely they are to do it. Guns are a fast, easy and effective way to commit suicide that is why they are #1. Eliminating that option will save a lot of people. Ever extra step in committing suicide lowers the chance they will do it greatly. Yes, some people still will do it but at a much lower rate and it will give more time for themselves or someone else to talk them out of it.

 

[franklin]

It is a huge huge huge deterrent. Yes people can still commit suicide other ways but that doesnt mean that it wont deter most not to. Teenagers who commit suicide other ways tend to have more external signs and a much longer process of thinking it out and more determined to do it. The vast majority will not commit suicide if they do not have access to guns.

Sure being an attentive parent is always great and I think if your a parent who is not you are a terrible parent or had way too many kids. However the signs are not always there or obvious or something small sets a teenager off and they act rashly on it before people have a chance to help. Many attentive parents have lost a kid to suicide. Why take an unnecessary risk?

There is no good reason to give a teenager access to guns. If they want to go out shooting or hunting, great. They should not be out alone doing that and you can unlock the gun and let them go out and lock it up when they get back. I think a responsible adult should be with them to go shooting but at the very least other responsible kids their age. Although I would not let my teenage kid do that simply because teenagers are dumb and like to goof off, shoot stupid stuff and generally not safe without adults around.

However the idea that he will find another way is incorrect. Chance of committing suicide are way less common and they are way less effective. Like I said if a teenager is unsuccessful than chances are they will never try again. Every study has shown the more complex or difficult suicide attempts are the less likely they are to do it. Guns are a fast, easy and effective way to commit suicide that is why they are #1. Eliminating that option will save a lot of people. Ever extra step in committing suicide lowers the chance they will do it greatly. Yes, some people still will do it but at a much lower rate and it will give more time for themselves or someone else to talk them out of it.

I'm not too big on fretting over causes that have a very low probability of affecting us. Suicide rates seem to be your thing here: The US rate is about 1 in 1000. Guns account for half of that, so you're making an issue about something that is a 1 in 2000 rate (and not adjusting for gun suicides that would still happen anyway, so perhaps 1 in 2500 or 3000). Alter that for under 18 only and you're probably at about a 1 in 20,000 rate for your demographic of concern.

I don't think those odds require extreme action. For all I know, the coddling nature of locking up guns, telling kids no over simple things, coddling them, and taking perceived risks with low probability may actually lead to our increasing suicide rates.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2...for-putting-kids-at-perceived-but-unreal-risk

Many parents who grew up playing outdoors with friends, walking alone to the park or to school, and enjoying other moments of independent play are now raising children in a world with very different norms.

In the United States today, leaving children unsupervised is grounds for moral outrage and can lead to criminal charges.

What's changed?

One possibility is that the risks to children have changed. What was safe in the past may be unsafe today, placing children in genuine danger. But, for the most part, the data don't support this. Statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey, for example, suggest that violent crime rates have decreased since the 1970s (and not only when it comes to children, whom one could argue are benefiting from the increased oversight).

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?
ENVIRONMENT
Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?
The odds that a child will be abducted by a stranger — one of the fears that motivates constant supervision — are tiny in comparison with the odds that a child will be injured in a car accident. Yet parents aren't under investigation for choosing to drive their kids to school.

So here's another possibility. It's not that risks to children have increased, provoking an increase in moral outrage when children are left unattended. Instead, it could be that moral attitudes toward parenting have changed, such that leaving children unsupervised is now judged morally wrong. And because it's judged morally wrong, people overestimate the risk.

This may seem to get things the wrong way around, but it's supported by new research available Tuesday in the open access journal Collabra. In a series of clever experiments, authors Ashley Thomas, Kyle Stanford and Barbara Sarnecka find evidence that shifting people's moral attitudes toward a parent influences the perceived risk to that parent's unattended child.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I'm not too big on fretting over causes that have a very low probability of affecting us.

Your skewing the statistics but that is besides the point. It is the second leading cause of death for teenagers in Utah 3rd across the USA. By your same logic kids shouldn't wear a seat belt. Both are needless risks. But they are your choice as a parent like many things. It's not codling kids to not give them access to guns.

The latest statistics from the CDC which is from 2014 is that 42k people died from suicide of which 24k were by gun, 35k died in car wrecks and 38k died from accidental poisoning, I guess there is no reason to lock up poisonous chemicals that can kill toddlers and young children or labeling chemicals. All estimates have suicide on the rise as well. This is keeping in mind that most houses in the US do not have a gun in them and that most houses that do lock up their guns. Also keeping in mind that suicide rates for teens in Utah has tripped from 2007 to 2014. Also if you are white and/or a male your chances are much higher for committing suicide.

Edit: I just read that in Utah suicide is the leading cause of death for 11-17 year olds.

People stress and talk so much about mass shootings, school shooting or even homicide but this is a bigger problem and growing much faster.

 

[Gameface]

I'll do a little overshare.

A few years ago I was unemployed. Related to that there was stress in my relationship and I was unhappy in general. I also had a child entering their teens.

I've been a pretty strong gun advocate on these forums for years. I still do generally advocate for gun rights, but I've softened on a few points.

Anyway, I owned several guns. I've never had a impulse to use them inappropriately and I suppose I could have just leaned on my ego a bit and decided I was just too good to fall into a deep depression or to get set off into a blind rage, or that my son would ever gain access to my guns. But instead I decided that my house was no longer a good place to have guns. I needed the money anyway, so I sold them all.

During that time there was never a specific situation I can look back on and say that it's a good thing they weren't there or else something bad might have happened. But I do think it was the right decision.

As fish mentioned, I think in a different thread, there's really no such thing as a "good guy." None of us are all good or all bad. No one. And none of us are the same person throughout our entire life. It's possible one day for something to shake you so hard that your values, your perspective, everything, is suddenly different than it was before.

 

[franklin]

Your skewing the statistics but that is besides the point. It is the second leading cause of death for teenagers in Utah 3rd across the USA. By your same logic kids shouldn't wear a seat belt. Both are needless risks. But they are your choice as a parent like many things. It's not codling kids to not give them access to guns.

Making decisions on perceive risk is dumb. Keeping healthy kids from guns is as rational as keeping kids from sex ed class because you think educating them will embolden them (high Saint Cy).


I didn't skew any stat, nor have I questioned any of your numerous claims that have not been sourced.

US suicide rate is 12 per 100,000, and that's across all age groups. Okay, I skewed, it's 1.2 in 1000.

Suicide by gun rates is 49.9%. 0.499 * 1.2 = 0.5988 per 1000.

The suicide rate of 15-24 year olds is 11.9%, so (1000/.119) / 0.5988 = 1 in 14,033 teens and up to 24 year olds*. Again, this is not adjusted for alternate forms of suicide without access to a gun. It also includes 18-24 year olds who can legally purchase a firearm. 20,000 turned out to be a pretty damn good ballpark guess.

*Excludes 10-14 year olds who add 8.37% more to the 15-24 age pool.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Making decisions on perceive risk is dumb. Keeping healthy kids from guns is as rational as keeping kids from sex ed class because you think educating them will embolden them (high Saint Cy).

Your changing the argument. I have never once said to keep kids away from guns, I have said the opposite. I fully support teaching kids about guns and letting them go out shooting and have said so in here many times. I have said to keep guns locked up and not give them free access to those locks. That is a huge difference.

Taking unnecessary risks for 0 reason is very dumb. Such as not putting on a seat belt, would you not put your kid in a seatbelt or car seat as a baby so they are not coddled? Would you let a baby or small child around poisonous chemicals, fire or a cliff so they are not coddled. Those are risks you can take as an adult but it seems silly to put your kids at risk for no reason. You comparing it to sex ed is not a close comparison or related at all. A better comparison would be for me to tell you not to teach guns about kids or let them around them is the same as not letting them take sex ed. I have not said that nor is that the same thing. Which is not what I have said or argued once.

Statistics are besides the point. Your teenagers are at a much higher risk than that but even if its less its still a silly unnecessary risk to give a kid free access to guns. Why would you simply not lock them up? I think you are just arguing to argue though.

But lets look at some more statistics for that arguments sake.If you have an un-locked gun in your house your teenagers are 10X more likely to commit suicide.

Here is some good info for those that want to look at it about guns and suicide:

https://www.bradycampaign.org/the-link-between-suicide-and-guns

https://www.bradycampaign.org/the-link-between-suicide-and-guns-availability

Since many suicides are impulsive, separating someone from the means to self-harm takes away their ability to act on what otherwise might have been a fleeting impulse. Suicidal crises are often triggered by an immediate stressor, such as the loss of a job or the breakup of a relationship. However, the urge to act is fairly short lived, typically lasting a few minutes to a few hours.

Suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers and is rising at very rapid rates here in Utah. Leaving a guns unlocked puts your kid 10X higher risk of committing suicide. Which takes a likelihood of about 1 in 100 which could be higher if your teenager is a male and white. Giving them a key to the lock and keeping it locked slightly slows them down but still has a 5X higher chance of committing suicide. Some report those numbers higher for certain groups:

For young people without mental illness, a loaded gun in the home was found to increase suicide risk 32 times.

So based on that statistic do the math on that likelihood of having a white male teenager who has no signs of mental illness and the statistics for having access to an unlocked gun it sky rockets their likelihood to commit suicide.

It is down right stupid to have a gun in your house unlocked when you have a teenager or really at all. If everyone locked up their guns we would save a lot of lives. What is the benefit of an unlocked gun or giving your kids keys to the gun safe?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Any way to quantify or prove this statement?? There's tons of countries out there with kids who never have access to guns-- so you can start with a comparison there

This is obviously an opinion based on personal experience/perceptions, etc. But your point is well-taken. There are many ways to teach children responsibility, humility, respect and awareness that don't involve guns, and as such, I'd be hesitant to advocate for gun ownership as a means to accomplish these objectives. But, hey, whatever works for you.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

For the record, I don't have any age in mind as to when it is appropriate to introduce children to guns. It's like any other thing, the best age to start something probably depends on the child. Hell, I've seen kids no older than 4-5 skiing the cirque at Snowbird, something I didn't have the guts, or better said the skill, to do until into my 30s. Some kids can handle things at a much earlier age than others. So, I guess the conclusion here is for parents to know their child and use common sense. After that, have at it.

 

[franklin]

Your changing the argument. I have never once said to keep kids away from guns, I have said the opposite. I fully support teaching kids about guns and letting them go out shooting and have said so in here many times. I have said to keep guns locked up and not give them free access to those locks. That is a huge difference.

I don't know how you read it that way so let me put it as simple as possible: Keeping guns locked up for fears of suicide is a perceived risk that does not exist to any meaningful extent. 1 in 15,000 (at minimum) tells me kids can have guns.

 

[franklin]

So based on that statistic do the math on that likelihood of having a white male teenager who has no signs of mental illness and the statistics for having access to an unlocked gun it sky rockets their likelihood to commit suicide.

It is down right stupid to have a gun in your house unlocked when you have a teenager or really at all. If everyone locked up their guns we would save very few lives. What is the benefit of an unlocked gun or giving your kids keys to the gun safe?

Fixed that for ya.

Going from almost zero to just slightly less than almost zero does not count as "skyrocketing".


I found this interesting from your Anti-Gun Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence think tank link:

Third, the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of suicide, regardless of method of storage, type of gun, or number of guns in the home.30 Finally, if a gun is not available in the home, it is rarely used as the method of suicide.31

So, regardless of whether you lock your guns up or not, your children are at increased risk of suicide (from near zero to next to near zero). That leads me to believe there is probably another correlation. Here's one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114154/

By the "don't take unnecessary risks" opinion, anybody living in Denver or SLC should move asap.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I don't know how you read it that way so let me put it as simple as possible: Keeping guns locked up for fears of suicide is a perceived risk that does not exist to any meaningful extent. 1 in 15,000 (at minimum) tells me kids can have guns.

To be honest I am mostly posting this for other people since you made up your mind a long time ago to let you kids have guns and not to keep them locked up in your house.

Could not disagree more. That number is incorrect and that logic is silly. That number reflects a household that has taken precautions and does not have a gun or its locked up. Taking basic safety precautions, when there is no reason not to, for your own sake and kids sake is just common sense. But they are your kids and you have the right to do that.

In Utah the number is 5 out of a 1000 die from gun suicide per year. That number is 32X higher if you do not have a gun locked up and your kid has no signs of mental illness. That number doubles if it is a male, it doubles if he is white. It is the leading cause of death in Utah for kids his age.

So the minimum statistic (easily argued higher but hard to tell) is 160/1000 (32 times 5) or 16/100 if you have an unlocked gun in your house and your child is mentally stable and it on the rise so far tripling every year since 07.

But based on your perceived risk that you feel is not meaningful (I would call #1 cause of death in that age group meaningful)you should not worry or do anything to protect your kid from harm, death or sexual abuse since chances are it wont happen.

But I think there is no downside to a lock on a gun, seatbelt on a kid, not letting your kid have sleepovers with strange adult men just basics like that.

What does locking a gun prevent a kid from doing? Something good?

 

[franklin]

You're posting false correlations and will continue to do so. Here's a graphic showing a) how silly it is to use false correlations (to a non-existent problem), and b) completely debunking your correlation altogether:

No guns didn't deter suicide in Japan, France, etc. People who want to kill themselves will. As I pointed out already, your own think tank said as much.

 

[franklin]

Could not disagree more. That number is incorrect and that logic is silly. That number reflects a household that has taken precautions and does not have a gun or its locked up. Taking basic safety precautions, when there is no reason not to, for your own sake and kids sake is just common sense. But they are your kids and you have the right to do that.

You mean like putting the mattresses on the floor and not having any stairs? Because those kill a helluva lot of people every year.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You're posting false correlations and will continue to do so. Here's a graphic showing a) how silly it is to use false correlations (to a non-existent problem), and b) completely debunking your correlation altogether:

No guns didn't deter suicide in Japan, France, etc. People who want to kill themselves will. As I pointed out already, your own think tank said as much.

For those countries, Franklin, do you have any additional stats to rates among families that lock up their guns vs. those who don't?

If you don't, that graph is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Ron Mexico]

You're posting false correlations and will continue to do so. Here's a graphic showing a) how silly it is to use false correlations (to a non-existent problem), and b) completely debunking your correlation altogether:

No guns didn't deter suicide in Japan, France, etc. People who want to kill themselves will. As I pointed out already, your own think tank said as much.

The info from that I posted from there was from the CDC. Other countries and their gun situations are very different.

Why are kids 32X more likely to commit suicide if there is an unlocked gun in their house then?

 

[Ron Mexico]

You mean like putting the mattresses on the floor and not having any stairs? Because those kill a helluva lot of people every year.

There is a risk in many things. Some are easily avoided like a seat belt while driving or a gun locked. Some we have no control over and are silly to worry about.

 

[Ron Mexico]

You mean like putting the mattresses on the floor and not having any stairs? Because those kill a helluva lot of people every year.

Statistics show little to no risk of babies being around loaded guns. Would you let your baby play with a loaded handgun? Seems like if you could just give them another toy to play with you should but that might be a lot of precaution to you and make your kid coddled if you dont let them play with whatever they want.

I'm not hearing what the positives of an unlocked gun are. Do you not want a dangerous weapon that can kill locked because they might use it to do something heroic or learn a valuable lesson?

 

[reignman40]

I started shooting a .22 at 4. With the help of my dad of course. He got me a BB gun at 7 or 8 but I must have been about 11 before I could take it out to shoot random things with a friend/cousin. Away from houses, people, cars ect.

 

[reignman40]

Any gun is a gun. What kind of message it is sending to the kid? What if he shots other kid in the eye and blinds him for life. Stupid, irresponsible, dangerous and should be outlawed. You need to be 18 to smoke, 21 to drink and yet no age limits to have a gun? Most idiotic country when it comes to guns in the world.

LOL, you are talking about legal age to buy. You don't think 14 year olds are out there drinking? Maybe those parents shouldn't bring alcohol/cigarettes into the house. How dumb and ignorant can they be.