Cricketts and Chipmunks??

[Native Floridian]

On the issue of safety, let's talk about that.

many parents who let their kids ride these things, ATVs, Mini bikes, and motrcycles do a sales job on themselves. That is, they are convinced because their kids are using safety equipment that makes the kids safe.

But wait, not so fast there! Maybe some parents are using safe equipment, but most aren't. Though they may think they are.

Like i said, I'm a motorcycle fan. i spend alot of time and money at motorcycle dealerships and shops. Most of these places do a big ATV business. I see the stuff they are hawking to parents.

On helmets alone there should be a law on the minimum safety requirements. Most of the helmets sold for kids wouldn't stop an injury in anything past falling off the bike while standing still. Most are the cheapest things on the shelf. Parent's buy the best looking cheap helmet they can. Buy decisions are made on cost, color and graphics, not safety.

Then there is a modest step up DOT approved. DOT is not horrible, but anyone who seriously has their childen's best interest at heart wouldn't let their kid wear one. Yet, DOT helmets are as far up the safety scale as most parents go. In a low speed whack the kid has a chance. So if that's the standard applied these will do. But not the best protection.

Lastly, there are SNELL approved. SELL is as good as it gets. DOT helmets can't pass the SNELL tests. The best costs, thus few if any adorn the heads of young riders. While it is a given that a helmet can only do so much, these helmets give the riders who wear them the best protection money can buy. For parents they are a tough choice. it is difficult to pony up $200 to $400 for a helmet the child is going to quickly out grow when there are so many choices on the shelf for $59.95. The choice is easy for parents who will not compromise their child's well being.

Then there is this tid bid on helmets: Do you think most parents know that if the helmet receives a hard impact it's protective ability is permanently compromised? IOW it's done, time to buy a new helmet. The protective energy absorbing materials inside helmets are one and done. What is a hard impact? The helmet hitting the pavement after junior drops it would be one example. I know it's tough to ante up $300 for a new helmet when the one you've got looks fine, but I've done it. Why, because a compromised helmet is useless! How many parents know a helmet should be replaced? How many replace them? Yet ask everyone of them and they will tell you - they have their kid's best interest at heart.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[mustangpalmer1911]

Really?

I coached little league for more years than i can remember. Wanna know the thing about six year olds? Their reflexes are so undeveloped that we can't put them on anything other than a T ball team. That is where the ball is put on a T and they swing at it. Skills are developed from that point. It is too dangerous to pitch a live ball at them. Their reaction times, and coordination just aren't there.

Yet, it's OK to put these same six year olds at the controls of a "fast" ATV? They are perfectly safe in doing that! Cut me a break!

Really these kids ride better than 90% of the idiot adults I see on the road, have let ride my dirt and street bike. Hell when it comes to motocross they definitely out ride me.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Really these kids ride better than 90% of the idiot adults I see on the road, have let ride my dirt and street bike. Hell when it comes to motocross they definitely out ride me.

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqrXjfqhgJ4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

We are talking basic human physiology here. Nothing debatable. This is why young children don't get charged with murder as science and society recognizes that a very young child does not understand many concepts such as mortality, consequences etc etc. but I'm sure this is all left wing science BS - right??

 

[mustangpalmer1911]

We are talking basic human physiology here. Nothing debatable. This is why young children don't get charged with murder as science and society recognizes that a very young child does not understand many concepts such as mortality, consequences etc etc. but I'm sure this is all left wing science BS - right??

Well my nephew is 6 rides in those motocross races. Sure looks like they are debating that theory in their actions.

 

[mustangpalmer1911]

10 and the fine motor skills to play Crazy Train on the guitar. Yep he sure looks like a uncoordinated bumbling to stupid to function child to me.

 

[0121stockpicker]

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1lG1y0R6sU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

10 and the fine motor skills to play Crazy Train on the guitar. Yep he sure looks like a uncoordinated bumbling to stupid to function child to me.

Mustang. You got to realize that what you are doing is called providing "anecdotal evidence".

" the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally"

No big deal just wanted to point out.

While interesting, it does not mean anything in a logical discussion. And realize we all have a friend of a friend that has said, done, etc just about everything under the sun.

Again I do not believe it is much debated whether or not people's mental and physical abilities change with age.

 

[mustangpalmer1911]

Still don't mean that all young children are to uncoordinated or to stupid to ride ATVs, play guitar, and other things that require fine motor skills, and the ability to rationalize.

 

[Crispin]

It is not debated. Mental and physical abilities improve with age until a certain point where they plateau out and then start to decline in older age.
This is as debatable as men are generally stronger then women. Are there exceptions? Sure, but this is basic science. Also, young children don't have the frontal lobe development to make good decisions. The brain continues to mature and develop way past the age of 18y.o. Who lets their 6 to 10 year decide what they are having for dinner? Who lets their 6-10y.o. decide what time to go to bed? Who lets their 6-10y.o. decided whether to go to school or stay home and play x-box.

Not saying kids should or should not be allowed to do motorcross. That is up to the parent to decide. However, the above is not debatable.

 

[0121stockpicker]

It is not debated. Mental and physical abilities improve with age until a certain point where they plateau out and then start to decline in older age.
This is as debatable as men are generally stronger then women. Are there exceptions? Sure, but this is basic science. Also, young children don't have the frontal lobe development to make good decisions. The brain continues to mature and develop way past the age of 18y.o. Who lets their 6 to 10 year decide what they are having for dinner? Who lets their 6-10y.o. decide what time to go to bed? Who lets their 6-10y.o. decided whether to go to school or stay home and play x-box.

Not saying kids should or should not be allowed to do motorcross. That is up to the parent to decide. However, the above is not debatable.

Exactly, which in my opinion calls into question if a child should really be handling a lethal weapon under any circumstances?

 

[Crispin]

I think it depends on how you define a child. Should a three year old be allowed to handle a loaded gun? No, never, no way! However, what about a 15y.o? There is a big difference there. We want children to learn appropriate use of firearms from their parents; the catch, is that each child is ready to handle that responsibility at a different age. That is why it is the parent's job to decide when. I think making a global rule like, "nobody under 18 can handle a firearm" would be a big mistake. If that were to happen then 18y.o.s would go out on their birthday and start buying guns without knowing appropirate and safety.

That being said: I think it is reasonable to put a lower age limit on when a gun should absolutely not be put in any child's hands. We do the same thing with driving cars, movies, etc... We could put together a good think tank of gun advocates, doctors, teachers, and lawyers to come up with an answer. If we want to have that exercise here I would be glad to start us off.

I will make the statement that no child, under the age of five, under any reason, should be able to handle a loaded weapon. Anybody want to raise or lower that age?

Crispin

Ps. Work is a little slower today. Thank God.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I think it depends on how you define a child. Should a three year old be allowed to handle a loaded gun? No, never, no way! However, what about a 15y.o? There is a big difference there. We want children to learn appropriate use of firearms from their parents; the catch, is that each child is ready to handle that responsibility at a different age. That is why it is the parent's job to decide when. I think making a global rule like, "nobody under 18 can handle a firearm" would be a big mistake. If that were to happen then 18y.o.s would go out on their birthday and start buying guns without knowing appropirate and safety.

That being said: I think it is reasonable to put a lower age limit on when a gun should absolutely not be put in any child's hands. We do the same thing with driving cars, movies, etc... We could put together a good think tank of gun advocates, doctors, teachers, and lawyers to come up with an answer. If we want to have that exercise here I would be glad to start us off.

I will make the statement that no child, under the age of five, under any reason, should be able to handle a loaded weapon. Anybody want to raise or lower that age?

Crispin

Ps. Work is a little slower today. Thank God.

My thoughts were 7 and under. I have 3 kids - 6,7 and 10.

 

[packerbacker]

I'm in agreement with cris. (welcome back btw......missed ya big guy ) If we are to compare how the governments, fed and state, require certain safety measures like carseats, helmets and seatbelts, don't you think they would have come up with some law like having to be 18 before you can shoot a gun? Cub Scouts can shoot pellet/bb rifles and participate in archery at age 6. There are pellet rifles out there now that have more or as much firepower as a 22. I've previously stated what a bow can do. A target arrow fired from a 30lb bow can kill. In Boy Scouts they can earn rifle and shotgun merit badges. They start at age 11. They whittle with knives and they build campfires. They chop things with hatchets. They catch fish and actually kill them, gut them and eat them. I know that, if you live in a concrete environment and big brother supplies all of your needs from food, medical, roof-to-roof housing, video games and Hollywood entertainment you may not think any of those activities need to be participated in but millions do. Difference is, we don't need someone else to teach our kids these skills and fun activities, we do it ourselves and each kid is taught each skill based on that child's skill level. None are handed the keys to the car although they have spent time on a country road behind the wheel. The last time I did it was with my granddaughter. Took her out on a washboarded country road and taught her how to recover from a braking skid. Don't learn that in driver training class. We have a couple more coming up that will learn to shoot with the small 22's and I guarantee none will get hurt nor will they hurt anyone else. All of these horror stories you come up with involving a small child with a gun are ALL the gun owner's fault. Should never happen.

 

[dieselram94]

I think it depends on how you define a child. Should a three year old be allowed to handle a loaded gun? No, never, no way! However, what about a 15y.o? There is a big difference there. We want children to learn appropriate use of firearms from their parents; the catch, is that each child is ready to handle that responsibility at a different age. That is why it is the parent's job to decide when. I think making a global rule like, "nobody under 18 can handle a firearm" would be a big mistake. If that were to happen then 18y.o.s would go out on their birthday and start buying guns without knowing appropirate and safety.

That being said: I think it is reasonable to put a lower age limit on when a gun should absolutely not be put in any child's hands. We do the same thing with driving cars, movies, etc... We could put together a good think tank of gun advocates, doctors, teachers, and lawyers to come up with an answer. If we want to have that exercise here I would be glad to start us off.

I will make the statement that no child, under the age of five, under any reason, should be able to handle a loaded weapon. Anybody want to raise or lower that age?

Crispin

Ps. Work is a little slower today. Thank God.

Crispin , I agree fully. I would like to state that the age of five is minimum to shoot a gun should be common sense. I really think few would disagree. But we don't need govt making yet another law.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Crispin , I agree fully. I would like to state that the age of five is minimum to shoot a gun should be common sense. I really think few would disagree. But we don't need govt making yet another law.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

Unfortunately there are plenty of parents without common sense that would benefit if something was a law. You would think that child car seats would be compleat common sense but automotive related child/infant deaths declined significantly once the laws were enacted.

I thought most of you believed that most people were dumb mindless sheeple?? I know that I would not give most the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their children

 

[Crispin]

I'm in agreement with cris. (welcome back btw......missed ya big guy ) If we are to compare how the governments, fed and state, require certain safety measures like carseats, helmets and seatbelts, don't you think they would have come up with some law like having to be 18 before you can shoot a gun? Cub Scouts can shoot pellet/bb rifles and participate in archery at age 6. There are pellet rifles out there now that have more or as much firepower as a 22. I've previously stated what a bow can do. A target arrow fired from a 30lb bow can kill. In Boy Scouts they can earn rifle and shotgun merit badges. They start at age 11. They whittle with knives and they build campfires. They chop things with hatchets. They catch fish and actually kill them, gut them and eat them. I know that, if you live in a concrete environment and big brother supplies all of your needs from food, medical, roof-to-roof housing, video games and Hollywood entertainment you may not think any of those activities need to be participated in but millions do. Difference is, we don't need someone else to teach our kids these skills and fun activities, we do it ourselves and each kid is taught each skill based on that child's skill level. None are handed the keys to the car although they have spent time on a country road behind the wheel. The last time I did it was with my granddaughter. Took her out on a washboarded country road and taught her how to recover from a braking skid. Don't learn that in driver training class. We have a couple more coming up that will learn to shoot with the small 22's and I guarantee none will get hurt nor will they hurt anyone else. All of these horror stories you come up with involving a small child with a gun are ALL the gun owner's fault. Should never happen.

Thanks for the welcome back. I agree with this. Children die from swallowing poison that is not locked up once they can learn to crawl. If a small child kills himself with a gun it is 100% on the gun owner and should no way influence gun legislation. Remember what they taught us in school: "There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people."

 

[Crispin]

Crispin , I agree fully. I would like to state that the age of five is minimum to shoot a gun should be common sense. I really think few would disagree. But we don't need govt making yet another law.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

Agreed, another law is not necessary. However, when a child accidentally kills himself with a gun I believe the gun owner should be prosecuted for manslaughter. Judges and lawyers would then establish via case law and trial law what age is appropriate to let a child handle a gun unsupervised or at all. This is mostly a just for fun conversation. I doubt very much that few of us would place a loaded gun in the hands of any child under 7y.o. I like packerbacker's discussion on boy scouts. There is a generalized appropriate age for children to learn to do things. This goes from riding a bike, to swimming, to horseback riding, to camping, to handling a gun.

 

[Crispin]

Unfortunately there are plenty of parents without common sense that would benefit if something was a law. You would think that child car seats would be compleat common sense but automotive related child/infant deaths declined significantly once the laws were enacted.

I thought most of you believed that most people were dumb mindless sheeple?? I know that I would not give most the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their children

I don't give most people the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think a law would change things. Car seat deaths declined because when you drive you are visible to cops or random pullovers. After getting a ticket and possible jail time for not having their child in the right seat people tend to learn. Guns are usually not shot on public roads or in public settings. Hence, people will just do what they want and ignore the law because there is no realistic fear of punishment. I think car seats is a poor analogy in this example.

Crispin

 

[0121stockpicker]

I don't give most people the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think a law would change things. Car seat deaths declined because when you drive you are visible to cops or random pullovers. After getting a ticket and possible jail time for not having their child in the right seat people tend to learn. Guns are usually not shot on public roads or in public settings. Hence, people will just do what they want and ignore the law because there is no realistic fear of punishment. I think car seats is a poor analogy in this example.

Crispin

I'm not too sure about that one. I believe plenty of people follow the laws. And frankly if it saves a handful of children a year it's wroth while. I also believe that laws serve to highlight what society finds to be incorrect behavior. I think highlighting that handing a gun to a child is against the law (ie wrong) with also serve as a deterrent. Yes some people will flaunt the law for there own reasons - but many will not I believe. Not everyone wants to "rebel" against the evil government.

 

[Crispin]

I'm not too sure about that one. I believe plenty of people follow the laws. And frankly if it saves a handful of children a year it's wroth while. I also believe that laws serve to highlight what society finds to be incorrect behavior. I think highlighting that handing a gun to a child is against the law (ie wrong) with also serve as a deterrent. Yes some people will flaunt the law for there own reasons - but many will not I believe. Not everyone wants to "rebel" against the evil government.

Yeah, you have good points there. Maybe the government should put together my suggested think tank. Can you imagine anything like that ever getting passed though? So far, laws are only getting passed at the state level. To get anything like that through congress would take an act of God. Of course, nobody could say that it would violate children's constitutional rights as you don't get those until you turn 18y.o. or become emancipated. In conclusion, I agree with your counterpoints but I still think the car seat analogy was a poor analogy.

 

[dieselram94]

Agreed, another law is not necessary. However, when a child accidentally kills himself with a gun I believe the gun owner should be prosecuted for manslaughter. Judges and lawyers would then establish via case law and trial law what age is appropriate to let a child handle a gun unsupervised or at all. This is mostly a just for fun conversation. I doubt very much that few of us would place a loaded gun in the hands of any child under 7y.o. I like packerbacker's discussion on boy scouts. There is a generalized appropriate age for children to learn to do things. This goes from riding a bike, to swimming, to horseback riding, to camping, to handling a gun.

Absolutely prosecute the person who is irresponsible enough to allow a child to be unsupervised with a gun or just plain reckless. I believe this falls under endangering the welfare of a child anyways so no new law is needed.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2