As I'm watching the picture defining the hub of the day, I can't but ponder what model for a society does it give to future generation? What image does it give to represent hubpages? Do you want to be seen as a cilvilized society, that grows and improves or do we want to show it digressing?
As I wrote a negative comment related to the hub (it will be rejected by its author), it is a good time to debate on the subject since nobody was shocked by it!
You are absolutely right. I saw it as the hub of the day and didn't bother to look at the picture. I assumed if it's the hub of the day, it has to be O.K. The author could have used a different picture that would still get here point across. From what I could tell the picture was really not representitive of the content, unless the picture was part of the message.
I will assume that Hubpages is a worldwide writing platform, what would we have thought if instead of a caucasian type, the father was a middle-eastern type man with his kid? Or because he is caucasion, therefore acceptable by the comunity? What is the editor doing? Not a very serious job!
Peoplepower don't you think that the choice of a picture defines a text, therefore defines the author? Why do we pick a picture to illustrate our hubs versus another if it doesn't correspond to our idea, our ideal?
You make some very good points and I can't speak for the author or what was going through her mind in using that picture. I know she is in the Apprentice Program. One of the things they teach is how to write hubs that promote products. But as they say: "A picture is worth a thousand words."
I guess if she is in the Apprentice program it is justified! Your clemence peoplepower is in your honor! It is too easy! But it says a lot about the teaching and therefore, the teacher!
I was shocked by that picture too! I didn't bother to even click to read, as I didn't want to be part of the traffic that hub will get as HOTD. I agree, poor judgement on the part of the author and the hubpages editors. Just yesterday I was thanking them, as they honored me with the HOTD. Now I am questioning their judgement.
Contrary to your wise behavior Donnah, I clicked but did not read the hub (not worthy for me). I wondered what a hubber encouring violence would teach me!
I am startled to see that image on HOTD. Even if the content is great, there could have been a more appropriate image for security. Think of the message it sends to children.
I hope this isn't how HP wants to attract traffic.
Wow. A whole pack of people reacting AND COMMENTING on something they didn't even read. Congratulations, America, this is why the political system has failed.
Unlike the rest of you who leapt to mortification, I went and looked. It is only an article, after all, words on the screen and some images.
It's an assemblage of tips we've all heard before about how to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of a crime. While the advice is fine, and perfectly good, it also has an unintended effect (hopefully unintended, as I hate fear mongering) of creating fear. It opens with the admission that the crime rates in America have been plummeting for decades, but then goes on to make it sound as if people are in danger at all times. Which is fine, I get the fear-based culture we live in. I just don't understand why people buy into. (Actually I do, because the media hypes every horrible event hour after hour for weeks and sometimes months and months until they get a new one to over-play, but I don't want to get off point.)
That said, there is no exhortation for the building of a child militia. There is no call for kids to take up arms against the onslaught of Danger X. There is one picture, of a sailor, a member of the U.S. Armed forces who goes out every day to serve and protect his nation, standing next to a kid who looks simply ecstatic at having the opportunity to be near this brave warrior and even gets to hold a real version of the things he sees every day in his video games, his cartoons and tv shows, his comic books, and the movies he goes to (a.k.a. part of his life). Furthermore, the trained adult (the sailor) is RIGHT THERE with him, supervising the boy, and likely the sailor even instructed him on some basics of safe handling of a firearm. That is what every adult during my childhood did when we went out target shooting or hunting. I can't think of anyone more qualified to show a kid how to be around firearms than a member of the armed forces.
So, rather than this ridiculous, TOTALLY UNINFORMED reaction to something you admitted you didn't read, why not at least read it and see if you can't at least manufacture something from the piece to be mad about somehow. I'm sure you could figure out a way to be offended if you worked hard enough, and at least then it would be based in something other than nothing.
SB, I did scan the hub before commenting. I don't see that the image is appropriate for the content of the hub.
Yes, I admire those who serve our country, but I don't see that a large weapon placed in front of your child is sending the right message for security.
I realize that a lot of people are opposed to firearms. It frustrates me, but I get that it is a real opinion in the real world. However, just as many people don't share that opinion, and so there is no reason why an image of a responsible adult sharing a real and Constitutionally guaranteed experience should be frowned upon.
I understand your fear, but I feel it is based in the expectation of irresponsibility on the part of the sailor and any other American for whom he "stands-in" in that picture.
When the 2 amendment was ratified in 1791, the state of the art weapon was the flintlock. It fired one shot and was highly inaccurate. They had no idea about high capacity, automatic assault weapons that can reak mass destruction as the one shown in the picture.
That argument suggests that they were foolish (or stupid) and unable to recognize the progression of weaponry from the club and spear to the muskets (and other weapons) of their time.
They were not foolish or stupid, and they understood military progress just fine.
Just because they didn't draw a picture of whatever it was we'd have today doesn't mean they didn't fully understand exactly what we would have today. They completely knew it. THAT was the point of putting it in document. They knew that a future tyranny would have to be thrown off by a future populace armed with future weaponry. They knew that from the time of Athens, democracy always, always, always, always ends in tyranny. It's never tyranny of the people, it's tyranny of the few. They knew perfectly well that when that day came, which it will, the only way to prevent it, or tear it down, was to have a population that was armed.
The fact that we have allowed ourselves to restrict what we can have as severely as we have, only serves the tyrants to come. But, I have a feeling you won't believe me. You'll write them off as dumb old guys from a bygone age, you'll ignore the warnings of all the fallen democracies in the past, the lot of them taken over by despots and dictators for centuries of oppressive and brutal rule to follow.
The 2nd amendment was part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights was passed because the anti-federalist movement had a fear that the constitution did not have enough teeth in it to protect the federal government from infringing on the right's of the people and the states. From what I have read in history, that was an immediate cause.
I like the way you put yourself in the place of the framers as being visonaries that knew we were going to be be attacked by a tyrantical few. So are you saying we need high capacity, assault rifles to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the few? Who are the few? Or do they not exists yet and it's just a matter of time. In the mean time we have crazies that take out groups of innocent people with mass destructive weapons, while we arm ourselves for those tyrannts that are yet to come.
Here is what the 2nd amendment said in 1791 and it has not been changed: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If you are actually interested, go read about the debates over the second amendment from back when it was being talked about. It's fascinating reading, and, because all sides articulated their points so well, this forum conversation is not even a sad echo of what they covered, especially given that this forum conversation began by a host of people who didn't read the article. The irony is painful here.
I am amazed that you don't think they were visionaries. I can't even imagine what counts for visionary in your world if they don't.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Look at our military, awesome as it is, powerful as it is. We went into Afghanistan and took over in like three days. But we still can't put the fight away. Why is that? Because their population was armed with 20 year old AKs.
I hope you can stay with me here, because the natural reaction to this response sends a lot of anti-gun folks into an anti-war tizzy and they just can't keep their emotions in check. They run off on a reflexive tangent and completely miss the point here. The point is (regardless of how you feel about the war or its justification), with only rusty old assault rifles, a bunch of donkey-cart riding goat farmers have held the awesome military might of the US at bay for over a decade.
The few are the oligarchy or the hegemony or the plutocracy that are squeezing our country dry, as is always the case in a democracy, because the population is never attentive enough to stay on top of it, and too easily led astray with the least bit of sophistry (which the modern media makes super easy and effective). Marx wrote about how all this works, so, if you have read his work on wealth and how power plays out, you should understand how, at some point, the people will need to "take it back." It's always been the case, always, without exception, in every culture through all of time (excepting those cultures who are too weak and don't last long enough to accumulate wealth, obviously, or those whose leadership is so bad they implode and destroy themselves before things get bad enough, etc.). If you haven't read Marx (or if you read it with a "them commies is bad" filter), then you should try it again with your philosopher's hat on.
Yes, this is precisely what a nascent (burgeoning?) plutocracy wants you to believe. Focus on the rare incidents, the statistically insignificant (Not saying the loss of life is insignificant, it's awful, but if you look at how many people own guns, compare that to the population, you will see that the number of deaths is not even remotely close to the 5% necessary to be counted significant in terms of numbers).
And I realize, you will immediately say, "If that was someone you loved who was killed, you would think it significant." Yes, I would. I get that. Policy is applied philosophy and it is the realm of balancing the real world on the macro scale and the real world on the micro scale. No war is ever worth it if you ask the mother of a fallen son. But I don't think you'll find too many people who will argue that we shouldn't have participated in World War II. BAM, now you have a paradox. Welcome to reality. It's the old "lesser of two evils" if you will.
The framers got it. I get it. You don't. I understand you probably won't agree with me here. But, frankly, I'd rather side with the framers than with someone who thinks they weren't visionaries.
Like I said, go read the conversation around it. While you're at it, read all the Federalist Papers. If you truly care and don't just like to jump onto Internet forums and have an opinion, you may find a marvelous exchange between astounding and incredibly well-read intellects. Far beyond anything I could give you to explain how it works or how, despite having the same differences of opinions you and I have, they still came to the conclusion it was better to put it in.
I like the way you argue with yourself and speak for other people. First off the soviets fought in Afghanistan for 10 years and lost. Why, because we and the Israel's armed the Mujahedeen with state of the art weapons, stinger missiles, RPGs and so on. That's why they were able to bring down soviet helicopters and tanks. Who do think is using those now against us. Did you watch Charlie Wilsons' War? Secondly, they are great at what used to be called Guerilla warfare. Third, war is big business, do you think the defense contractors and everybody connected with it want it to stop? Fourth, we will never leave Afghanistan because of the Caspian Sea oil fields. Russia, China, England, we and Israel want it. Because, the shortest route for a pipeline to the sea is through Afghanistan.
As far as an Oligarchy and Plutocracy goes. We already have an oligarchy and plutocracy. That just means a few families or moneyed interests control the masses. These people are controlling us with money, not weapons. As you say history has shown that democracy always ends up failing. Do you think that is going to happen in your life time or the next few life times? So I can't wrap my head around what these tyrants would look like, Would they walk the streets and try to take over your house with armed weapons and then we would shoot then with our arms that we are allowed to bear because of the 2nd amendment? Would it be our military? Help me understand what you people who want to protect yourself envision this tyrannical force to be. I see this as nothing more than a giant what if game that scares the hell out of people. By the way, it was the anti-federalist, not the federalist that wanted the bill of rights. You are making some assumptions when you think I have not done the research.
Here is my hub page on Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment, if you care to read it.
http://peoplepower73.hubpages.com/hub/G … -Amendment
Thank you. It's called "anticipating objections." While you can't anticipate all possible objections, or even those that will come up for sure, you can eliminate those you feel are most likely or most common. It's considered a respectful and efficient form of argumentation and the exchange of differing opinions between two intelligent parties, allowing for the movement through ideas towards the mutual seeking of something that can be agreed upon as a right and proper course. Serious debaters, essayists and rhetoricians have done it throughout recorded history, so I felt it was best to do so with you as well, given that you appeared to be interested in having a genuine exchange on this issue.
You make my point for me. Yes, I agree with you, at least in that you are completely correct that people who were armed, even if only with the tiniest fraction of the capacity of larger, more powerful force, can keep that more powerful force from taking over. That was completely and entirely the point I was making, so I'm glad you understand it even if I don't think you see it as it relates to my point. I think you don't see it because, just as I suspected and said you might, you were distracted by the mention of the war, which then prompted you to run off into your opinion of the war, which is why this is such a hard conversation to have with people because they usually can't keep their political opinions about the war separate from their opinions about an armed populace, and therefore they are unable to discern the specific argument being forwarded through the use of that example. I am, however, aware that this usually happens in this debate, which is why I asked that you try to stay with my point and avoid being drawn off into another issue. Unfortunately, you did not, so, c'est la vis.
Yep, they are.
Yes, they are, and no, not yet. You are correct.
Nobody ever sees it coming. I like to hope not, but I've read way too much history to think it can't happen in the course of one bad event. One or two attacks somewhere, one bad disease breakout followed by a riot in three cities... POOF, 90% of the population will be begging for a strong leader. Ten years later they'll look up from under the yoke and wonder WTF happened.
Now you're just being stubborn. Do you really expect me to explain every possible scenario? You say you've done research and read history, so there are several hundred really good ones you could pick from right off the top. And if history is too droll, go read some sci-fi. I think it's a failure of imagination or a simple unwillingness to concede even the tiniest point in this argument that prevents you from being able to figure this part out.
Yes, that is the game that the NRA and those guys play. I think they work against the thing they want to protect by being sneaky and manipulative. I hate when they do that. But then again, the other side of the debate does it too. Every few years or so when some nut job loses it with a gun, the anti-gun crowd jumps all over it and exploits it to incite fear. If they were that worried about preventing injury and death, they'd be demanding that automobiles stop being produced. Our country is so full of fear about everything it's lost its mind.
Neither of those were points I made. I suggested that if you haven't read the debates and/or the Federalist Papers you should. I'm thinking from that response you have not read the Federalist Papers. So, I will suggest it again. I think you would enjoy the crap out of them. It's amazing reading, time spent in great minds. Great stuff.
I'm going to keep this real simple. I beieve this country is divided into two camps: Those that feel they need weapons to protect themselves from the boogie man and those that feel they don't need weapons to protect themselves from the boogie man because there is no boogie man and if there was, they have faith in the protective mechanism of this country. In the mean time we have crazies that use weapons of mass destruction to kill innocent people. It's almost as if the ones who are afraid of the boogie man are saying, I don't care if the crazies do that because I have my weapons to protect me.
As far as Afghanastan goes, you are the one who baited me and I took the bait...nice job. By the way, it's not every few years that some nut job loses it with a gun. We now have three in less than six months. How many does it take?
I agree with this, even if I am forced to let "boogie man" stand in as a term representing tyrannical rule. I don't blame you for using the pejorative to try to minimize my position, and that of so many of the founding fathers, because this is an emotional issue these days.
People always have faith in the protective mechanisms of their society right up until the system fails, which every system has, always, in all cases through history. Frankly, I admire your optimism. You're willing to bet it all on the nobility of human nature suddenly having changed and on the hopes that we are going to see the first instance ever where history didn't repeat itself.
I'm not sure what you think has changed about the nature of humanity, particularly given all the nut jobs you keep mentioning (not to mention the plutocracy you admit exists, the scale of modern corruption etc.), but I do think it's a delightful bit of optimism. As long as it doesn't happen during our lifetime, who cares?
That's like... anti-visionary thinking.
Yes, we do have crazies using guns, and occasionally weapons of mass destruction (based on the pre-rhetorical conscription of the term), although there haven't been a lot of very successful bombing or chemical attacks—a couple for sure, and really bad at that, but I haven't seen any move to ban any of the stuff we can make bombs with. Seems sort of random selection, but then, most people like to fertilize their gardens and stuff, so they don't want THAT stuff off the market. They don't want cars or knives off the market either. Or legal pharmaceuticals. Way, way more people are killed with those every year, but, that's different. We like that stuff. Only the stuff we don't like is what we want outlawed. It has nothing to do with death counts per capita, it's about emotional reflex.
And I really wasn't trying to bait you there. I was trying to show how a population can hold off a conqueror pretty well even if it is barely, marginally well armed by comparison to the stronger force.
I did try to get you to see my purpose in bringing that up before getting to the example. I genuinely was not trying to bait you. I think it's a very valid example of what a population can do when armed. But I do admit it can be hard to isolate that example when it is being drawn from a larger, and more emotional context of the war.
I am more concerned about terrorist that try to attack us. They don't even have to be sucessful. But each time they attempt to do it, we lose a little bit more or our freedom. It's called a force multiplier, e.g. shoe bombers, crotch bombers, liquid bombers. toner cartridge bombers. One person can send the whole country into a tailspin by just attempting to attack us. Those are the things we should be concerned with, not with the eventuality of tryanny. It's much easier for one to feel in control when they have a gun. But when a person is willing to give up his or her life for a cause, it's much more difficult to deal with.
I think we may have come super close to having total agreement here. You are arguing that giving up freedom for the sake of security is a bad thing. I totally and completely agree. I hope you can see how I feel that giving up my 2nd Amendment rights because some douche went on a rampage falls into the exact same category. (I realize you won't agree, but I hope you can see how close you and I actually are on all but that detail... meaning, we have mainly common ground here. )
I am not opposed to firearms. I'm making an observation about an image. I realize many don't have an issue with the image.
It's not about fear. It's more about the message it sends, that we need weapons to remain safe and secure in our homes. Perhaps that wasn't her intent with the image.
Well, I would bet it was the intent of them putting that in there. I think it just failed in creating any alarm, since it shows the ideal setting for a kid to be exposed to guns.
Perhaps. I'm the daughter of a WW11 veteran. But Dad never showed me a weapon, other than how to clean a hunting rifle. He used it to shoot rabbits.
Now I'm off to listen to Shine on you crazy diamond with a glass of cabernet.
Always a pleasure, Shades.
I didn't read the hub, I was too shocked by the picture. Call me what you want, but an image depicting children and firearms is less than palatable. Maybe it's because I once worked with an adult who was serving a life license for murdering his mother, father and siblings (when he was just 18). When asked why he stated that "it was the only way he could gain respect, it was the only and ultimate way,to gain my father's respect and show him that I was at last a man."
I didn't read the article because I found the photo to be against my personal belief that SMALL CHILDREN should not be handling guns. I don't live my life led by fear in this country which seems to enjoy fearmongering. I don't necessarily oppose guns, if they are used in the right circumstances. I just can't imagine a circumstance that is appropriate for a small child. Showing a child a gun glorifies war and killing, in a way. (No, I don't wish to debate that.) I also don't believe that we should use guns to protect our personal homes. I know that others do believe that, and as far as I am concerned, they can believe and live how they like. I however was taken aback by the photo. Therefore I chose not to read the article and to respond here when I saw that others felt the same way. If the photo doesn't represent the content, then I suppose the author should have picked a different photo.
I agree, it was a bad choice as a bit of marketing (like picking a book cover or something). She had to know a large portion of potential readers would freak out. Since she's not trying to sell guns or promote a pro-gun stance, it does seem a pointless inclusion. There's no mention of firearms in the article at all. Only the photo caption touches on it. She's obviously cost herself readers, and pointlessly, because she isn't even preaching to the choir in that hub. Why alienate any readers, regardless of whether it seems reasonable or not? Views are views.
I live in the friggen' 'hood. I always feel safe, and I love my home. I am also a retired California correctional officer and a correctional youth counselor. I would have no problem defending me and my family with the skills that I've learned at two academies. As far as I'm concerned, the tips given in the article is overkill. I don't care who wrote this so-called HOTD, but it seems to be written by someone who thinks all these plans guarantees safety. So tell me something about safety and security in the home that I don't know about. I give this Hub and HubPages an F- for their efforts. And this includes the photograph with the grinning kid and the supervising parent with the rifle thrown in. You will NEVER see me posing with the weapons that I own or keep in my home. And what I have in the form of weapons to protect me and my family is nobody's business but my own.
Tamarawihite explain us why you used a picture with a kid carrying a gun illustrating your hub?
As a Hub author, she is not required to explain a thing. But since she was insensitive to her audience, she has already had to explain away to readers who have left her comments. They are asking the same question that you are asking. And as long as the photograph remains on that Hub, she will lose ground and credibility with potential readers. I understand that children can be taught to use and respect firearms at an early age. Yeah, I certainly get it. But that photograph is a very poor choice when it comes to illustrate something as simple as safety and security. If you're not going to talk guns as protection, why include a photograph with a child holding a rifle? Who cares if the child is getting lessons from a local policeman? A gun is a gun is a gun. Just a couple of days ago, a six-year-old child in California was pictured aiming a handgun at a camera while sitting in his car seat. People tend to have negative reactions to children holding guns. Her bad.
I have to admit that I did not read the post. What I did notice was a child with a rifle and was turned off by it. If anyone would have asked me in the past about HubPages' policy, I would have said that this image was unacceptable without even blinking. I do not mean to judge; it's just common sense. As a retired veteran and teacher, I'm no stranger to weapons nor young children. I just think they shouldn't. Then again, in a free society as ours, everyone is entilted to his or her opinion.
You are seeking attention. Are you lonely? You sound lonely.
I thought my statement was clear. People can bear guns, I myself shoot. What bothers me is adults giving children weapons! It is a form of indoctrination and encouragement to violence!
So if you teach your kid carpentry and the use of power tools, it's woodcraft indoctrination?
If you teach them to read, is it literary indoctrination?
How about teaching them to ride a horse? Is that teaching them the subjugation of animals?
Teaching them how to manage their money? That must be indoctrination into greed.
Can my kid kill with power tools? Does he need to be registered as a power tools' owner? Do you see where I am heading to or not yet?
Yes, your kid can kill with powertools, and bombs are made with stuff you buy at the hardware store.
No, your kid doesn't have to register to buy one, because nobody is trying to impede or deny his legal right to buy one.
I am entirely familiar with the arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate, so yes, I see where you are going. So, in this particular debate, I can tell you there is no point in arguing, because you're never going to see it my way, nor will I see it yours.
My kid doesn't have to register because a tool is not dangerous, it doesn't require a week background check! As for riding horses. Your analogies are fallacious.
Clearly you've never worked with any tools. Or watched any movies.
My analogies are fine, you just don't like the taste of hypocrisy on your tongue.
A tool is authorized by the government, a weapon has to be given a clearance. Which adult will give a tool to a kid, anyway? From the beginning your argumentation is flawed. I would not because I consider myself as a responsible adult.
The only difference between a weapon and a tool is the intent of the user.
You can train children how to use tools, or you can hope they never come across one on their own and hurt themselves because they don't know what to do with it. That is entirely up to you as a parent.
No, responsibility lies between the father, the mother and the child. No tool, no weapon. It is not a child's world. It is an adult's world.
Well, you live in a different world than I do. Yours appears to be a Utopian one where parents can be present and protecting their babies every waking second of their lives from birth to age 18. That's not the world I live in. I live in a world where s— happens. I prefer to prepare my kids for life, not hide them from it and hope nothing ever goes any way other than precisely according to my Disney-movie inspired plan.
If you can't protect your kid from your weapons and tools, then where's the point of being a parent?
It's not always YOUR weapons and YOUR tools that kids encounter. Kids are curious, and not all parents (your kid's friends for example) are as flawlessly responsible as you fancy yourself to be, much less even as responsible as normal, loving, intelligent, thoughtful and involved human parents are.
The picture I was referring to is definitely not a friend's weapon but a father helping his kid holding his firearm. It is not an invention, it is not part of a utopic world I would be immersed in! It is the harsh reality. Adults share their dangerous hobbies with their children as if their weapons were toys! Making it to the eyes of others, acceptable. The fact that the father is a police officer should reassure us! It doesn't. It only shows his irresponsibility and please don't try to rationalize it!
Today's picture corresponds exactly to what a child is and should be!
Who gives an 8 year old a loaded Uzi? Please tell me why this is allowed at a gun show??
An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.
The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman’s Club, police Lt. Lawrence Vallierpratte said.
Based on interviews after it happened, people were thinking it was part of the thinking that teaching kids to handle guns responsibly is what people ought to do. I'm not a big fan of mixing kids and guns - ever. But, that aside, when it comes to a whole lot of adults who approve of "teaching handling responsibly", a good number aren't sensible enough, themselves, to know how, exactly, to do that. The gun-show incident is an isolated example that received a lot of attention, but it's far from the only one that's ever resulted from a kid's essentially having been invited to think of guns as something that aren't completely off-limits for them.
After the horror of the little boy's killing himself, of course, there was all that talk, "I don't know how this kind of thing could have happened. Kids who shoot here are taught how to handle the gun."
Oh well... It's too bad that what's apparently a perfectly good Hub has lost a lot of readers because so many people do find mixing children and guns (especially huge guns) disturbing. Then again, controversy can work in this business too.
About the boy shooting himself, Who leaves a loaded gun just laying around? Gun show or not, that is the safety measure that someone did not take. Even adults are not the safest people with guns, course we all know that. I personally do not see anything wrong with raising children to know how to properly use a gun and know what the gun can do. Parents should know if their child is responsible enough to be around a gun in the first place.
I was raised around guns and my siblings. We all have raised our children around guns. I do not have an issue with a child using a gun, but they must be under supervision of someone who is responsible. Many of you have an issue with the picture, well I am not understanding what is so wrong with it? How many people let their children play game consoles that have people shooting people? Games with killing monsters. There is many games now that are violent that we allow children to play. Kill, beat them up, steal things. That all teaches children violence. One picture is nothing compared to what the children are being taught everyday at home through playing games.
It is our job as parents to teach our children right from wrong, and how to be responible and respect things. It also depends on the childs maturity if they can be responsible. The picture looks like the adult is being responsible by being right by the child holding the gun. What if the adult was not in the picture? What would your thoughts be then?
There is alot worse harmful things in the world for children than just guns. Most people who own guns, usually keep the guns from children's reach. There are some children who still get them, but that is the parents fault for having a lack of responsiblity. The hub was wrote about Safety, and it is being judged over a picture. I read the hub, it was very informative. No where in the hub was it mentioned, show your kid how to use a gun for their protection. I am pretty sure with the games of today with guns and violence most kids would just grab a gun and shoot it. That's the parents fault.
Teach respect and responsiblity of a gun, or do not let them use it or have access to a gun. Point blank.
My bad on the a loaded gun laying around. I misread the post. But even with adult supervision the child should not have been holding the gun alone. Anyone with gun knowledge knows that there is power in them and a child of 8 can not handle a powerful gun alone. They never should have let the child shoot the gun.
I had problems signing in earlier so came via the front page. The picture of that poor child with that absurd gun more or less screamed that this site is the kind of place sane people would want to avoid.
Who chose that page for hub of the day? Don't they read newspapers?
I did not read that HOTD because the photo with the child holding a gun has turned me off from reading it. I find it disgusting. I know, I should not judge a book by its cover but I could not help it. I read another article instead.
in that HOTD pic in question, the author explained it by saying that the man in the pic is a police officer who had been discussing gun safety with a group of first graders, including the authors child. The question is the appropriateness of the pic to the hub.
in school, they are teaching the children about the things that they should do when there is a fire - fire drill, or if there is a stranger inside the school with a weapon - people drill.
Realism - to show to the kids what is really happening to the real world, not as rosy of course.
Hubs are read by adults and I am not in a position to judge whether the pic is appropriate to the points taken at that hub.
I checked some data from OECD, ownership of guns can be correlated to gun violence, worldwide data - comparison of gun ownership by country crosstabulated with gun crimes.
When you die of degenerative disease (like cancer or diabetes), it is a function of lifestyle and genes plus environment but when you die of violence (non degenerative disease), it is the opposite - could be your lifestyle too.
The role to judge belongs to Hubpages. They banned me for less (I posted a picture of Gustave Courbet's the birth of the world) and here they are allowing a violent picture promoting violence! They have to stick to their ethics! Censorship does exit, it should have been applied.
I, too, saw that photo and was taken aback. So that police officer came to her son's first grade class. I wonder whose idea it was to have the children pose with that gun? Are police officers allowed to let strangers and children handle their weapons? I would think that is a big no-no, but I'm no police officer so what do I know. Where were the principal and the teachers when that was going on?
I do not have police experience, but I do have a little teaching experience, and there is no way I would let my students touch a gun while they were under my watch, even if their parents were there saying it was OK. I'd tell the parents to take their kid over to the police station and let their kids handle guns there if that's what they wanted, but not in my classroom or my school. IMHO it was very poor judgment on the part of the school and the officer to let 6-year-olds handle such a weapon.
It is the privilege of being a responsible adult. Being a policeman or a military man doesn't request to possess BAs in psychology. How many of them beat up/kill citizens with impunity? Are they role models in our societies for them to carry guns? No, and in spite of that fact they carry guns!
This picture illustrates my argumentation.
I agree with everything you said and I will add that it was poor judgment on the part of this parent to include that photo in the hub.
Now that I see what makes HOTD, I won't waste my time writing here.
LMAO! Whoop, Whoop, Whoop! You certainly got that right! Glad to see this one go, and it disappeared pronto! Good riddance! She will never live this one down. LMAO!
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I'm trying to understand RSS feeds. I think the capsule is a reader that aggreates feeds from other websites, but I'm not sure
by Pamela Kinnaird W6 years ago
So why is it on here? I'm referring to the image associated with the hub titled, "Vitamins for Male Menopause." I haven't read the article. I'm not commenting on the author's writing ability....
by Greenjeans5 years ago
I'm new, my first hub will have safari photos, some pretty good.Do I keep ownership of them if I post them here as part of my post?Anything I need to do to protect my ownership?Also, of one's I don't care about...
by R.P. Clark5 years ago
Hello. Does anyone know what the difference is between "Hub Content" and "Author Content?" I understand in the HubPages guidelines it states that you can remove Hub Content at your...
by kathleenkat4 years ago
I like to check Hubpages on breaks at work. Now, I can't access my Hub feed because a Hubber chose to write a Hub about drugs, and Hubpages hasn't caught onto it yet. My organization is pretty fair on what it...
by Kylyssa Shay2 months ago
I have a hub that currently gets an amount of Google views per day I'm not allowed to specify, but which is certainly much more than most of my hubs that have already been moved were getting on Hubpages proper....
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.