Despair - Why aren't we protecting our kids!

Forums › Off topic › Despair - Why aren't we protecting our kids!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 14

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1565006 3-Jun-2016 12:46

joker97:

MikeB4:

floydbloke:

Anyone spoken to Sue Bradford lately to find out how her anti-smacking law is working out?

The legislation was never intended to be an instant fix because there is not an instant fix, it takes years if not generations to change attitudes and behaviour. It was a start and a necessary start to change society's attitudes and habits. The resistance to the change is evidence that changing those attitudes will take a long time. It goes in part to educating New Zealand that there are positive alternatives to hitting our young.

NZ is not a safe place for kids and compared to similar countries our record is not good at all, a quarter of a century at the coal face leaves me in no doubt that the anti smacking laws was a positive and important start.

I wonder if it has anything to do with drinking and rugby. Anyone?

NZ drinking (measured as average volume of alcohol consumed per person per annum) is actually neither high nor low compared to other first world countries. I'm sure that alcohol plays a part, but doubt it explains the discrepancy. Rugby - no I doubt that either - anyway would be excluded from child-abuse stats. There are pretty thorough processes in place at A&E depts etc.

Correlations with other things... Multi-generational welfare dependency, that correlating with criminality, drug and alcohol abuse, educational achievement, as well as cultural differences WRT child discipline, those will probably lead to the answer.

Other stats would need to be differentiated out of it. Some things which may result in skewing NZ stats for child injuries, you'd need to be careful not to attribute to "neglect". NZ is (at least for many) a place where kids still have trees to climb, bikes to ride, sea and rivers to swim in. Eliminating risk entirely is not a good idea.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566058 5-Jun-2016 15:31

Having read through this thread I've noticed a very common theme, which is a little off topic, but rankles me none-the-less. I simply can't understand why people keep wanting to put shootings of people under the classification of accidents. Firearms don't accidentally get loaded, they don't accidentally get pointed at other people (although this does happen unwittingly in some cases) and they don't accidentally have their triggers pulled*.

In hunting scenarios you can add that the shooter didn't accidentally fail to identify the target and what was around and behind it. In the case that's prompted this thread, possibly aside from the last point above, I'm more than wiling to bet the firearm didn't accidentally come to be in the possession of the upstanding citizen and I'd also be happy to put money on it not accidentally being taken to the house where it was used.

* Before anyone starts splitting hairs by pointing out "we don't know the trigger was pulled by" - not having the mental capacity to understand potential outcomes diminishes responsibility only. I'm also fully aware some weapons can function without triggers being pulled either through poor maintenance or a design which allows an external pressure (bump or knock, movement of safety switch etc) to activate the firing pin.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1566059 5-Jun-2016 15:34

Dratsab:

Having read through this thread I've noticed a very common theme, which is a little off topic, but rankles me none-the-less. I simply can't understand why people keep wanting to put shootings of people under the classification of accidents. Firearms don't accidentally get loaded, they don't accidentally get pointed at other people (although this does happen unwittingly in some cases) and they don't accidentally have their triggers pulled*.

In hunting scenarios you can add that the shooter didn't accidentally fail to identify the target and what was around and behind it. In the case that's prompted this thread, possibly aside from the last point above, I'm more than wiling to bet the firearm didn't accidentally come to be in the possession of the upstanding citizen and I'd also be happy to put money on it not accidentally being taken to the house where it was used.

* Before anyone starts splitting hairs by pointing out "we don't know the trigger was pulled by" - not having the mental capacity to understand potential outcomes diminishes responsibility only. I'm also fully aware some weapons can function without triggers being pulled either through poor maintenance or a design which allows an external pressure (bump or knock, movement of safety switch etc) to activate the firing pin.

Yep, there is no justifiable reason why the firearm was loaded.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566062 5-Jun-2016 15:40

MikeB4:

Dratsab:

Having read through this thread I've noticed a very common theme, which is a little off topic, but rankles me none-the-less. I simply can't understand why people keep wanting to put shootings of people under the classification of accidents. Firearms don't accidentally get loaded, they don't accidentally get pointed at other people (although this does happen unwittingly in some cases) and they don't accidentally have their triggers pulled*.

In hunting scenarios you can add that the shooter didn't accidentally fail to identify the target and what was around and behind it. In the case that's prompted this thread, possibly aside from the last point above, I'm more than wiling to bet the firearm didn't accidentally come to be in the possession of the upstanding citizen and I'd also be happy to put money on it not accidentally being taken to the house where it was used.

* Before anyone starts splitting hairs by pointing out "we don't know the trigger was pulled by" - not having the mental capacity to understand potential outcomes diminishes responsibility only. I'm also fully aware some weapons can function without triggers being pulled either through poor maintenance or a design which allows an external pressure (bump or knock, movement of safety switch etc) to activate the firing pin.

Yep, there is no justifiable reason why the firearm was loaded.

If the thing was an accident, then also no justifiable reason a child should be able to lay their hands on a gun.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1566064 5-Jun-2016 15:43

networkn:

MikeB4:

Dratsab:

Having read through this thread I've noticed a very common theme, which is a little off topic, but rankles me none-the-less. I simply can't understand why people keep wanting to put shootings of people under the classification of accidents. Firearms don't accidentally get loaded, they don't accidentally get pointed at other people (although this does happen unwittingly in some cases) and they don't accidentally have their triggers pulled*.

In hunting scenarios you can add that the shooter didn't accidentally fail to identify the target and what was around and behind it. In the case that's prompted this thread, possibly aside from the last point above, I'm more than wiling to bet the firearm didn't accidentally come to be in the possession of the upstanding citizen and I'd also be happy to put money on it not accidentally being taken to the house where it was used.

* Before anyone starts splitting hairs by pointing out "we don't know the trigger was pulled by" - not having the mental capacity to understand potential outcomes diminishes responsibility only. I'm also fully aware some weapons can function without triggers being pulled either through poor maintenance or a design which allows an external pressure (bump or knock, movement of safety switch etc) to activate the firing pin.

Yep, there is no justifiable reason why the firearm was loaded.

If the thing was an accident, then also no justifiable reason a child should be able to lay their hands on a gun.

Agreed

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566065 5-Jun-2016 15:45

MikeB4:

networkn:

MikeB4:

Dratsab:

Having read through this thread I've noticed a very common theme, which is a little off topic, but rankles me none-the-less. I simply can't understand why people keep wanting to put shootings of people under the classification of accidents. Firearms don't accidentally get loaded, they don't accidentally get pointed at other people (although this does happen unwittingly in some cases) and they don't accidentally have their triggers pulled*.

In hunting scenarios you can add that the shooter didn't accidentally fail to identify the target and what was around and behind it. In the case that's prompted this thread, possibly aside from the last point above, I'm more than wiling to bet the firearm didn't accidentally come to be in the possession of the upstanding citizen and I'd also be happy to put money on it not accidentally being taken to the house where it was used.

* Before anyone starts splitting hairs by pointing out "we don't know the trigger was pulled by" - not having the mental capacity to understand potential outcomes diminishes responsibility only. I'm also fully aware some weapons can function without triggers being pulled either through poor maintenance or a design which allows an external pressure (bump or knock, movement of safety switch etc) to activate the firing pin.

Yep, there is no justifiable reason why the firearm was loaded.

If the thing was an accident, then also no justifiable reason a child should be able to lay their hands on a gun.

Agreed

Either way, a complete lack of protection of the child. It horrified me so many people in this thread tried to suggest there was any way this could have been an outcome that wasn't entirely preventable.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1566106 5-Jun-2016 17:04

Why arent we protecting our kids?

Because for a significant number of people, rate their personal freedoms, income over people they dont know.

A variation of this is the pedantic attitude that leads people to argue of silly points you see in many threads.

ie guns are bad we should ban them - no its the owners who are bad because I want to keep my gun and I think I am safe.

Its no surprise to me that we only really care about other people when something horrible happens to all of us.

World wars, earthquakes, disasters etc.

I dont care about my neighbours 5 houses away - never spoken to them. But if their was a disaster I would knock on their door.

Why do I only give x% to charity and not a little more, which I could afford to do.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566216 5-Jun-2016 23:10

networkn:

MikeB4:

networkn:

MikeB4:

Dratsab:

Having read through this thread I've noticed a very common theme, which is a little off topic, but rankles me none-the-less. I simply can't understand why people keep wanting to put shootings of people under the classification of accidents. Firearms don't accidentally get loaded, they don't accidentally get pointed at other people (although this does happen unwittingly in some cases) and they don't accidentally have their triggers pulled*.

In hunting scenarios you can add that the shooter didn't accidentally fail to identify the target and what was around and behind it. In the case that's prompted this thread, possibly aside from the last point above, I'm more than wiling to bet the firearm didn't accidentally come to be in the possession of the upstanding citizen and I'd also be happy to put money on it not accidentally being taken to the house where it was used.

* Before anyone starts splitting hairs by pointing out "we don't know the trigger was pulled by" - not having the mental capacity to understand potential outcomes diminishes responsibility only. I'm also fully aware some weapons can function without triggers being pulled either through poor maintenance or a design which allows an external pressure (bump or knock, movement of safety switch etc) to activate the firing pin.

Yep, there is no justifiable reason why the firearm was loaded.

If the thing was an accident, then also no justifiable reason a child should be able to lay their hands on a gun.

Agreed

Either way, a complete lack of protection of the child. It horrified me so many people in this thread tried to suggest there was any way this could have been an outcome that wasn't entirely preventable.

I presume that you could prevent a great deal of harm and neglect/malnutrition/illness etc if only people with household incomes of $250,000 plus, who had passed a psychological assessment of their parenting suitability, were allowed to have children.

I very much doubt anyone advocating for such a policy would get far.

In this instance we have someone who has willingly committed a criminal act (possession of an illegal firearm) and generally it can reasonably be said that criminals are not the best, most responsible parents for a child to have.

I do not dispute it was preventable - although you need either to go to extremes or expect a criminal to behave in a law abiding, sensible way when handling and storing their illegal firearm in order to do so - but I cannot see a clear way to prevent it.

Banning firearms altogether is likely to be a political non-starter and to be honest, since most crimes involving firearms involve illegal ones, they would not be affected by a ban.

It makes more logical sense to control who can have children and who cannot, but less practical or political sense.

It's certainly not something to which a straightforward answer exists, in this sort of case at least.

I guess that education in childcare responsibilities, parenting skills and that sort of thing in schools is already done, but if it isn't then it should be.

I do agree that firearms incidents are not accidents: I started shooting aged about 8, and my grandfather's first rule was "Never Point A Gun At Anything You Are Not Prepared To Kill Whether You Think It Is Loaded Or Not". Another one that goes well with the typical duck shooting incidents here is "Alcohol And Guns Do Not Mix. Never Drink Until You Have Finished Shooting And Put Away The Guns!".

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566222 5-Jun-2016 23:21

Geektastic:

I presume that you could prevent a great deal of harm and neglect/malnutrition/illness etc if only people with household incomes of $250,000 plus, who had passed a psychological assessment of their parenting suitability, were allowed to have children.

I very much doubt anyone advocating for such a policy would get far.

In this instance we have someone who has willingly committed a criminal act (possession of an illegal firearm) and generally it can reasonably be said that criminals are not the best, most responsible parents for a child to have.

I do not dispute it was preventable - although you need either to go to extremes or expect a criminal to behave in a law abiding, sensible way when handling and storing their illegal firearm in order to do so - but I cannot see a clear way to prevent it.

Banning firearms altogether is likely to be a political non-starter and to be honest, since most crimes involving firearms involve illegal ones, they would not be affected by a ban.

It makes more logical sense to control who can have children and who cannot, but less practical or political sense.

It's certainly not something to which a straightforward answer exists, in this sort of case at least.

I guess that education in childcare responsibilities, parenting skills and that sort of thing in schools is already done, but if it isn't then it should be.

I do agree that firearms incidents are not accidents: I started shooting aged about 8, and my grandfather's first rule was "Never Point A Gun At Anything You Are Not Prepared To Kill Whether You Think It Is Loaded Or Not". Another one that goes well with the typical duck shooting incidents here is "Alcohol And Guns Do Not Mix. Never Drink Until You Have Finished Shooting And Put Away The Guns!".

For me, the blame in this situation falls staunchly upon the childs parents. Why were they home with someone who's judgement allowed a loaded gun to be anywhere NEAR a child. If that person actually shot the child, then that is still on the parents, and on the person who shot her. It's a gut wrenching (for me) situation to think a 2 year old could die from gunshot wounds in New Zealand.

I don't believe for 1 second that happy safe children who get a good education are required to be in the household earning 250K+ a year. My mother had plenty of faults, but I few up to be a contributing member of society, I believe I have good values, am hard working and I grew up in a house

with zero spare money, but lots of love.

Equally, I know a few households with significantly more than 250K who's kids are demon spawn, with no sense of right or wrong.

Money makes parenting easier, but I don't believe it should be considered a precursor to good parenting.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566276 6-Jun-2016 09:02

networkn:
Geektastic:

I presume that you could prevent a great deal of harm and neglect/malnutrition/illness etc if only people with household incomes of $250,000 plus, who had passed a psychological assessment of their parenting suitability, were allowed to have children.

I very much doubt anyone advocating for such a policy would get far.

In this instance we have someone who has willingly committed a criminal act (possession of an illegal firearm) and generally it can reasonably be said that criminals are not the best, most responsible parents for a child to have.

I do not dispute it was preventable - although you need either to go to extremes or expect a criminal to behave in a law abiding, sensible way when handling and storing their illegal firearm in order to do so - but I cannot see a clear way to prevent it.

Banning firearms altogether is likely to be a political non-starter and to be honest, since most crimes involving firearms involve illegal ones, they would not be affected by a ban.

It makes more logical sense to control who can have children and who cannot, but less practical or political sense.

It's certainly not something to which a straightforward answer exists, in this sort of case at least.

I guess that education in childcare responsibilities, parenting skills and that sort of thing in schools is already done, but if it isn't then it should be.

I do agree that firearms incidents are not accidents: I started shooting aged about 8, and my grandfather's first rule was "Never Point A Gun At Anything You Are Not Prepared To Kill Whether You Think It Is Loaded Or Not". Another one that goes well with the typical duck shooting incidents here is "Alcohol And Guns Do Not Mix. Never Drink Until You Have Finished Shooting And Put Away The Guns!".

For me, the blame in this situation falls staunchly upon the childs parents. Why were they home with someone who's judgement allowed a loaded gun to be anywhere NEAR a child. If that person actually shot the child, then that is still on the parents, and on the person who shot her. It's a gut wrenching (for me) situation to think a 2 year old could die from gunshot wounds in New Zealand.

I don't believe for 1 second that happy safe children who get a good education are required to be in the household earning 250K+ a year. My mother had plenty of faults, but I few up to be a contributing member of society, I believe I have good values, am hard working and I grew up in a house

with zero spare money, but lots of love.

Equally, I know a few households with significantly more than 250K who's kids are demon spawn, with no sense of right or wrong.

Money makes parenting easier, but I don't believe it should be considered a precursor to good parenting.

I didn't claim that the money was necessary, merely that it was likely you'd eliminate most children with no shoes, no breakfast, no raincoat and so on if only those with money had children.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1566293 6-Jun-2016 10:04

I have stayed out of this discussion because everything is speculation until it is known what actually happened. But I strongly disagree that money has anything to do with good parenting. If anything, the opposite could be true. I’m not saying it is, just that it could be. People who have money may have made choices based on values that place money above other things, like spending time with their children. Again, I am not saying this necessarily has to be the case, just that it can be. I do not see the simple possession of money as a guarantee of anything. There are plenty of examples in the media and elsewhere of poor parents who clearly love their children. Being impoverished doesn’t help, but other things matter more. There seems to be a whiff of the aristocratic English land-owner in the notion that poor people can’t be good parents.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1566306 6-Jun-2016 10:36

Geektastic:
networkn:
Geektastic:

I presume that you could prevent a great deal of harm and neglect/malnutrition/illness etc if only people with household incomes of $250,000 plus, who had passed a psychological assessment of their parenting suitability, were allowed to have children.

I very much doubt anyone advocating for such a policy would get far.

In this instance we have someone who has willingly committed a criminal act (possession of an illegal firearm) and generally it can reasonably be said that criminals are not the best, most responsible parents for a child to have.

I do not dispute it was preventable - although you need either to go to extremes or expect a criminal to behave in a law abiding, sensible way when handling and storing their illegal firearm in order to do so - but I cannot see a clear way to prevent it.

Banning firearms altogether is likely to be a political non-starter and to be honest, since most crimes involving firearms involve illegal ones, they would not be affected by a ban.

It makes more logical sense to control who can have children and who cannot, but less practical or political sense.

It's certainly not something to which a straightforward answer exists, in this sort of case at least.

I guess that education in childcare responsibilities, parenting skills and that sort of thing in schools is already done, but if it isn't then it should be.

I do agree that firearms incidents are not accidents: I started shooting aged about 8, and my grandfather's first rule was "Never Point A Gun At Anything You Are Not Prepared To Kill Whether You Think It Is Loaded Or Not". Another one that goes well with the typical duck shooting incidents here is "Alcohol And Guns Do Not Mix. Never Drink Until You Have Finished Shooting And Put Away The Guns!".

For me, the blame in this situation falls staunchly upon the childs parents. Why were they home with someone who's judgement allowed a loaded gun to be anywhere NEAR a child. If that person actually shot the child, then that is still on the parents, and on the person who shot her. It's a gut wrenching (for me) situation to think a 2 year old could die from gunshot wounds in New Zealand.

I don't believe for 1 second that happy safe children who get a good education are required to be in the household earning 250K+ a year. My mother had plenty of faults, but I few up to be a contributing member of society, I believe I have good values, am hard working and I grew up in a house

with zero spare money, but lots of love.

Equally, I know a few households with significantly more than 250K who's kids are demon spawn, with no sense of right or wrong.

Money makes parenting easier, but I don't believe it should be considered a precursor to good parenting.

I didn't claim that the money was necessary, merely that it was likely you'd eliminate most children with no shoes, no breakfast, no raincoat and so on if only those with money had children.

I stand by my earlier comment. My professional experience is these issues go across socio-economic groups.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566356 6-Jun-2016 11:21

Rikkitic:

I have stayed out of this discussion because everything is speculation until it is known what actually happened. But I strongly disagree that money has anything to do with good parenting. If anything, the opposite could be true. I’m not saying it is, just that it could be. People who have money may have made choices based on values that place money above other things, like spending time with their children. Again, I am not saying this necessarily has to be the case, just that it can be. I do not see the simple possession of money as a guarantee of anything. There are plenty of examples in the media and elsewhere of poor parents who clearly love their children. Being impoverished doesn’t help, but other things matter more. There seems to be a whiff of the aristocratic English land-owner in the notion that poor people can’t be good parents.

It does not. It has to do with feeding and clothing your children.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1566357 6-Jun-2016 11:22

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
networkn:

Geektastic:

I presume that you could prevent a great deal of harm and neglect/malnutrition/illness etc if only people with household incomes of $250,000 plus, who had passed a psychological assessment of their parenting suitability, were allowed to have children.

I very much doubt anyone advocating for such a policy would get far.

In this instance we have someone who has willingly committed a criminal act (possession of an illegal firearm) and generally it can reasonably be said that criminals are not the best, most responsible parents for a child to have.

I do not dispute it was preventable - although you need either to go to extremes or expect a criminal to behave in a law abiding, sensible way when handling and storing their illegal firearm in order to do so - but I cannot see a clear way to prevent it.

Banning firearms altogether is likely to be a political non-starter and to be honest, since most crimes involving firearms involve illegal ones, they would not be affected by a ban.

It makes more logical sense to control who can have children and who cannot, but less practical or political sense.

It's certainly not something to which a straightforward answer exists, in this sort of case at least.

I guess that education in childcare responsibilities, parenting skills and that sort of thing in schools is already done, but if it isn't then it should be.

I do agree that firearms incidents are not accidents: I started shooting aged about 8, and my grandfather's first rule was "Never Point A Gun At Anything You Are Not Prepared To Kill Whether You Think It Is Loaded Or Not". Another one that goes well with the typical duck shooting incidents here is "Alcohol And Guns Do Not Mix. Never Drink Until You Have Finished Shooting And Put Away The Guns!".

For me, the blame in this situation falls staunchly upon the childs parents. Why were they home with someone who's judgement allowed a loaded gun to be anywhere NEAR a child. If that person actually shot the child, then that is still on the parents, and on the person who shot her. It's a gut wrenching (for me) situation to think a 2 year old could die from gunshot wounds in New Zealand.

I don't believe for 1 second that happy safe children who get a good education are required to be in the household earning 250K+ a year. My mother had plenty of faults, but I few up to be a contributing member of society, I believe I have good values, am hard working and I grew up in a house

with zero spare money, but lots of love.

Equally, I know a few households with significantly more than 250K who's kids are demon spawn, with no sense of right or wrong.

Money makes parenting easier, but I don't believe it should be considered a precursor to good parenting.

I didn't claim that the money was necessary, merely that it was likely you'd eliminate most children with no shoes, no breakfast, no raincoat and so on if only those with money had children.

I stand by my earlier comment. My professional experience is these issues go across socio-economic groups.

I'm sure it does: which end of the scale has the most, though?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1566386 6-Jun-2016 11:32

Logic will have it that in the lower and middle incomes the occurrence is greater given that thelse groups make up the majority of society. It does not a have a correlation to cause. The causes are very complex hence there are no easy answers. However the responsibility to do something about it falls on all of society.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 14