Home raided for childrens safety after picture of child in danger posted on facebook.

[MrVicchio]

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.
=-=-=
Brown said their role is not to go out and search Facebook for photos of children holding weapons.
“In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect,” she said.
The family’s trouble started Saturday night when Moore received an urgent text message from his wife. The Carneys Point Police Dept. and the New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families had raided their home.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...lds-rifle.html

Obviously this is not in anyway indicative of out of control authorities, this child CLEARLY was in danger due to poor parenting and need Government to protect him.

Scary stuff it is.

[Baneblade]

You posted a link to Fox. Nobody will believe the story is true, it must be make believe.

[Figment]

All the search warrant stuff and anti-government fearmongering aside (they should have had a warrant first before entering, obviously).


It's an 11 years old and you're so concerned with the gov, you're ignoring that child gets to use weaponry at that age. Regardless of training and instructions, that's simply typical.


Scary stuff, indeed.

(And again with the FOX News as source... They're going to give you both sides of the story instead of insinuations and fear mongering )

Oh well.

In that case. Here's some other scary stuff.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...un-crazy-U-S-A

[MrVicchio]

Originally Posted by Figment

All the search warrant stuff and anti-government fearmongering aside (they should have had a warrant first before entering, obviously).


It's an 11 years old and you're so concerned with the gov, you're ignoring that child gets to use weaponry at that age. Regardless of training and instructions, that's simply typical.


Scary stuff, indeed.

(And again with the FOX News as source... They're going to give you both sides of the story instead of insinuations and fear mongering )

Oh well.

In that case. Here's some other scary stuff.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...un-crazy-U-S-A

Dude, what's wrong with an eleven year old that's shown he can handle a rifle... having a .22??

[phungus]

Originally Posted by Figment

It's an 11 years old and you're so concerned with the gov, you're ignoring that child gets to use weaponry at that age. Regardless of training and instructions, that's simply typical.

This notion that children need to live in protected bubbles until they are 18 is beyond absurd. A good parent lets their child play with fire, knives, and even lets them drive before they are in their teens. At 11 a child is well enough aware and capable of learning responsible firearm usage.

This IS and example of the nanny state conservatives chime on about. Holding a rifle at 11, loaded or not, is not within the jurisdiction of CSD. If you want your kid to grow up overprotected, unempowered and unable to deal with the realities of world when they are an adult, that's your perogative. But good parents let their children scrape their knees, and they teach them how to be responsible with dangerous technologies, including firearms.

Originally Posted by Figment

(And again with the FOX News as source... They're going to give you both sides of the story instead of insinuations and fear mongering )

Oh well.

I used to know a kid who's mother abused him, and her husband as well. Even threw knives at him and stabbed him once. He and his sisters had multiple visits to the ER for serious injuries. When I worked in the ER I saw two children come in who were killed by their fathers. Child abuse is real, it is horrible, and State services like CSD are necessary. Also Fox news is unreliable, it is definitely possible that this is nothing but hot air where CSD is in the right, but if they are reporting this accurately it is a major example of injustice, and it's even worse because there are children out there who are being legitimately abused who aren't being protected if CSD is prosecuting such cases.

[MrVicchio]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...oto_of_bo.html

Oh look, Fox had the story right... damn, amazing.

[ChipMHazard]

Can't claim that I have much of a problem with a 11 year old boy holding a rifle, I doubt it was loaded.
I certainly don't think it warrants such a harsh response where a phone call would have been more appropriate.
Then again this isn't more strange than a hunter letting his son/daugther hold a hunting rifle, besides it being an M16 made to fire .22s.
Don't feel like I know enough about the familiy to make any judgement on their gun mentality.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Dude, what's wrong with an eleven year old that's shown he can handle a rifle... having a .22??

Yeah what's wrong with pre-pubescent soon to be hormone plagued children having guns and knowing how to handle them?

I mean, it's not like they'd ever possibly get bullied at that age, get a mental knock-up and go on a school revenge killing spree or whatever.

And they never accidentally shoot themselves or friends despite of having had training.

And they would never try to come over as cool to their buddies by showing them their rifles and never pressured into letting the kid without training hold or fire the thing.

It's not like they're in a psychologically easily influenceable state of mind at that age.



I'm not saying there's no way a child could handle it responsibly, I'm saying that there's a relatively large chance they do not quite understand the potential consequences, or can't relate to those properly.

You can say all you want about an individual potentially or potentially not doing some of those examples, but in the end, you don't know till something happene. And by then a cure is too late. The only thing you can do is prevention till they're at an age where they've psychologically grown and matured (at which point psychological tests should indicate whether they've matured sane and responsible and don't have some sort of violence fetish or potential).




Speaking of children with guns, what's wrong with child soldiers?

It's simply irresponsible and unethical and I don't care how good an instructor the guy is, children should never have access to guns.


However, I'll give you that a picture on facebook says very little about the dangers of this particular situation, as you don't know the entire circumstances (gun loaded or not, is he pointing it in the general direction of some bystander, can he normally gain access to these weapons, etc). On the other hand, it does raise questions about what happens off screen and in that respect, is it that much to ask to check and verify how a weapon is stored, handled? ie. if a gun owner is as responsible as the person claims to be?


IMO fire inspections should occur more often too. Fires occur too frequently when they could easily have been prevented. The whole notion of being insulted or feeling invaded because you've been checked and held accountable for responsibilities you've taken upon yourself is simply ridiculous.



You want a government with checks and balances since you don't trust others, but you don't want to be held accountable or checked yourself since everyone should just trust you. Sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by phungus

This notion that children need to live in protected bubbles until they are 18 is beyond absurd. A good parent lets their child play with fire, knives, and even lets them drive before they are in their teens. At 11 a child is well enough aware and capable of learning responsible firearm usage.

Ehr no. A good parent does not let them play with it. Those things aren't toys.

Children should be educated about the hazards and what to do in case of being faced with it as a threat, not about how to start a fire, how to handle knives against someone else. Also certainly not how to drive before they're 16-18 years old and then by an actual instructor, not by the parents.

Per capita, the USA with much laxer driver's license requirements and parental supervision for starting drivers have exactly three times the amount of fatal car accidents compared to us and they're waaaaaaaay down on the road safety list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

So no, I don't agree at all, reality shows otherwise: everywhere where parents let younger teens learn to drive, traffic accidents increase proportionally. Why? Because parents aren't usualy good drivers themselves and certainly aren't per definition good in complete knowledge transfer and are less objective and therefore less critical when faced with their own children. Something that's been taught wrong from the start, is also very hard to correct.

In fact, it sounds incredibly naive and irresponsible.




EDIT: Just for fun, these people have a lower traffic mortality rate than the USA:


The USA scores worse in traffic accidents than Cambodia. >_____>

I mean. Seriously? Cambodia? :/

[MrVicchio]

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah what's wrong with pre-pubescent soon to be hormone plagued children having guns and knowing how to handle them?

I mean, it's not like they'd ever possibly get bullied at that age, get a mental knock-up and go on a school revenge killing spree or whatever.

And they never accidentally shoot themselves or friends despite of having had training.

And they would never try to come over as cool to their buddies by showing them their rifles and never pressured into letting the kid without training hold or fire the thing.

It's not like they're in a psychologically easily influenceable state of mind at that age.



I'm not saying there's no way a child could handle it responsibly, I'm saying that there's a relatively large chance they do not quite understand the potential consequences, or can't relate to those properly.

You can say all you want about an individual potentially or potentially not doing some of those examples, but in the end, you don't know till something happene. And by then a cure is too late. The only thing you can do is prevention till they're at an age where they've psychologically grown and matured (at which point psychological tests should indicate whether they've matured sane and responsible and don't have some sort of violence fetish or potential).




Speaking of children with guns, what's wrong with child soldiers?

It's simply irresponsible and unethical and I don't care how good an instructor the guy is, children should never have access to guns.


However, I'll give you that a picture on facebook says very little about the dangers of this particular situation, as you don't know the entire circumstances (gun loaded or not, is he pointing it in the general direction of some bystander, can he normally gain access to these weapons, etc). On the other hand, it does raise questions about what happens off screen and in that respect, is it that much to ask to check and verify how a weapon is stored, handled? ie. if a gun owner is as responsible as the person claims to be?


IMO fire inspections should occur more often too. Fires occur too frequently when they could easily have been prevented. The whole notion of being insulted or feeling invaded because you've been checked and held accountable for responsibilities you've taken upon yourself is simply ridiculous.



You want a government with checks and balances since you don't trust others, but you don't want to be held accountable or checked yourself since everyone should just trust you. Sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

I've been handling guns... most of my life. When I was in HS during hunting season guns racks would have rifle on em. Hell gun racks often had a rifle on em.

YOU are a coward, you are AFRAID of guns, you think children are fragile little being that need to be controlled, and protected from "danger". Don't ever be a parent. My son is thirteen, we have a M870 pump action shot gun for home defense. I've ensued that not only does he know how it works, but how to fire it if ever the time arose. My cousin grew up with 3-4 rifles in his closet. We used to run around their property clearing varmints and when he got older he would go hunting. OFTEN with other teen boys his age.

I'm far more concerned with my son behind the wheel of a car, then I am with him around a firearm.

You are also very unwise.

Originally Posted by Figment

You want a government with checks and balances since you don't trust others, but you don't want to be held accountable or checked yourself since everyone should just trust you. Sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

Do you realize the purpose of checks and balances is to keep Government from gaining too much power and interfering with our lives? Denying our Rights, our Liberty and our Freedoms?

Just who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously, you arrogantly demand we surrender our liberty based on your false fear of guns and think it's only proper we subjugate ourselves to intrusions of our freedoms for "our own protection".

People like you are...

Ben Franklin had words for folks like you:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[MrVicchio]

Originally Posted by Figment

Ehr no. A good parent does not let them play with it. Those things aren't toys.

Children should be educated about the hazards and what to do in case of being faced with it as a threat, not about how to start a fire, how to handle knives against someone else. Also certainly not how to drive before they're 16-18 years old and then by an actual instructor, not by the parents.

I learned to drive at 14, on a ranch, in a big old pick up truck with 3 on the tree. I'm a far better driver then you will ever hope to be. My cousins same thing. When I go visit my Aunt and Uncle, when we cross the gate to their property, I get out the drivers seat, hand the keys to my son and teach him how to operate the car. When he's at his Great Uncles like he was this Spring break he got to drive the BIG ASS tractor around the property. Hauling wood, pushing over trees. He tended the giant burn pile, used power tools...

Originally Posted by Figment

Per capita, the USA with much laxer driver's license requirements and parental supervision for starting drivers have exactly three times the amount of fatal car accidents compared to us and they're waaaaaaaay down on the road safety list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

We also have more cars, faster speed limits, longer roads. Hell I drive 27.5 miles one way just to get to work.

Originally Posted by Figment

So no, I don't agree at all, reality shows otherwise: everywhere where parents let younger teens learn to drive, traffic accidents increase proportionally. Why? Because parents aren't usualy good drivers themselves and certainly aren't per definition good in complete knowledge transfer and are less objective and therefore less critical when faced with their own children. Something that's been taught wrong from the start, is also very hard to correct.

You want people controlled, not free.

Originally Posted by Figment

In fact, it sounds incredibly naive and irresponsible.




EDIT: Just for fun, these people have a lower traffic mortality rate than the USA:

http://youtu.be/ZWHICBrnKNs

The USA scores worse in traffic accidents than Cambodia. >_____>

I mean. Seriously? Cambodia? :/

Again, context. How many highways in Cambodia? Can you travel for 18 hours and STILL not reach your destination in Cambodia? Barring a traffic jam? Hell it takes 12 to go From Corpus Christi to Wichita Ks!

You have no context for what you speak, just bumper sticker logic.

[Figment]

So many false assumptions, accusations, insinuations and assertions made there, not even going to bother with the fragrant personal attacks.

As for the anecdotes, replace them with hunting accident anecdotes. Also funny that you think driving a tractor on a farm makes you capable of driving on the Champs Elysée and around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or in the dense traffic of Rome. You wouldn't last 2 seconds without a dent with that little experience. Longer straight empty roads don't lead to more accidents. Twisty speedy cramped roads do. Ever drove through the mountains in Italy or Spain?

You have more cars per capita? Yes, approximately half more. Yet that would account for 3x higher casualties per capita? No, it doesn't. Since other nations with less cars can have worse accident statistics and nations with more cars have less accidents. Differences? Driving education.

Germany has many roads without speed limits. Yet they have far less accidents than you. How do you figure that?


Do you ever even fact check? You just assume you're a better driver because of what? What? Do tell me. You just assume. You haven't checked, you just assume. You're an enormous twat at times, you know that? Whenever you don't argue with fact, but argue with ego. And your ego is at times way too big when national pride is involved.



PS: for the record, I drive 22 km to university everyday and 120-180km to visit family and I do that on one of the busiest highway networks in the world. On holidays we drive to Spain, which is about 1200km, through France, usualy taking a lot of inner roads to avoid the traffic and tolls, though we see plenty highway. UK's crramped country roads with zero visibility due to 2m high hedges (and driving on the wrong side of the road) is fun too. 27.5 miles along long straight empty rural roads is your best? Maybe you should get out more!

[MrVicchio]

Originally Posted by Figment

So many false assumptions, accusations, insinuations and assertions made there, not even going to bother with the fragrant personal attacks.

As for the anecdotes, replace them with hunting accident anecdotes. Also funny that you think driving a tractor on a farm makes you capable of driving on the Champs Elysée and around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or in the dense traffic of Rome. You wouldn't last 2 seconds without a dent with that little experience. Longer straight empty roads don't lead to more accidents. Twisty speedy cramped roads do. Ever drove through the mountains in Italy or Spain?

You have more cars per capita? Yes, approximately half more. Yet that would account for 3x higher casualties per capita? No, it doesn't. Since other nations with less cars can have worse accident statistics and nations with more cars have less accidents. Differences? Driving education.

Germany has many roads without speed limits. Yet they have far less accidents than you. How do you figure that?


Do you ever even fact check? You just assume you're a better driver because of what? What? Do tell me. You just assume. You haven't checked, you just assume. You're an enormous twat at times, you know that? Whenever you don't argue with fact, but argue with ego. And your ego is at times way too big when national pride is involved.



PS: for the record, I drive 22 km to university everyday and 120-180km to visit family and I do that on one of the busiest highway networks in the world. On holidays we drive to Spain, which is about 1200km, through France, usualy taking a lot of inner roads to avoid the traffic and tolls, though we see plenty highway. UK's crramped country roads with zero visibility due to 2m high hedges (and driving on the wrong side of the road) is fun too. 27.5 miles along long straight empty rural roads is your best? Maybe you should get out more!

You are a European, you are accustomed to being told how to live and cannot understand what Freedom and Liberty truly are. This is the crux of your problem.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

You are a European, you are accustomed to being told how to live and cannot understand what Freedom and Liberty truly are. This is the crux of your problem.

We had freedom of speech and religion while you weren't even a colony. Sucks to be you. And uhm, I wouldn't tell a dutch person you have more freedom. We do. Can you have euthenasia and abortion? No. Can you have gay marriage? No. Can you smoke pot legally? No. Can you drink some alcohol at 16 and everything at 18? Mostly not. In fact, often not till 21. Do we have the most prisoners per capita in the world? No. Do we censor and ban Monty Python Life of Brian? No. Can we visit prostitutes legally? Yes.


Oh and I did some fact checking on speed limits...

You only go to 136km/h on a single road in Texas. In Germany, the speed limit on half the Autobahn is infinite. Most highways in the US don't go over 100-120km/h, most rural roads in France already go to 90km/h, with 130km/h for all highways. In the Netherlands, most highways are 100-120km/h, with zones where you can go up to 130km/h.


Surely the 6km/h on a single road in Texas makes everything in your country so much faster that it kills so many more people.

Fact checking, something that doesn't make you look like a complete fool and a liar.

[Figment]

Oh in fact, we rank 2nd on the freedom scale. You rank 7th (and tie with Chip there).

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploa...-the-world.pdf

Lawl giggles.




EDIT: Oh and guess which colony in the Americas first ensured the Freedom of Religion? Indeed. In 1664 New Amsterdam (founded in 1624, now New York) surrendered to the British, but in the negotiations Freedom of Religion was ensured to continue. Your Pilgrims first found refuge in the Netherlands, before moving to your nation.

You can't go and tell us about freedoms, we introduced many of them on your continent while you were still prosecuting Catholics and Quakers decades later, for crying out loud.