Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

School trip to police firing range criticised


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

A police force has been criticised by parents after inviting school pupils to an open day in which they brandished replica guns and were encouraged to 'shoot terrorist' targets on a mock firing range.

The children, who were seven-years-old, were invited to the West Midlands Police firearms training facility in Aston, to learn more about how officers protect the public from terror attacks.

But some of the parents expressed horror after the Year Three pupils were pictured laughing while holding replica weapons including pistols and machine guns.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/26/parents-angered-pupils-shoot-terrorist-targets-visit-police/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be criticized! Imagine taking these kids to a gun range and only giving them toy weapons... They had an excellent opportunity to teach these kids proper firearms control and responsibility by using bb guns or even .22 caliber rifles... Instead they give them mock pistols and rifles (They were NOT machine guns as the article stated in the headlines) and let them use them "hollywood" style reinforcing bad stereotypes and improper usage/control.... They should be ashamed of the wasted opportunity...

 

But then again - isn't self defense illegal for private citizens in the UK? If so what was the point of this activity?

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, doesn't really bother me.  Those can't be any worse than a BB gun or a paintball gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kids have been playing with toy guns since their were real guns. parents need to loosen up . 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kartikg said:

kids have been playing with toy guns since their were real guns. parents need to loosen up . 

But in the past(I was a child in the 50s), in the UK, guns were something from hundreds of miles away in foreign countries. They were something that the vast majority of us never got to see and they did not relate in any way to our lives. We had 'pretend' guns when we played 'cowboys and Indians', which we copied from TV programmes. The world is a very different place now, and here in the UK we view guns very differently from how we used to. Seven year olds shouldn't be anywhere near guns whatever the situation. At all times guns should be treated with the utmost seriousness by adults, especially in the presence of children. An adult should not be giving a child a gun ...... real or replica.

Just in case anyone has forgotten: guns kill! That is their sole purpose. There is NO situation where guns should be treated lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ouija ouija said:

Just in case anyone has forgotten: guns kill! That is their sole purpose. There is NO situation where guns should be treated lightly.

Comeon you HAVE to know using those words is like lighting a fuse in this forum :lol: 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Comeon you HAVE to know using those words is light lighting a fuse in this forum :lol: 

Well, I didn't think about it until you mentioned it! :P But I totally stand by what I said. The situations in the US and the UK are very different so we'll never agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Well, I didn't think about it until you mentioned it! :P But I totally stand by what I said. The situations in the US and the UK are very different so we'll never agree.

Things like "castle doctrine" and "property rights" make the situations quite different, no?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eugeneonegin: But if people don't have access to guns they can't use them to take a life.

Edited by ouija ouija
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark_Grey said:

Things like "castle doctrine" and "property rights" make the situations quite different, no?

Please could you expand on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Taun said:

They should be criticized! Imagine taking these kids to a gun range and only giving them toy weapons... They had an excellent opportunity to teach these kids proper firearms control and responsibility by using bb guns or even .22 caliber rifles... Instead they give them mock pistols and rifles (They were NOT machine guns as the article stated in the headlines) and let them use them "hollywood" style reinforcing bad stereotypes and improper usage/control.... They should be ashamed of the wasted opportunity..

I agree it could have been an excellent teaching opportunity. Not in the way you're thinking (I don't see much use in teaching 7 year olds firearms control when they will probably never hold one) but it could have been a good chance to better educate children about the work the police do. Too often the police are overlooked or even disparaged by the wider community.

Quote

But then again - isn't self defense illegal for private citizens in the UK? If so what was the point of this activity?

Nope. But 'self-defence' by shooting someone in the back as they run away, is. I quite like that system.

8 hours ago, kartikg said:

kids have been playing with toy guns since their were real guns. parents need to loosen up . 

Yes but there's a difference between playing with toy guns and having them 'shoot at terrorist targets'. As I said in response to Taun, a good opportunity, completely wasted.

 

40 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

Guns don't kill;people kill.

See, I hear that a lot from Americans on here. But I'd still rather the guy threatening me was armed with a banana than a gun.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Please could you expand on this?

CAstle doctrine is the notion that your home is your "castle" and deadly force can be used to defend it from intruders, some US states have it some do not and to varying degrees (like everything else in the US.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Things like "castle doctrine" and "property rights" make the situations quite different, no?

 

10 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

CAstle doctrine is the notion that your home is your "castle" and deadly force can be used to defend it from intruders, some US states have it some do not and to varying degrees (like everything else in the US.)

Thanks for that explanation. The trouble is, although in principle the idea of homeowners owning guns to protect themselves sounds sensible, it means that for 99.9% of the time when the home is not under threat, guns are available for children/teens to get hold of or, for someone in the heat of the moment(i.e. argument over boundaries with a neighbour; tiff with lover etc.), to use against the person who has offended them.

It's almost impossible for US citizens and UK citizens to understand each other's point of view on this subject ....... they have literally been born into, and inhabit, different worlds. Plus, it seems to be a modern thing that so many people can't bear to be 'disrespected'. In the US particularly, because of the availability of guns, rather than 'sucking it up' or simply not allowing 'disrespect' to affect one, the answer seems to be to wipe out the person/people that have(allegedly) offended you. So many huge egos in the world now that cannot bear to be upset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to an activity centre when I was in year 7 and one the activities was using air rifles to shoot at targets the shape of a human, those paper targets.  So there's Likely that this happens more often than people thought. Yet you don't see these parents moaning about the use of crossbows which are starting to become popular for kids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

@eugeneonegin: But if people don't have access to guns they can't use them to take a life.

Lee Nelson said, on access to guns and gun homicides: "if I give you a mobile phone, are you more likely or less likely to make a phone call?"

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

Lee Nelson said, on access to guns and gun homicides: "if I give you a mobile phone, are you more likely or less likely to make a phone call?"

More likely to call he police when you need them lol.

But this example is a misplaced one. People naturally want to call others to chat. So the cell phone gives them what they want to do.

Most people don naturally have the desire to kill random people. They just want to have a way to be safe

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Thanks for that explanation. The trouble is, although in principle the idea of homeowners owning guns to protect themselves sounds sensible, it means that for 99.9% of the time when the home is not under threat, guns are available for children/teens to get hold of or, for someone in the heat of the moment(i.e. argument over boundaries with a neighbour; tiff with lover etc.), to use against the person who has offended them.

It's almost impossible for US citizens and UK citizens to understand each other's point of view on this subject ....... they have literally been born into, and inhabit, different worlds. Plus, it seems to be a modern thing that so many people can't bear to be 'disrespected'. In the US particularly, because of the availability of guns, rather than 'sucking it up' or simply not allowing 'disrespect' to affect one, the answer seems to be to wipe out the person/people that have(allegedly) offended you. So many huge egos in the world now that cannot bear to be upset.

I think your view of America's vast gun ownership may be slightly skewed. The number of non-gang related murders is actually very small compared to the number of guns owned per capita. A lot of "gun studies" like to include gang violence and suicides as it significantly bumps up the numbers. I can assure you, the average gun owner is as sane as you or I and no more likely to kill someone.

As for kids getting the guns, that is 100% on the parents. No different than kids getting in to prescription medication or taking the car keys at 1am.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I think your view of America's vast gun ownership may be slightly skewed. The number of non-gang related murders is actually very small compared to the number of guns owned per capita. A lot of "gun studies" like to include gang violence and suicides as it significantly bumps up the numbers. I can assure you, the average gun owner is as sane as you or I and no more likely to kill someone.

Surely that is relevant though? If the gangs couldn't get their hands on guns (or it was harder at least) they would find it harder to kill people. Or at least not kill as many.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I think your view of America's vast gun ownership may be slightly skewed. The number of non-gang related murders is actually very small compared to the number of guns owned per capita. A lot of "gun studies" like to include gang violence and suicides as it significantly bumps up the numbers. I can assure you, the average gun owner is as sane as you or I and no more likely to kill someone.

As for kids getting the guns, that is 100% on the parents. No different than kids getting in to prescription medication or taking the car keys at 1am.

An instance when carrying may save your life:https://youtu.be/lHX5jsomq_U

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

An instance when carrying may save your life:https://youtu.be/lHX5jsomq_U

Uhuh. In France. This school is not in France.

 

ETA: Also, just because this just popped up, an example of where carrying might have wasted a life: 

 

Edited by Setton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Uhuh. In France. This school is not in France.

 

ETA: Also, just because this just popped up, an example of where carrying might have wasted a life: 

 

I take your point, but Britain is becoming more like France and Belgium with regard to the number of attacks. It is human nature to want to feel safe. When you are threatened by deadly weapons (baseball bats), by people who hate you for imposing your values on them because your country's cultural values are different to theirs, isn't it comforting to know that simply showing you are armed allows you to get safely home?

The thread with regard to Sweden trending here shows we need to show we will not be intimidated in our own country.

It is useless relying on governments, in the UK Theresa May can find £1.5 billon to buy 10 votes to finance her lifestyle for the next year (with promises to pay more in 2 years time), but can't find a penny to help local councils remove dangerous cladding from social housing (they have been told to cut back elsewhere), or pay for police officers to protect the public.

We allow this- why?

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Surely that is relevant though?

I don't think it's to relevant to any "gun study" in the simple fact that gang members are criminals. They well get there weapons by any means necessary. All the studies do is make the law abiding people look bad.

On 6/27/2017 at 6:14 PM, Setton said:

'shoot at terrorist targets'

Terrorist targets!!! I think those were non denomination, non religious "bad guy targets"

 

On 6/27/2017 at 8:54 AM, Taun said:

They should be criticized!

I agree with that. It totally p***es me off to see kids holding guns like that. I've taught many young people how to shoot, handle and respect .22 rifles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

We allow this- why?

Because a system has not been set up whereby the population as a whole can vote on individual questions/subjects. We shouldn't only have the choice of voting for a party(that then does whatever it likes), we should be regularly voting on specific questions ........ monthly, weekly even ....... that would be a true democracy! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Because a system has not been set up whereby the population as a whole can vote on individual questions/subjects. We shouldn't only have the choice of voting for a party(that then does whatever it likes), we should be regularly voting on specific questions ........ monthly, weekly even ....... that would be a true democracy! 

A full on 100% democracy (everyone votes on everything) sounds really good, but would not work in practice... Nothing would get done... IMO the best system would be a clear cut division between "administrative" proposals (i.e. regulations for commerce, infrastructure maintenance, foreign policy, safety regulations, etc) which would be handled by elected representatives and "Social" proposals (special taxes, welfare, education, and items that directly affect the citizenry) which would be handled by a popular vote... There are of course problems with this systems as well... Indifferent/lazy citizens, the cost of national/regional voting and the ease with which the media/special interest groups could affect the voting (which of course they do now)...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.