Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Correcting Other People's Children About OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    Continued from the "experiences" thread. The latest:

    Veritas wrote:

    DanM wrote:
    My comments in bold blue:

    Veritas wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    Did you correct the kids? It's never "too soon" to teach kids appropriate facts, especially if they express something in error with respect to certain facts. We want to eradicate error and ignorance in people (especially about guns and gun rights), and nipping it in the bud in their youth is probably best.
    Eh... I think I would personally draw the line at engaging another person's child in discussion. --Ididn'tsay engage in discussion, I said correct errors of fact.-- If people want to ask you questions front of their children, then sure... they should be prepared for the answers. But involving another person's child in an adult discussion -- I didn't say involve a child in an adult discussion; keep correction of facts with children simple and at their level: "No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing."--, especially one that can cause arguments or turmoil --Keeping tosimple corrections of fact which I speak of and avoidingthe "adult discussion" that you speak of precludesyour concern about argument or turmoil.--, is something that I wouldn't do. Regardless of my views on something, I still try to pick my battles properly. --Simple correction of fact = no "adult discussion" = no "battles".--

    I believe that a child should be permitted to grow up into a man or women before someone tries to undermine their parents teachings like this. --How does simple correction of fact, on the spot when presented with a simple error of fact by a child, ("No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing.")undermineanother parent's teachings . . .unless the other parent is teaching lies about facts?-- It might be different if the parents were raising them to be racial bigots or something... but open carry is a right that does not bring harm to others whether an individual chooses to exercise it or not. If someone chooses to open carry or not, doesn't make them "wrong" or anything... it's just their opinion.--Again, I didn't say anything about "adult discussion" or expressing"opinion" . . . just simple correction of fact.-- And some people who support OC truly believe in tactical disadvantages of doing so... so while they may support the cause, it may not be something that they're willing to do themselves. --Again, I talked about simple correction of fact . . . not all that you bring up.--

    Do we know this parent's opinion of the subject? --No, but that is not relevant to simple correction of fact stated by a child.-- Or are we assuming that by keeping an explanation simple to their child that they are ignorant? --All I'm talking about are direct simple corrections to direct simple misstatements of fact by a child . . . assumptions are made at the peril of the assumer-- I don't think it's unreasonable to give a watered down explanation to a child. If you care to disagree, then the next time a little kid asks you where babies come from, I challenge you to give them all the details. "Well son... when a man and a woman love each other very much, or they are extremely drunk after a wild night of partying... and then the ejaculate from the man's penis travels up the fallopian tube of the woman's uterus... and then 9 months later the woman begins to dilate..."--Again, all I'm talking about is adirect simple correction to a direct simple misstatement of fact by a child concerning why someone is open carrying.An open ended discussion of reproduction, and misconceptions (pun intended) surrounding it, with a child iscompletely different and not what I'm talking about.--

    [Long, involved irrelevant analogy deleted, for the same reason above. Responding with "No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing." is entirely appropriate.]

    This isn't anyone's place but the parents', in my opinion. --I disagree. Simple correction of a fact about open carry, on the spot when presented with a simple error of fact by a child, ("No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing.") is entirely appropriate.--
    I'm clear on the fact that you were suggesting to correct the parent. But in doing so, you could be undermining something that the parent is trying to instill, or keep from, their child. Once the parent has been "corrected", it would naturally come with some confusion amongst the child. "But daddy... if he's NOT in the Army like you say he is, then why is he carrying a gun?" Now you've just opened up a whole ball of wax with SOMEONE ELSE'S child. It's not our place to do that. That's all I'm saying.

    For instance, I was in a store once standing behind a man who looked a LOT like Santa Clause. He was wearing jeans and a sweater... the Christmas season was over. A nearby child asked her (presumably) father if the man were Santa Clause. The father said something to the effect, "I don't know honey... it could be!"

    Should I have taken it upon myself to make a "simple correction of fact" by saying, "No little girl... that is NOT Santa Clause, because he doesn't exist."? No... I'll leave the rearing up to the parents.

    I live my life based on the ideals that as long as my thoughts, beliefs, actions, or WHATEVER do not endanger the life, liberty, or Constitutional pursuit of happiness of another individual; then it is not their business to intervene with me. It's a huge assumption to make that the parent is ignorant or anti-OC if they tell their child "He's allowed to carry a gun because he's in the Army." How does someone telling their child that endanger your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? People can believe what they want... they're entitled to that. However, by intervening in their A to B conversation, you would effectively be imposing yourself upon them. You would have more affect on their life than they would have on yours. This is what I mean by choosing battles. If me fighting a battle has the propensity to create more harm than good, then I choose to disengage.

    I don't have chilcren, but if I did, I would not be too happy about someone undermining me in front of them. To be frank, my response would probably be something along the lines of, "Excuse me, friend... but this conversation is between my child and I." Depending on the offender's response, the situation could quickly escalate to words. Whereas if the offender simply walked away and went about their own business, that risk would not exist.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  2. #2
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    I'm clear on the fact that you were suggesting to correct the parent. But in doing so, you could be undermining something that the parent is trying to instill, or keep from, their child. Once the parent has been "corrected", it would naturally come with some confusion amongst the child. "But daddy... if he's NOT in the Army like you say he is, then why is he carrying a gun?" Now you've just opened up a whole ball of wax with SOMEONE ELSE'S child. It's not our place to do that. That's all I'm saying. . . .
    Huh? I'm talking about correcting the kid that said the guy was open carrying because he's in the Army. I haven't been talking about correcting the parent. The parent didn't make the misstatement, the kid did (and we don't know whether the kid did so because the kid assumed something or was told something by their parent). The parent wasn't even there at the time (according to the story). Please review the thread.

    But even going with your hypothetical, I do not agree with what you say about this situation. If a parent tells their child I am open carrying because I'm in the Army, whether I am or not I would say, "I am not (or am) in the Army, but actually any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'm doing." Why you want to extrapolate this to ruining Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, I don't know. Parents commonly lie about Xmas and Easter, sure, but it is not a common feature of our culture for parents to lie about why other people would open carry. Now, parents may be mistaken about why someone is OC'ing. That is the plausible explanation, and no mature parent should be offended by a simple clarification of a mistaken notion.

    Also, with regard to extrapolating this to destroying good St. Nick and the Easter Bunny, you are on your own. I confined my remarks to this specific situation, which is wholly unrelated to the perpetuation of well-known cultural myths. I am a fan of using analogies, but analogies should be a better fit than that. Parents lying about Santa: very common and one should expect some upset if truthfully addressing it. Parents lying about open carry: very uncommon to non-existent and one should not expect upset if truthfully addressing it.

    If you still disagree, I would prefer you to use the specifics of the situation in your argument, but if you must use analogies, please use more relevant ones.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    The analogies, to me, are completely relevant. Let's sum this up concisely: We're discussing whether or not you should jump into a conversation that doesn't include you because you heard them say something incorrect. That's the whole enchilada right there.

    Whether they're talking about Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, whether or not Elvis is alive or dead, whether they think you're gay or straight, open carry... who cares? The fact is that they are not talking TO YOU. To jump into an A to B conversation for the purpose of correcting someone, whether they are right or wrong, is not something I would do. Period. Why? Because it opens up possibilities of unnecessary arguments.

    I'm all for creating awareness... I'm all for inspiring and creating change... but I also believe in choosing to bypass some battles. I'm a believer of the "You catch more bees with honey than vinegar" philosophy. Engaging someone in dialogue, uninvited, especially to correct them, generally tastes like vinegar to most people. I consider myself a prudent man, and I know that I would be pretty salty if someone jumped in on something I was discussing with someone else so they could make a political statement.

    It would be a different story altogether if that person were to ask you, directly, why you're carrying openly... or whether or not your LEO or military. In this case, they have invited you to answer... and if they don't like your answer, then they shouldn't have asked the question. Pretty simple to me.

    And let's take stock in the subject: We're talking about a minor child. This kid can't even lawfully own a pistol yet, much less strap it to his hip and walk around with it. With all the soapboxes waiting to be stood on, I certainly wouldn't choose to stand in front of someone else's child and preach. You can be the grown man with the gun preaching to a minor child in the middle of a store... that's fine. That's how it could easily be construed by other bystanders. I would choose a different path, however... the one where I go about my own business and don't concern myself with what others are saying unless it bears a direct threat on the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of myself or others. This is just how I live my life.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post

    I did nothing to correct the kids. I viewed it as an adult disscussion since I regularly show up at home in uniform its not a small step for them to draw the conclusion i wear a gun because I'm a Marine. Had she not made the comment. I would have asked the kid if he was 18 and when he said no. I would have told him not to worry about it becuase he's not old enough. But since they regularly play with my puppy and I always have a gun on I see it doing more to educate them on the day in day out carrying of a gun with out doing anything "dangerous" with it then trying to engage them in any type of debate.

  5. #5
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Statement my daughter (6 years old) blurted out in the car last weekend: "Dad, can you believe that E's dad doesn't carry a gun on him? I think that's silly" E. is a close friend of hers. She was shocked that her friend's dad doesn't carry a pistol. I guess the anti's have their work cut out for them with my kids.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Statement my daughter (6 years old) blurted out in the car last weekend: "Dad, can you believe that E's dad doesn't carry a gun on him? I think that's silly" E. is a close friend of hers. She was shocked that her friend's dad doesn't carry a pistol. I guess the anti's have their work cut out for them with my kids.
    lol

  7. #7
    Regular Member Scooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dundee, Michigan
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    While OC in my neighborhood recently the little 4 year old from across the street asked: "Why do you have a gun?" to which I responded: "I am allowed to." He was pleased with the answer and was on his way.

    (I know it's my right to OC, but I figured a lesson on rights and laws etc,..was beyond a 4 year olds' grasp)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •