Marguerite
Active Member
Shari, I sense that you are being very cautious about how people might think about you and your family's close contact with weapons. I want to make something clear and hopefully reassure you.
I am anti-guns. It's me, I really don't like guns, I never have, they make me really nervous. I never wanted my kids to play with toy guns (although I allowed water pistols - any method of projecting water in quantity!). Plus, I live in a country with very strict gun control, where guns are now even more rare than when I was a kid growing up.
I don't like guns, but I'm not an idiot about it. There are guns in this village, but probably only 1% of the number of guns in your area. We do have hunting in Australia, there are shooters' associations as well as clear understanding in the laws for people who HAVE to have guns, to protect their property and livestock as well as for use in their employment (roo shooters, for example). Some people NEED to use guns, other people LIKE to use guns. If people use them sensibly, for sound reasons - no problem. Same goes for other weapons.
I grew up on the fringes of town, the daughter of a man who wanted to be a farmer but because of other responsibilities he wasn't able to get into farming in a really big way. Again, no guns. We managed - laws, again, meant that farming on our scale didn't allow us to shoot our own livestock (after the debacle of my brother shooting the pig, when I was very young - long story, rather funny).
So in me, you would have maybe your harshest critic, when it comes to allowing your kids to use weapons.
That said - I have no criticism of you whatsoever. You have done everything correctly as far as I can see, and you responded quickly and appropriately when you saw a problem. Yes, you taught your young children to handle weapons but with the lifestyle you describe, that is relevant and appropriate. In your shoes - I might not have been able to bring myself to do this (that's just me) but I know husband would have stepped in there and I would have allowed him to teach the children, and supervise them.
So it's OK, Shari. You don't need to blame yourself, or tiptoe around sensibilities. You have done the right thing. I also think your response now (and your concern) is warranted.
If your kids hadn't grown up learning to handle weapons, what would have happened? I don't know. Maybe having that experience and knowledge actually made the situation safer.
You describe how he walked about 100 yards before actually aiming the bow at his sister, therefore this wasn't impulsive - I think it still could be. I know when difficult child 3 has really been angry, his anger can sometimes keep building and building. difficult child 1 - same story (not so much lately). He would be on the point of exploding, trying to hold it in and control himself - and his own thoughts would be whirling around in his head with the anger just building and building.
But you were there - you would have a better idea.
I suspect your son is going to have to really prove himself before you will let him have a chance to go hunting for a while. It makes me think of the 'rules' in hunter-gatherer societies; the men (and capable enough boys) go hunting (once the boys have shown they are skilled enough and responsible enough) while the women and children do the gathering, foraging and other tasks. Some of the women's foraging includes smaller animal hunting (lizards, snakes, frogs etc) which is where the children can continue to learn the skills they need to eventually go hunting with the men. But a boy eager to hunt with the men would have to not be a liability.
Is there any way you could try a tactic like this? It's practical, it's natural consequences (his own actions have brought this on) and it still can involve him in the range of tasks surrounding providing for the family, everybody doing their bit. That is good for him in so many ways.
To be able to go hunting - it's a privilege, well and truly. He's got to be able to be trusted because it's just too important.
So trust yourself, too. I think your instincts on this have been right so far.
Marg
I am anti-guns. It's me, I really don't like guns, I never have, they make me really nervous. I never wanted my kids to play with toy guns (although I allowed water pistols - any method of projecting water in quantity!). Plus, I live in a country with very strict gun control, where guns are now even more rare than when I was a kid growing up.
I don't like guns, but I'm not an idiot about it. There are guns in this village, but probably only 1% of the number of guns in your area. We do have hunting in Australia, there are shooters' associations as well as clear understanding in the laws for people who HAVE to have guns, to protect their property and livestock as well as for use in their employment (roo shooters, for example). Some people NEED to use guns, other people LIKE to use guns. If people use them sensibly, for sound reasons - no problem. Same goes for other weapons.
I grew up on the fringes of town, the daughter of a man who wanted to be a farmer but because of other responsibilities he wasn't able to get into farming in a really big way. Again, no guns. We managed - laws, again, meant that farming on our scale didn't allow us to shoot our own livestock (after the debacle of my brother shooting the pig, when I was very young - long story, rather funny).
So in me, you would have maybe your harshest critic, when it comes to allowing your kids to use weapons.
That said - I have no criticism of you whatsoever. You have done everything correctly as far as I can see, and you responded quickly and appropriately when you saw a problem. Yes, you taught your young children to handle weapons but with the lifestyle you describe, that is relevant and appropriate. In your shoes - I might not have been able to bring myself to do this (that's just me) but I know husband would have stepped in there and I would have allowed him to teach the children, and supervise them.
So it's OK, Shari. You don't need to blame yourself, or tiptoe around sensibilities. You have done the right thing. I also think your response now (and your concern) is warranted.
If your kids hadn't grown up learning to handle weapons, what would have happened? I don't know. Maybe having that experience and knowledge actually made the situation safer.
You describe how he walked about 100 yards before actually aiming the bow at his sister, therefore this wasn't impulsive - I think it still could be. I know when difficult child 3 has really been angry, his anger can sometimes keep building and building. difficult child 1 - same story (not so much lately). He would be on the point of exploding, trying to hold it in and control himself - and his own thoughts would be whirling around in his head with the anger just building and building.
But you were there - you would have a better idea.
I suspect your son is going to have to really prove himself before you will let him have a chance to go hunting for a while. It makes me think of the 'rules' in hunter-gatherer societies; the men (and capable enough boys) go hunting (once the boys have shown they are skilled enough and responsible enough) while the women and children do the gathering, foraging and other tasks. Some of the women's foraging includes smaller animal hunting (lizards, snakes, frogs etc) which is where the children can continue to learn the skills they need to eventually go hunting with the men. But a boy eager to hunt with the men would have to not be a liability.
Is there any way you could try a tactic like this? It's practical, it's natural consequences (his own actions have brought this on) and it still can involve him in the range of tasks surrounding providing for the family, everybody doing their bit. That is good for him in so many ways.
To be able to go hunting - it's a privilege, well and truly. He's got to be able to be trusted because it's just too important.
So trust yourself, too. I think your instincts on this have been right so far.
Marg
