The problem is not the teenage girls. The problem is your attitude about the teenage girls. Do you understand?

So, the latest blog to go viral is a missive from Kimberly Hall, a director of women’s ministry in Texas. She's written a helpful guide for teenage girls who have been taking "selfies" in their bedrooms: RUN to take down those doozies! The Halls won't be friends with you if you don't!

She begins by explaining "Last night, as we sometimes do, our family sat around the dining-room table and looked through the summer’s social media photos." (Wow. That doesn't sound creepy at all. We all stalk people we know on Facebook, but we don't TELL them about it. It's like, the first rule of the internet.) She then points out that an awful lot of teenage girls are posting pics of themselves in their "skimpy pj’s" (sic) and worse, they're adopting an unnatural "red carpet pose" with "extra-arched back, and the sultry pout".

Well, yes. Teenage (and older) girls are still labouring under the bizarre belief that it looks super-attractive to "duckface" in a series of self-obsessed pictures (occasionally with the added bonus of a toilet in the background). It's what they do. None of us like it, and we all kind of wish that these girls could really see what they look like and how much they're going to regret the shots in the future. (Except some of the girls doing it are 35, so I think the ship might have sailed on the "older and wiser" theory.) They have no idea how contrived those "spontaneous" shots look: 

However, we all have autonomy when it comes to the images we choose to represent us online: if girls want to look trashy rather than classy, it's up to them. What irks me about the blog (apart from the somewhat arrogant view that being blocked by the Hall family will be a "big bummer" for these unlucky girls) is the totally unchristian sentiment behind it. Yep, you heard me right. UNCHRISTIAN.

Why? Well, Hall claims "we are hoping to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls." (Except when they're reviewing them for judgement purposes, obviously).

You know what else men of integrity do? They don't say "Hey, YOU need to change your behaviour so that I won't have any problems with it." Have a browse through the teachings of Jesus and you'll find an astonishing lack of instruction about how to control other people so they stop tempting you to sin. 

Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Wait, where's the part where he says it was her fault anyway for flaunting herself in front of you?

Yeah, remember the way Jesus treated prostitutes and adulterous women? 
He was really into slut-shaming! Oh...

Imagine if we all applied the sex rules to any other aspect of life. "It wasn't my fault I stole those cakes! The baker shouldn't have made them look so delicious and then displayed them in the window if he didn't expect people to just take them!"

If we're going to live with Christian values, we have no choice but to take responsibility for ourselves. The Hall boys are going to be seeing scantily-clad women everywhere from bars to billboards; the onus is on them to control their "impure" urges. As Al Franken said, “It's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world.” 

Matthew 7: 1-4: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 

Well, yes. It probably wasn't the best idea for Mrs Hall to accompany her entire blog with lots of topless pictures of her sons and to describe how she fell for her husband when she spotted him half-naked. Unfortunately she took her own advice and deleted that post (which had pictures!) so we can't point and laugh at it anymore.

One commenter says "I see you have had some bashing here for the pics of your sons in swim trunks. I think we need to consider the different circumstances. They are playing at the beach. The poses are not provocative (arched back, pouty lips……we have all seen those teen girls and the pose I am refering to)... If the boys were posed in speedos on their beds with a come hither pouty bad boy look – then there would be something to throw rocks over"

Um yeah, you've kind of missed the point here haven't you? For boys, showing off their muscles IS the provocative pose. It may not be super-sexy to be snapped frolicking on the beach with your brothers when it's your mum taking the pictures, but they clearly revel in the bare-skinned freedom that only men can enjoy. After all, if they made the same kind of "sexy" poses girls do, they'd look stupid:

 
But this picture is fine, of course. They're totally not posing in a way that they hope will be sexually appealing:

 

Luckily, no teenage girls will ever see these pictures on the
 internet and be tempted to think lustful thoughts.

These poor kids are subject to their parents' mixed messages: as well as having their own poses recorded for posterity in a public blog, they have to deal with the madonna / whore complex that is apparently de rigueur in Texan churches this summer. As Mrs Hall puts it, "Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t quickly un-see it?  You don’t want our boys to only think of you only in this sexual way, do you?" Yep, once he's seen you in skimpy attire, he can never go back to seeing you as the intelligent, thoughtful, well-rounded character that you were when you were covered up! Bad luck, Hall kids' future wives...

The Given Breath blog has done teenage girls a huge favour – if nothing else, they've learned that keeping your online profile set to "private" means nothing – you still don't know who might have access to your pictures. The second lesson is that there will be men out there who do see you as nothing more than an empty shell of sexuality if you so much as take one picture in your pyjamas; they have learned to see you this way because it's what their momma taught them.

The Benefits of Speaking Up...

Honesty is allegedly "the best policy", although we all ignore this rule when it comes to receiving hideous gifts, viewing children's artwork and responding to the boss's proposals. (One day I'm going to write a blog about all the stupid things I've heard while working in the advertising business. It will be a long and cathartic post.)

If only one person at Adidas had piped up with "I don't think slavery IS very chic, actually..."

The importance of being upfront came to mind when reading the story of 20-year-olds Michaella McCollum and Melissa Reid, from Northern Ireland and Scotland respectively. The girls had both found bar work in Ibiza before apparently falling in with the wrong crowd and getting caught trying to smuggle cocaine out of Peru. 

They now face up to 15 years in jail if found guilty, with their only defence being the claim that they were coerced into being drug mules. Held at gunpoint, their distant families threatened, and told they would be watched at all times; the girls insist they had no choice in the matter. 

Whether we say "pull the other one, love!" or accept the story, it brings up the point that shouting your predicament from the rooftops is nearly always the way to go. Alberto Arian Barilla of the Ibiza police force pointed out what we were all thinking: "The first thing you do is go to the passport control and say 'listen, this is what is happening to me'. The policeman will react." (For the record, the girls claimed that their "kidnappers" had told them they had people working at the airport too – so whistle-blowing seemed too risky.)

It may be hard to believe that these girls could truly fear that every single airport worker was in on the plot, but it's not entirely unrealistic that someone could make the mistake of keeping schtum – it's been shown on the big screen many times. The trouble with movies is that they sort of need the protagonists to make stupid decisions, because films wouldn't last longer than twenty minutes if everyone just called the police at the first sign of trouble. Maybe I'm getting jaded in my old age, because I used to be able to simply put my "Suspension of Disbelief" hat on and enjoy a plot-hole-ridden caper, but now it's getting on my nerves so much that it's ruining my enjoyment of perfectly good films. 

Take Red Eye for instance. Great cast – Rachel McAdams being adorable and feisty and Cillian Murphy flashing the piercing blue eyes which have made him Hollywood's go-to guy when casting sexy young villains. (Where the hell was he when they were auditioning for Hannibal Rising?) Great director (Wes Craven) and a script which allowed for decent characterisation as well as plenty of twists. I almost loved it, but got too frustrated with all the gaping logic holes. For instance, when terrorist Cillian explains to Rachel that he's got henchman waiting to kill her dad if she won't go along with his assassination plot, he's apparently relying on all the surrounding passengers being completely deaf. Ok, so there's no other way to make a "hostage on a plane" film; we'll let that one slide. (But surely someone would have noticed him punching her in the face?)

This wasn't even the biggest problem. Seeing as there was a hitman waiting for instructions to target Rachel's dad, she could have alerted a flight attendant to the fact that (gunless) Cillian was a bad guy, and asked them to contact the FBI to get protection to her father ASAP.  But that would have been way too easy and there wouldn't have been a big chase scene and stuff, so whatevs. 

I got similarly frustrated with Taken 2 when Liam Neeson's poor teenage daughter was about to get kidnapped again. (As a side note, I don't know what it is about the Taken movies, but I find Liam Neeson really wooden in them. What's up with that?) In the first movie his advice was ok – she didn't have any means of evading the traffickers (assuming she couldn't get to a fire escape) so hiding under a bed was her only option. But in this sequel, her "expert" CIA dad tells her that she should go and hide in the hotel room. Um, no dad, I think I'll just head for a slightly busier place than that, seeing as it's the first place the kidnapers will try and if they do catch me there will be no-one to stop them. How about if I go to the town square and call your colleagues from there, yeah? 

At least make it hard for them to get you without 
embarrassing themselves in public.

All sense of reality slides out of the hotel window when he calls her mere moments after the crooks  have gone – what great timing, huh? Could have been tricky if he'd been any faster at dialling... 

The third movie in my "Nonsensical Decisions" hall of shame is Collateral. (Yes, I'm catching up with lots of movies I've never got round to seeing, I'm bad at going to the cinema). When Jamie Foxx realises that Tom Cruise is a hitman, he makes no efforts to escape (until the worst possible moment, but I won't spoil it for you). While they're trundling along in LA traffic, he could easily have made a sudden bolt out of the car and run for it. Tom wasn't constantly holding a gun to his head, and if he had taken a pot shot at the rapidly retreating Mr Foxx, he's unlikely to have hit him. What's more, it wouldn't be in his best interests to pursue; he'd have just quietly got into another car, safe in the knowledge that the police can't exactly stop and search all the yellow cabs. (Of course, the fact that he chose to take a taxi in the first place is a huge plot hole but we'll pretend we didn't notice it, shall we?) 

 

I'll just wait until you know something about my personal life and can 
threaten my family before I attempt to defy you. That seems to be the best plan.

One movie I have always loved is Ransom, with Mel Gibson and Rene Russo as the parents of an abducted child. When he realises that paying off the kidnappers won't make them return his son, Mel does what he does best and goes batpoo crazy, taking control of the situation by making the ransom a reward for anyone who will turn them in. Striking back at villains is always a winner in my book, even if we're far more likely to come across them when they're trying to hack into our bank accounts or computers...

We're all familiar with the "You've inherited money from a relative you've never heard of in Nigeria" emails, but there is a particularly nasty credit card scam which keeps cropping up and is convincing enough to fool many who considered themselves savvy. It's detailed here but in a nutshell, the con artists convince their victims that their cards have been compromised, then alleviate suspicions by telling their victims to "Call 999 and you can check my identity." 

Most of us would be suspicious if we were told to use an emergency number in this way, but top-notch persuasion techniques assure the victim that the "police officer" who phoned them is kosher. This bluff is dependent on landlines not disconnecting when the original caller stays on the line; using a separate cell phone would solve the problem, but elderly people who might not have mobiles (and may be generally less savvy to scammers) are often targeted. (Seriously, how do these criminals sleep at night?)

So if this happens to me (let's pretend for a moment that I occasionally pick up my landline) my plan is to alert the coppers via mobile (so they can tail the courier back to scumbag headquarters) and then assemble my "credit cards" for collection in a nice jiffy envelope full of dog poop. (Except that I don't have a dog, so I would have to, er... improvise.) The thought of the crooks' disappointed and disgusted faces would make it all worthwhile.

The moment they used the letter-opener...

There must be a special place in hell for con artists who zero in on sweet little old people with rosy cheeks and knitted cardigans, and this story shows just how vile scammers can be. 86-year-old Frances Brown was the target of a similar trick to the phone call above, but she was actually persuaded to go into the bank to  withdraw cash. It gets worse: 

"Barclays cashiers were suspicious why a widow who had never been overdrawn before wanted to take out so much money and asked who was calling her. But the conman had told Mrs Brown not to tell the bank staff why she needed the cash, stressing that the bank was itself under surveillance. So Mrs Brown told staff she needed the cash to pay for a funeral, and they reluctantly allowed her to take the money."

And this is why you should always shout it from the rooftops if you're in trouble. Not everyone in the bank could be in on it, could they? It's easy for us to call victims of these tricks "gullible" but when someone calls you with the news that your account is being drained, you can see how panic mode could set in. Let's save our vitriol for the people who deserve it: the soon-to-be-receivers of our little poop packages. Come on, we can make this happen!

Let's Have Some Happy News!

Reading the news is always so depressing... recently we've seen stories on:

• The old lady who left the government £520,000 to spend "as they see fit". (Was she CRAZY?) David and Nick called it a "party donation", split it between them, and were all set to spend it on champagne and cigars (probably). It was only when publicly chastised by Labour (and even Conservative) MPs that they handed it over so it could be spent on hospitals and schools and other such frivolities.
• Oprah Winfrey getting the Pretty Woman treatment in a Swiss boutique. (Big mistake. Big. Huge.) So was the shop assistant racist or just rude? Either way it doesn't fill my heart with gladness. 
• The judge who gave a paedophile a lenient sentence because the 13-year-old girl involved had been a "sexual predator". Is the whole justice system a gigantic paedophile ring? I ask because surely only someone who was a pervert could possibly think that a child was responsible for an adult's sexual crimes? Isn't that why we have statutory rape laws? 

"I am going to tell you something very strange: it was she who seduced me." Yeah, right. 

But things aren't all bad; when they're not trying to make adults have sex with them (!?) kids are actually doing some really awesome stuff.

Firstly there's Malala Yousafzai, who has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after becoming a feminist icon in her teens. Last year she survived an assassination attempt from the Taliban, who got the heebie jeebies at the thought of a 15-year-old campaigning for girls' education. (This reminds me of Eileen Colwell's famous quote on Enid Blyton books: “What hope has a band of desperate men against four children?”) In the 21st century, who knew that such big bad men could be terrified at the idea of females being able to read and write?

Politically active kids isn't a new thing; back in 1992 Severn Suzuki addressed the UN regarding environmental issues: 

Actually, this one's a bit over the top for me, what with the mournful music and the "I know I'm just a child so aren't I precious for making a speech" feel of the video. Still, kudos to her for creating an eco-action group – at about the same time, I was going around the house turning off light switches and making draught excluders out of a pair of tights and some screwed up newspaper in my own efforts to be green. Today, 33-year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki is still known as an environmental activist and campaigner. 

More recently, this Egyptian kid went viral – nobody seems to know his name, but I'm pretty sure he has a bright future in politics. Call me a cynic, but I wonder if the interviewer was expecting such a young boy to have only vague, flimsy reasons for being at a protest (you know, the sort of answers we get when they ask some trustafarians in this country).

How about we get rid of newsreaders and get kids to explain everything instead? 11-year-old Yemeni girl Nada Al-Ahdal tackles the subject of forced marriages for children with eloquent self-possession:

They might be dealing with depressing subjects, but the fact that these children are so smart, articulate and vocal gives me hope. In the age of the internet, they can be heard in a way that would have been impossible otherwise. In fact, the internet  has become our "normal" so quickly that we've come to take it for granted: you only have to take a peep at whitewhine.com to see just how insanely privileged we are (and how entitled we've become because of it).

Seriously, how can anyone who has access to the internet ever consider themselves lacking in anything? Much as I hate to sound like a grandma, when I was a kid and I wanted to watch a film I had to go down to the video shop or wait for said film to come on the telly (so I could stealthily record it onto a VHS tape). If I wanted to look something up I had to find an encyclopedia (which was probably out of date). If I wanted to see a music video I had to wait for The Chart Show on a Saturday morning. When you're older than the internet it gives you a certain perspective on life, and it kind of scares me that stories of my youth will now sound as archaic as my parents' tales of playing 45s on the record player and using the cine-camera to make home movies. (Actually, we still used this when I was a kid; the smell of burning dust and the whirr of a projector takes me back to my childhood "Film nights" when we turned off all the lights and made popcorn and watched the silent movies. And yes, I realise this makes me sound ANCIENT.)

So let's just remind ourselves that everything in the world isn't miserable and hopeless, and there are some kids who have more to offer the world than atrocious spelling and the constant repetition of the word "legit". I leave you with the happiest news of all: there are sheep like this and there are people who record them and put the results on the internet for all to enjoy:

There are no blurred lines, Mr Thicke. No still means No....

Now that new parodies are popping up every day, I can't ignore the notorious video for Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines any longer. If you've been living under a rock and haven't seen it yet, check it out. You can also watch the unrated version, which is pretty much the same except that the women are topless. It also uses balloons to completely spell out such witticisms as "Robin Thicke has a big dick".

The first time I heard the track, I couldn't help bopping along, as it's undeniably catchy. The constant repetition of  "you know you want it, but you're a good girl," made me roll my eyes, but at least it's kind of true to life. It's incredible how many guys will think that some sort of prudish self-denial is the reason you're SHOWING NO INTEREST IN THEM WHATSOEVER. (And then if you manage to convince them you really do know your own mind and you honestly don't fancy them, they assume you're a lesbian. Talk about ego.)

Along with Robin Thicke, the video features Pharrell Williams and rapper T.I. (aka Clifford Joseph Harris Jr.) basically standing around while vacant-eyed, pouting models prance before them in very few clothes. As the video has attracted the wrath of feminists, Robin Thicke has spoken out to defend it, saying “We pretty much wanted to take all the taboos of what you’re not supposed to do – bestiality, you know, injecting a girl in her bum with a five-foot syringe –I just wanted to break every rule of things you’re not supposed to do and make people realise how silly some of these rules are.”

Yes, those silly rules! Defying them makes you a super-duper groundbreaker. (Actually, I'm not sure where he got the idea that there is bestiality in the video. One of the girls is holding a lamb at one point, and there is a large stuffed dog which one of them sits on. I guess Robin thinks that when children ride on carousel horses, they are also somehow having sex with them?)

Just a note, Robin: only a total amateur would actually point to his eye 
when singing the line "maybe I'm going blind."

He warmed to his theme, explaining “We tried to do everything that was taboo... everything that is completely derogatory towards women. Because all three of us are happily married with children, we were like, “We’re the perfect guys to make fun of this.”

Hey, I've never shot anyone in the head! That means I'd be the perfect person to do it as a joke! 

It's always hard to gauge someone's tone in print, and I've certainly seen some interviews in which a sardonic pop star makes a joke and the wide eyed 12-year-old magazine editor writes a big headline believing they were being serious. So I think we can safely assume it was a "joke" when Robin said, "People say, “Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?” I’m like, “Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I’ve never gotten to do that before. I’ve always respected women.”

Courtesy of PerezHilton.com

And what of the lyrics? The "I know you want it" line is what's got them into trouble with the anti-rape brigade (which is hopefully everyone in the world); it's possible that the song has created such a furore not because it's the worst offender in the "misogynistic lyrics" game, but because it struck a chord with every woman who has ever been chatted up in a nightclub. Or yelled at from a white van. Or groped in the street. You get the picture. (And if you don't, check out everydaysexism.com.) And as Grooves on the Radio points out, "Threatening to tear someone’s ass in two is a lot less sexy than Clifford thinks it is." 

There is also a reference to smokeable drugs (accompanied with typically clumsy symbolism by... a gas mask: "Baby can you breathe? I got this from Jamaica, It always works for me...") which reminds me of my favourite chat up line, "Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"

The shoot was directed by a woman: Diane Martel, who suggested going for a “Terry Richardson kind of video.” (Yes, THAT Terry Richardson.) Robin Thicke has also made a big deal of how he asked his wife's "permission" to make a tiresomely sexist video and she was fine with it, so why aren't we? He even claims that he hadn't wanted to release the unrated version until his wife and her friends convinced him to. (Oh, stop hiding behind your wife and just own your work like a man!) 

The approval of these ladies is meant to give the video immunity from feminist critique, but women have been willingly undermining themselves for years. The models who take part in video shoots like this, for instance. (Seriously, how do the cast and crew feel on these jobs? Do they go home feeling proud that they have made a positive contribution to society?)

And then there's Katie Price. Let's just forget the idea that if
 a woman chooses to do it, it must be all right.

Thicke's most recent defence is that the song is "actually a feminist movement within itself." With the lyrics "Now he was close, Tried to domesticate you, But you're an animal..... Just let me liberate you... That man is not your maker," you could argue that he's all about women's emancipation. But it sounds to me like the hypothetical girl could just be leaving one controlling relationship for another, this time with some doofus in a bar who can "save" her because he thinks he knows what she needs better than she does. I could be wrong, though... 

 

It's true that there are far more offensive videos and lyrics out there, but the fact that so many people cry "harmless" when it comes to imagery like this shows how far we have to go:

                                One of these pictures is much more surprising than the other. 

Among the many parodies* available, The Mod Carousel is one which uses  "gender reversal" to show how ridiculous men look when they act in the same hyper-sexualised way we're used to seeing women.

(*I think Melinda Hughes' "douche" video is my favourite of the bunch. If we can't change them, we might as well laugh at them.)

In an interview with GQ (which is worth scrolling through for the articulate comments) Thicke keeps talking about how the video is "funny" and even "Benny Hill", which makes it sound like he's watching something different to the rest of us (although it does have some hilarious moments). The reality is four and a half minutes of tired old clichés; strangely joyless considering how much "fun" those models were supposed to be having.

Despite his alternative theory that they were deliberately being offensive, Thicke insists "We’re not ogling and degrading them, we’re laughing and being silly with them.” Which is interesting, because I would have thought that "being silly" would consist of a group of people who are all wearing roughly the same amount of clothing, have equal opportunities to speak, and are maybe running around having a water fight or something. Not men leading a woman around by her hair, miming slapping her arse, calling her a bitch, and only letting her speak to say "Miaow."  The "we're just being playful" thing smacks of the usual "Where's your sense of humour?" excuse.

Thicke points out "That's what great art does – it's supposed to stir conversation, it's supposed to make us talk about what's important." 

Dude, you gave up your right to refer to the video as "art" when you agreed to splatter the screen with hashtags in order to drum up publicity for yourself. When you make a video featuring scantily clad women and social networking tips, let's not pretend you're doing anything but appealing to the lowest common denominator, ok? It's just embarrassing. 

What are your Underrated Thrillers?

So I've been writing for Den of Geek again; my latest effort is a list of thrillers I consider underrated. I cheekily slipped in a few well-known titles (why doesn't everyone rave about them more?) but it's largely a list of the low-budget, lesser-known flicks. 

Here's a picture from Burning Bright, because the lovely Briana Evigan favourited the tweet one of my fellow Den of Geek writers sent to inform her of the article. Yay, girl crush!

The Internet's Best Time-Wasters

Today I have decided to treat you to a round up of the best and cutest animal videos I know. You're welcome.

Let's kick things off with a dog singing along to Adele, and doing a pretty fine job of it. When the other dog tries to get his attention, he's all like "Dude! This is my song!" I enjoy his whole-hearted concentration on the music and the blissful zeal with which he throws his head back to sing. (Also, it makes me wonder - if dogs don't howl along to ALL music, do they only join in with the ones they really like?)

Aw, sleepy duckling! My favourite part is when he shakes his head in an attempt to stay awake. And the little whistling cheap he makes as if he's talking to himself, "Hey, look alive out there, buddy!" In the words of my friend Jasmine, "Sometimes I can't cope with how much I love ducks."

This sweet doggie is empathising just a little bit too much with his onscreen hero. To be fair, he does look as if his usual facial expression might be on the "sad" side of quizzical, but he's obviously paying rapt attention to the film and looking for reassurance. I move that we set up some cinemas for dogs and get the animal psychologists in to do a proper study of this, then maybe people won't look at me funny when I talk about it. 

This cat hitching a ride on the back of a ram sums up felines; if they want to sit on you, they will. Whether you like it or not. The ram clearly isn't too happy about his little passenger, but is unsure of how to get rid of him, and this amuses me.

For some reason this little elephant reminds me of Norman Wisdom in the old slapstick movies... he's a bit awkward. But a trunk is a lot to handle when you're newborn and you have no idea what is going on with your face.

 

The enthusiasm! The willingness to help! The smiley face! The big brown eyes! This is why I need a dog....

The Gun Debate: Out of Control

I don't mean to depress you, but have you noticed how many children have accidentally shot themselves or their loved ones in the last few months? The list is staggering (and I probably haven't found them all).

• Christmas was ruined for at least three families last December; firstly in Minnesota, when 2-year-old Neengnco Chong was accidentally shot and killed by his four-year-old brother. They had been playing in their parents' room and evidently found the gun that was stashed between the pillows and the headboard of the bed.

• Next, Demetri Philips of Missouri died when a friend accidentally shot him with a gun he'd found under his grandfather's pillow when both 12-year-olds were playing in the house.  

• Finally, in South Carolina 2-year-old Sincere Smith grabbed a gun from a table and killed himself on Christmas day.

Kansas hit the news in January when a 3-year-old boy shot himself with his father’s 9mm Glock. In March a Florida 4-year-old shot himself in the head while "playing" with a gun. Miraculously, he survived. In April, there were so many accidents that commentary became darkly comic, with headlines such as "Nation's toddlers are on a shooting spree."

• On April 1st there was the 3-year-old in Georgia who shot his thumb after finding an "unsecured" gun under the bed at his dad's girlfriend's house.

• 5 days later at a family barbecue in Tennessee, a 4-year-old boy shot and killed Josephine  Fanning, whose husband had laid a loaded gun on the bed "for a moment" while getting a rifle out of his gun cabinet to show it off.

• The following day (April 7th), also in Tennessee, Reika Kid was shot by her 2-year-old when he found the 9mm she kept under her pillow. Thankfully she survived and neither of her two young children were hurt.

• On April 8th, a 4-year-old boy in New Jersey shot his six-year-old friend Brandon Holt, who died the following day. 

• In South Carolina the following day, 3-year-old Qui’ontrez Moss killed himself when he found a gun belonging to his uncle – a law enforcement officer.

• A few days later, Kansas 7-year-old Gavin Brummett accidentally shot and killed himself while on a hunting trip with his father and brother.

• Also in Kansas, on 16th April a 6-year-old girl was shot in the leg by her 14-year-old cousin when the 9mm he had in his pocket accidentally fired. 

• Yet more cautionary tales about keeping loaded guns casually slung into pockets: on April 20th a 2-year-boy in South Carolina shot himself seconds after reaching into his father's pocket and pulling out a gun. Miraculously, he survived. 

• Another incredible near-miss occurred days later in Idaho when a baby survived being shot by a toddler when their parents left them alone in a car together.

You can keep an eye on the statistics of child shootings here...

The month of May also featured one tragedy after another: 

• In Florida on May 4th, 6-year-old Angela Divin was shot in the chest by her 13-year-old brother while the siblings were home alone (she survived).

• Then there was 3-year-old Jadarrius Speights (also from Florida) who accidentally killed himself with his uncle's handgun on May 7th. 

• On the same day, a 7-year-old in Texas was shot by his 5-year-old brother, although his injuries were not fatal.

• Days later, 2-year-old Texan Kinsler Allen Davis shot and killed himself just a few feet away from his father.

• Yet another Texan, Jason Haley died on 13th May from a gunshot wound; the 5-year-old was shot by an 8-year-old friend when the pair found a .22 caliber rifle in a bedroom.

• On May 25th, a gun carried in a Minneapolis child's schoolbag went off; luckily it didn't hurt anyone. (The student was a third-grader, so would be aged 8-9.)

• On May 29th, 2-year-old Texan Trenton Mattis died after he shot himself in the head with a 9mm handgun he found on his great-grandmother's nightstand.

• Most recently, in Arizona on 7th June Justin Stanfield Thomas was shot dead by his 4-year-old son when they dropped in unexpectedly on a friend whose gun was unsecured. 

Perhaps the most infamous case in recent memory is that of Caroline Sparks, aged 2. Her 5-year-old brother shot and killed her with his very own gun – the Crickett "My First Rifle". In their Kentucky town, a small child owning a gun is par for the course; coroner Gary White said "guns are passed down from generation to generation". He condemned the tragedy as "just one of those crazy accidents”.

Except it isn't really that crazy, is it? Giving a small child a gun and then being surprised that s/he uses it to shoot somebody is a bit like sitting them in the driver's seat of a car and then being surprised when they run someone over. Or locking them in a cage with a hungry tiger and then saying "Goshdarnit, who could have predicted that?" when they get mauled to death.  

(Actually, people pretty much do that when they keep a dog for "security" without considering how that dog will behave towards the small children it considers its subordinates. But that is a whole other blog.)

Probably the same people who say "So cute! The lion 
is trying to make friends with the baby!"

Some of the parents in the cases above have been charged with manslaughter or child endangerment for their negligence in leaving guns unsecured. But how will they explain to the surviving child that s/he is the one responsible for the death of their sibling, relative or friend? 

Oddly, some of stories apparently involve guns which discharge for no reason: for example, 15-year-old Saylor Slone Martine died after the gun she and her 12-year-old sister had been "handling" allegedly went off with no warning after being placed back on the counter. (County Sheriff Rob Seale blamed a "production defect.") But unless movies have lied to me, don't guns come with a safety catch which needs to be flipped before the gun will fire? Do they just malfunction on a regular basis?

After every accidental shooting, fans of firearms blame the parents for not teaching "Gun Safety". This theory is that if you teach children that guns are not toys, then it's perfectly fine for them to have their own little stash of weapons and bullets. Because they're learning to use them responsibly, right? Um...no. Maybe there are lots of 3-year-olds who are dab hands with a shotgun in moose season, but I think all sane people agree that children should not be encouraged to use deadly weapons. 

But even if you keep your gun securely out of reach from your children, how can you ensure their safety when they go to play at a classmate's house? It seems that many of these tragic stories begin with some pals messing around, maybe showing off that they know where dad keeps the key to the gun cabinet... "See how cool I look when I'm holding a rifle!"  

So why do so many people own guns, anyway?  

In March, a Florida boy aged 16 accidentally killed his 12-year-old brother when he mistook him for an intruder. The two boys were home alone in the middle of the day.

In April, a 4-year-old boy in Virginia was shot in the leg by his 10-year-old sibling. Their mother Antonia O’Brien had left the gun outside of its usual lockbox because she'd "heard noises outside" the previous night. 

In May, a 4-year-old girl in Florida shot and killed her brother, 11-year-old Jarvis Jackson. She and her toddler sister had found the gun on the kitchen table while their babysitter (26-year-old Michael Norman) was asleep. He had brought the 9mm handgun with him as he felt the apartment complex "wasn't safe".

These tragedies support Michael Moore's stance in Bowling for Columbine; people who live in constant fear are more likely to buy guns. Whenever firearms make the news and the debate is re-ignited, the first defence of the weapons is that they're needed as protection for the law-abiding citizen, because danger lurks around every corner. The saying goes, "You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive". 

So are guns essential insurance against the ubiquitous armed intruder? (You could always start by locking your doors.) A 2010 report on US crime statistics suggested that under 40% of burglars are armed, which means that over 60% are NOT. Are millions of Americans cowering in the closet with a pistol for no real reason?

When London was rioting, I facetiously suggested that we could all take note of Miranda Lambert's song Time to Get a Gun. I can totally sympathise with those who feel they need protection. I've had conversations with friends about how nice it would be to feel safely armed when walking home alone at night – after all, "God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal."

Americans are quite reasonably affronted at the idea of losing the right to bear arms that they have enjoyed since 1791 as per the second amendment, and I know there are many people who  use guns sensibly as part of that country lifestyle which involves stalking deer while getting some fresh air and maybe a few beers.

Nothin wrong with kicking back and listening to some Merle Haggard.

However, I'm still glad that most people in the UK don't carry firearms – not even bobbies on the beat. Even in cases as extreme and clear cut as the Woolwich murder of a soldier, police were shooting to injure, not to kill. One US website was horrified that nobody could stop the perpetrators because passersby were not armed. Apparently British heroics are less John McClane and more Mother Teresa; bystanders chose to attempt comforting the dying soldier rather than physically attack his killers. (What's more, when has one of America's mass shootings ever been halted by an armed bystander? Where are all these gun aficianados when you need them?)

But would it have been better if everyone was carrying weapons and could have stopped the attack? Would we feel safer if everyone had guns? Would it be prudent to just get over our distaste for civilian gun-ownership? I was somewhat freaked out when I stayed with a friend in South Africa and found that he kept a loaded gun in his bedroom. While we had fun at the firing range, I never lost the feeling that I was holding something which felt to me like a live grenade.

Then again, it's a bit weird that in the UK, the only people with guns are the bad guys. I've never come across a Brit with the morbid fear of armed intruders that is shared by most NRA members – but if the worst happened, most if us would have no more defense than our bare hands and assorted kitchen implements. (And if you did happen to have a gun and you shot a burglar, you'd be more likely to go to prison than get a medal for bravery.) If the rule was "enter at your own risk," would burglars be deterred? It's true that the US has a lower rate of burglary than the UK. (But then again, Japan has the lowest rate of all and they have strict gun control, so maybe it's just a crap shoot. Pardon the pun.)

If you live in an area in which EVERYONE carries a gun, it might seem unavoidable to have your own. But where does that end? If you keep a gun at home, you've got to keep it locked up for safety. But then you risk an intruder getting to it before you do, so you keep it by your bed, and risk blowing your brains out when you're trying to hit the snooze on your alarm. You could keep the gun at home, but then what if you get mugged in the street and have no way of defending yourself? So you keep the gun in your pocket, but then what about when you go to the gym or get in the pool? Do you take it with you when you pop out to buy milk? What if a crime happens and your gun is out of reach? It's a never-ending cycle of fear.

Batman and his pal Jim Gordon discuss weapon escalation:
 "We start carrying semiautomatics, they buy automatics. We
 start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds..."

Fox news was quick to point out that The "Batman" shooting in Colorado took place in a cinema which banned handguns, presumably chosen because the killer wanted to find unarmed victims who couldn't shoot back. While my mind is a little bit blown by the fact that there are other cinemas which welcome gun-slinging patrons, I can see the logic of this defence. However, taking this to its natural conclusion, the children shot in Sandy Hook should have all been carrying handguns too, and then they would have been able to fight back.

It doesn't work, does it?

There are differing views (and statistics) on crime levels and gun numbers. While pro-gun sites have found evidence to suggest that owning a gun makes a person much safer, other statisticians have found that firearm owners are far more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting than to use their guns to apprehend a criminal. The study most often quoted by the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies has been heavily criticised for its dodgy methodology. (As a general rule, it's a good idea to be skeptical about a study if it's the only one in 20 years which came up with statistics pleasing to a particular political lobby.) 

What might be more sensible than an outright ban on guns (which will never happen) is stricter controls. Even the most staunch opposers of "Obama's anti-gun agenda" (mean old President wants children to stop dying!) must see the wisdom in restricting the sale of guns to those who have been psychologically tested and trained in gun safety. Currently anyone in the US can walk into Walmart and buy a gun, barring convicted felons, mental patients or those under restraining orders for domestic violence. (Doubtless if guns were available for general purchase in the UK, all of the above would be campaigning for their rights to defend themselves, They'd win, too.) 

Is a little psychological testing too much to ask for?

      Ben Elton's sitcom The Thin Blue Line pointed out that if you

 want a gun, then you probably shouldn't have one.

In his 1997 book The Gift of Fear Gavin de Becker suggests a combination gun lock; an easily memorised code will only delay your using the gun by a few seconds. (And frankly, if you are planning to use your gun the second you're awoken from a deep sleep by one of those omnipresent intruders, you might appreciate a moment to clear your head.) A code lock would also mean that no kids could set it off accidentally, and no criminal could use it against you. Pretty smart, huh? So why doesn't EVERY gun owner make use of this simple device? Probably because in a society which prides itself on instant gratification, it seems like way too much work.

Slogans like "Free men do not ask permission to bear arms" are all very American and independent, but they just don't take into account other people:

If I lived in a remote cabin in the woods, would I feel safer knowing I had a gun? 

Yes. 

If I was walking around doing my grocery shopping, would I feel safer knowing that everyone else was carrying guns? 

No.

You can see the problem here, can't you?

Gun fans speak eloquently about how carrying a gun makes you safe, and gun control is just a way of disarming crime victims.They can be very convincing when you're thinking about it purely from your point of view. "I'm normal and sane, and I'd use a gun sensibly to defend myself, so what's the problem?" Well, the problem is that everyone isn't you. There are people out there who buy guns because they want to hold up a bank, and people who leave guns lying around in the toddler's room because they're "pretty sure" it's not loaded.  

THESE PEOPLE ARE WHY WE NEED GUN CONTROL! 

Not you, you're fine, obviously.

And now we have a new challenge for the "Let's keep people alive" agenda – the printable gun. Yes, a gun which can be constructed in plastic layers via a 3-D printer. (Awesome, a gun which can't be detected via X-ray. Just what we need.) 

The design comes from Defense Distributed, a "civil liberties" non-profit organisation headed by Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student at the University of Texas. He says "I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people – that's what the tool is – it's a gun. But I don't think that's a reason to not do it – or a reason not to put it out there." Well that's OK then. No, wait. It's INSANE.

For every person who treats guns with the respect they deserve, there will be some doofus who carries an unlocked pistol in his back pocket when he goes jogging. If you're only thinking about gun control in terms of how it will affect YOU and YOUR right to bear arms, then you're not thinking hard enough.