Opinions on letting a child go out of the house

[Ra1nbowCrasH 272]

How old is the child in question? The answer to that would be the sole decider of my answer to the poll.

[Croaks 251]

Well I walk to the local shopping center all the time.

And I'm eight years old.

[Scootaloo Is Best Filly 578]

There's a lot of questions here. Does your son/daughter know to come straight home etc.etc.etc. when there is Danger? What part of area are you living in? Is your son going to be alone or with friends? What part of day is this? Do you know where he/she is going and how far it is from the house? Day or night?

 

There are a lot of factors here. If you could answer all these questions and still think he/she will be safe then that's great. As a general rule I would think by the time they were 8 they should be allowed to leave the house with some rules. "You need to be home by five," "Keep your Cell Phone on" etc.etc.etc.etc. Depending on the area things are gonna be a little different.

[Shankveld 4,949]

This is a little too vague,

what age is a child and what is 'letting go outside'.

Is a child anyone under the age of 18?

Is letting outside just on the front lawn?

~

[Eenohay 318]

the higest danger is for them to get lost and not be able to find their way back. But getting kidnapped is not as common as you think.

 

So if the kid knows where and how to go somewhere, then there's no reason he shouldn't, but of course if a kid runs of in any direction, that's dangerous and bad.

[Simcity11100 772]

How old is the child in question? The answer to that would be the sole decider of my answer to the poll.

 

This is a little too vague, what age is a child and what is 'letting go outside'. Is a child anyone under the age of 18? Is letting outside just on the front lawn? ~

1 - 12 being the age and letting them out of the house off the lawn towards a park or something by them self's. Edited April 15, 2012 by Simcity11100

[Cosmic Charlie 129]

The vast majority of people want NOTHING to do with kids they don't know. Kids are a huge hassle and you don't want to be the stranger talking to them unless you're a cop or something. Let them do what they want within reason but know what it is they're doing. If you trust them and they know it they will feel less inclined to lie to you and might even feel guilty about possibly losing the adult-sized respect they feel they have earned in getting to go out on their own with friends.

[ToridAkbolto 170]

It depends on the neighborhood to be honest, I know some where you absolutely cannot let them out alone. And some where kids in first grade are walking to school by themselves.

[Whiteshade 1,426]

Context.

 

But if it was my neighborhood, then yes, its safe 98% of the time

[FLARE 952]

I think its completely safe...if you have common sense and know what you are doing, where you are going and nothing illegal..although then again, I've been known to over estimate the intelligence of other people...I convinced a boy in my grade that I can travel through time and he was freaking out.

[butter scotch 79]

Nothing is a 100% safe but if a child doesn't get out they become shy or fat and at times both which means they get bullied at school (not always but it happens a lot). Also it gives them a sense of independance which is good...

[M14Brony 92]

As others have stated, it depends on the age of the child and the neighborhood. I feel that younger children should (up to elementary school age, for the most part) usually be accompanied by an adult when it comes to going places. I think it is safer for older children to go out without parental supervision (pre-teens and teens), but I do believe that it would be best for them to be accompanied by friends if possible.

[TOMahwk 351]

Anyone can be kidnapped. You see people ages 20 and higher disappear.

 

I personally think it's reasonably safe to have a child out and about in a decent neighborhood. I think that if someone is going to kidnap a child, they are going to kidnap them, parent supervision or not. It just makes things harder with a parent there.

Edited April 16, 2012 by TOMahwk

[TwiForLife 87]

I don't think it wise, because if something happen to the child, it's the parent who's going to end up looking bad.

[Mr. Wobbels 664]

I wish I had super vision. That'd be sweet.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Leon Trotsky

[Espeon 338]

Of course it's unsafe to let kids out of the house without super vision. They wouldn't be able to see very well, so they could bump into things.

 

But srsly, the question itself is quite vague. What defines a "child," for example? Not to start a semantics argument, but since everyone is born to parents (unless we're talking Brave New World-style test tube babbys), everyone is technically a child. There can't be a definitive cutoff between child and adult, either. Take, for example, one person who just turned 12 and another who turns 12 tomorrow. What makes these people so different as to separate them into different categories?

 

That said, generalizations can be made about the effects of giving kids independence or starving them of it. There has to be a balance, as kids who are left to themselves are liable to get into some pretty shady stuff if it's presented to them. This isn't necessarily because they're bad people in general or that they don't know better. Often they'll do things they know they shouldn't just because there's no one there to stop them. In contrast, sheltered kids don't learn about the world around them or how to deal with other people, which has obvious downsides. Eventually, they will need to be independent, and they need to learn how to think and act for themselves. Get the right balance of these factors, and kids learn from their parents/supervisors about the general dos and don'ts of the world and get to put them into practice and figure out the nuances themselves, rather than learn entirely by observation or mistake.

 

If the aspect of independence is ignored, it pretty much boils down to the area they'd be roaming in. They're probably fine anywhere unless there happens to be a high concentration of violence. I don't recommend letting a child roam the streets of Cleveland alone, for example, especially East Cleveland. You know what they say: "Don't slow down in East Cleveland or you'll die." There are plenty of tame places where the only real danger would be getting hit by a car or something, which is a risk you're getting anywhere.

 

tl;dr -- It's all very conditional.

[Marcusaralius76 150]

I'm gonna have to agree with most other people here: It all depends on where you live. In my area, the worst criminals are speeders. We just don't have much crime, so its usually very safe to go out.

 

Then again, if you live a mile from the largest drug cartel in the country, you might wanna keep the kids chained to a chair in the house.

[CapnKrunk 307]

I belive it is safe,depending on the age and trust.Let someone at least know where you are going.I carry a knife with me when going to the park or hanging out in the Mesa.(I ONLY USE KNIVES FOR SELF DEFENSE!)

[Lumen 106]

It's really safe where I live. I was allowed to go outside alone to play with my friends when I was around 7.

[.:~:.Dragonshy.:~:. 5]

it depends on the age, and where you live

[Finesthour 7,287]

Well.. .im too damn protective. i probably wouldnt let them go outside unless I knew exactly where they were.

[Pinkazoid 3,493]

Well seeing how there's boys riding barbie bicycles without wearing a shirt or a parent, I'd say it's partly safe

[flenis2 2]

im 13 and im not even allowed to walk down the street to the shop on the corner so many times i have wanted a pie , sausage roll or bag of lollies (candy for the Americans).

 

even now my sisters 19 and and only a couple years ago my mum started letting her go to Westfield (that being a large shoping centre near by and a shoping centre is a as Americans call it a mall)

[Retro*Derpy 3,183]

In my current living status, no, I would not let my child go outside without supervision. Much too many fast-bys and other criminal activities happen in my area not to be cautious. Though if I lived where my grandparents live, it would be a different story. No neighbors, lots of acre of both fields and woods, and it is rather unhealthy to have a child on lockdown 24/7. Let them go and explore the world, they need to learn.

[Shanks 10,816]

It depends on a lot of different factors such as how old is the child? Where are they going and for how long? It seems like far too many parents adopt either the extreme of letting their kids do whatever they want regardless of the consequences of put them in some bubble where thought they may be safe they won't be prepared for anything once they get older. Yes children should be allowed to take risks but they should be calculated risks that should gradually go up as they older and more mature.