Giving rifles to children a bad idea?

[martybegan]

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

You get all hung up on the purpose, and ignore the end result when it suits you, and only when it suits you.

A gun can be used to defend oneself, it can be a deterrent against harm against you, it can be stress relief via target shooting, and it can be a source of nourishment when used for hunting. Like a car, it is dangerous if used improperly, and less so when used properly. Cars are in fact more dangerous because driving is almost treated as an end to a means, where when someone pulls the trigger of a gun, they tend to concentrate on the act, and not what they need to pick up at the Piggly-Wiggly.

Well, when debating whether a young child should have something, isn't it pertinent to know what the designed use of that object is?

It is pertinent, but not of consequnce if the child is supervised properly when using the item, and the child is instructed how to correctly use it.

 

[Newby]

Can We At Least Agree That Giving .22 Caliber Rifles To Small Children Might Be A Really Bad Idea? - Forbes

n early May of this year, a 2-year-old Cumberland County, Kentucky girl was killed by her 5-year-old brother when a .22 caliber rifle the boy had been playing with—a gift to the child from his parents—discharged. According to the local coroner, the parents believed that the gun, which was kept in a corner of the house where the kids had ready access to the weapon, was not loaded.

....The grieving parents who are suffering the worse loss one can imagine are, no doubt, people who care deeply for their kids and would certainly have never knowingly left a loaded weapon readily available to their kids any more than they would have knowingly invited their little children to take the wheel of the family car. To do so would simply be foolishly dangerous.

... I do not believe that choosing to own a gun makes you, in any way, a bad person unless you use that weapon for evil purposes. For that reason, I respect that those who believe deeply in their 2nd Amendment rights would want to stand up in defense of those rights.

But, seriously, would anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights be infringed upon if we were to ask them Americans to simply acknowledge that there are many things in life that are just not appropriate for use by young children and that a working weapon might well be one such thing?

This is also why carrying guns around is a bad idea.

People make mistakes. Children get killed.
To those who say, ' ... yabut, not very many children ...'

One is way too many.

Sounds no different than abortion to me.

And don't you have another thread on here all in favor of it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And the price of cars is the occasional traffic fatality. And the price of keeping roaches out of the kitchen is the occasional child poisoning.

Guns are no more dangerous than a chain saw - less so in reality. Keeps kids away from both unless STRICTLY supervised.

Trying to explain risk and probability to a progressive is a hopeless cause.

They understand the concept when it comes to elections and lying to the voters, but Progressive agenda is all emotion driven. Logic and reason are not in their repertoire.

And of course, there's no excuse for getting all emotional and junk over the deaths of children.

If they were fetuses, we'd be hearing a different tune from the nutters.

Hypocrites.

The job of adults is to protect children. You can write all kinds of lame ass excuses about how car accidents kill and we should ban swimming pools or whatever the current ASSSSSinine lack of logic is but

Children should be protected.

 

[Newby]

Trying to explain risk and probability to a progressive is a hopeless cause.

They understand the concept when it comes to elections and lying to the voters, but Progressive agenda is all emotion driven. Logic and reason are not in their repertoire.

And of course, there's no excuse for getting all emotional and junk over the deaths of children.

If they were fetuses, we'd be hearing a different tune from the nutters.

Hypocrites.

The job of adults is to protect children. You can write all kinds of lame ass excuses about how car accidents kill and we should ban swimming pools or whatever the current ASSSSSinine lack of logic is but

Children should be protected.

When do they become 'children' and deserve protection?

You're one very sick individual.

 

[koshergrl]

Trying to explain risk and probability to a progressive is a hopeless cause.

They understand the concept when it comes to elections and lying to the voters, but Progressive agenda is all emotion driven. Logic and reason are not in their repertoire.

And of course, there's no excuse for getting all emotional and junk over the deaths of children.

If they were fetuses, we'd be hearing a different tune from the nutters.

Hypocrites.

The job of adults is to protect children. You can write all kinds of lame ass excuses about how car accidents kill and we should ban swimming pools or whatever the current ASSSSSinine lack of logic is but

Children should be protected.

Funny you should say that, since the *mothers* of the OP are a group that formed after Sandy Hook, to lobby AGAINST armed protection of children in schools.

Talk about asssssssinine lack of logic.

 

[Ernie S.]

Trying to explain risk and probability to a progressive is a hopeless cause.

They understand the concept when it comes to elections and lying to the voters, but Progressive agenda is all emotion driven. Logic and reason are not in their repertoire.

And of course, there's no excuse for getting all emotional and junk over the deaths of children.

If they were fetuses, we'd be hearing a different tune from the nutters.

Hypocrites.

The job of adults is to protect children. You can write all kinds of lame ass excuses about how car accidents kill and we should ban swimming pools or whatever the current ASSSSSinine lack of logic is but

Children should be protected.

An emotional reaction at the death of a kid is perfectly logical. God knows that when my son died, I reacted with grief, anger, and remorse, but I didn't try to limit your rights because of it.
A logical person does not write law based on emotion.
Making it unlawful for me to carry a weapon will save no life. In fact, there is a very real possibility that it will cost me mine.

The bottom line is if someone wants to kill you, they will use whatever is available to them as a weapon, but the weapon itself has no ability, no motive, means or opportunity without a hand to wield it.
Screaming for assault weapons to be banned, or for a ban on 30 round magazines is an emotional response, not a rational one.
Banning the sale of so called "assault weapons" would not have saves a single life in Newtown. An armed guard, or even a well trained, armed teacher, stationed in the school, very likely would have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can We At Least Agree That Giving .22 Caliber Rifles To Small Children Might Be A Really Bad Idea? - Forbes

This is also why carrying guns around is a bad idea.

People make mistakes. Children get killed.

To those who say, ' ... yabut, not very many children ...'

One is way too many.

So one kid getting killed from falling off his bike is too many?

How about one kid getting poisoned by household chemicals?

How about one kid getting killed falling down the stairs?

Drowning in a pool?

Falling out of a tree?

Banning shit because accidents happen is ludicrous.

A bicycle is not a hazardous thing in and of itself. But a gun is. Bicycles are designed as a means of transportation. A gun is designed to hurl lead at phenomenal speeds. No one should give household chemicals to a child. Parental responsibility dictates some reasonable hazard.

You rationalize accidents by conflating them without reasonable thought.

If bicycles and staircases were designed primarily to harm, mankind would have come up with reasonable substitutes. Guns, however, have one design purpose.

That was the dumbest thing I ever read.

A bicycle, in order to be used properly, requires a person to be able to balance himself on an area equivalent to standing on your big toes, and do so while traveling at a pace that is faster than a normal walk, and can approach speeds that make it dangerous to operate a car. How is that not inherently dangerous? Is it because, unless you actually get on that bike, and ignore safety rules, you can't get hurt?

Same goes for a gun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

we are a gun loving culture...simple as that.....

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

The price of life is death. We should make it illegal to be alive, that would eliminate death entirely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The price of life is death. We should make it illegal to be alive, that would eliminate death entirely.

Careful, Obama might make that the next EO....

 

[KGB]

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

to provide an effective deterrent to a would-be criminal.

to provide years of enjoyment in the shooting sports.

to provide an important lesson in responsibility and accountability before handing kids the keys to the family car.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But, seriously, would anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights be infringed upon if we were to ask them Americans to simply acknowledge that there are many things in life that are just not appropriate for use by young children and that a working weapon might well be one such thing?

‘Asking’ people to not buy guns for young children has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, as the Bill of Rights applies only to government.

The government ‘telling’ people to not buy guns for young children would be in violation of the Second Amendment, however.

 

[Noomi]

I got my first BB gun at 7, my first real rifle at 12. The BB guns we were left alone with to do as boys do (shoot cans and bottles), the rifle I only had access to when my dad was with me.

Nothing wrong with giving guns to kids, they need to learn proper shooting techniques and safety. These grieving parents will never forgive themselves, but you can say the same for parent's who accidently leave the pool gate open or leave an open bottle of rat poison in the garage. Shit happens.

No five year old needs a gun, nor should have one. Period.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nope, it's an excellent idea. Of course the pinhead reactionary a like Luddly here will act as if I am demanding that all kids be given rifles.

I started with a bolt action 22 caliber rifle, when I was 8 years old. I had gun safety drilled into my willing brain. Any young child who wants one should be given one.

That's about when my uncle got his first Marlin.

 

[Geaux4it]

I have my grandfathers Remington Wingmaster 16ga which was his bird gun, and It came to me when he passed in 1975. He was an avid sportsman in Shreveport La. It was the first gun I ever shot at 12 years old. Then Christmas the next year my parents got me a Topper Jr 20 gauge and a 410 for my little brother. I still have that one too.

Guns have been a part of my family like the clock that passes time. I learned to respect them, and so have my kids.

It's a deep thing with us and I pity the poor SOB that would ever need to try and take those treasures from us.

It will be a long day for all involved

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

I got my first BB gun at 7, my first real rifle at 12. The BB guns we were left alone with to do as boys do (shoot cans and bottles), the rifle I only had access to when my dad was with me.

Nothing wrong with giving guns to kids, they need to learn proper shooting techniques and safety. These grieving parents will never forgive themselves, but you can say the same for parent's who accidently leave the pool gate open or leave an open bottle of rat poison in the garage. Shit happens.

No five year old needs a gun, nor should have one. Period.

Your opinion is worthless when applied to my family

MYOB

-Geaux

 

[KGB]

I got my first BB gun at 7, my first real rifle at 12. The BB guns we were left alone with to do as boys do (shoot cans and bottles), the rifle I only had access to when my dad was with me.

Nothing wrong with giving guns to kids, they need to learn proper shooting techniques and safety. These grieving parents will never forgive themselves, but you can say the same for parent's who accidently leave the pool gate open or leave an open bottle of rat poison in the garage. Shit happens.

No five year old needs a gun, nor should have one. Period.

Every situation is unique, so let's break it down with this case:

1) The weapon was not secured.

2) The gun was loaded & not secured.

3) The parents had no idea the gun was loaded.

Good gravy, are these parents utter morons? This is clearly a case of irresponsible gun ownership & makes it worse for us who are responsible gun owners. Yes, they are paying a huge price in terms of grief, but really? Personally, I would not give a weapon to a 5 year old a weapon since I think that is pushing the envelope of reason. However, if a family wishes to do that, then the requirements for doing so need to be strict. By this, I am referring to the following:

- Parents/Guardians need to take a state-mandated gun safety course & pass a written exam. This license is renewed annually until the child reaches the age of 12.

- The child will be required to attend a gun safety course that is age appropriate & demonstrate proper gun handling/gun safety techniques.

- The parents/guardians also agree that the weapon(s) that the child is given is to be locked up at all times when not in use.

- Furthermore, under no circumstances will said child handle the weapon without the parent/guardian in direct view.

- If the situation that occurred happens, the parents/guardians are legally responsible & can be criminally prosecuted for the actions of the child up to negligible homicide.

These restrictions do not violate the 2nd Amendment since they apply to the kids & not the adults. Kids really do not have Constitutional protections until they reach the age of majority anyway. Plus, it is a long established legal precedent that a parent can be held responsible for the actions of their child.

 

[koshergrl]

My brother bought his boy his first rifle before the kid could even talk.

Big whoop. It was a gift from a father to his boy, given against the day when they would hunt together.

And that boy also purchased his son his first rifle when he was just a couple of years old.

Get the fuck over it. People can buy whatever they want for their kids, it's none of your business.

 

[Ernie S.]

I got my first BB gun at 7, my first real rifle at 12. The BB guns we were left alone with to do as boys do (shoot cans and bottles), the rifle I only had access to when my dad was with me.

Nothing wrong with giving guns to kids, they need to learn proper shooting techniques and safety. These grieving parents will never forgive themselves, but you can say the same for parent's who accidently leave the pool gate open or leave an open bottle of rat poison in the garage. Shit happens.

No five year old needs a gun, nor should have one. Period.

So nice of you to make that decision for other Americans! Wait!
What's that? You're not an American? You're dismissed.

 

[strollingbones]

I have my grandfathers Remington Wingmaster 16ga which was his bird gun, and It came to me when he passed in 1975. He was an avid sportsman in Shreveport La. It was the first gun I ever shot at 12 years old. Then Christmas the next year my parents got me a Topper Jr 20 gauge and a 410 for my little brother. I still have that one too.

Guns have been a part of my family like the clock that passes time. I learned to respect them, and so have my kids.

It's a deep thing with us and I pity the poor SOB that would ever need to try and take those treasures from us.

It will be a long day for all involved

-Geaux

i think that is so hard for the anti gunners to understand....when gun people are discussing guns...sure a lot of it...is.....you should fire this sob.....etc and so forth...but much of it is...this was my first .22....it belonged to my granddad one day it will belong to my son or daughter....our guns go back generations and we plan to hand them down for generations...truth be known...i bet most of us ...keep our guns oiled and put up...after my father died...my mother paid someone to come in ever year and clean and oil all the guns...they are in mint condition to this day....and that reminds me...it is time to clean and oil the guns....i make son do it...to them they are 'weapons of destruction' to us...they are memories that go deep

 

[martybegan]

I got my first BB gun at 7, my first real rifle at 12. The BB guns we were left alone with to do as boys do (shoot cans and bottles), the rifle I only had access to when my dad was with me.

Nothing wrong with giving guns to kids, they need to learn proper shooting techniques and safety. These grieving parents will never forgive themselves, but you can say the same for parent's who accidently leave the pool gate open or leave an open bottle of rat poison in the garage. Shit happens.

No five year old needs a gun, nor should have one. Period.

Every situation is unique, so let's break it down with this case:

1) The weapon was not secured.

2) The gun was loaded & not secured.

3) The parents had no idea the gun was loaded.

Good gravy, are these parents utter morons? This is clearly a case of irresponsible gun ownership & makes it worse for us who are responsible gun owners. Yes, they are paying a huge price in terms of grief, but really? Personally, I would not give a weapon to a 5 year old a weapon since I think that is pushing the envelope of reason. However, if a family wishes to do that, then the requirements for doing so need to be strict. By this, I am referring to the following:

- Parents/Guardians need to take a state-mandated gun safety course & pass a written exam. This license is renewed annually until the child reaches the age of 12.

- The child will be required to attend a gun safety course that is age appropriate & demonstrate proper gun handling/gun safety techniques.

- The parents/guardians also agree that the weapon(s) that the child is given is to be locked up at all times when not in use.

- Furthermore, under no circumstances will said child handle the weapon without the parent/guardian in direct view.

- If the situation that occurred happens, the parents/guardians are legally responsible & can be criminally prosecuted for the actions of the child up to negligible homicide.

These restrictions do not violate the 2nd Amendment since they apply to the kids & not the adults. Kids really do not have Constitutional protections until they reach the age of majority anyway. Plus, it is a long established legal precedent that a parent can be held responsible for the actions of their child.

All of the items apply to adults, and still have 2nd amendment issues.