Where do they sell flaming steak knives? It would be cool to cook a steak while cutting it.
5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
I guess in your world, any family that doesn't leave a loaded kids sized gun lying around has their kid in a bubble.
p.s. My dad taught me to fire a 22 when I was under 10. When he wasn't supervising me he had the gun locked up in one place, the ammo in a second and had removed a part of the firing mechanism and kept that locked in a third place.
I know. Having to lock your guns up to prevent accidents is such a burden. We should be able to have guns lying on the couch as we drink beer and munch on doritos. Hell, we shouldn't have to worry because our dogs have been trained to respect the guns.
Yes, an in-ground pool has 'burdensome laws' requiring it to be locked up when not supervised.
Bingo. Sure the toys lying around are burdensome, but I'll take that over bullets flying around. Can't believe people justify kids and guns.
Right again. Toy guns only desensitize if not accompanied by parenting that covers 'guns' as well as a number of moral right-vs-wrong issues.
However, a five-year-old possessing the power to destroy another is never a good idea; reasons already stated.
Yes, but like a bath tub, bowl of soup, or Jacuzzi (all of which contain enough water to die in) they were not made to kill or destroy.
If someone can offer a cogent, reasonable argument for a 5-year old to be taught how to fire a gun, or even to be around guns on a regular basis, I would love to hear it.
And throw out the arguments about being taught safety at a young age, or tradition or any of those chestnuts. If you want to teach gun safety at a young age, start at 10. Or 13. Both of those ages are much more appropriate than 5 years old. At five, very very few children have the mental capacity to understand the hazards that a gun can have. Hell, even most 10-years don't understand what kind of impact a gun can have. There is simply no reasonable purpose to teach a 5-year old how to shoot. This isn't the pioneer times where you have to kill your food or go hungry. Every man, woman and child does not need to arm themselves in case the government tries to take away their guns (Hint: This will never happen. Paranoia should not be the basis for public policy). Guns do not need to a part of a five-years life.
And for the people who say shooting a plastic gun somehow prepares a kid for shooting a real gun, that is perhaps the stupidest argument ever. That's like saying playing Microsoft Flight Simulator will allow me to fly the Concorde. Or, to use a TERB analogy, like saying watching one of canadaguy's stupid flight videos prepares me to fly an actual plane.
In this case, both the gun companies who market firearms for toddlers, and the parents who buy into the marketing and failed to take safety precautions to lock up their firearms, and who introduced firearms to a kid who is barely out of diapers are to blame. Idiots both of them.
And throw out the arguments about being taught safety at a young age, or tradition or any of those chestnuts. If you want to teach gun safety at a young age, start at 10. Or 13. Both of those ages are much more appropriate than 5 years old. At five, very very few children have the mental capacity to understand the hazards that a gun can have. Hell, even most 10-years don't understand what kind of impact a gun can have. There is simply no reasonable purpose to teach a 5-year old how to shoot. This isn't the pioneer times where you have to kill your food or go hungry. Every man, woman and child does not need to arm themselves in case the government tries to take away their guns (Hint: This will never happen. Paranoia should not be the basis for public policy). Guns do not need to a part of a five-years life.
And for the people who say shooting a plastic gun somehow prepares a kid for shooting a real gun, that is perhaps the stupidest argument ever. That's like saying playing Microsoft Flight Simulator will allow me to fly the Concorde. Or, to use a TERB analogy, like saying watching one of canadaguy's stupid flight videos prepares me to fly an actual plane.
In this case, both the gun companies who market firearms for toddlers, and the parents who buy into the marketing and failed to take safety precautions to lock up their firearms, and who introduced firearms to a kid who is barely out of diapers are to blame. Idiots both of them.
5, 10, 13 years old, that's really up to the parents of the child to decide isn't it?
As for plastic toy guns, they only teach bad habits like poor muzzle and trigger discipline. I've got no problem with parents teaching their children safe firearms handling with a plastic toy gun, I'll go as far as to praise those who do, but who actually does that? Meanwhile, I see children on supervised shoots with their parents at the ranges I frequent and they all still manage to conduct themselves safely and responsibly. So much for no child ever being capable of handling firearms safely.
As for firearms manufacturers making firearms specifically for children, did it ever occur to you that they have shorter arms, smaller hands and fingers and can't handle the "adult sized" versions of higher recoiling rifles? This incident is a result of bad parenting, nothing more.
As for plastic toy guns, they only teach bad habits like poor muzzle and trigger discipline. I've got no problem with parents teaching their children safe firearms handling with a plastic toy gun, I'll go as far as to praise those who do, but who actually does that? Meanwhile, I see children on supervised shoots with their parents at the ranges I frequent and they all still manage to conduct themselves safely and responsibly. So much for no child ever being capable of handling firearms safely.
As for firearms manufacturers making firearms specifically for children, did it ever occur to you that they have shorter arms, smaller hands and fingers and can't handle the "adult sized" versions of higher recoiling rifles? This incident is a result of bad parenting, nothing more.
So by your logic, should a 5-year old, if his parents allow it, be able to drink alcohol? Drive a car? Smoke?
All are objects, except potentially with cigarettes, that if used responsibly by an adult, or someone who understands the potential ill effects, do not necessarily end in harm. However, all also have the potential that if used improperly, to result in death to the user as well as other people. Yet, no one except the gun lobby markets their products to 5-year olds. Why? Two reasons spring to mind. A) Because no 5-year old has an income, and therefore money to spend on the product, and B)even the most ravenous, profiteering alcohol marketer, or car manufacturer, knows that a 5-year can not be trusted to manage the ill effects of their product.
Do you see the alcohol lobby marketing a 'smaller' bottle of beer for a 5-year olds hands? Or a smaller, easier to steer car? No.
At some point, common sense beyond the household has to kick in. Again, I bring back to the question of what use does a 5-year old have for a gun? To hear it go 'bang'? Any number of loud, obnoxious, but harmless toys, will produce that kind of noise. To engage in the long-held family tradition of guns being passed down from generation to generation? Please, a five-year is just beginning to have a concept of 'self' and has very little interest in tradition or history.
I do not know what the exact age a child should be allowed to fire a gun.
I do think a five-year old at a gun range firing a rifle is absolutely batshit
I suppose there are some genius 5-year olds who can. However, I think the vast majority of five-year olds cannot
I question your story about children at a gun range, but even if it's true, I really question how many were 5 years old. Also, I have no problem with children as young as five at a gun range as long as they are just observing. I think it's kinda fucked and pretty useless, but whatever, I accept the gun culture is very real and that most gunowners are responsible with their firearms (my uncle owns a rural gun store). However, I really have to question the wisdom of letting a five-year old discharge a gun under any circumstance.
I am not a neuro-scientist, or psychologist, but I do know that the pre-frontal cortex (the part of the brain that controls reasoning and decision-making) is not fully developed until 25, let alone 5 years old. I've witnessed perfectly normal kids solemnly absorbing a lecture from their parents, and then doing the exact opposite five minutes later. Because they're kids.
I feel like the same people who will justify 15-year boys raping a girl and then posting pictures of that rape on the Internet because their 'cognitive function hasn't been fully developed yet' will endorse a 5-year old firing a gun because he's listened to a few lectures on gun safety from his parents and fired a BB gun at a paper target.
As for your last point, LOL. I understand why the idiots who market guns for children make them smaller, I'm not questioning their business practices insofar as the design of the guns goes, I'm just bewildered at why they make them at all?
Again, offer me one good reason why a 5-year needs to use a hunting rifle (even one that is mini-sized) and I'll retract my issue.
I'm not saying that the parents shouldn't be blamed in this case. they absolutely should and should bear the brunt of the blame. In fact I think they should be criminally responsible. I just think it's completely whacked that people are defending a company that targets guns for 5-year olds or think that the Second Amendment means that five-years should be firing rifles.
A child participating in target practice or small game hunting is a valid reason, wanting to teach children safe gun handling and responsibility because there are guns present in the household is a valid reason. If they're not valid to you, by all means, feel free to not purchase a single shot .22LR rifle for your child and shelter them from whatever aspects of the world you don't want them exposed to. It's an ongoing process, nothing wrong with building the foundations at whatever age the parents decide is appropriate, as long as it's conducted in a safe and responsible manner. When it isn't, the blame should start and stop with the parents.
Laws designed to blame the owner as the guiltiest party and punish them with impunity are burdensome.
A background check is punishment or burdensome?
No wonder most on here are just shaking their heads.Criminal charges (as in, you could go to jail) for having your guns stolen from you is unjust punishment. Having your guns stolen from you by the government for some arbitrary reason is unjust punishment. Being treated guilty until proven innocent is burdensome.A background check is punishment or burdensome?
Really? You surely are working over time on this. Someone steals your guns and you go to jail? How many has this happen to? The government 'steals' your guns? From your description and concern, it must be happening every week.
I would add a couple more:
5. Never leave a gun loaded when not in use.
6. Never allow a minor child to have unsupervised access to a firearm under any circumstances.
These are good guidelines to teach to an adult before allowing them to play with a firearm. However, a safer approach would be to just not provide the gun at all.
There are very few people in modern society who can make a realistic case for actually NEEDING to own (much less use) a firearm. Generally people may WANT them butt he don't NEED them. As a result, a gun is not so much a tool as it is a very dangerous toy. Just because, when extreme care is taken, guns can be played with safely, this is not a good enough reason to make them available to the public. The benefit of allowing people to have guns is that some of them will have fun shooting at stuff. The down-side is that accidents WILL happen and the consequences will be severe. I don't see the net benefit to society of allowing guns to be in the hands of the public. The fun that hunters may have is not worth the pain that will result from misuse.
It's fine to have rules to govern firearm use but it's naive and foolish to expect that people will follow the rules just because someone has listed them. It's even more ridiculous to expect a five year old child to have the maturity to understand and consistently follow any rules. This is why children are not trusted with driving, voting, access to alcohol, and many other adult activities. It is unforgivable that a five year old should have had unsupervised access to a gun under any circumstances. I would charge the parents, take the boy out of their custody, and put them in jail for their behaviour.
At the end of the day, a gun is a dangerous toy who's time has passed. The fact that the family in this story don't even understand what they did wrong is a good sign that they should not have been trusted with a gun to begin with.
I'd like to see the "calculation" that shows that the loss of even one life is "acceptable" in return for "benefits" of a five year old boy having a gun.
I would even add another rule:
7. Never let ANYONE have access to a gun unless you can show there is some net benefit to society of letting that specific person have the weapon.
You would let your kid play with a steak knife? What's wrong with you? Something tells me you don't have children.
Yeah, nobody's arguing about not teaching your kid about gun safety.
Teaching your kid about gun safety has NOTHING to do with buying them a pretty blue (child sized) gun.
Teaching your kid about gun safety does NOT involve teaching your kid how to load, aim, and fire the gun.
