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 infrequent an 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.