... I don't know about you, but I'm running full tilt to the patent office with that one.
5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
Five-year olds aren't ready to handle simple tools safely. We don't even give them sharp scissors. It's perverted and evil to give them deadly weapons. It's criminal to manufacture and market killing machines to be given to infants as merrily-painted toys.
All those simple and obvious precepts you listed were absent in this horrible tragedy. As you say the parents were demonstrably not competent to handle guns themselves, they certainly should never have been able to acquire one to give their child as a plaything. As ever in these killings, so peculiarly American as they are, the question is: Where are the responsible gun-owners protecting their Constitutional rights and their nation's peace by insisting gun-ownership be responsible?
Why do all gun owners compare gun related deaths to car related deaths?
Yes, driving a car is far more dangerous. However a car gets an entire family from point A to point B. Yes, you put yourself (and others) in danger every time you get behind the wheel of your car... But most people (actually.. just about all of society) feels the pros outweigh the cons.
A gun (in the hands of a civilian) does NOTHING for the benefit of society. In the hands of most, it's just a toy (most civilians simply use it to "have fun").... That's all. The pros do not outweigh the cons at all.
There are valid comparisons out there.. But comparing a car to a gun is beyond asinine.
I did like the pointy scissors comment.
80+ posts in and it's appearing that CL is all alone in his position, except for a drive by fruiting from FUJI. The NRA need more like him.
This was exactly my point two pages ago.. Prepare to be called "over bearing" by CL for not allowing your child to play with scissors.
Are you a parent? Do you know what it's like to raise a 5 yr old, little girl and you think it's ok to put a weapon in her hands at that age to teach her how to shoot? Here's how a typical 5 yr old girl acts, tell us all you want to put a loaded gun in her hands.
I'd like to add to this.. There's this thing out there called the Nipissing District Developmental Screen. It's a tool used by teachers and parents to identify "delays" in children. According to them a child (at the age of 5) should be able to:
- Use sentences that sound almost like an adult
- Be able to say most speech sounds (example: "sh…shoe")
- Start to recognize letters and the sounds that they make
- Use sentences to describe objects and events
- Follow more than one request at a time (example: get your paints, make a picture and put it on the fridge)
- Count from one to ten
- Understand the gravity of firearm safety
- Load, aim, and fire a rifle
(I may have added those last two for CL's benefit)
I wonder how many of that significant amount of children CL refers to are 5 years old.
He would have saved his mother from posting an inappropriate video on youtube. It's not as bad as giving your child a gun but I don' t think parents should be allowed to post private moments from their children's upbringing for the world to see.
It might work if the purpose is to show people that no matter how bad they may think their day is, it could be worse.
You are right about that. Children have mood swings. It's a part of their healthy development as they learn how to be people. Fact is, however, that during this development, they have not yet fully learned how to function responsibly; it makes no sense to expect them to handle dangerous items.
There's a lot of stupid knee-jerking, over-reaction, and agenda-seeking here. People are trying to turn this issue into ammunition for their desire to ban guns, which is nuts.
We USED to have these problems in Canada, stuff like this used to be not all that uncommon here too. We solved it here, and the same solution would work in the US.
We did two simple things in Canada that effectively eliminated the problem here:
1. Mandatory safety training required in order to purchase firearms
2. Safe storage laws requiring firearms to be locked up when not in use
As much as we would like everyone to have common sense, unbelievably, there are actually people out there who actually do need to be told "don't let your kids play with your guns" and "don't leave loaded guns around where kids can get to them".
As it turns out requiring people to take a course where they are told such common sense things actually really does make a difference. Same way making people pass a written driving test that asks things like, "do you have to stop at a stop sign?" makes a difference. Aren't we a fun species?
The safe storage laws are also common sense. Especially in this day in age where there are biometric locks and other things that still allow fast access to a locked up firearm by the authorized user. The paranoid can keep their loaded handgun in a bed side locked safe with a biometric lock that they can get open in a second. We went further than that in Canada--but that would have prevented this case.
There is no need to go down the "let's ban all guns" nonsense -- this is a plain, vanilla safety issue. Sure in the US there are NRA types who object to any firearms regulation, but basic safety principles shouldn't really be objectionable and have worked very well here in Canada.
We USED to have these problems in Canada, stuff like this used to be not all that uncommon here too. We solved it here, and the same solution would work in the US.
We did two simple things in Canada that effectively eliminated the problem here:
1. Mandatory safety training required in order to purchase firearms
2. Safe storage laws requiring firearms to be locked up when not in use
As much as we would like everyone to have common sense, unbelievably, there are actually people out there who actually do need to be told "don't let your kids play with your guns" and "don't leave loaded guns around where kids can get to them".
As it turns out requiring people to take a course where they are told such common sense things actually really does make a difference. Same way making people pass a written driving test that asks things like, "do you have to stop at a stop sign?" makes a difference. Aren't we a fun species?
The safe storage laws are also common sense. Especially in this day in age where there are biometric locks and other things that still allow fast access to a locked up firearm by the authorized user. The paranoid can keep their loaded handgun in a bed side locked safe with a biometric lock that they can get open in a second. We went further than that in Canada--but that would have prevented this case.
There is no need to go down the "let's ban all guns" nonsense -- this is a plain, vanilla safety issue. Sure in the US there are NRA types who object to any firearms regulation, but basic safety principles shouldn't really be objectionable and have worked very well here in Canada.
It never ceases to amaze me that the NRA and the second ammendment supporters always turn these tragedies into a debate. Completely glossing over a child is dead due to poor judgement on adults part. It is like they can't see the forest for the trees. Fucking shame.
It's true. Also, if you tell these people not to let their children play with guns it does not stop them from still doing it. If everyone followed rules, we would live in a very different fantasy world. That's common sense too.
The fact is that there is no NEED for guns. As long as they are freely available, this type of death will continue to happen. Common sense suggests that, if we can save lives, we not offer people guns they don't need.
A gun, is just a dangerous device that has no useful place in civilian society. Like many other creations of modern humanity (refined heroin, high explosives, deadly poisons, radioactive isotopes, to name a few) guns have a very narrow legitimate purpose beyond which it makes no sense to pass them around.
For people who actually NEED a gun (like a police officer, for example) and have been properly trained in their use (which means significantly more than reading an internet list of rules) they should be able to have one and be held responsible AND accountable for what they do with it; this would include losing the right to own a gun if they messed up. However, if there is no ACTUAL NEED for a person to have a gun, the risk outweighs the benefits.
Despite how some people choose to misread the American Constitution, there is nothing sacred about the right to own a weapon designed to kill people.
You seem to want to take the 'need for guns' further than most. Most are not asking for a total ban on civilian guns, just some guns. Count me in for one of those. I'm not even against guns for sport, as i was one of those and see it for what it is.
The bug in the soup is the term 'properly trained' and some of the arguments laid out here for the status quo were absolutely absurd. Some US jurisdiction are saying ten hours of training is too much, it ties up a weekend, and that four hours are plenty. I wonder if CL thinks that okay.
That's not true at all. No one is advocating to ban all guns. What this thread has evolved into is for some reason, I think only one poster and you all know who he is, it's ok to educate and train 5 yr old children on safely handling guns. Most on here think that's nuts to expect 5 yr olds to grasp that in its entirety, they're simple not capable.
Not only are these two items common sense, so is the requirement to have universal background checks. Obviously common sense is lacking in the senate, not with the American people on this issue.fuji said:
Ignorance, fear and prejudice walk hand in hand.
I will assume that you are a well meaning person but in reality, often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do you think that Marx and Lenin believed that their ideas would lead to the death of over a hundred million people in the past hundred years?
Do you think that what happened in Germany, Russia and China can't happen here? That alone is reason enough to own firearms.
Ignorance of history, facts and reality. Please tell us, have you ever owned a firearm? Anyone in you family ever owned or used firearms? Have you ever fired a gun. Do you have any firearms related experience whatsoever?
Let's talk about scientific facts for a moment. One of the most compelling academics in this feild is law and economics Professor John Lott.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
"The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns."
In reality, taking firearms away from peaceful law abiding citizens, taking away their right and ability to defend themselves simply encourages criminals. Criminals do not obey laws, what makes you think they will obey gun control laws? Your lack of basic common sense is truly frightening.
Firearms are used twice as often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit crimes.
Would it be safe to say you are afraid of firearms? Your posts clearly seem to indicate that.
I will assume that you are a well meaning person but in reality, often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do you think that Marx and Lenin believed that their ideas would lead to the death of over a hundred million people in the past hundred years?
Do you think that what happened in Germany, Russia and China can't happen here? That alone is reason enough to own firearms.
Ignorance of history, facts and reality. Please tell us, have you ever owned a firearm? Anyone in you family ever owned or used firearms? Have you ever fired a gun. Do you have any firearms related experience whatsoever?
Let's talk about scientific facts for a moment. One of the most compelling academics in this feild is law and economics Professor John Lott.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
"The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns."
In reality, taking firearms away from peaceful law abiding citizens, taking away their right and ability to defend themselves simply encourages criminals. Criminals do not obey laws, what makes you think they will obey gun control laws? Your lack of basic common sense is truly frightening.
Firearms are used twice as often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit crimes.
Would it be safe to say you are afraid of firearms? Your posts clearly seem to indicate that.
Last edited:
The answer to each of those questions is "yes" in my case. I was exposed to gun culture in my youth but I outgrew childish things and got rid of my firearms because they served no useful purpose a\nd were only a risk to safety on many levels.
In the internet age, you can always find a "study" that supports your preconceived notions. The claim that law abiding citizens need guns to protect them from criminals is the most misguided and inane argument in this matter (and it has many ridiculous arguments so this is quite a distinction). The reality is, however, that in developed countries, gun violence and gun crime are always directly proportional to gun availability. Once again, the common sense conclusion is clear for those with the mental skills to understand it.
I'm not going to call you a liar but perhaps you could give us some more detail. Which firearms did you own? Did you have a PAL or RPAL? Where did you get you training? Who did your safety courses? Where did you shoot?
You obviously don't care about facts. Dr. John Lott is one of the preeminent academics in his field. Not simply "some study" as you care to casually dismiss it. Again you post your statements with no facts or evidence to support them.
