... I don't know about you, but I'm running full tilt to the patent office with that one.Where do they sell flaming steak knives? It would be cool to cook a steak while cutting it.
... I don't know about you, but I'm running full tilt to the patent office with that one.Where do they sell flaming steak knives? It would be cool to cook a steak while cutting it.
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.Tragic but irresponsible. It wasn't a five year old having been given a rifle, it was a five year old not having been taught the basics: Never, ever point a firearm at someone you are not ready to and legally justified in killing, always make sure your weapon has been cleared, a firearm is not a toy, never handle a firearm without adult supervision, it was the weapon not having been secured.
Why do all gun owners compare gun related deaths to car related deaths?Wanna guess why the liability insurance afforded by my range and the organization I belong to is a fraction of the cost of my car insurance?
I did like the pointy scissors comment.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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: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.
"Running out of ammo" my ass. "Death by firearms" wasn't the 16K statistic displayed earlier, it was firearms related injuries (as in, not necessarily deaths, I'm convinced you failed basic English in grade school) compared against other rare diseases and ailments. The reality is, children are exposed to dangerous household items on a regular basis, yet most of them seem to get by. Nothing wrong with teaching kids how to safely handle, operate and respect these inanimate objects, something that clearly wasn't done in the original article. I see a significant amount of children at the ranges I frequent, all of which exhibit exemplary safety records. This isn't a gun issue, it's a shitty parenting issue.
Wanna guess why the liability insurance afforded by my range and the organization I belong to is a fraction of the cost of my car insurance? It's because shooting is a very safe sport.
I wonder how many of that significant amount of children CL refers to are 5 years old.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)
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.wonder what would have happened if this five year old had a gun....
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.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.
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.I was just making a point of what a five year old looks like when angry. They are often not rational.
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.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".
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.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.
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.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.
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:1. Mandatory safety training required in order to purchase firearms
2. Safe storage laws requiring firearms to be locked up when not in use
The safe storage laws are also common sense.
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.
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.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?
Do you have any conclusive evidence of this, or is it just more gun rhetoric.Firearms are used twice as often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit crimes.
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?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.