"Harmless" when the fuck did I ever say that, can you find me a quote? Firearms training involves understanding the capabilities of a firearm, which is why shooters are taught to point the muzzle in a safe direction, to keep their finger off of the trigger until they're ready to shoot and to treat guns as if they were loaded. Lessons not taught by buying kids dart/water guns and letting them shoot each other unsupervised.
5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
... Okay. Nevertheless. What do you think encourages a 5 year old to want to break the rules and play with the gun? Showing them how it's done in the first place? Or making certain they understand there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER which allow them to touch a gun (and if they ever see one, to come find you).
The bottom line is that children should not be taught how to handle guns because they should not have access to guns. Arguing otherwise is asinine and a clear indication that you have had ZERO experience with children.
Anyway, this argument has become boring and pointless. Have a good weekend all. I'm outta here.
So now all of the members of TERB who disagree with you, and there are a whole lot in this thread, are hippies. That's a clear indication your out of creditable arguments and it's now time to bring out the clown gear.
Did yo ever answer the question of you having kids or not?
Apparently this five year old missed that point. I hope someone will now ask the parents how they feel about giving their 5 year a rifle.
Interesting organization that CATO is....primarily funded by private donations that are tax deductible, now that in itself is quite interesting since the mission of this organization is to free people from government control, and the government gives them a tax receipt, lol. Their research paper is suppose to be non-partisan but this particular white paper on Tough Targets is authored by two individuals from pro gun states, one authored a book "How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie" , and the other is a director of PR for the Students for Concealed Carry, yep no bias in that white paper. They tracked newspaper articles over 8 years and came up with conclusions that thousands of crimes are prevented each year by gun owners, but doesn't say how many are not prevented. Last I check there are thousands of gun deaths as well. Hard to critique this paper unless you read all 60 pages, and I'm not paying for it. Wonder how biased a report would be if Bloomberg or Piers Morgan authored it??? Hmmmm, wild guess but I'll bet the farm it will the opposite of this paper. You know full well all these studies are full of holes that will be exploited by the other side.
The other Wikipedia link shows this:
" The frequency of defensive firearms incidents, and their effectiveness in ensuring safety and reducing crime is a controversial issue in gun politics and criminology.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP]:64[/SUP] Different authors and studies employ different criteria for what constitutes a defensive gun use, which at times leads to controversy in comparing statistical results. "
This statement confirms that no study can be conclusive in either as there are so many mitigating factors and pretty well what I said above, no study can provide concrete evidence one way or the other.
There are a number of studies but even if you take the lower numbers to be true, it is a very significant number.
Estimates of frequency
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Getz cite between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.[9]
Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[8] Discussion of over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[10][11]
Estimates of frequency
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Getz cite between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64-65[2][3] Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.[9]
Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[8] Discussion of over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[10][11]
lol
So to prove your point that a 5 year old should be allowed to handle a gun you post a video of a 6 year old from The PHILIPPINES with a tag of EXTRA ORDINARY.
... Wow, I guess I was wrong.
IMHO, the NRA is missing out on a huge PR opportunity here. They don't want more - or any gun control. Whatever. As with any issue, there are people on the extremes. The NRA can use their considerable power to fight federal gun controls. They should be using that considerable power to force States to have safe storage laws AND to hold the owners of firearms responsible for their use or misuse. Why the NRA isn't all over this is beyond me.
And punished by having their daughter shot.
If the NRA really was about responsible gun ownership and use, they'd be all for the sort of pre-purchase regulation and registration that could have ensured the parents had at least been introduced to the concept of safe storage and responsible use of deadly weapons and owned the devices like trigger locks and gun safes needed to actually keep guns safely in a house with infants.
When we're talking about wrongful death it's utterly stupid to imagine any after-the fact-punishment will be of any use at all. It's what can be done beforehand to prevent death that people should be thinking about.
Of course no organization dedicated to spreading the ownership of killing machinery would care about beforehand or after. Both are irrelevant to their purpose.
lmao, it should have been obvious that the NRA couldn't care less about any kind of gun safety or programs that would help to not put guns in the hands of criminals or individuals incapable of handling guns when the NRA pushed to not have universal background checks. This even when Lapierre endorsed background checks about 10 years ago, but for some reason he does not endorse it today. Probably because it would reduce gun sales and piss off the biggest supporter of the NRA, and that would be gun manufacturers.
I'm inclined to go a tad further: The NRA's existence and continuing wealth and power will only be increased by irresponsible, unregulated gun-owners and the deaths of innocents at their hands whether those deaths were accidental—ponder what's 'accidental' about a disaster being the result of leaving a loaded gun in the hands of a five year old—malicious or the result of derangement. Any way they slice their baloney, the NRA always turns up the same answer: Respond to a gun with another gun. More Guns In More Unregulated Hands.
More owners=more NRA members=more money and influence. Any restriction on ownership—like does the buyer have any concept of safe use and storage, or even the mental capacity to have one—they oppose. It would be one less due-paying member. What's bizarre about XXIst C America is the number of citizens who actually buy the NRA's paranoid lunacy that they're in danger of mass murderers, serial killers and random gang killers all with guns, so they should up the overall danger level by putting yet another gun into circulation. A Nation of potential killers (in self -defence of course) being ever so preferable to a nation with effective police, an efficient and trusted justice system and mental health and social resources adequate to its people's needs.
Frightening to realize such 'thinking' underpins the democracy that assumes it rules the world and resents every time it's reminded it doesn't. Good thing nations don't go to theatres to watch Batman premieres.
More owners=more NRA members=more money and influence. Any restriction on ownership—like does the buyer have any concept of safe use and storage, or even the mental capacity to have one—they oppose. It would be one less due-paying member. What's bizarre about XXIst C America is the number of citizens who actually buy the NRA's paranoid lunacy that they're in danger of mass murderers, serial killers and random gang killers all with guns, so they should up the overall danger level by putting yet another gun into circulation. A Nation of potential killers (in self -defence of course) being ever so preferable to a nation with effective police, an efficient and trusted justice system and mental health and social resources adequate to its people's needs.
Frightening to realize such 'thinking' underpins the democracy that assumes it rules the world and resents every time it's reminded it doesn't. Good thing nations don't go to theatres to watch Batman premieres.
When the owner leaves a loaded gun around, they are the guiltiest party. Are you suggesting someone else is to blame? Maybe charge the 5 year old with murder?
This.
I don't see a need to completely ban them but sure puts regulations on them in the correct light.
Gee, in my 40 and change years, much of them living in a less than affluent area, I have yet to need any weapon to defend myself from crime.
Apparently the parents in this case face no criminal charges
because they were not negligent under Kentucky's laws.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20..._a_5_year_old_shoots_a_2_year_old_should.html
because they were not negligent under Kentucky's laws.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20..._a_5_year_old_shoots_a_2_year_old_should.html
