I may be pro-gun, but I do feel that SOME gun laws need to change. Why do we need a license to drive a car, but not to use a firearm? I know WAY too many people who are too irresponsible to own a gun.
Based on what, exactly? I've been shooting since I was seven, and have never had an accident. If a child is taught gun safety, and is supervised, learning to shoot can be a wonderful experience.
Are they serious? with what happened to me I would never allow guns so no guns shouldnt be allowed for kids
So, you feel that your personal misfortune should influence national policy? That seems a little bit unreasonable... (I have no idea what happened to you, so pardon my insensitivity.)
It all depends on the age, I say, like, a child that's 10 or older, & licensed should be the only one with the right to wield a gun
Kids 10 and up should be allowed to use, not own, guns, but for the love of god, under parental supervision. I think that should be known and done without a doubt.
What I want to know is why a seven year old child needs a gun. There are much better, safer entertainment alternatives. Why do you have to have something that can possibly cause... well, this!
I lived in Montana at the time. Learning to shoot was just part of growing up. Which, of course, raises another issue. Why do people who live in urban areas get to dictate gun laws for rural areas?
Stupid indeed. Stupid for making this legal, and stupid parents for buying them. I'm just gonna say that I grew up around guns and have been around guns my entire life -- we've never had a problem. They were never kept loaded or withing easy reach. I support 2nd amendment rights (gasp) but this is just ridiculous Children don't need guns, there is no point. I did get a gun on one of my childhood birthdays, great, but it was locked away and I could only just look at it until I was deemed "old enough" to even touch it. I think we need to start regulating who becomes a parent because they're failing miserably.
Children's guns are meant to be used only under adult supervision. The child should NEVER have easy access. Problems arise when idiot parents think that "child's gun" means the same thing as "toy gun." That boy's parents should be charged with felony stupidity.
I don't think you guys are accounting for military members whom sympathize with this would-be resistance that the civilians formed. More than likely, if the civvies rebel, most of the military is rebelling with them. Sure the government has the stopping power, but try 200-300 million people versus a small niche of government loyalists. Who would be a government loyalist anyways if it's clear that there is a large enough problem for a revolution? Don't think statistics, think the domino effect. These military officers have families, kids, friends, etc, that they'd be fighting for no reason other than to keep a fascist regime. Very little of the military would support the government in this worst case scenario. That means the civvies are armed, and possibly have access to the same tech that the government does. So yeah, I want our own civvies to own guns to protect themselves and have a reason to fight, rather than to cower in fear of an oppressive regime.
They aren't the only ones. Everybody votes on who gets elected, and then those people vote on what to do and what laws to make. You should also consider the fact that people who live in urban areas move to rural areas, and that the reverse is also true. We can neither confirm nor deny that, so it's a bit of a moot point, don't you think? Do we really know that it's more than likely? Well, that's just why we should use compromise as opposed to violence to solve our issues. The civilians having the technology the government has would not increase the effectiveness or value of their formerly legal firearms. It would change the dynamic and give them a fighting chance, but that's not necessarily a reason to own legal guns during peacetime. But I don't really want to argue about that: what you said might be the case, if that were to happen. Again, you can't say for sure that it would, much less say that it would be probable. That argument seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me anyway. Since we really have no way to tell if that's what would happen (since it hasn't happened yet) I personally would rather advocate for nonviolence than prepare for violence. And of course, there's no reason why we can't do both. That's the beauty of the situation. But if one had to take precedent over another, I know what I would pick.
The fact that guns are so much a part of American society that they have to teach kids how to handle them safely is what bothers me most. You might as well just go ahead and teach a 5 year old how to drive a car. If America wants to keep it's guns then fine, but don't let them use guns until they're at least 18.
"All TEDIORE weapons are suitable for Children of all ages, the sooner your Child learns to shoot, the better chance he/she has to survive on Pandora"
Probably wouldn't be a bad thing, my father would put me on his lap and drive around some backroads to teach me some tips when I was young. You know how many children in the US are hit and killed by adult drivers not paying attention? 1 in 5 children killed in any form of traffic crashes was a pedestrian. That's the 2nd leading cause of death of children in the US. But oh no, it's not the center of media attention so surely we can just ignore that tidbit. And if you own a gun, why wouldn't you teach your child gun safety? That's firearm safety 101. No you don't let them fire the weapon, but you /should/ educate them of the dangers if guns /exist/ in your house.
Because you don't live in the United States, you simply are not capable of understanding just how important guns are to many Americans. I can see how many of our traditions would shock people from other countries, just as many Americans are shocked by foreign traditions. Teaching children about guns is, in many areas, a cherished tradition. In Montana, Hunter's Safety is part of the school curriculum. The right to bear arms was one of the first freedoms granted by the Founding Fathers. For more more than two-hundred years, guns have been an important part of our national identity. As a result, whenever there is a push to restrict gun rights, many people take it as a betrayal by the government that is supposed to protect their freedoms.
Gotta agree with Ridley, though in a less blunt sense. Europeans, I understand it's a bit difficult to comprehend why most americans want their guns, and trust me, it's a bit confusing on both sides as well. You can't really fully grasp it unless you've been in/born in the US because you guys never really had a strong attachment to your guns (If you guys even have any. UK for example, doesn't) in the first place. America was born on the fact that almost every American Rebel owned a firearm, and that the government taking away these guns was a clear breach of the constitution. The fact that people are trying to modify, or even outright remove, the second amendment is just wrong.
