Guns for kids: Acceptable or outrageous?

It may have something to do with the same reasons why people enjoy archery, collecting cars, collecting coins, swordplay, etc. One may not find a particular hobby interesting, but that doesn't change the fact there are others who enjoy such things in a safe and responsible manner.

This is fact that is repeatedly ignored by anti-gun politicians and activists.

Granted, I never grew up in a rural area, but my grandfather got me into shooting when I was young, and like millions of others who started shooting young, I haven't harmed or killed anyone due to irresponsibility (I currently enjoy collecting and shooting firearms). I was closely supervised when shooting, and the guns were locked away when I wasn't out shooting somewhere (and even when I was out shooting, again, I was closely supervised and not even handed a firearm and ammunition until all targets were in place, my grandfather knew the area was safe for shooting, etc.).

The Swiss aren't exactly shooting each other in droves, and able-bodied people over there are required to train with firearms and keep a firearm in their homes.

 

Comparing an amendment to coin collecting.

You're doing it wrong.

 

I fail to see why a deadly gun is necessary to teach children how to shoot when there are other, safer types of guns that can teach them just as well.

 

I fail to see why children need to learn to use guns in the first place. They are used for literally nothing but causing harm and death and the only time you wouldn't be using them on humans is to hunt, where it's even less worthwhile because believe it or not, America's not exactly struggling when it comes to food. Even when you consider the fact that the kid wouldn't really be allowed to take their gun outside the house unless to very specific locations, that makes the self defence aspect pretty limited. Oh, and a lot of these kids are so young that only extremely irresponsible parents would leave them on their own in the first place, so logically, it would make more sense for the parent to use the gun!

 

So target shooting doesn't count?

It's still stupid to allow a kid a gun.

Though it does raise some points about this country. Still fighting over same sex marriage because of a book, Alcohol is restricted until 21, tobacco is restricted until 18. But a made for kids gun is fine. With all the crap about gun laws and how games like CoD are causing this issue. And we still allow a kids gun to be sold.


As much as I don't agree, it could still be okay if proper precautions are taken.

Then again, maybe kids are ready for it, they teach sex ed in kindergarten in Chicago. That's an adult thing and so are guns.

 

I see your point, but the issue that I feel needs to be taken into account is the simple fact that kids are stupid. Kids will panic and make assumptions. Give a child a gun, they will not use it responsibly. Granted, even at the age of 10, they could learn some responsibility around it, but at age 5? No. It's too big of a risk. To allow any children to die on the basis of target shooting simply doesn't seem worthwhile in my opinion. It's just a matter of maturity. If this is the kind of kid who will play with knives when given the chance, they clearly aren't mature enough for a gun. I don't think I've ever met a kid who didn't like playing with sharp things.

 

I'm siding with you. I think it's stupid. I'm not a fan of guns and all. Let them be a kid, a kid doesn't need a freaking gun. Let them just do kid things.

 

Exactly. I miss the days when I was able to do kid stuff. Don't make your kid get too serious too fast. I'd much rather have a water gun fight than go hunting, but the time for that has past.

 

You're never too old for a water gun fight.

 

I know neighbours who would disagree

 

This nugatory "rebuttal" doesn't hold any water (the same is true of writing things off by stating "Murricans will do..."). We are still left with the fact that there are people who enjoy shooting firearms in spite of people not understanding why, just as people enjoy other hobbies when others don't necessarily see the appeal of such hobbies.

We also see an absence of rebuttals to the fact that many children do in fact shoot in a safe and responsible manner thanks to proper supervision and teaching of gun safety.

 

There are people who make bombs for the appeal of it.

There are people who kill others for the appeal of it.

There are people who hurt animals for the appeal of it.

 

Yes. Yes it does. 450+ fps just isn't safe in the first place. 200 fps was more what I was talking about.

 

I'm an American and I have no attachment to guns whatsoever. I also have no problems with someone owning one as long as they're stable.

Unfortunately the government is very bad at determining if someone is stable because of their impersonal way of doing things.

As for illegally obtained weapons, obviously outlawing guns isn't going to do anything to stop that.

And finally, I think that teaching a child to shoot a gun is a bad idea. Children do not have the same developed judgement as adults, and even if they are told "Do not shoot people with this ever, it will hurt them", what happens if they get mad at someone? Their emotions take over and they have the power to do something about it, with their gun that "hurts people", as they have been told. They might not know entirely what they are doing (although it wouldn't matter much, someone would still be dying), they are just angry and want revenge.

Obviously that was not the case in this incident. In this incident it was simply the fact that the child was not even taught anything AT ALL because the parents were idiots. But I'm just saying, being taught responsibly doesn't just make everything okay. Guns capable of killing should be for ages 18 and up.


ANYWAYS, I know I said I left but I just can't keep away.

 

This is true, but like the others, including myself, said, there's no necessity in using a lethal weapon as a teaching tool when the same could be taught with a much safer equivalent for a 5 year old.

But I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate for a bit:
The child that died was two years of age, anything with the firepower of a BB gun or stronger would have still done terrible trauma to the child or even caused death, so there's a line to be drawn somewhere if we're delegating what's safe for this situation and what isn't, however I'm standing firm that much less would have come from a safer teaching tool.

 

Starting a kid's gun training off with a lethal gun is like....starting a kid's gun training off with a lethal gun. I really can't think of anything clearer or more self-explanatory than that. I'd use that kind of scenario as an example for other things that are over the line.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

I don't think it is a good idea until they are at least 16.

 

None of these situations are analogous to people enjoying hobbies in a safe and responsible manner.

If you admit there is an absence of rebuttals as I have stated, you don't have much an argument. Proper supervision and teaching safety make the difference between the enjoyment of a recreational hobby and a tragedy, whether we are dealing with children and swimming pools or children and firearms. This incident would have never happened if the child were properly supervised when using that firearm.

For the record, I do believe that the parents of that five-year-old child should face charges due to lax supervision of a child with a firearm. For instance, in my home state of Minnesota, there are legal repercussions for negligent storage of firearms:

If someone can be charged with a gross misdemeanor for leaving a loaded firearm where a child is likely to gain access to it, I believe that the parents in question should be facing felony charges for their negligence, which resulted in the death of their daughter.

I don't believe in slapping additional restrictions on responsible gun owners due to the negligence of two parents.

 

I refer mostly to children. There are many adults who see it as a coming of age thing to take their kids out hunting. If these are the same kinds of parents who freak out because their child heard a naughty word on tv, and there are a lot of these kinds of people, where is the justification in taking them out hunting? An adult can make their own decisions on going out and doing these things but a child will likely feel pressured into doing it, whether they feel it is morally justified or not. Personally, I don't really care about the moral justification of hunting as much as I care about the controversy surrounding the moral justification of hunting.