Printable View
Just when I thought the bottom of the barrel of insanity had been scraped dry in the right to bear arms category comes this;
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ls-sister?lite
Forget about the ghetto D and Cleveland and Baltimore, this is set in Kentucky.
What do you think of this constitutional right to bear a kiddie rifle?
This is the manufacturer's website, the crickett website is closed for maintenance or is experiencing problems, yeah right...
http://www.keystonesportingarmsllc.com/
Kids fall off of playground equipment, get in car accidents without seat
belts, drown in lakes, die because they are left in unventilated cars by their parents, get blown to bits by drones at wedding parties in Afghanistan, etc.. All these things are bad and often happen because of inattentive parent. How is one tragedy worse than another? Should we prevent children from going swimming and riding in cars too?
What? Is this kind of event common in Cumberland County? :rolleyes:Quote:
It was “just one of those crazy accidents,” [Cumberland County Coroner Gary] White told the Herald-Leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
You're telling me that a five year old should be responsible enough to own and use a gun, but that a parent should always be be there. That is what you're telling me. Anything less equates to "overly restrictive gun rules".
As an aside, are there any drone attacks in Royal Oak causing death due to parents' inattentive behavior? You just shot yourself in the foot, the same foot you put in your mouff. Sheesh....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
The sweet angle to this is the way different media companies characterize this event; Some downplay this in the title to varying degrees by calling it an accident. Nobody goes to the root of this, questioning the sanity of parents that gave a five year old a 22calibre rifle for chrissakes.
Why the animosity toward the US Constitution, Canuck? Or specifically why are you more concerned that a child dies because parents who are allowed to have a firearm were inattentive in its care but you seem less interested by children killed in a Constitutionally questionable war?Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
Nowhere did I say "a five year old should be responsible enough to own and use a gun and that a parent should always be there". I instead suggested that children die in all sorts of activities because of inattentive parents. I couldn't quite get a handle on why a child drowning because his parents weren't paying attention is worse than a parent being careless in the care of firearms. Do you see these things through some sort of a PC template? You are correct though that parents at an Afghan wedding reception shouldn't have to consider the possibility of losing their kids in a drone strike.
Please reread the question you chose not to answer. I wrote,
"All these things are bad and often happen because of inattentive parent. How is one tragedy worse than another?"
The parents *were* negligent. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
the point is that the idea of giving a 5 year old a thing that is meant ONLY TO KILL THINGS is moronic. Yes, parents shouldn't leave 5 year-olds alone anywhere but a padded cell without supervision. Yes, parents with pools, etc., should be extra-careful. The thing is, do you REALLY think parents stupid enough to give their kid a gun, then to put it away ASSUMING it is unloaded, are smart enough to supervise the kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
They forgot the two cardinal rules:
1) Always assume a gun is loaded
and
2) If you think a gun is unloaded, see rule #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Your logic and sensitivity are perfectly balanced, oladub; like Mr Spock of the Klingons.
I dont think you are in any way fazed by this death any more than that happening by drowning or casualty of war, constitutionally questionable or no.
If this had happened in Detroit, in a black family, you would point out matter-of-factly how out of whack and yet commonplace an event this is; in a very PC way. Somehow, your gun loving agenda dismisses any and all intrusion on the right to bear arms to the point of relating this to a drowning or running in the street.
You have a clever way of avoiding the issue of five year old gun ownership by suggesting instead that the parents of children engaged in any activity may be inattentive and therefore responsible for their child's death. While I agree that a gun should be locked up properly, I dont believe for a moment that a child that young has any business shooting. The gun culture that enthusiastically embraces the toddler holding a rifle is not any better than the child soldier fuckeduppedness of rebel armies far and wide. That is how politically correct I am.Quote:
Nowhere did I say "a five year old should be responsible enough to own and use a gun and that a parent should always be there". I instead suggested that children die in all sorts of activities because of inattentive parents. I couldn't quite get a handle on why a child drowning because his parents weren't paying attention is worse than a parent being careless in the care of firearms.
This tragedy has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, so I'm not quite sure why that's even being brought up other than to further a political agenda.
I received my first "gun" when I was 5, but it was a Daisy BB gun that would barely penetrate a pop can. After 3 years with the BB gun and taking a hunters safety course I was able to buy a .22 when I was about 8 or 9 years old. That gun was not kept locked up, but I sure as hell knew that I was not to handle it without permission.
As someone that has been around guns my entire life, I see no reasonable situation where a 5 year old should have unrestricted access to a .22. At 5 years old a person does not understand the threat a gun poses. To them death is something that can be overcome by hitting the reset button on their Play Station. If these parents purposely left this gun out so that their 5 year old could have access to it, then they should be held responsible for their stupidity.
The only way to stop a clumsy 5-year-old with a gun is an astute 5-year-old with a gun. The sister should have been armed, and if she was, this tragedy would have never happened. Instead, the OP wants to remove guns from all youngsters. That is not the solution. The solution is to better arm youngsters so these things can't happen in the future. We put armed guards in our banks where we keep our money to make sure that our cash is protected, why not an armed guard in front of every home? Or do you not love the children enough to protect them too?
Thanks crumbled_pavement, but you didnt get my drift; I meant what you implied. If you love your children, buy them a gun earlier in life at say two years of age like that little girl was, and make sure she knows how to use it against her brother in case of an...accident!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement
_
"The firearm was kept in a corner, he said."
“It’s a little rifle for a kid.”
A Darwin Award contender if there ever was one
Of course he brought up the constitution - a document he repeatedly proves he doesn't understand [[this time he has no recollection of the fact that the 2nd includes "well-regulated" right there)Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
To hell with "politically correct," that is absolutely correctQuote:
The gun culture that enthusiastically embraces the toddler holding a rifle is not any better than the child soldier fuckeduppedness of rebel armies far and wide. That is how politically correct I am.
"The shooting occurred while the boy was playing with the rifle, police said."
First parental mistake was allowing the boy to treat the gun as a "toy".
I support the universal background check for buying guns. How that would help in this situation, when the legal buyer GAVE the gun to someone who could not pass a background check, is the part that bothers me about the current state of gun law. There is a missing step, requiring any transfer of the gun to be passed through a checkpoint of some kind to assure that the recipient passes a background check as well.
This is already done with other potentially lethal machinery. We cannot just GIVE a car to someone without passing it through the Secretary of State [[title transfer). The recipient may not drive the car without a license.
I have no idea. Probably not. What on earth does any of this have to do with gun control, as the OP was insinuating?Quote:
The thing is, do you REALLY think parents stupid enough to give their kid a gun, then to put it away ASSUMING it is unloaded, are smart enough to supervise the kid?
I have no problem with someone having a rifle like that for their kid to shoot with, but only a moron would give the kid unsupervised access to it.
I'm not a gun advocate, but I do know a little bit about them. I'm speechless @ some of the stupid comments I've heard from adults regarding .22 calibers. Things like "it's ONLY a .22", "THAT?, it's a kid's gun".Quote:
Originally Posted by ejames01
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejames01
How do you supervise a 5 year old with a rifle? Give me some details please.
Also, what does a 5 year old gain from handling a gun? Why does a parent feel his kid is going to get something out of shooting a gun before the age of 12, say?
1 - Give them a course on gun safetyQuote:
Originally Posted by canuck
2 - Show them how a gun works
3 - Take them to a firing range
4 - Give them proper eye and hearing protection, load one round into the chamber, let them shoot at a target
5 - Repeat 4 until they become proficient at shooting
That's how I learned when I was six. I had a Ruger 10/22, which was banned from sale as an "assault weapon" because you can buy a mean-looking stock for it. I've never "played" with it, and I've never shot at a living thing, but I still like target practice. This is true for all of my friends who learned how to shoot as well.
It's no different than any other sport. You can go out hunting. You can go target shooting. When done properly, it teaches children respect for guns, and weapons in general.Quote:
Also, what does a 5 year old gain from handling a gun?
A 5 year old have a gun and accidently kills his sister. In the meantime the NRA is celebrating their victory dinner over gun control like they don't care about the innocent children in Sandy Hook Elementary.
Boy, I love this Free Country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Fair. I respect your opinion on this because your love of sport also entails responsibility and respect for the dangers involved. Maturity plays a big part and your parents or tutors probably had a strong sense of how to steer you in this sport. I personally wouldnt start a kid that young on it but it can work for a lot of folks until something like this happens and then we put it down to being an accident. Strange.
Why can't gun training be a requirement for gun ownership? falls into that "well regulated" thingQuote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Canuck, As much as I respect Oprah for her social intelligence and knowing her game, I have wondered what possesses people to wind up in one of one of Oprah's audiences caring and feeling about the distraction du jour set in front of them. It just seems so dopey. I came up with some Spock like statistics though. In 2000, 6,466 children died in auto accidents; 47% of whom were not wearing seat belts. 1,236 children drowned. 1,946 children died in fires. 2,000 children died from abuse or neglect. 174 children died from accidental firearm accidents. You, of course, go beyond inductive reasoning to offer broad and ineffective solutions to a smaller cause of deaths based on a specific observation. If this is about being "unfazed", why are you so much more outraged by the smaller number of parents who allowed gun accidents than the much large number of parents whose kids had other types of accidents? Spock would probably find that curious too.Quote:
canuck: "Your logic and sensitivity are perfectly balanced, oladub; like Mr Spock of the Klingons.
I dont think you are in any way fazed by this death any more than that happening by drowning or casualty of war, constitutionally questionable or no.
If this had happened in Detroit, in a black family, you would point out matter-of-factly how out of whack and yet commonplace an event this is; in a very PC way. Somehow, your gun loving agenda dismisses any and all intrusion on the right to bear arms to the point of relating this to a drowning or running in the street."
Nice touch trying to bring racism into this. If all other arguments fail, try that. Along those lines though: I came up with another statistic. In Michigan, white males in the 60-64 category [[the guys who show up disproportionally at gun shows) are 137 times more likely to be the victims of gun homicides than 20-24 year old black males. Yet Obama's gun laws are much more likely to regulate and tax the former group than the latter and so consequently won't do much good. But remember, to liberals, this is more an exercise in feeling caring rather than accomplishing anything.
For what it's worth, guns don't play any significant role in my life. You are presumptuous. I never let my small children near guns or ATV's. I think that is stupid adult behavior. On the other hand, I encouraged them to work hard and be fiscally conservative in their personal lives as an alternative to servility. One of my sons became a pretty good hunter anyway; mostly from the internet but that was after he became an adult.