Guns should not be manufactured and marketed for children, period. Period.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

And parents have no business giving their 4 or 5 year olds a gun, period. I don't care if they intend to keep it locked up. It's ridiculously too young. It's insane.

And about "Children need to respect guns." Sure. Fine. Respect them. Have your children recognize them as being deadly weapons and not toys. I get that.

But let me tell you something--Living in Florida, I've told my children to respect alligators. Not to feed them, or touch them, or go near lakes alone that are known to have them. That doesn't mean I'm going to get my kids a pet alligator!

This isn't an attack on people in general hunting, or using bolt action shotguns for hunting or target shooting. It's not even an attack on taking your teenage or pre-teen kids on a hunting trip or target shooting. That's legit--even as someone who doesn't hunt or target shoot.

But specifically marketing a gun specifically for children? That's sick.

[DrDan]

1. completely agree - the 2a'ers have just lost touch with reality

they believe their rights supercede all else - to include the safety of their own families, neighbors, or anyone within gunshot

time to reign in this insanity

[pipoman]

120. There have been youth guns available for decades

they are safer for a kid to shoot than a gun designed for an adult. There are many things scaled down for kids, and many activities which kill or injure as many or more kids than guns. Do you think this is a good idea?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

128. You're asking if I would I give my five year old her own ATV?

That would be a no.

No. I would not give my five year old her own ATV.

I'm sure she would love it--she's fascinated by all vehicles--but no, I would not give my five year old daughter her own ATV.

[DrDan]

133. no I don't

[Spitfire of ATJ]

149. Are you trying to compare a gun an ATV?

Why? Because they're both "toys"?

[pipoman]

219. ATV's are toys?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

221. Yup,...so are these...

[pipoman]

222. Then I guess by your definition, yes..

[CreekDog]

284. gun advocates often compare cars to guns in terms of deadliness

but gun advocates never recommend or support buying cars for 5 year olds.

maybe they are afraid of the damage that would do to their credibility, but it won't.

there's no credibility left to lose.

[pipoman]

285. You must be mistaken..

nobody said anything about cars in this sub-thread except you..

[CreekDog]

286. whatever your previous role, you aren't the authority on what I can refer to here

I referred to a common tactic and argument that's relevant here and I'm allowed to do that.

I can refer to what I want. Your authority to stop me here is zero.

[pipoman]

287. Have you been drinking sir?

You keep bringing up shit nobody is talking about..nobody tried to stop you from doing anything and nobody is talking about cars...

[CreekDog]

288. the comparison is apt because you made reference to ATV's

the analogy being from an adult gun to a youth gun.

your comparison of ATV's to guns, is a vehicle for kids vs. a vehicle for adults.

AND you posted the ATV image which is a reference to this line of thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2785760

don't call everyone here stupid by denying what you've posted. as for drinking, one wonders why you constantly push a conservative line here at DU. i don't need a drink to bear posting here because most here share my values. if they didn't, i might however.

i wonder if that is how you manage.

[pipoman]

306. Being able to discern

a civil libertarian point of view from a rethug point of view..so interesting considering that I've known many civil liberties advocates and have never met a conservative one..You do know that there are more kids killed through ATV accidents than gun accidents? There are links in this thread if you dare..More kids die in ATV accidents yet there are like hundreds of millions less ATVs than guns. ATVs are marketed to kids all the time. Tens of millions of people in this country shoot for recreation. This is just ATVs. There are many recreational activities which sometimes result in accidental death..skiing (water and snow), all sorts of motorized racing, contact sports, swimming, ect. ect...kids do all of these things and they shoot recreationally too.

[OmahaBlueDog]

293. The girl driving the ATV in the photo can get her brother killed -- just as dead as with a gun

In fact, I have a bigger problem with the ATV than with the gun ad. The kids on the ATV aren't wearing helmets. That's a sure sign of no/improper adult supervision.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

294. Were you ever a kid?

Ever climb a tree?

[OmahaBlueDog]

296. Yes I was a kid. Yes I rode a bike with no helmet, climbed a tree, and did a variety of other stuff

Letting a kid drive a motorized vehicle with no helmets is grossly irresponsible.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

297. Looks to me like they are just POSING on it...

You can bet they would be wearing a helmet if they were actually riding it.

Like these kids:




But let's face it.

All of this is a DISTRACTION from the fact that kids shouldn't have guns.

And, NO, giving a kid a gun is NOT "teaching them responsibility".

[OmahaBlueDog]

300. I don't know many kids who were "given" anything more powerful than a BB gun to use unsupervised

I know many kids who were taught to shoot under parental supervision, and were "given" a firearm sometime in the pre-teen/early teen years.

No child under that age should ever be left unattended with a firearm. Neither should they be left unattended with ATVs, stoves, ovens, BBQ grills, or lawnmowers.

Sorry to harp about the ATV, but I see more kids riding ATVs and dirt bikes than I see with firearms. Kids have died in ATV accidents here, and I see kids unhelmeted on dirt bikes all the time -- it makes me nuts.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

301. I've seen father-son hunting trips treated like father-son fishing trips...

But those sons were at least 12.

[OmahaBlueDog]

302. That's a bad thing if it means large quantities of beer are being consumed

by the father...or the 12 year old

[Spitfire of ATJ]

305. Especially if dad took away the tractor.

[pipoman]

309. You are finally getting it..

there is no greater risk of a kid being shot accidentally than many, many other things...including climbing trees..you don't like guns or understand those who shoot recreationally..there may be reasons for some "gun control"...but accidental shootings statistics show relative safety in recreational shooting..many recreational activities are statistically more dangerous..

[Spitfire of ATJ]

310. LOL!! Oh sure! And the first time you send him to bed...

[pipoman]

312. That's what I thought..

culture war is a blast, eh?

[frylock]

172. what's the rate of fire on that quad?

[pipoman]

227. About 150 kids per year...

[frylock]

232. we should probably heavily regulate those

[SoCalMusicLover]

182. They Could Get Some Nasty Scrapes & Bruises From That Thing

In an extreme case, perhaps they get paralyzed for life.

Great comparison to something that can take the lives of multiple people in a matter of seconds. Well done.

[hack89]

191. ATVs kill about 150 kids per year. Drownings kills 800. Gun accidents kill 80

From the most recent figures, public health experts estimate at least 150 children are killed and 4,000 hospitalized each year in ATV accidents. Since federal officials began tracking deaths from ATV crashes in the 1980s, about a quarter of the more than 10,000 recorded fatalities have been children under 16. A new study from the Center for Injury Research and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health shows that the number of kids hospitalized for ATV injuries has more than doubled since 1996.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/injuries-deaths-soar-kids-riding-atvs/story?id=11983953&page=2

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

[Progressive dog]

195. 87% of total gun deaths, 23 industrialized nations, children under 15

are in the good old USA. Not only #1 but overwhelming winner. NRA and the nuts with guns should be proud.

[hack89]

201. Don't change the subject

we were talking about the relative danger of various thing parents let their kids do.

If it makes you feel better gun deaths are at historic lows and steadily declining. Things are getting better.

[Progressive dog]

203. I think I hear your guns calling, shouldn't you

be with them in their time of peril? You missed the sarcasm thingy or more likely too many letters.

[hack89]

204. Peril? You shitting me?

you think they are in some sort of danger? Don't worry your little head - they are safe and sound in a big safe. They will be fine.

[Progressive dog]

209. Scared you though

Couldn't have anything happen to them. Do you talk to them too? Do they answer?

[hack89]

213. Scared me?

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Do you think there is anyone in America actually trying to take away my guns?

My guns are inanimate lumps of steel. I understand you think that they are magical talismans that cloud the minds of humans and turn everyday peaceful people in to homicidal maniacs. Mine must be defective.

[Progressive dog]

217. Inanimate lumps of stell that are used to kill

and that you think children should be trained to use. Inanimate hunks of steel that you defend as if they were your children. Or may be you're just defending the corporations that market play sized versions for children to use.
That is sick.

[hack89]

218. Mine must be defective

30 years and not a single person shot. What am I doing wrong?

I didn't buy my kids children sized guns. That's the beauty of AR-15s - easily adjustable to fit smaller framed people.

[ailsagirl]

236. LOL!!

[Progressive dog]

240. You've been off topic for a while

Gun nuts spin faster than a turbo.

[hack89]

244. I didn't bring up the issue of ATVs

nor did I try to minimize their danger to support my agenda.

[Progressive dog]

245. Oh there's another hack89 who did in post 182

No you tried to inflate their danger to support your agenda and then lied about doing it.

[hack89]

246. I posted hard numbers comparing accidental deaths between ATVs and guns among children.

This thread is about exposing kids to guns and them dying from gun accidents.

[Progressive dog]

247. And then denied doing it, commonly called lying

[hack89]

248. Show me where I denied posting hard numbers

I posted numbers in one post and in another post I said I posted numbers. Where did I deny posting numbers?

[Progressive dog]

249. Hack89 with another oh so clever change of subject-Lying yet again

Post 244 Hack, What you actually claimed you didn't do, not what you are claiming you claimed you didn't do.

[hack89]

250. I didn't bring up ATVs - did you read the post I was replying to?

and it was that post the minimize the danger they posed to kids:

They Could Get Some Nasty Scrapes & Bruises From That Thing

Pointing out that ATVs accidents kill many more kids than gun accidents is not a lie when it is true.

[Progressive dog]

252. You accused me of bringing up ATV's, that makes you a liar

It might make you an unintentional liar, but it still makes you a liar

[hack89]

253. No - I was referring to my reply to SoCalMusicLover. Sorry for any confusion. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

234. Way to mix intentional criminal acts with accidental deaths to defend your leaking position.

Because that little feint makes total sense, when comparing accidental deaths of children on ATV's and with firearms meant for children.

[Progressive dog]

241. Way to write gibberish

[AtheistCrusader]

257. I didn't really expect you to understand it.

[Progressive dog]

259. So I met your expectations

Hooray for me.

[AtheistCrusader]

261. If you did, you wouldn't have tried to compare all gun-related deaths of children

to people accidentally harmed or killed using the children's rifle or the compared ATV's in a legal manner as intended.

Since, that was the comparison on the table. You could object to the ATV comparison for other reasons, and that would be more interesting, but your 'data point' was so off topic it is completely useless.

[Progressive dog]

264. Now I really get to meet your expectations

I DIDN"T NOPE NOT ME so I guess I exceeded your expectations. See post 120, it's got pictures and everything. Written by a local gun defender to change subject.

[AtheistCrusader]

266. You don't seem to be reading what I wrote.

I said it would be fine for you to object to the comparison on other grounds. I didn't ascribe the comparison to you. I know you didn't introduce ATV's to this discussion.

Pipo added an adult thing (ATV) that has a children-engineered version that is dangerous, that kills more kids than accidental deaths with the children-engineered firearms in the OP.

What is your objection to that comparison? Because your initial objection, using all firearm-related deaths of children, has fuck-all to do with Pipo's analogy. Your 'objection' would be like adding in all motor-vehicle related deaths of children in response to the ATV. Makes no sense.

On the table is the idea that a child can possess/operate a certain firearm.
Pipo's point was that a child can possess/operate a certain motor vehicle.

Both are inherently dangerous, particularly when unsupervised.
Why did you drag in murders, gang, drug, etc related deaths in response? Wouldn't the accidental death rate associated with firearms and children be more accurate? Granted, it is smaller than the same accidental death rate for children operating ATV's (a number that is tracked).

[Progressive dog]

272. So your buddy brings in unrelated stuff and no one else can do that

except his fellow gun nuts.
I was pointing out the overwhelming irrelevance of his post.
Let me explain to you, as simply as possible.
I did not bring up child deaths due to ATV's, your buddy did. I posted other stats that were deliberately not relevant. Then you chime in with gibberish, continuing the stupid argument that we shouldn't talk about guns made for children because other stuff is dangerous to children too. And then you try to continue the argument about ATV deaths.
Start a thread, this ones about guns for children, and the idiots that support it.

[AtheistCrusader]

274. Why is it not relevant?

You say it's not relevant, but you haven't said WHY.

ATV's are adult products, that have child-engineered versions that produce accidental deaths of children.
Firearms are adult products, that have child-engineered versions that produce accidental deaths of children.

WHY is the comparison uninteresting to you? Don't say it is, prove it.

[Progressive dog]

276. You told me it wasn't and now it is

Are you one of them multiple personalities?

[AtheistCrusader]

277. Thank you for insulting me.

No, I said I would accept/am open to an objection to those grounds, but you haven't presented one yet, besides 'it is', and some unrelated data.

Pipo's comparison is two adult products with child engineered versions, that can and do kill kids, and require adult supervision to be used responsibly.

Why is the comparison invalid? What is your objection to the comparison?

[Progressive dog]

279. You don't get it

They are separate issues, I can support regulation of either. That statement should be understandable. See your friend is making a comparison as a straw man. You can't touch guns for kids, because ATVs kill too.
He doesn't want to talk about manufacturing real guns in a child size. That makes the comparison invalid.
It's as simple as that, and distorting what you said, denying what you said doesn't change what you said.

[AtheistCrusader]

280. ATV's are regulated.

And that's a fine point. (So are guns)

I don't see the basis for where you claim 'he doesn't want to talk about manufacturing guns in a kid's size'.

Why didn't you just one-line object with the comment about regulation? Both are regulated. Both SHOULD be regulated. Maybe they can BOTH be regulated better? Is that a hard thing to say?

I have distorted/denied nothing.

[Progressive dog]

290. I thought you didn't get it, now I know you didn't

IN RESPONSE TO THE OP, I did not mention ATV's, your pal did. After you realized how stupid you sounded, then you complained about me talking about ATV's. If you and your pal have nothing sane to say about whether children should have guns, start you own thread about ATV's.
I don't know how to make myself any plainer. I will not respond to your false equivalencies.

[AtheistCrusader]

291. Given the contents of this thread, and who said what, you make no sense.

And it is not *my* lack of comprehension causing it.

Pipoman is not 'my pal'.
Nobody 'realized how stupid' 'we' sounded, as no one has walked it back in any way.
Your comparison made no sense. Pipoman's makes perfect allegorical sense. You have yet to show it doesn't, anyway.
So um. You attack people and get away with it. That's nice. YOU set up the first false equivalency in this thread fork, and accuse others of it. That's nice as well.

You clearly don't understand the objection to *your* false equivalence.

[pipoman]

228. The truly telling part of those numbers is..

that 1/3 to 1/2 of homes have guns..not even close on pools or even more obscure, ATVs..

But according to the data, their choice isn’t smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/

0

[pipoman]

220. Yeah..scrapes and bruises..

From 1982 through 2010, CPSC staff received reports of 2,775 ATV-related fatalities that were children younger than 16 years of age. This represents 25 percent of the total number of reported ATV-related fatalities (11,001).

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93573/atv2010.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

233. The Crickett rifle is a single-shot .22 bolt action.

It's not some high speed low drag death machine. Yes, it is dangerous, all firearms are dangerous, even a .22.

(by the way, kids get killed every year on quads. Your 'extreme' case isn't terribly extreme.)

[kardonb]

146. 2a'ers

parents should be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide ! Too bad there is no legal punishment for utter careless stupidity .

[pipoman]

223. I agree to a point..

do you agree that people who own swimming pools without 360 degree fences, or if the gate is left open should face the same if a child drowns in their pool?

[loli phabay]

251. yes if the allow their kids unsupervised access to guns.

[Travis_0004]

2. Why do we need 10 different threads on this topic.

You have your opinion, others have theirs, buy why start a new thread when several already exist.

[Hangingon]

5. +1!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. You're more than welcome to embrace the Trash Thread button if it so offends your sensibilities.

Or head on back to the Morlocks. Whatever you like.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Hell, he can trash by keyword if he needs to.

Haven't tried it yet, but I hear it works great.

[raccoon]

112. How do you do that? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Ha!~ I had to go look, since I've never actually done it. Here you go:

Go up to "my account", then you'll see a tab that says "Trash can". Click that and you'll get a window for "trash by keyword".

[raccoon]

142. Thank you! nt

[Mojorabbit]

151. It does not help. I try to avoid these threads but they are everywhere nt

[longship]

304. If you don't like them, why do you post in them?

It just kicks them to the top again.

Ignore thread is your friend. Otherwise you have no complaint.

[Mojorabbit]

311. I get sucked in sometimes and mostly regret it! :) nt

[frylock]

173. but that would rob them of the opportunity to post in a thread they don't give a shit about

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Because some may have missed the other nine.

Who cares how many there are, except the Gungeoneers?

[Control-Z]

14. This.

Spot on.

[Progressive dog]

11. It brings out the gun nuts

Kind of like the rats from a sinking ship.
You don't have to look.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Didn't realize you were in charge.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. self-delete

wrong thread.

[morningfog]

67. BEcause this country has fucking lost its mind and needs to be corrected.

[liberal N proud]

85. Because, like every other hot current issue this deserves to be discussed

As much as any other of the issues in the past that have gotten our attention.

[timdog44]

136. There can never

be enough threads on this subject until children are no longer killed accidentally. Until parents wake up and realize the responsibility of being a parent and an adult. I feel for the parent. I feel for the young boy who will go through life with the realization that he shot and killed his baby sister. And before he had the 22 he must have had a BB gun, because it was sitting in the corner with the BB gun. Parents buy the gun for child to teach safety. Not much education there.

And to those who think there are too many threads on this subject, I suggest you find another site, sponsored by the NRA. Goodbye.

[Renew Deal]

138. You're right. 10 isn't enough

to convince the morons that toddlers shouldn't have guns marketed to them.

[Hoyt]

3. Agree completely. Of course, ads for the mature gun crowd are kind of sick too.

[Arctic Dave]

7. Yep. Definately geared for the dick compensater crowd.

That and the, not quit feeling fulfilled crowd. Make yourself feel manly.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. Any more predictable, cliched insults you'd like to toss out?

I think you missed a few...

[Arctic Dave]

62. Cliche?

Are you serious? Look at the advertisement. That's not cliche, that's a clear cut case of penis surrogate as gun.

[Orrex]

131. Heh heh

You wrote "clear cut case of penis."


And I for one can't imagine how anyone would liken the long, hard, smooth and well-oiled shaft of a rifle barrel with a penis, no matter how potently the bullet shoots out of it.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Those ads make it kind of obvious don't they.

[premium]

9. Oooooooooh,

I like that 5th poster, just don't tell my wife.

The 3rd poster is repugnant.

[timdog44]

57. When I was in boot camp

the last half of the lyric went
"this is for fighting, this is for fun".

"Sexy" half clothed women are a dead (sorry) give away to unsavory activities. Muscle building, NASCAR, guns.

[Scootaloo]

177. I'm not sure "mature" is the target audience...

[Arctic Dave]

4. You have to be a special kind of deranged to give your child a lethal weapon

for gift.

[oneshooter]

12. All three of my sons started shooting at age 10.

First with a Red Ryder BB gun, then a single shot air rifle and then, if he had advanced enough, with a 22cal rifle. All was done under the direct supervision of myself or my Loving Wife. When they had mastered the basics of firearm safety they were introduced to Target and Competition shooting. Again under strict supervision. The competition was 22 bench rest at 50 yards.
When they had shown that they could safely handle a firearm and and properly clean, care and shoot it they were given a special Christmas present, I would build them a AR-15, with their help. Again the same procedure, training and testing. All weapons were and are locked in a safe after cleaning. My oldest (27) still shoots competition (High Power), middle son (25) is a Field Medic with the US Army, youngest (14) got "his" AR last Christmas, he has shot two 200yard "reduced course" matches and is developing into a fine competitor.
So myself, and my family are"deranged"?

[Control-Z]

16. Did you buy your kid a little powder blue

power rangers gun at the age of 5? Did you leave it loaded and leaning up against a corner in the living room?

[Arctic Dave]

19. I got my first .22 at age twelve.

Younger then double digits and your a stupid fucking parent. Period.

Four years old? You should have your kids taken away for endangerment. Period.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Where did you get 4 years old out of his post?

I saw 14...

[blue neen]

33. My guess is the poster is referring to this story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022781954

Yes, four year old children are given guns as gifts.

[baldguy]

34. The Perfesser doesn't bother to actually read links in posts.

He knows everything already.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. The wording was ambiguous

In response to someone saying he started his sons at 10 and his 14yo has his own AR...

Younger then double digits and your a stupid fucking parent. Period.

That looked like it was a direct reply. I then assumed since there was no apparent change in context the rest of it was also a direct reply:

Four years old? You should have your kids taken away for endangerment. Period.

[Arctic Dave]

64. These OPs are part of the 5year old who killed his sister

with a .22 his dumbass parents bought him threads today.

[oneshooter]

27. You should take your anti gun glasses off, and read again. n/t

[blue neen]

31. I know an 8 year old little girl who got a pink 22 from the Easter Bunny,

in her Easter basket, right there next to the jelly beans.

Kudos to you and your wife for being responsible about instructing your children. There are many parents, however, who just go and buy the gun...or have the Easter Bunny deliver it...and forget about the proper training part.

A child who still believes in the Easter bunny should not be receiving a gun as a gift. That would qualified as deranged in my book.

[treestar]

109. Did you give them their own gun at 10?

Fortunately it appears there were no accidental deaths.

[oneshooter]

115. You really need to read carefully.

[treestar]

116. The poster says they started shooting at 10

But seems silent on whether they owned their own guns at 10.

[oneshooter]

119. My sons trained with the same 22 rifle I recieved when I was 10. A Remington Nylon bolt action.

[Sancho]

129. You or some family member may be deranged...can you pass a mental health check?

I also grew up on military bases in a hunting family. I also learned to shoot guns under supervision at the age of 10. That is not the issue. Yes, there are plenty of folks in my family or friends of mine who should not possess a gun! Maybe some are "deranged" and others are irresponsible and others have little training. Some young adults develop mental or emotional illnesses as they age into adulthood. Do you have the ability to detect symptoms?

The issue here is a child was shot by another child. If there were a licensing system, mandatory training and supervision, required insurance policies (which likely would not be issued to houses with children - or at least require gun safes, inspection, etc.), background checks, and mental health screening; then there would be fewer accidents, murders, or criminals with guns.

Guns should not be marketed to children. Children should not "own" or possess a gun until they are adults. They can hunt or shoot while under supervision until then. As adults, gun possession and use should require a license and the guns should be registered. The license should require renewal on a regular basis.

[snort]

188. YAAAY!

My kids can kill other humans! What a happy fucking world.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. My daughters started shooting at an early age

They each had their "own" rifle in the safe, though it was in one of our names. Nothing particularly deranged about it. We never went the Cricket route, preferring larger youth versions of rifles/shotguns instead.

Early training has helped them professionally. They both qualified as expert.

[Arctic Dave]

22. I stand by my remarks.

Deranged.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Actually if you are training them properly, it would be ranged

as in using a range. Deranged would be teaching them to shoot in your backyard.

Guns are in close to 50% of US households with active shooters in maybe half that. Its not deranged to teach younger people to shoot. I too think 5 year old is too young due to physiological and psychological limitations. 8-10-12 would be reasonable depending on the child. Start with a BB gun and work their way up to .22LR and then maybe shotguns and hunting, it they are mature enough to handle them. Has to be an individual call.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

194. My daughters are yet to kill anyone they should not have

How are your pups doing?

[oneshooter]

29. And I stand by your right to say so, even if you sound like an asshole saying it.

[Orrex]

39. Golly!

[Progressive dog]

10. "But specifically marketing a gun specifically for children? That's sick."

That's worse than sick, it should be a crime with jail time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Why? Legal activity done under close adult supervision should be fine

8-10 would seem to me to be a better age, and I would start with a BB rifle.

[smirkymonkey]

190. I agree! This is beyond f***ed up. I really don't understand the gun nut mentality.

I hate guns. Gee, I wonder how I have managed to get this far in life without one?

I guess it's because I'm not a paranoid, bat shit nutcase.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

197. I find these complaints incomprehensible as well

Not locking firearms up is unacceptable, but this faux rage is uncalled for.

[smirkymonkey]

206. I guess I just don't get it. It is not part of my culture and it never will be.

It is so foreign to me. I simply cannot accept it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

211. Its not the guns, its the stupid

While my daughters started with BB guns and went up from there, nothing was ever just left out, unloaded or otherwise. I even locked up a nephew's toy gun when he came to visit. Upset his mom, but guns are not toys, not to be pointed at people even in fun etc.

The parents in this case left a firearm out and loaded. A classic stupid and it did a lot more than just burn.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Define what you mean by children in your screed...

A youth rifle or shotgun has a reduced length of pull but is otherwise full scale. They are often used by smaller ladies as well. There is no inherent harm in those.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

86. I would think that for a hunting shotgun....

.....if a child is too small to unawkwardly handle a full sized hunting shotgun, he or she really has no business holding any sort of gun whatsoever. Basic rule of thumb there.

And gun manufacturers shouldn't be in the business of selling otherwise. It's not cute or endearing. It's not teaching children to "respect" guns. It's gross profit, in each and every sense of the word.

But if hard pressed for an age, anything elementary school for a real gun is just distasteful. Maybe BB guns for children in the 8-10 range but nothing beyond that. Otherwise, nothing's wrong with the old Super Soaker.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Shorter LOP is not a big deal. I know many women who prefer that as well

including my late wife

[Tommy_Carcetti]

98. Well good for her.

She get the hot pink or the rainbow colored woodgrain?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. She preferred traditional walnut furniture with basic black

As do my daughters.

[Arcanetrance]

18. It is amusing to me what is and isn't acceptable to market towards kids.

You can't market cigarettes and alcohol to kids. If your caught giving them to kids most of the time law enforcement comes to deal with you. But marketing and giving kids a device that's sole purpose is the elimination of life whether it be animal or human is quite alright. To clarify I'm not for giving kids cigarettes and such. I can't imagine a situation a 5 year old or even a 10 year old needs a gun.

[Hoyt]

35. To be just like good ole dad.

[aikoaiko]

38. elimination of life is not their sole purpose.

[Arcanetrance]

41. Really cause I can't think of any other purpose for them

[aikoaiko]

44. Target shooting, recreational and competitive.

Shooting guns is fun and challenging.

Was that really so difficult to think of?

[Arcanetrance]

51. Forgive me I don't find guns fun having had one pointed at me

I see them as tools of death and destruction. The recreational aspects are secondary to their primary function.

[aikoaiko]

54. Our experiences do shape our attitudes.

Just I can understand why you might not like guns or think of them as having a pro-social purpose, but I trust you can see why others would.

[oneshooter]

60. I have had them pointed at me off and on for 30years.

And by people who were trying to do me great harm.

[Arcanetrance]

61. I take it you do something for a living where that's a possible part of the job

[oneshooter]

63. US Marine 1970-78

Private Security (Merc) in Africa, South America and other places for 20+ years.

[Arcanetrance]

73. While I admire your courage you had training for this the risks were known

I'm not sure really how I feel on guns I see them as tools of death. I admit I have a friend who has guns granted he doesn't live in NYC due to the laws there. That being said I see them being a told subject to the whims of those who own them. But why can't we put reasonable restrictions on the ease to get them as well as close alot of the loop holes that exist. As well as say hey maybe a 5 year old shouldn't have a gun. Also put a real set of laws governing those that own them. Why not have like what we do with drivers licenses you have to do tests and renew and retest every 3 years or so. As well as carry a form of insurance.

[MattBaggins]

147. I wouldn't brag about being a merc

many people consider them lower than a snakes belly.

[oneshooter]

175. I really don't give a damn what they think. I have been "retired" now for 10 years.

it's a young mans game.

[Eleanors38]

153. You have a narrow outlook based on one incident...

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Millions of people engage in competitive shooting (target, skeet, sporting clays, Cowboy Action Shooting, to name a few). Many of these arms are so modified as to make them unsuitable for self-defense use. Still other millions use guns to hunt with. Killing is involved, but since we ALL kill to eat, "death and destruction" is over-blown sophistry.

As for weapons designed for self-protection, I have one and it is ready each night I turn in for a good sound sleep. It is designed for duty-use, specifically to protect LEOs, security personnel, etc., and is readily available for any citizen who wants or needs self-proection. No apology or shame in that.

Should you desire further info on self-defense weapons I will be glad to help.

[smirkymonkey]

192. How about having them take up archery?

They can practice shooting at a target without a lethal weapon you know.

[aikoaiko]

198. I like archery, but you do know that an arrow can kill too, don't you?

[smirkymonkey]

208. Not quite as lethal as a gun. And most people who are Archers are not carrying them

around in public trying to intimidate people.

[aikoaiko]

212. I agree, but the level of supervision needs to be almost the same, IMO.

Maybe a not with a toy bow with suction cup points, but yes with anything that could penetrate a standard straw or foam target.

[CokeMachine]

88. The problem is thinking -- good luck with that!! nt

[DrDan]

77. elimination of life is their sole purpose

[aikoaiko]

80. Its like a mantra for you people.

[CokeMachine]

89. They have to go with what they have -- nt

[DrDan]

107. the truth is the truth regardless of how communicated

[aikoaiko]

121. "sole purpose" does not mean what you think it means

[DrDan]

132. oh I think it probably does

I really do not need your help in translating what I write

[frylock]

174. so guns were originally designed and manufactured to shoot at paper targets?

[aikoaiko]

179. "originally designed" =/= "sole purpose"

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

But yes, some firearms are designed from the start to be used for target shooting.


air rifle


22 lr

[frylock]

183. no, i mean ORIGINALLY originally

the SOLE PURPOSE when the original small arm was designed and manufactured. paper target or flesh?

[aikoaiko]

199. Maybe entertainment. I understand that celebretory fireworks predated martial fireworks.

And martial fireworks led to large arms and then small arms.

Of course killing or maiming your enemy was a primary reason for early small arms, but shooting was probably done for fun or competition back then too.

[frylock]

200. clearly target shooting was so popular they had to make an ammendment to the constitution

[aikoaiko]

202. Among other reasons.

[Eleanors38]

154. Sorry. Your chant is wrong again.

[DrDan]

163. I shall stand by it

[Eleanors38]

178. Go ahead. It's still wrong.

[HockeyMom]

20. NRA shouldn't market gun courses for 4 year olds either

I still had outlet plugs and locks on cabinets when my kids were that age. Those are MANDATED in Head Start, but real loaded guns are just FINE for 4 and 5 year olds? Any parent who thinks this should have THEIR guns, not just their preschoolers "guns", taken away from them, but they should also be declared mentally incompetent. As most people here know, my husband has always had guns in our household (enforced by ME) and that was especially true when our kids were very, very young.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. They don't market gun courses for 4 year olds

There is a youth safety program, but it is not hands on...

[TheMightyFavog]

45. And it teaches kids to do three things if they come across a firearm lying around.

1. Stop
2. Don't touch it.
3. Leave the area
4. Tell a grownup right away.

I don't care where you are on the political spectrum regarding guns, but I think teaching kids to do this if they find a gun lying around is something we can ALL agree on.

[oneshooter]

50. You forgot "Leave the room". n/t

[Hoyt]

66. Except kids like to emulate good ole dad, the gun cultist.

[Progressive dog]

94. The OP story shows how that works

[LeftInTX]

157. This only makes sense to young ones if their parents are compliant

[HockeyMom]

69. A 4 or 5 year old is far from a "youth"

They are hardly out of diapers, and some are still in them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. I asked that very question about the OP, what did he mean by children

The Eddie the Eagle program is for the little kids

There are also young shooter programs, aimed more at 12ish and older.

My daughters did not get a Cricket or equivalent, regardless of the colors. They started on BB rifles, which were locked up just like firearms. They had youth rifles/shotguns with shorter length of pull until they could handle full size firearms. My late wife always preferred a youth stock due to her smaller stature.

[rl6214]

24. My boys were each 18 before they had their own guns

Before that they used mine under my supervision. When they each turned 18 we together built an AR15.

[OneGrassRoot]

32. This Crickett line, the Hello Kitty AK47s, etc., are proof that...

this is NOT about The Second Amendment.

It's about money.

Reasonable gun control measures are sidelined by the gun lobby not because they want to protect citizens' rights, but because they are making a friggin FORTUNE off of fear and tragedy.

The fact that gun sales greatly increased after Newtown is nauseating on all levels. And they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[baldguy]

36. +1000

Making money on the bodies of innocent children.

[SunSeeker]

53. +1

[MattBaggins]

148. "Reasonable gun safety measures"

Words matter

[OneGrassRoot]

164. Yes, words do matter, but in this context...

"safety" and "control" both convey my intention just fine.

[MattBaggins]

166. I agree but it is bigger than that

Gun control measures lets the nutters foam and rant, gun safety measures puts them on defense all because of a word.

[OneGrassRoot]

170. I'll try to be more mindful of that.

Thank you.

Yet, in my experience, it won't matter much. No matter what words are used, all they see/hear is BAN.

[Eleanors38]

155. Gun sales increased after bans were proposed. Nt

[OneGrassRoot]

160. By whom?

Who proposed gun BANS?

People ASSUME "Obama is gonna take my guns" -- thanks to Wayne LaPierre, Glenn Becker, etc. -- and acted in a knee-jerk fashion immediately after Gabby Giffords' shooting, after Aurora, after Newtown, buying up guns and ammo.

Shit, gun and ammo purchases spiked simply with Obama's re-election.

Saying it's in response to any legitimate discussion (versus talk on sites here like DU) about BANNING is disingenuous, in my opinion.

[Eleanors38]

180. Renewal and widening the AWB by Diane Feinstein and many others...

Where have you been? This has been in MSM and on this web site for months (and even before Sandy Hook). This was certainly the dominant theme from December 2012. New Republic Magazine had an article in which they laid the failure of the Extended B.G. check legislation at the feet of gun-controller/banners for making the fight over the "assault weapons BAN." Whether or not the discussion was legitimate or not is beside the point.

The increase in gun/ammo purchases began before Obama was seen as anything more than a brand of peanut butter (i.e., before his FIRST term).

BTW, my reference was to a BAN, not "take my guns away" which would imply a confiscation (not what I said).

[aikoaiko]

37. I generally agree that 4 - 5 is too young, but I'm not going to get hysterical about it.

Whether you take a child, tween, or teenager shooting, the parent is ultimately in charge of securing the firearm properly.

I learned when I was 10. I'm thinking about getting my 8 year old a crickett.

[blue neen]

40. The parent is ultimately in charge...in an ideal world.

So the guns don't get secured properly...and little kids end up shooting themselves and each other.

Why call it that cute little name, "Crickett" when it's a lethal weapon? Well, that would be called marketing to children.

[aikoaiko]

52. Its a really small rifle. Cricketts are small. Its a fine name.

To an adult it is a cricket. To an adolescent it is a rifle.

Yes, it is still lethal, but done with supervisor shooting is safe. Lots of things are dangerous for kids (usually themselves) but are ok when supervised.

The parents are in charge in a practical world, too.

[blue neen]

56. Children are small. "Cricketts" kill small children.

We wouldn't be having this discussion in a practical world.

[aikoaiko]

58. And, yet, here we are.

[blue neen]

59. That's correct, because it's not practical---it's all about the economics.

So, you can keep calling these guns any sweet name you want, but they are given these cute little names for the sole reason of selling more guns.

Period.

[lunasun]

103. Exactly !!

The company that makes the rifle, Milton, Pa.-based Keystone Sporting Arms, has a "Kids Corner" on its website with pictures of young boys and girls at shooting ranges and on bird and deer hunts. It says the company produced 60,000 Crickett and Chipmunk rifles for kids in 2008. The smaller rifles are sold with a mount to use at a shooting range.

Keystone also makes guns for adults, but most of its products are geared toward children, including books and bright orange vests and hats.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/coroner-boy-shoots-year-sister-ky-19088572?page=2

A 4 yr old in KY gets gun for present and it lays around the trailer in the kitchen loaded a year later until a 2yr old is dead
and most of the people defending this by saying they had a gun (at 4 ?)
or gave one to their kids (at 4 ?) do not really seem outraged by the killing .
However they are upset that gun ownership by very young children is being questioned !

[marions ghost]

162. Ditto

[morningfog]

68. Well, that's stupid.

[aikoaiko]

74. More high-minded commentary from the OMGGUNSWTFBBQ club.

[morningfog]

82. And even that is more consideration than your ilk deserve.

[aikoaiko]

83. I'm sure that is the best you can do considering

[CokeMachine]

90. I think the fog is lasting longer tonight. nt

[kappa maki]

43. You must be very young...

Millions of Americans of my generation (the 50s) bought 'cap guns' at the 'dime store' as elementary school kids. Most of us also had BB guns and a very big percentage of us had 'regular' guns like .22 rifles and shotguns too. We took them to school and nobody every freaked out and nobody ever got shot by any of them. A little later, our high school had both rifle and skeet shooting teams. We never had a problem. What has changed?... not the guns, they are the same as they were 50 years ago. Maybe the problem is with the people rather than the inanimate objects in question.

[TheMightyFavog]

46. Umm, high capacity mags on civvie rifles weren't exactly a thing fifty years ago.

About the only exception to that I can think up off the top of my head are all the old M1 Carbines left over from the war that got sold off as surplus.

[blue neen]

49. Uh, no. Guns are not the same as they were 50 years ago.

We all had "cap guns." No one had Sig Sauer's.

[Recursion]

113. I can't think of an advance in civilian firearms since the early 60s

I don't know. Better optics/sights, maybe.

What are you thinking of?

ARs weren't very popular back then, but that's because whatever's popular is whatever the 40-something cohort trained with in the military.

[morningfog]

71. Glad that this is no longer the norm. Previous generations did a lot of stupid shit.

Here's to evolution!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

102. Cap guns and BB guns don't usually kill human beings.

Real guns with real bullets, on the other hand.....

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, though.

[kappa maki]

189. Did you read all my post?...where I talked about the "real" guns we took to school?

And to the others, I had rifles with 20+ round magazines back in those days...yes, they were just .22 cal guns but they shot 'real' bullets. Apparently some folks don't think a .22LR is dangerous. I still maintain that on average today's guns are not any more lethal or dangerous than what was commonly available 50 years ago. Why is there so much emphasis on the devices and so little on the people misusing them?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

256. Because, like it or not, guns account for the overwhelming majority of homicides in this country.

By over a 5-1 margin over the next deadliest weapon, that being knives.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Sure, someone can always use something other than a gun as a weapon, but chances are it's less likely to result in a fatality. Guns are hands down the most efficient legally available deadly weapon. They do things that knives and blunt objects and fists simply cannot do. The fact that being a deadly weapon is the primary intended purpose of a gun as opposed to merely being incidental to its intended purpose certainly brings this home.

You cannot stick your head in the sand or wax nostalgic about the "good old days" where you took your gun to school and pretend that guns are not an issue in this country in this day and age.

[Xithras]

47. Your post highlights a fundamental viewpoint difference between gun owners and non gun owners

"Have your children recognize them as being deadly weapons and not toys."

Non gun owners see firearms as scary deadly weapons, and through that lens only. To a non gun owner, letting a child use a gun makes about as much sense as letting them play with a hand grenade.

Gun owners see firearms as tools. They can be deadly weapons when used against people (as can many tools), but at their core they are simply tools designed to perform a specific function. Just like a sledgehammer or an axe. And like any other tool, they see no problem with allowing their children to own "youth" versions of them.

I gave my son his first toolkit when he was 6. Not those Playskool plastic things, but a real kid sized toolkit with steel headed hammers, a handsaw with a real blade that can cut real wood, and real screwdrivers and hobby knives. He uses them in my garage, under my supervision. They are all kid sized versions of the real (and dangerous) thing.

Just like these guns.

[blue neen]

55. So, Bushmaster .223=Socket Wrench?

Oh, and BTW, we are gun owners.

[morningfog]

72. Gun owners kill lots of people.

[oneshooter]

95. So do car owners.

If you drive then YOU are responsible for traffic caused deaths. YOU have blood on YOUR hands.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

99. Cars =/= Guns

For the 1000th time now.

[oneshooter]

118. Did I say that? Or are you projecting again.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

184. You pretty much did. nt

[oneshooter]

210. So you deny that people are killed by cars?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

255. I deny that cars are an instrument specifically designed to kill/injure or simulate killing/injuring

I also deny that the majority of car deaths are intentional, unlike firearms related deaths.

Hence, I deny the logic of the entire analogy of cars = guns.

[oneshooter]

298. But you do agree that cars, despite what they are built for, kill people.

Which is all I said.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

307. Cars are not designed as weapons and are rarely used as such.

The analogy fails from inception.

[morningfog]

100. Ah, the car argument is one of the cutest!

[TheCowsCameHome]

111. Tough to beat bathtub falls and swimming pool drowings, though.

Anything to deflect from the topic at hand.

[CTyankee]

114. don't forget hammers!

[Crunchy Frog]

110. Hand grenades are tools too.

[jmg257]

135. Great stuff. Can you tell us how many 5 yr olds kill 2 yr olds with their very own

hammers and screwdrivers?

Curious to see more clearly how guns really are just like tools...even kid-sized ones.

[newmember]

48. I'll just leave this here

[SleeplessinSoCal]

65. Just watched "Shane" the other day. It's sort of an explanation for how youngsters get so

wrapped up in the gun culture and the "good guy with a gun" meme.

[newmember]

70. Can anyone guess what this rifle is ?

A .22 also marketed to children just like the Crickett

[justanidea]

75. Sorry but that gun is in no way marketed to children. (It's a HK 416 btw)

Yes it's a .22 but it's a full size semi-auto rifle.

Please let me know where you found one being "marketed to children"

[newmember]

79. Whether that particular rifle is or just a conversion kit for a AR15 is...

It's the same thing




AR15 .22LR conversion kit

Posted In: Accessories



I have in stock the AR15 .22LR conversion kits. They consist of a bolt and one magazine which is everything you need to convert your AR15 to shoot .22 LR rounds. This is a great alternative to the more expensive .223 rounds if you just want to practice. This is also a great item to teach your kids gun safety and how to properly shoot. Contact me for more information


There are many more adds such as this by manufactures of AR15 conversion kits AND rifles saying it's great for children to learn on.

[justanidea]

140. I know it's a .22

Whether or not it's a .22 AR or just a conversion kit for a standard 5.56 AR doesn't really matter.

My point is the rifle isn't being marketed to children nor do I think anyone would buy one for a young child to learn on simply because of the fact it is a full size rifle. It may be a .22 with almost no recoil but it is likely too physically large for a child to hold and operate properly.

[justanidea]

76. The Cliff Notes version of this thread:

People who don't see a problem with teaching a child to shoot: "There is nothing wrong with buy a small .22 to teach a child how to shoot as long as the gun is kept locked up when not in use and the child is under constant supervision when it is in use. I grew up like that as did many others and we turned out fine. It all comes down to the parents doing it responsibly."

People who oppose it: "OMG guns for children. These should be illegal, the parents should be committed to a mental institution with all the other deranged redneck hillbillies!!!"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

81. Four year olds, Dude.

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

The Cliff Notes version of your post: Strawmanning is fun.

[SunSeeker]

143. LOL

[Deep13]

87. I'm against commercial ads generally...

...but I don't think single-shot, .22 youth rifles are the problem. Going after stuff like that makes us seem less reasonable to those sympathetic to restructing pistols and military-pattern rifles.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

93. I'm perfectly fine with such hunting shotguns for adults and even teenagers.

In the specific context of hunting, of course.

But specifically designing and marketing such weapons for elementary school aged children is a whole other story.

[Deep13]

97. Why just hunting.

Suppose I like shooting stationary targets, but don't want to kill anything. When hunting for animals, I shoot with a Nikon D80 and a zoom lens, also the last time I did that was at the zoo.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

101. Target and skeet shooting are fine too, I guess.

But the idea of guns made and marketed specifically for elementary school kids, even for those legitimate purposes, just doesn't sit right with me.

And a 4 or 5 year old has no business using a gun, period, even if the gun is supposedly locked up and only meant to be used under supervision. I have a 5 year old and I wouldn't even dream of her holding such a thing.

[CokeMachine]

91. I missed the 4-5 year old thing in your post.

Where did you get that number? What did I miss Tommy?

Thank you

[Tommy_Carcetti]

96. A five year old boy shot his 2 year old sister.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/coroner-boy-shoots-year-sister-ky-19088572#.UYHbxEq_hdY

His parents had given him the gun--a miniaturized fully functional hunting rifle specifically sold for use by children--a year before.

[flvegan]

104. *shut up* don't talk about Happy Meals.

Deadly is lost on them. It's all emotion, perception and all that. Given weight by their own feelings.

FEELINGS, I TELLS YA!

Hunting is okay, though. It's not deadly. So that's cool. Yup. Once again, hunting is not deadly.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I don't get it.

But then I don't really get it with adults, either.

[treestar]

108. So true

They have to be 16 to drive and that's a reasonable age for a gun too.

[beevul]

181. No, they don't.

They have to be 16 (some states its lower, here kids get permits to drive to school at 14) to drive on public roads.

Private property, not so much.

And, yes, Virginia, in rural America, it happens quite regularly.

[pipoman]

117. It is a gun which fits a child.

Out here in the rural US hunting and shooting is very common and, done safely as most times it is, a great way for kids and adults in their life to enjoy the outdoors. Having a gun which fits a smaller body is safer than a kid trying to lug a gun designed for an adult.

This is a cultural thing. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad. The accident rate for kids with guns is lower than many other activities kids do regularly. Every accident is tragic no matter the means...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

122. Therein lies the problem.

Gun enthusiasts make so much effort to compare guns to other seemingly innocuous instruments which *could* be deadly (most often cars). The thought process is to make guns seem like just any other object. Problem is, they're not. Even in the context of legitimate recreational activities (hunting and target shooting) they're still not your ordinary household object. Far from it.

Listen, I'm not here to bash the sport of hunting or the rural outdoors culture. I know some people have strong objections to hunting; I personally don't, with the caveat that it should be considered a sport where one can win or lose. (Hence why I am baffled when people insist they need a high powered semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 to hunt.)

I've got no problems with hunters taking their kids along with them hunting. If that's the way they want to bond with their children, power to them. But for gun manufacturers to actually make and market a gun for a child's own use just crosses the line. It's one thing for father and son to sit up in a duck blind with the father having a shotgun and the son watching. It's another thing altogether for an elementary aged child to have a gun of his very own.

If you're too old to properly grasp and hold a full size hunting shotgun, you're too old for a gun. It's really as simple as that.

Go ahead and excuse it away as a "cultural thing", but there's no logical reason why a 4 year old should be given an actual gun with real bullets. None. Not even if it's the parent's intention to keep it locked up at most times, it's just way too ridiculously young.

[pipoman]

126. Not things which

"could be" things which statistically ARE more deadly.

People usually don't use AR15s to hunt..they are "sporting rifles" and there are competitions, hundreds of them every weekend, where people of all ages compete in shooting sports with very, very few accidents.

If a small adult or child is going to shoot accurately the gun should fit their body..it is part of accurate shooting.

I am not willing to dismiss the good things which come from adult/kid interaction in any activity without statistical proof it is more dangerous than any other activity be it motocross, atv, swimming, contact sports, etc..and I don't believe the statistical evidence that shooting sports are any more dangerous than these other regularly enjoyed recreational activities is there..

[Eleanors38]

161. "full size hunting shotgun." That's the problem...

"Full size" is what some people avoid by spending much more to have an arm fitted using a "try gun." Some people including women and men of small stature who have the means to pay for such. The first time I tried my Dad's .22, I let the barrel swing down onto the ground: It was too heavy and had a long length of pull. It's STILL that way, though I compensate for it.

You need to decide what law you want to pass to somehow keep parents (esp. irresponsible ones) from letting a kid use a gun, or buy a gun for a kid. Marketing (a hazy pop-up piece of mythology anyway), color coordination, and most esp. Gun-fit are meaningless.

What law do you propose?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

289. Prohibition on marketing firearms to children by gun manufacturers.

Commercial speech isn't afforded the same First Amendment scrutiny that non-commercial speech is given, especially when weighed in balance with the interest of safety and well-being of children.

Prohibiting gun manufacturers from specifically marketing their firearms as being "for children" or having advertisements depicting elementary school aged children with firearms would be something I'd like to see.

Would it still stop a parent from buying a gun for their child? Not always, but like most well-crafted gun control legislation it would probably lessen the incidence of such things happening and as such lessen the chances of such unfortunate results of those decisions.

[Eleanors38]

308. Problem: When Field & Stream and shooting magazines

run stories on how to "Safely Introduce Your Kids
To The Shooting Sports!" and recommend firearms makers who have guns fitted for "small statures," who gets arrested and for what? Would there be a law for post-purchase accessorizing in pink and blue?

I think these proposals have less to do with childhood safety than with stigmatizing arms and the recruitment of children into the shooting sports.

Thanks for your post.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

314. We'd be talking about marketing and advertising, not seemingly objective journalistic articles.

The latter is subject to much more First Amendment protection than the former.

As for the guns themselves--assuming we are just talking about single shot bolt action type firearms--I wouldn't be in favor of prohibiting their sale per se (nor do I see any prohibitions on post purchase accessorizing by the owner). But by cracking down on the direct marketing of these weapons for children by the manufacturers, hopefully we'd see less of these guns in the hands of children, which is just fine with me.

[Eleanors38]

315. I understand the parameters of commercial vs free speech...

"These weapons" are what, exactly? A plain- Jane mystery wood & matte black .22, or a cobalt blue (or pink) .22? Is the problem recruiting kids to shooting by using bright colors, or recruiting period? This is a crucial distinction.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

316. These weapons are weapons such as the Crickett.

With slogans such as "My First Rifle" and cute little cartoon characters. Clearly the target audience is for young children.

The color issue is secondary, but painting the rifles bright colors does make them look all the more toylike.

[Eleanors38]

317. My hunting buddy got a Cricket for his son (now in mid-school)

It is a good training weapon, and that was how it was and is used until he was able to use a .308 to take his first deer. The Cricket seems to be the go-to manufacturer for parents bringing kids into the shooting sports because of its small proportions; it is in fact made for kids. I just don't think there have been many incidents of irresponsible parenting and indoctrination, as unfortunate as this incident is.

Where I live in Central Texas, some parents take kids out to hunt at early ages. Its in the tradition, and has not been shown as dangerous if hunting accidents involving guns means are indicators.

The problem, despite marketing, remains with parenting, from the moment a decision is made to buy a firearm through training to proper handling and storage.

But I can't say much for the blue color.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

318. "It is in fact made for kids"

You see, that's the part that I just can't wrap my brain around.

I understand that hunting is a cultural thing and I'm not attacking hunting itself. I've got no problem with a parent taking their child (even elementary school aged child) along with them when they hunt.

But to miniaturize a gun just to make it "kid-friendly" and to sell it as such? To me, that's almost turning a deadly weapon into a toy, regardless of how responsible the parents might seem be. I'm more inclined to go with my original assessment, which is if you are too young to hold an adult hunting shotgun, you are too old for one of your own.

[cali]

123. I understand it and I don't care for it

I live in a rural area. Hunting is a big part of the culture. I don't see any need to start kids off with guns any younger than 12

I understand the culture.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

125. Like I said, it's one thing for someone to take their kid along with them hunting.

It's another thing to give your kid a gun of his or her own.

Otherwise, if you want a good outdoor activity involving live prey that both you and your kid can both do together with your own tools, I would highly suggest fishing.

[SunSeeker]

145. Fishing is an excellent suggestion. No kid ever killed his sister with a fishing pole.

There are a lot of other options too: mountain biking, hiking, etc., to allow kids and parents to enjoy the great outdoors. It blows my mind that some parents would think it is a good idea to give a kid a gun. It is a sad commentary on our country and those parents.

[premium]

150. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it,

however, millions upon millions of parents, including me, think otherwise.
Some of my fondest memories of my late father are when as a young boy, we would go hunting together, or go out the the range that my father had set up on our land and just do some plinking with our rifles.

[SunSeeker]

152. Some of my fondest memories are fishing with my dad.

Kids spending time with their parents outdoors creates great memories. There are countless things kids can do with their parents outdoors that produce fond memories, and don't involve guns.

[premium]

156. I have fond memories also of fishing with my dad,

we fished at Topaz Lake, right on the NV/CA border, but we also hugely enjoyed shooting also.



Picture of the little town I grew up in.

[SunSeeker]

158. Beautiful. I'm sure you would have hugely enjoyed doing anything with your dad there. nt

[premium]

159. Thank you.

Growing up with the Sierra Nevada mountain range as your backdrop was a wonderful experience.

[pipoman]

127. I understand the alure of motocross too

don't care for it and believe kids should be 12 or so before being allowed on a motor bike by themselves..but alas, it isn't my decision and I don't really know if the .gov should be overly active in regulating it either..

[Tommy_Carcetti]

130. I'm personally fine with the goverment regulating it.

Not saying they have to be sixteen with a driver's license to use one, but having elementary school kids using higher powered gas vehicles like that can't be a good thing.

There is a time, turn, turn, turn....

[cali]

134. I completely agree. I have a dear young friend who's a quad because

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

of a motocross accident.

I'm not suggesting regulating anything, but I sure as hell think that if asshole parents leave a loaded gun around young children they should be charged and tried for negligent homicide if a kid kills someone with it.

[oneshooter]

176. So you advocate the state killing parents of a minor, with a "trial" first?

[cali]

186. didn't mean to advocate killing parents

just charging and trying them.

[Skeeter Barnes]

187. LMAO I don't blame you for editing your post.

[oneshooter]

215. Editing your post was kinda cowardly. If you say it then stand by it.

[cali]

238. look, anyone who knows me and that includes here, knows I'm adamently against the dp

in every single conceivable circumstance. I was tired and I wrote "killed" when I most certainly didn't mean it. so whatthefuckever, sweetie.

[oneshooter]

299. AAAW She called me "sweetie".

[friendly_iconoclast]

231. Really? "they should be tried and killed for negligent homicide if a kid kills someone with it."

[Skeeter Barnes]

185. disturbing

Any other scenarios where you'd like to kill irresponsible parents or is it just for gun related negligence?

How many people will need to be killed to make you happy?

[DreamSmoker]

137. Would you give your 5yr. Old a Car and the Keys????

Giving a Gun to a 5yr old is the same thing...
My first was a Red Rider BB Gun at at the age of ten...
Fired my first shot gun at that age and shot it better that my Father did back then too..

[Walk away]

141. Do these children have gun permits???

It's unbelievable to read about people giving seven year old children guns. Then they get all excited and go on about how they teach their kids gun safety as if there is anything reasonable or sane about it. Reading these threads is a real eye opener.

[oneshooter]

216. What "gun permits"?

[formernaderite]

144. forewarning... I'm old

and have been using firearms since I was five. It's definitely cultural, and part of the problem is that kids and adults who may have access to them, no longer have any idea of what they are capable of doing.

I didn't grow up watching cartoonish violence on television or in video games where the characters don't stay dead.

I don't know how everything has turned upside down... but part of me blames the media. For making celebrities of these idiots.

[malaise]

165. It's early brainwashing

That simple - the gun manufacturers and their propaganda goons are total and complete enablers of murder- profits are way more important than human life. Fuck the fucking NRA.

[L0oniX]

167. We've come a long way from playing cowboys and indians.

[alp227]

168. What about violent video games?

I wonder how the see right wingers against violent video games/media can defend this gun when a kid has already DIED because of the gun.

[harmonicon]

171. How are kids supposed to learn to violently overthrow their democratically elected government...

if they can't start by killing weaker people in their family as children? Giving kids tools designed for killing early on is the best way to get them to efficiently kill people later in life.

[smirkymonkey]

193. I can't even believe that anybody is even defending this shit.

It's sick. Thank god I live in a Northeastern city and I never have to see this crap anywhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

196. Ahhh the joys of cloistered life

There is lots of hunting and guns in the NE. You have to get out of the city, get some fresh air, and see nature to find them

[smirkymonkey]

205. Sorry, I'm just a city girl at heart.

And glad of it.

[Kolesar]

207. Says one of the chair-bound who pickets the forum 24/7 to keep the gun grabbers in check

[ProgressiveProfessor]

214. It keeps me busy between chemo sessions

[Apophis]

224. Agreed.

[BVictor1]

225. Lawrence O'Donnell is slaughtering this company.

And its founders.

[bullwinkle428]

226. THAT was a masterpiece! "Legalized child pornography", for sure.

Hopefully, this will quickly find a place in the Video subforum.

[Politicalboi]

229. We need to stop this insanity

And we need to also have drug tests for gun owners. Children take all kinds of drugs these days, and with all the other shit they have to put up with, guns shouldn't be one of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

230. Ok, it's not for you. Fine.

This is a cultural element for some people in this country. Your assertion that "that's sick" is not interesting.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

242. I honestly don't care what you personally find interesting or not.

And I'm sure the same can be said for you.

Listen, unique foods are a cultural element. A distinct style of music is a cultural element. Accents and dialects are cultural elements. I'll even go as far to say that the sport of hunting in general is a cultural element.

But a gun manufacturer making a smaller version of a rifle and then marketing it as "My First Rifle", complete with a cute little cricket cartoon character and pictures of an elementary school aged kid shooting it all by himself (note, there's no adult in the advertisement standing next to him)?

That's not a "cultural element". That's a sick marketing campaign by a gun manufacturer.

[AtheistCrusader]

258. It actually IS a cultural element.

It's on the wane. I won't argue there. And I won't say that it is wise to keep it going, not all cultural bits are safe or even sane. Some are harmless, some are risky, etc.

But this is something that appears both in popular culture, and in 'the wild'. When my brother and I would visit my grandma and grandpa in Montana, and went hiking together in the Cabinet mountains, the rule was 'take a rifle, or leave the dog'. (Dogs tend to piss off bears and bring them straight back to you.) We didn't die, and it wasn't for hunting either. No adults around. Was it risky? You bet. Would I send my son out at the same age with a rifle? No, I don't believe I would. (We were 11 and 8, respectively)

Personally, from a commercial sales standpoint, in the modern world, I would expect that advertisement to have an adult at least in the frame watching the kid. That would be a more responsible way to portray it. But it isn't entirely shocking to me that it does not.

In some cultural 'zones' of the country, this ad portrays a very real element of life. It's a real thing. I didn't have a crickett, but my first rifle was a break-action .22LR, similar in function, but now, nearly a hundred years old. I still have it. (Parents did not let me have it while I was alone)

[DissidentVoice]

235. I read this and was horrified

The first time I ever touched a firearm was when I was about 11 years old, at Boy Scout Summer Camp.

It was at a rifle range far away from the rest of the camp population and always supervised...I remember one of the supervisors was (I think) a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant who tolerated NO messing around on HIS range and never failed to impress on us that these were WEAPONS, and they could KILL you or someone else.

I learnt to shoot there and did pretty good...I even won an NRA medal.

My brother-in-law is a gun collector and a smart one. He has always kept his hardware locked in a secure cabinet and ammunition in a safe.

This is really something that did NOT need to happen. Why in the HELL was a loaded firearm left lying around where there were small children?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

237. I got my first air rifle at six years old. I started learning to shoot at nine

I earned ten rifling and shooting award before I was 12.

I started game hunting at 14.

I never shot anyone. It isn't the advertisement or the marketing. . .it's the people who masturbate on their guns.

[alcibiades_mystery]

239. Simple: My kids are forbidden from playing with any child who owns or has access to guns

These fucking gunner idiots can do what they want, but my kids will not be in their deadly, dangerous houses, ever, nor will I ever entrust my kids to their care for a sleepover or anything of the kind, as they are irresponsible (that is, BAD) parents.

Finis.

[DLevine]

243. Could not agree more. Sick indeed. nt

[marions ghost]

254. Manufacturing and marketing guns to children

should be against the law.

Period.

[AtheistCrusader]

260. Kids can't purchase them, 'Period'.

A parent or other adult must purchase it and make the transfer.

(Usually a birthday present)

[marions ghost]

262. Marketing is aimed at kids (& parents)

I realize they can't purchase. But marketing creates the desire and the societal approval.

This isn't the latest doll fad. It's grotesque to give a child a gun for their birthday. "Here's your lethal weapon son, just don't shoot your sister..."

[AtheistCrusader]

263. Actually, the social 'approval' was already there.

You don't think this is a new fad, do you? There's some more commentary about it upthread, but this is a cultural element for some Americans. It is not 'created' demand by this advertising. It's as old as the hills.

One might actually call it cultural diversity, if you think about it.

[marions ghost]

267. Cultural diversity

--if guns for kids marks the big divide between subcultures, we're in a bad way.

I don't really think so. Guns have been whipped up to be a cultural totem, fed by macho movies and games. Appealing to a certain element, but not clearly marking a subculture IMO.

The problem is with the fathers. Fathers who feel that guns give them power that they feel they are losing. The main value of guns is psychological, a symbol of "safety," a symbol of control. Like my never-used hammock is a symbol of "leisure."

[AtheistCrusader]

270. The image in the OP suggests a hunting/sporting purpose.

It is not a self-defense weapon in the strictest sense. One would not even use it to discourage a bear in the woods.

It is a rural subculture element. Guaranteed. As I mentioned upthread, my father gave me mine when I was 6.

The article about the shooting death that resulted in that website going down highlights the divide.

"The shooting highlights a cultural divide in the gun debate.

While many suburban and urban areas work to keep guns out of the hands of children, it's not uncommon for youths in rural areas to own guns for target practice and hunting."

"'Down in Kentucky where we're from, you know, guns are passed down from generation to generation,' Cumberland County Coroner Gary White told the Lexington Herald-Leader. 'You start at a young age with guns for hunting and everything.' "


Again, I won't say it's wise, but it is certainly a cultural element.

[marions ghost]

273. The coroner should know...

---------

[AtheistCrusader]

275. Totally fair point.

But again, speaking to the cultural element, he does state it is not unusual, and doesn't seem terribly concerned himself.

Which is interesting.
As a parent, even one who received a firearm at a young age from my parent, the blasé attitude is... regrettable.

[marions ghost]

278. Maybe because this carnage has been going on so long

it just doesn't register as a problem. Just a fact of life. You find the same fatalism in urban ghettos. Both arenas of violence need addressing. Drugs are just as much a factor in rural areas as in the inner city & both areas are economically down. There is much overlap between the two subcultures. Kids getting killed is an everyday thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

281. From all sources, that is true, kids do get killed a lot.

But from just this one data point, accidental deaths with firearms for children is a VERY tiny number. It sucks. It's awful for the kids and the parents when it happens, but for accidental deaths, this is a surprisingly small number given the prevalence of guns and children in this nation.

[marions ghost]

282. So guns are fine for young kids

OK then.

[AtheistCrusader]

283. WIth appropriate adult supervision, I think so.

For the case in reference to the OP, in which a 4 year old shot his 2 year old sister and killed her, no that was not appropriate adult supervision, and someone should be facing criminal negligence charges for it. (IMO)

[premium]

268. Yep.

The rural culture I grew in, just about every kid in town had their own rifle by age 8-10, we didn't think anything of it, it seemed very normal.

But I can see where those that have lived their lives in the city wouldn't understand it.

[premium]

265. At that age, 4 yo,

I agree with you.
Myself and siblings were all given rifles at age 8, but we were strictly supervised when shooting them and when not in use, they were kept locked up in my dad's gun safe which was located in my parents bedroom, of which it was strictly forbidden for us to go in there without one of our parents being there.

The biggest fail I can see as far as that tragic shooting is that the idiotic parents left a fucking loaded gun unsecured and unsupervised where the 5 yo could access it.

The parents, IMO, should be charged with negligent homicide.

[marions ghost]

269. Yes they should be charged

--maybe turn them into your parents (which I think are not majority in some places).

I have plenty of rural relatives. I know the territory. And I actually care that they are getting killed by their own guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

271. Agreed.

I got mine at 6, but I was very closely supervised when I had it in my hands, and I was not allowed to have it when we got home, or when it was stored between supervised uses.

[OmahaBlueDog]

292. No! No! I want an Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle!

Santa Claus: You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

[ailsagirl]

295. Very funny movie

I liked it when the dogs ate the Christmas turkey.

[Aerows]

303. Guns and Viagra

Should be marketed to children.

But heaven forbid a 13 year old girl get hormonal treatment to regulate her menstruation (aka birth control).

That's about the low stupidity our nation has sunk to. I don't even fucking understand it anymore. A man deserves an erection whether he can get it up or not, but a young woman deserves scrutiny before she can take a medication that prevents anemia.

I don't mean to go off, but hey, our country has evolved beyond patriarchy because women can drive and they can't in Saudi Arabia, right?

Have mercy, and bless your heart if you believe it.

[FlaGranny]

313. The arguments in this thread

made me think about comparing gun ownership for youngsters to driving a car. Think back to your teenage years and your experiences driving. Remember the screeching tires, the loud exhaust with the pedal to the metal? Remember the thrill of driving at 100 mph? Didn't your parents or someone else instruct you in careful, safe driving? Knowing things I've done (I was a pretty good kid), it's a wonder that most kids survive into adulthood. Why lower the odds?

In Oakland Park, FL, this weekend a 13-year-old boy found a loaded gun and shot his 6-year-old sister. He probably thought the gun was not loaded. They were home alone. Thankfully, the 6-year-old survived.

We are gun owners. Got our first one in our 40s and now have several. Got interested through a friend. Took the youngest to a shooting range when he was a teen, taught both about guns, but never gave them one. Our youngest is 42, oldest 53. Neither have seen fit to purchase a gun. Never once did we leave any gun out and not locked up if it was not in our physical possession. We still lock them up, and no longer have kids in the house, except for occasional visits by the grandkids.