Gun Control: This speaks for itself

[k0ua]

Ken those little .22 single shot rifles are not really target marketed to 5 year old's. more like the 9 to 13 year old set. If a parent wants to introduce a 5 year old to shooting that is their prerogative but I have never seen a parent let a 5 year old have access to any firearm unsupervised. My dad did let me fire a .22 rifle at age 4, but it was highly supervised, I really did not have control of the rifle. I fired my first handgun at age 6, Again highly supervised. I was "turned loose" on my own at age 12 with a .22 single shot rifle sized for my frame, a Remingtion 514BR.. the BR stood for "boys rifle" meaning it was sized for a smaller framed person. I was to go out into the woods and bring back the little furry tailed tree rats but it was a solo experience, and was not to take any friends as a safety precaution.. I am sure it was an difficult decision for my parents to let me out on my own with a potentially lethal weapon at age 12. I of course had asked for the opportunity at age 11 but was denied. I had fired at least hundreds of rounds by then in supervised settings, but had to show I could be safe by myself. Age 12 was about the age that most parents let their kids out with a .22 rifle on their own in my area.. I cannot image letting a 5 year old have a rifle by himself. People are responsible at different ages of course, I can think of some at age 25 I would not be comfortable with:shocked:

James K0UA

 

[MossRoad]

That is a fallacy but at least you acknowledge that gun owners can be killed with their own weapon. And, you probably listened to your pediatrician who quoted real data showing that young children can choke on hot dogs so you avoided them until it was safe. The trouble with your rather absurd argument is that you are saying that even though the pediatrician says my child might choke on a hot dog, I'm going to feed the young infants hot dogs anyway. IF there is data that says your risk of death is higher if you have a gun in the home than if you do not have a gun, then how exactly is the gun protecting you? Gun defenders immediately jump to the hypothetical bad guy trying to break in to my home and create mayhem but the reality is that 1) armed home invasion is remarkably rare (just very well publicized) and 2) firearms kill people in their home quite regularly (murder, accident, suicide). If gun ownership is protective, then why do we not have as many gun deaths in Massachusetts as in Arkansas? The citizens of Arkansas are MUCH better armed but the risk of firearm death is MUCH lower in Massachusetts. Just how are all those guns protecting the citizens of Arkansas?

In 2010 there were 214 murders in Massachusetts.
In 2010 there were 134 murders in Arkansas.
There's about 6.5 million people in Massachusetts.
There's about 3 million people in Arkansas.
Massachusetts has the 3rd highest population density in the country.
Arkansas has the 34 highest population density in the country.
Massachusetts has 8000 sq miles.
Arkansas has 53,000 sq miles.
Massachuesttes average annual income +$60k
Arkansas avearage annual income +$40k

While the facts about deaths per 100,000 people are frequently cited, many other facts are ignored.... like in a state almost 7 times smaller with an annual income rate 50% higher there were 50% more total murders in 2010 in Massachusetts VS Arkansas.
So lets look at the murder per square mile number.
Massachusetts had 0.02675 murders per square mile in 2010.
Arkansas had 0.00253 murders per square mile in 2010.
That comes out to a murder rate 10.6 times higher per square mile in Massachusetts VS Arkansas.

 

[MossRoad]

Why on earth would you bring a gun to school?

Well, taking my own personal experiences into account, I was on the rifle team. I had to take my gun to high school. I left it in the trunk so I could take it to practice at the local YMCA shooting range after school. I kept it unloaded, in a gun case, locked in the car trunk for two and a half years. It was no secret. There were half a dozen kids on the team.

Same thing for kids going hunting after school. Shotgun in the trunk, in a gun bag, unloaded. No big deal.

I suppose its all in how you were raised, the culture you grew up in, and the things you were taught as a youth by your peers and elders regarding how to view firearms. Its a tool for fun, sport, hunting and personal protection. It has to be treated with respect, just like fire, gasoline, knives, hammers, etc... all of which are inherently dangerous if used incorrectly and not treated with respect.

 

[kiotiken]

Ken those little .22 single shot rifles are not really target marketed to 5 year old's. more like the 9 to 13 year old set. If a parent wants to introduce a 5 year old to shooting that is their prerogative but I have never seen a parent let a 5 year old have access to any firearm unsupervised. My dad did let me fire a .22 rifle at age 4, but it was highly supervised, I really did not have control of the rifle. I fired my first handgun at age 6, Again highly supervised. I was "turned loose" on my own at age 12 with a .22 single shot rifle sized for my frame, a Remingtion 514BR.. the BR stood for "boys rifle" meaning it was sized for a smaller framed person. I was to go out into the woods and bring back the little furry tailed tree rats but it was a solo experience, and was not to take any friends as a safety precaution.. I am sure it was an difficult decision for my parents to let me out on my own with a potentially lethal weapon at age 12. I of course had asked for the opportunity at age 11 but was denied. I had fired at least hundreds of rounds by then in supervised settings, but had to show I could be safe by myself. Age 12 was about the age that most parents let their kids out with a .22 rifle on their own in my area.. I cannot image letting a 5 year old have a rifle by himself. People are responsible at different ages of course, I can think of some at age 25 I would not be comfortable with:shocked:

James K0UA

James, you just summed up the problem. On one hand, you have responsible parents who teach their kids properly, safely and smartly. On the other hand, you have parents who make moronic decisions and end up with a tragedy that makes international news.

In my mind, it's better to establish basic rules than to hope people will know right from wrong.

 

[TripleR]

Thanks RRR. I'll admit to being a little dramatic in response to a presumptuous post that ticked me off a little. Just a mole removal, but it had to be done under general anesthetic by a plastic surgeon. I'm always so thankful after leaving a place like that and having seen what some other families are dealing with and how brave they all are.

I am glad to hear everything is OK. I know what you mean, a family friend of one of my sons went through a drawn out ordeal with their four year old that ended last year. We hosted a benefit at one of our properties for her and I got to know the family and brave little girl and was amazed at the resilience and bravery of her and her parents. It sure tends to put what little problems most of us encounter and get all worked up over.

Ken those little .22 single shot rifles are not really target marketed to 5 year old's. more like the 9 to 13 year old set. If a parent wants to introduce a 5 year old to shooting that is their prerogative but I have never seen a parent let a 5 year old have access to any firearm unsupervised. My dad did let me fire a .22 rifle at age 4, but it was highly supervised, I really did not have control of the rifle. I fired my first handgun at age 6, Again highly supervised. I was "turned loose" on my own at age 12 with a .22 single shot rifle sized for my frame, a Remingtion 514BR.. the BR stood for "boys rifle" meaning it was sized for a smaller framed person. I was to go out into the woods and bring back the little furry tailed tree rats but it was a solo experience, and was not to take any friends as a safety precaution.. I am sure it was an difficult decision for my parents to let me out on my own with a potentially lethal weapon at age 12. I of course had asked for the opportunity at age 11 but was denied. I had fired at least hundreds of rounds by then in supervised settings, but had to show I could be safe by myself. Age 12 was about the age that most parents let their kids out with a .22 rifle on their own in my area.. I cannot image letting a 5 year old have a rifle by himself. People are responsible at different ages of course, I can think of some at age 25 I would not be comfortable with:shocked:

James K0UA

I suppose I am one of those irresponsible parents who taught their kids to shoot at a young age. For my oldest son, I cut down an adult rifle then when the others came of age Chipmunk and Anchutz had made youth rifles, so I bought them for my other kids.

During the time and culture in which I lived, this was not unusual, no raised eyebrows or concerns and our children are an RN, EMT, Teacher and Social Worker, no behavioral problems or incident of violence etc.

My siblings and I were driving a tractor at about the age of five or six and working in the fields pretty much as soon as we were mobile. I realize the way I raised and raised my children may seem alarming to some if not many, but it was certainly not unique.

 

[MossRoad]

Moss should we do back round checks on keys, buckets, dogs, and tv's ???????

Good point Ernie.

My whole point was that although I personally favor background checks for all firearms transfers, a discussion for another thread indeed, this one incident with the 5 year old shooting the 2 year old is a single, specific, tragedy that should not be used in the debate about gun control and background checks. It happened due to parental lack of judgement and those poor folks will have to live with that. Just as if they would have left a 5 gallon bucket filled with water for an infant to drown in, or not secured the car keys, or had an unsupervised dog, or an unstable large TV. It was a horrible thing. We can discuss the background checks in another thread, if you like. I see this one going way off-topic (and I'm probably helping that, sorry).

 

[caps]

Think About it.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

Where is it worded like that in their oaths of office? If not in their oath is it a responsibility or an agenda? ....

Are you advocating that the government shouldn't restrict firearm possession in any respect? Do you believe it is ok for the Alan Lanza's of the world to be able to go down to the local Quick Trip and purchase an AR 15, and a case of .223?

If you ansewer these questions in the negative, then it is a matter of the extent of the government's responsibility and how best to achieve it, not that the government has no responsibility at all because it isn't in their oath.

 

[brin]

Gotta Love This

 

[kiotiken]

I told myself I wasn't going to post on this thread, but when this statement came across.....well.

I have never seen a gun marketed to children. Maybe you need to travel down and see for yourself. Until then, maybe you need to figuire out what you are claiming, before posting it.

Well, I wasn't able to reply to this comment when I first read it, but it's festered ever since. I'm not sure if you claim the gun used was not marketed to children or if it doesn't happen, but your view that guns aren't marketed to kids is just wrong. After reading the following article, I couldn't let it go any longer. Yes, guns are marketed to kids and my opinion is that's not right.

Maker of 'My First Rifle' for kids disappears after toddler killed - Your Community