If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Giving five-year-old "My First Rifle" yields predictable results   (nydailynews.com) divider line 613
    More: Sad, Kentucky, Lexington Herald-Leader, .22 Long Rifle  
•       •       •

12255 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 11:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



613 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 07:06:10 PM

sheep snorter: Marketing flyer.

[i.imgur.com image 630x328]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kid s


Not really seeing the problem here.  The baby might be controversial.  The rest is pretty tame marketing stuff.
 
2013-05-01 07:06:33 PM

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.

Funny thing is, the auto industry has some of the strictest safety measures of any industry, while the NRA thinks that requiring a secure gun locker is an attack on the Second Amendment.

It's also really hard to make a foolproof system against human stupidity.

Requiring a person to secure their gun in a safe or making a safe purchase/ownership mandatory is indeed a violation of the second amendment.

Funny that guns number in the hundreds of millions yet have fewer accidental deaths than those super strict regulated cars.


Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns, far more people use cars than use guns, and multiple people in a car vs most gun cases being one on one. Remember, bucko, you need to look at EVERYTHING when comparing things.

Point out how requiring you to take better care of your deadly weapon = "violation of the Second Amendment". You like to crow about how awesome the Second Amendment is, yet you shriek at being forced to be responsible with it. If you don't want to be held responsible for your toys, then you shouldn't have those toys.
 
2013-05-01 07:07:55 PM

sheep snorter: Marketing flyer.

[i.imgur.com image 630x328]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kid s


I can totally understand people wanting to raise their children with a respect for guns and gun culture.

But most of those pics actually show me a LACK of respect for guns. And none of those pics I find "cute" at all.
 
2013-05-01 07:09:50 PM

Tman144: pedrop357: Tman144: pedrop357: Tman144: So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.

fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?

Except you're not "talking." You've been posting the same thing over and over again for 6 1/2 hours.

Why are you still here, to talk to me about why I'm here?  fark off.

If I'm posting the same over and over again, it's in response to the same thing being said over and over again, in which case they're not "talking" either.

I came back to see if you would truly be against a law making it illegal to make deadly weapons look like a super-soaker. Apparently the answer is yes.

Well, I guess I'm off to design my new line of rat poisons that look and taste like Werther's Originals. I hope there aren't any crazy accidents!


You said make a firearm look like a toy, which is broader then "super soaker"  Define what making a firearm "look a toy" actually means.  Is it just colors, which colors, is it some design attribute.  Is it size?  How would a prohibition on a firearm "looking like a toy" actually work?

I'm also not sure how you would make a deadly weapon look like a super-soaker.

You have fun with your poison disguised as food.  Your premeditation here won't help your sentence though.

There's no evidence that the kid mistook this firearm for a toy, so nice try there.
 
2013-05-01 07:10:57 PM

silvervial: inglixthemad: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

I gave my kids weapons at that age. The differences:

It was only ever out of the case at the range (or for cleaning, but that I did alone for several years)

I held all the ammo, and only loaded it shortly before firing (and I mean RIGHT before firing)

The child was taught it was a WEAPON THAT KILLS and to NEVER point it at anything other than the target AT THE RANGE.

The weapon was kept locked in a locked case (in a locked safe) with the bolt removed. The bolt was locked (along with my other rifle bolts) in a separate lockbox. Finally the ammo was in a different locked room, each caliber in their own lock boxes.

We didn't take chances. My elders didn't take chances with us either. From pellet rifles to bows to firearms, it was relentlessly drilled into us that they kill whatever they are aimed at so don't point it at anyone EVER.

You know, you raise a point here, and I'm using your post to articulate it, but don't take it personally.

We hear relentlessly about guns being important tools for protecting yourself and your family against, say, intruders. Someone breaks into your house and you nobly blow their farking head off because you are an armed citizen aware of and exercising your second amendment rights.

So, tell me. How the fark do you "protect your family" if you have the guns locked up, the ammo somewhere else, the bolts locked up in a separate place?

Do you ask the intruders nicely: "Please wait for me to assemble my tool of home protection and then stand still so I can kill you"

If a loaded gun isn't immediately accessible and immediately fireable in the event of an intruder - then what is the farking point???

If you just like to have guns to shoot them at a range and so you think having the rest of society suffer the consequences of millions of guns in the hands of whomever is a-okay - go get a different farking hobby!


I don't need a gun to defend my family. I do own a couple pistols, but they're broken down (non-functional, similar to the rifles) in the house too, and I don't even have children in the house anymore. I have two dogs as an alarm system.

Incidentally, I hunt. I go to the range far more to keep my shooting skills sharp, but that's because I do like to ensure a clean kill. I have the pistols, just in case I eff up and the animal is still alive. I still happen to like the taste of whitetail, moose, bear, et al., grilled nicely just like a good rack of baby back ribs or tenderloin steak.

Now, and I'm sorry if I offend you here and use you as an example. You are who those zealots at the NRA point to with every fundraising drive and opposition to any new law. Most safe firearms owners don't give a flying fig about background checks. The NRA members can get worked up into a froth because the NRA is all too happy to use your poorly thought out statements as "libs wanna takez yer gunz" fodder.
 
2013-05-01 07:11:04 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah: in reply to lots of other stuff said -  .Point out how requiring you to take better care of your deadly weapon = "violation of the Second Amendment". You like to crow about how awesome the Second Amendment is, yet you shriek at being forced to be responsible with it. If you don't want to be held responsible for your toys, then you shouldn't have those toys.

-------------------------------------

See that's where these parents are negligible. The child should never have been alone with a loaded weapon. They should be held criminally accountable for this tragedy.
 
2013-05-01 07:12:43 PM

way south: noitsnot: way south: mjohnson71: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Why not both?

Because this method obscures real problems by using an all too common scapegoats for human failure.

They've been making rifles for children from well before the 1700's. There was nothing wrong with the firearm and it was sold for legitimate purposes.
Someone screwed up at teaching gun safety the same way others screw up at road safety or by following some anti-vaxxers insane rants.  Parents screw up by leaving half filled buckets of water around their property.

These aren't problems that can be solved by industry or legislation.
You'd reduce the chances for tragedy alot more by taking an educational approach, advising people how to be more responsible with their kids.

What was it - this child's firearm of the 1600's? Please tell us about it. I think you made that up.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x480]
Existing examples are rare (this one from the 1760's), but training weapons have been around forever.

/All the boys want to be like daddy, and its not like they had alot of schooling back then to take up their time.


Everything I've seen is "Made for Prince Whosit" or "Crafted for Czar Hoohaw's son on his birthday", etc.

Perhaps I was a bit obnoxious with the previous post (sorry), but still I don't think "kid's guns" were generally available in the 1600's/1700's - they were the exception, not the rule.
 
2013-05-01 07:12:57 PM

pedrop357: You said make a firearm look like a toy, which is broader then "super soaker"  Define what making a firearm "look a toy" actually means.  Is it just colors, which colors, is it some design attribute.  Is it size?  How would a prohibition on a firearm "looking like a toy" actually work?


There's a prohibition on making toys look like real fire arms.  I remember when I was a kid toy guns looked real. Now they are all colorful and shiat.   A couple of kids were shot by cops thinking the toy guns were real. I know its prohibited in NYC, and I'm sure other places prohibit it too. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a national thing.
 
2013-05-01 07:13:45 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Point out how requiring you to take better care of your deadly weapon = "violation of the Second Amendment". You like to crow about how awesome the Second Amendment is, yet you shriek at being forced to be responsible with it. If you don't want to be held responsible for your toys, then you shouldn't have those toys.


People manage to be quite safe with their guns and take care of them just fine without being required to buy a statutory minimum spec safe or lock them up when not in house despite living alone.  Laws in areas like DC used to require firearms to be locked up when not in use.

There's this weird thing in your post that seems to pervade the anti-gun movement and the left, it's that sort of "our way is the only way" thinking.  You think that every gun being in a safe is the only way to be responsible, thus it's irresponsible to do it a different way, and it's also apparently OK to force that way on everyone regardless of circumstance.  Sorry, no dice.

There is more than one way to be responsible with dangerous or powerful objects.
 
2013-05-01 07:15:55 PM

Lollipop165: There's a prohibition on making toys look like real fire arms. I remember when I was a kid toy guns looked real. Now they are all colorful and shiat. A couple of kids were shot by cops thinking the toy guns were real. I know its prohibited in NYC, and I'm sure other places prohibit it too. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a national thing.


There are indeed import and manufacture restrictions about toys that look real.  A toy that resembles a real gun has to have the barrel painted orange, etc.

The reverse isn't true though as it would be ineffective, as well as difficult to implement without being open to serious abuse by gun control nuts.
 
2013-05-01 07:16:39 PM

inglixthemad: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

I gave my kids weapons at that age. The differences:

It was only ever out of the case at the range (or for cleaning, but that I did alone for several years)

I held all the ammo, and only loaded it shortly before firing (and I mean RIGHT before firing)

The child was taught it was a WEAPON THAT KILLS and to NEVER point it at anything other than the target AT THE RANGE.

The weapon was kept locked in a locked case (in a locked safe) with the bolt removed. The bolt was locked (along with my other rifle bolts) in a separate lockbox. Finally the ammo was in a different locked room, each caliber in their own lock boxes.

We didn't take chances. My elders didn't take chances with us either. From pellet rifles to bows to firearms, it was relentlessly drilled into us that they kill whatever they are aimed at so don't point it at anyone EVER.


A common theme in this thread is that people who are demonstrably and meticulously safe with their firearms are completely capable of having them in a household with small children.

Why are we not making sure that only demonstrably and meticulously safe individuals are the only ones that have firearms in households with small children (and criminals/the criminally insane)?
 
2013-05-01 07:16:48 PM

pedrop357: loaba: A 5-yr old should never have had unsupervised access to a loaded weapon. That's it, that's all there is to it. Plain and simple common sense says that any and all gun-based activities should be with an adult. This kid killed his sister and it is completely mom and dad's fault. They were negligent.

This.


It's assholes like this that make the dozens of responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
 
2013-05-01 07:18:31 PM

boyuber: Why are we not making sure that only demonstrably and meticulously safe individuals are the only ones that have firearms in households with small children (and criminals/the criminally insane)?


How would you do that?

It's about as easy as making sure no car ever drives with an unbuckled or un-car seated child.
 
2013-05-01 07:18:35 PM

pedrop357: The reverse isn't true though as it would be ineffective, as well as difficult to implement without being open to serious abuse by gun control nuts.


Now I'm thinking you are a king troll.
 
2013-05-01 07:18:54 PM
Keizer - thing is, people are generally (when left to their own devices) irresponsible mooks. Y'know, like these people who let their 5-yr have unsupervised access to a firearm.
 
2013-05-01 07:20:36 PM

Lollipop165: pedrop357: The reverse isn't true though as it would be ineffective, as well as difficult to implement without being open to serious abuse by gun control nuts.

Now I'm thinking you are a king troll.


It's not trolling to say something you disagree with or don't like.

Please explain how you define a gun that "looks like a toy".  A toy is a product aimed at children that resembles a gun, is not a gun, and thus has to have an orange tip.

Assuming YOU are not the troll, how would you define "looks like a toy"?
 
2013-05-01 07:29:16 PM
First they came for the Guns from our Five-Year-olds and I said nothing...
 
2013-05-01 07:29:16 PM
Quit infringing the rights of gun owners to turn their children into effective killing machines.

The rights of gun owners trump everyone elses.

i21.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 07:35:05 PM
When my daughter is 6, she'll start helping me clean my bolt action rifles. i'll clean the bolt, she'll just need do the wood polishing. It'll be great to have her and dad spend time together.

When she's about 8 or 9, she'll start going to the range with me. I'll give her her first gun, most likely .223 rifle.  it'll be her gun but it'll be locked in my safe. she will only get to use it when i'm around.

when she's a teenager she'll get her first AR15. and when she's 21, her first handgun (probably 9mm).

along with all of this will be a LOT of dad & daughter time, hanging out, talking, doing fun things together that don't involve guns. guns will just be one other hobby and skill we share - like reading, writing, working out, cooking, growing beets, helping others.

and you know... this is what MANY gun owners do. I'm tired of people calling gun owners "rednecks" "uneducated" "right wing nuts" .....
 
2013-05-01 07:40:47 PM
No matter how colorful or cute you make a weapon seem like, in the end, it will always perform its intended role. Don't put weapons in the hands of kids who have no understanding of the concept of life, death, and safety.
 
2013-05-01 07:43:33 PM
While I want to believe that duenor is the norm, I'm pretty sure he's the exception.

/ having said that, he's the responsible gun-owner I'd try to emulate (if I owned firearms.)
 
2013-05-01 07:46:30 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns,


for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 310,000,000

The funny thing is that you can't even get one simple little fact right.  It's no wonder you're so wrong about everything else.
 
2013-05-01 07:57:13 PM
Random thought - I sure hope mom's enjoyed that smoke...
 
2013-05-01 07:58:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns,

for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 310,000,000

The funny thing is that you can't even get one simple little fact right.  It's no wonder you're so wrong about everything else.



You're comparing registered vehicles to estimated handguns. Registered vs estimated.

/just saying
 
2013-05-01 08:21:00 PM

noitsnot: way south: noitsnot: way south: mjohnson71: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Why not both?

Because this method obscures real problems by using an all too common scapegoats for human failure.

They've been making rifles for children from well before the 1700's. There was nothing wrong with the firearm and it was sold for legitimate purposes.
Someone screwed up at teaching gun safety the same way others screw up at road safety or by following some anti-vaxxers insane rants.  Parents screw up by leaving half filled buckets of water around their property.

These aren't problems that can be solved by industry or legislation.
You'd reduce the chances for tragedy alot more by taking an educational approach, advising people how to be more responsible with their kids.

What was it - this child's firearm of the 1600's? Please tell us about it. I think you made that up.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x480]
Existing examples are rare (this one from the 1760's), but training weapons have been around forever.

/All the boys want to be like daddy, and its not like they had alot of schooling back then to take up their time.

Everything I've seen is "Made for Prince Whosit" or "Crafted for Czar Hoohaw's son on his birthday", etc.

Perhaps I was a bit obnoxious with the previous post (sorry), but still I don't think "kid's guns" were generally available in the 1600's/1700's - they were the exception, not the rule.


No blood no foul. 

How common these guns were is debatable (few items survive for over three hundred years, especially childrens things) but we agree that the did exist, and technology proliferates over time.  More and more kids are learning to shoot while young.

These weapons aren't really marketed to the kids. Its their parents who buy them in search of a wholesome family experience. Shooting is a hobby that can be enjoyed as safely as any other activity.   I don't see it as being much different to a parent who buys a kid an ATV or some other high powered toy.

The real issue is that negligence can kill.   It can kill you just as dead in the pool or at the firing range.
We've got a sourge of careless parenting that needs to be dealt with more than anything.
 
2013-05-01 08:21:18 PM

JohnNS: The funny thing is that you can't even get one simple little fact right.  It's no wonder you're so wrong about everything else.You're comparing registered vehicles to estimated handguns. Registered vs estimated.

/just saying


He's also comparing items in every day, common use, to items that are in occasional use and most of the time locked or put away. Only a minute fraction of Americans even has a concealed carry permit/HCP, or carries on a regular basis.

And as a HCP holder, I count myself in that small percentage, and only carry part of the time - and you'll never know I have one.

But that's expecting  BraveNewCheneyWorld to not parrot right wing talking points, and continue to defend this chucklefark by being intellectually dishonest and moving those goalposts.

pedrop357: Please explain how you define a gun that "looks like a toy".  A toy is a product aimed at children that resembles a gun, is not a gun, and thus has to have an orange tip.

Assuming YOU are not the troll, how would you define "looks like a toy"?


The fact that it's made to fit a child's frame doesn't make it look like a toy. Being made in bright, fun colors that say "My First Rifle (TM)" on the side of the stock, on the other hand.....

duenor: and you know... this is what MANY gun owners do. I'm tired of people calling gun owners "rednecks" "uneducated" "right wing nuts" .....

And on the other hand, had you actually read the thread, you'd have realized that more than one person has defended what these parents did in this thread, and stated it was an unavoidable accident, and defended it using intellectually dishonest comparisons and right wing shill points.

So, if you want to stop people from calling others what you stated, maybe you should abscond to the fact that this was a STUPID, irresponsible act by the parents that borders on the criminal, that making a gun look like a freakin' toy was not a great idea, and that people defending this aren't helping anything.

Just a thought.
 
2013-05-01 08:26:12 PM

pedrop357: Oooh, the appeal to authority.


Except for the fact that for the fallacy to be invoked accurately, the information being presented must actually be based on an appeal to authority, and not a cited work of professional literature.

In reality, the APA is one of the most respected institutions in the world for Psychiatric and Psychological research. That article even cited the sources it used in it's writing.

But, I guess when the source is both backed by citations, neutral, and accurate, it's an inconvience to your cause and must be dismissed out of hand.

pedrop357: It's the "solutions to" part that has caused them problems so I wouldn't imagine we'll see a lot of that.  Causes or factual information regarding, not so much.


And that's the point I made. The CDC is prohibited by law from pursuing research that would either support or provide evidence-based interventions in violation of current US law.

The fact that you seem to think maintaining legally required and mandated statistics on the causes of death for everyone equates to research is a joke.
 
2013-05-01 08:28:45 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Remember, bucko, you need to look at EVERYTHING when comparing things.


You mean like comparing apples to oranges?  Cars aren't made to kill people or animals, dipshiat.

Just like gun nuts to come out in droves when the simple fact of the matter is we have a degenerate cousin-humping inbred shiatbag Kentuckian that didn't have the brains (again:  Kentucky) to lock up his guns, left a gun accessible to a 5 YEAR OLD, and his daughter paid with her life for it.  I hope he goes to jail for the rest of his life; otherwise, he needs to be castrated so he cannot further contaminate the rest of the world with his stupidity.

So, fark OFF to any of you PUSSIES that thinks a 5 year old needs a gun.  Cry me a farking river, assholes.

I'd suggest a "Kentucky" tag but most of those farking retards can't read anyhow.  That's what inbreeding gets you.
 
2013-05-01 08:28:48 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: so, how about now?


sorry man. you did what you could but the herp and the derp won out. i appreciated it a.yway.
 
2013-05-01 08:31:04 PM

JohnNS: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns,

for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 310,000,000

The funny thing is that you can't even get one simple little fact right.  It's no wonder you're so wrong about everything else.


You're comparing registered vehicles to estimated handguns. Registered vs estimated.

/just saying


Are you saying the estimate is completely inaccurate?  I'd love to see a citation for a more accurate number.

hardinparamedic: Only a minute fraction of Americans even has a concealed carry permit/HCP, or carries on a regular basis.


Do you have a specific number, or are you just stating your opinion again?  What do you consider a minute fraction?
 
2013-05-01 08:49:42 PM

hardinparamedic: And that's the point I made. The CDC is prohibited by law from pursuing research that would either support or provide evidence-based interventions in violation of current US law.


They're only prohibited from advocating, not proving factual information.  Please show the law or regulation that proves otherwise.
 
2013-05-01 09:01:12 PM

way south: noitsnot: way south: noitsnot: way south: mjohnson71: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Why not both?

Because this method obscures real problems by using an all too common scapegoats for human failure.

They've been making rifles for children from well before the 1700's. There was nothing wrong with the firearm and it was sold for legitimate purposes.
Someone screwed up at teaching gun safety the same way others screw up at road safety or by following some anti-vaxxers insane rants.  Parents screw up by leaving half filled buckets of water around their property.

These aren't problems that can be solved by industry or legislation.
You'd reduce the chances for tragedy alot more by taking an educational approach, advising people how to be more responsible with their kids.

What was it - this child's firearm of the 1600's? Please tell us about it. I think you made that up.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x480]
Existing examples are rare (this one from the 1760's), but training weapons have been around forever.

/All the boys want to be like daddy, and its not like they had alot of schooling back then to take up their time.

Everything I've seen is "Made for Prince Whosit" or "Crafted for Czar Hoohaw's son on his birthday", etc.

Perhaps I was a bit obnoxious with the previous post (sorry), but still I don't think "kid's guns" were generally available in the 1600's/1700's - they were the exception, not the rule.

No blood no foul.
How common these guns were is debatable (few items survive for over three hundred years, especially childrens things) but we agree that the did exist, and technology proliferates over time.  More and more kids are learning to shoot while young.

These weapons aren't really marketed to the kids. Its their parents who buy them in search of a wholesome family experience. Shooting is a hobby that can be enjoyed as safely as any other activity.   I don't see it as being much different to a parent who bu ...


Still, I can't agree with the conclusion that lethal weapons are appropriate for children. They are not. No five year old needs any toy that shoots anything. Barney and books and a bicycle are fine.

"Shooting is a hobby that can be enjoyed as safely as any other activity" - No, no it cannot. Because there are guns being fired. We need take no unusual precautions when coloring in coloring books. Can we also go skeet shooting and take no precautions? No reasonable person would agree.
 
2013-05-01 09:04:19 PM

noitsnot: Still, I can't agree with the conclusion that lethal weapons are appropriate for children. They are not. No five year old needs any toy that shoots anything. Barney and books and a bicycle are fine.

"Shooting is a hobby that can be enjoyed as safely as any other activity" - No, no it cannot. Because there are guns being fired. We need take no unusual precautions when coloring in coloring books. Can we also go skeet shooting and take no precautions? No reasonable person would agree.


so bicycling, river rafting, riding on the lake, flying in a plane, etc. are all out?  Each of those requires precautions.
 
2013-05-01 09:08:25 PM

pedrop357: Lollipop165: pedrop357: The reverse isn't true though as it would be ineffective, as well as difficult to implement without being open to serious abuse by gun control nuts.

Now I'm thinking you are a king troll.

It's not trolling to say something you disagree with or don't like.

Please explain how you define a gun that "looks like a toy".  A toy is a product aimed at children that resembles a gun, is not a gun, and thus has to have an orange tip.

Assuming YOU are not the troll, how would you define "looks like a toy"?


If we can make rules that toys have to look like toys and NOT guns, you don't think we can do the reverse?

It is illegal to market alcohol and cigarette advertising to minors. Hell, most states have laws against candy cigarettes even. So distinctions have been made in the past obviously between what is a toy and what is real.

If you aren't a troll, you are just being willfully obtuse.
 
2013-05-01 09:23:27 PM
Lollipop165:
If we can make rules that toys have to look like toys and NOT guns, you don't think we can do the reverse?

Please explain how that would work.
 
2013-05-01 09:25:25 PM
Lollipop165: It is illegal to market alcohol and cigarette advertising to minors. Hell, most states have laws against candy cigarettes even. So distinctions have been made in the past obviously between what is a toy and what is real.
If you aren't a troll, you are just being willfully obtuse.

 

The guns aren't marketed to kids, and candy cigarettes are analagous to toys that look like guns not the other way around.

Who's being obtuse again?
 
2013-05-01 09:25:37 PM

pedrop357: There is more than one way to be responsible with dangerous or powerful objects.


Maybe, but this sure as hell wasn't the way.
 
2013-05-01 09:26:47 PM

llachlan: pedrop357: There is more than one way to be responsible with dangerous or powerful objects.

Maybe, but this sure as hell wasn't the way.


No argument there.
 
2013-05-01 09:28:32 PM

pedrop357: Lollipop165: pedrop357: The reverse isn't true though as it would be ineffective, as well as difficult to implement without being open to serious abuse by gun control nuts.

Now I'm thinking you are a king troll.

It's not trolling to say something you disagree with or don't like.

Please explain how you define a gun that "looks like a toy".  A toy is a product aimed at children that resembles a gun, is not a gun, and thus has to have an orange tip.

Assuming YOU are not the troll, how would you define "looks like a toy"?


Well, if you had shown me the pics in the My first gun ads, I would have thought, wow, they are making some pretty nifty looking toy guns now. I remember my toy guns looking real, and then looking ridiculous - I guess I've been conditioned to assume a tie-dyed rifle is likely a toy. On the other hand, growing up around guns, I'd check it first to be sure. Not sure a 5 year can make those calls.
 
2013-05-01 09:31:22 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns,

for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 310,000,000

The funny thing is that you can't even get one simple little fact right.  It's no wonder you're so wrong about everything else.


umm, I see what point you are trying to make, but you narrowed your set: you really need to include all cars - passenger and otherwise - to meet the assertion. Number of cars > number of passenger cars.
 
2013-05-01 09:36:19 PM
So if a family member kills another family member with a gun, it's just an "oopsy daisy" accident and the "I didn't mean to actually KILL someone" defense works? Wow. No wonder we can't get any reliable stats on gun-related deaths in this country.

/Not a "gun grabber" by any means. Just that making gun owners truly aware of how often things can go bad might keep idiot adults from giving guns to five year olds.
 
2013-05-01 09:39:02 PM

llachlan: Well, if you had shown me the pics in the My first gun ads, I would have thought, wow, they are making some pretty nifty looking toy guns now. I remember my toy guns looking real, and then looking ridiculous - I guess I've been conditioned to assume a tie-dyed rifle is likely a toy. On the other hand, growing up around guns, I'd check it first to be sure. Not sure a 5 year can make those calls.


I wouldn't, but I'll give you that one.

It seems to come down to color and size.  The 5 year old shouldn't have to make such a call as the gun should be bought by the parent and the kid shouldn't be near it or have access until the know unequivocally that this colorful gun is not a toy.

I know some parents with kids who had guns just like these and they took a certain amount of pride in having their own gun and like the pink and tie-die patters on their respective little guns.   However, they were 10 and 12 and kept them in a locking wooden gun cabinet-not a flimsy one, but not a safe, and they had a key to it, so they weren't denied access, but it took a deliberate desire to access the gun which they never got caught doing.

Would I ever give a 5 year old a gun or leave it in the corner?  Abso-farking-lutely not.  Would I consider giving a 9ish+ year old their own gun if I was certain they could be mature enough to have one they had access to (but still stored in a safe/solid locking cabinet)?  Yes.  there is world of difference between 5 and 9 and these idiot parents should have know that.
 
2013-05-01 09:40:10 PM

WordyGrrl: So if a family member kills another family member with a gun, it's just an "oopsy daisy" accident and the "I didn't mean to actually KILL someone" defense works? Wow. No wonder we can't get any reliable stats on gun-related deaths in this country.

/Not a "gun grabber" by any means. Just that making gun owners truly aware of how often things can go bad might keep idiot adults from giving guns to five year olds.


The kind of parent that does this isn't the type of parent that would listen to articles that tell them how stupid that is.

It's like preaching to the unconvertable.
 
2013-05-01 09:47:52 PM
I'm fine with this. If you're dumb enough to give your toddler a rifle, the more of your spawn that are removed from the gene pool, the better.
 
2013-05-01 09:52:55 PM
Whoa, lot of comments here.  Late to the party, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

First .22 rifle shot - 6 years old
First 20-guage shotgun shot - 10 years old
First .30-06 rifle shot - 13 years old
First .357 semi-auto pistol shot - 13 years old
First 16-guage semi-auto shotgun shot - 13 years old
First shot with a compound bow with broadhead-tipped arrows: 13 years old

And I survived?  Without a single accident that injured myself or anyone else?  Impossible, right?

One word: RESPONSIBILITY.  Respect the weapon and it respects you back.  I was taught from a very young age about proper handling and care of a deadly weapon, and that is what made all the difference.  If you're too lazy or stupid to educate your kids about proper gun care, and/or are too lazy or stupid to supervise them when they use the weapon, you should expect deserve crap like this to happen.

Irresponsibility causes 100% of all accidents in the US.
 
2013-05-01 10:07:24 PM

noitsnot: way south: noitsnot: way south: noitsnot: way south: mjohnson71: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Why not both?

Because this method obscures real problems by using an all too common scapegoats for human failure.

They've been making rifles for children from well before the 1700's. There was nothing wrong with the firearm and it was sold for legitimate purposes.
Someone screwed up at teaching gun safety the same way others screw up at road safety or by following some anti-vaxxers insane rants.  Parents screw up by leaving half filled buckets of water around their property.

These aren't problems that can be solved by industry or legislation.
You'd reduce the chances for tragedy alot more by taking an educational approach, advising people how to be more responsible with their kids.

What was it - this child's firearm of the 1600's? Please tell us about it. I think you made that up.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x480]
Existing examples are rare (this one from the 1760's), but training weapons have been around forever.

/All the boys want to be like daddy, and its not like they had alot of schooling back then to take up their time.

Everything I've seen is "Made for Prince Whosit" or "Crafted for Czar Hoohaw's son on his birthday", etc.

Perhaps I was a bit obnoxious with the previous post (sorry), but still I don't think "kid's guns" were generally available in the 1600's/1700's - they were the exception, not the rule.

No blood no foul.
How common these guns were is debatable (few items survive for over three hundred years, especially childrens things) but we agree that the did exist, and technology proliferates over time.  More and more kids are learning to shoot while young.

These weapons aren't really marketed to the kids. Its their parents who buy them in search of a wholesome family experience. Shooting is a hobby that can be enjoyed as safely as any other activity.   I don't see it as being much different to a pare ...


Maybe its a matter of perspective.
By seven I was playing with Estes model rockets and somehow managed to come away from that with all of my fingers. The concept of "do this wrong and it can kill you" was ingrained in me early, even tho I didn't grow up in a gun owning family.
Did I need to be at a model club learning how to arm a black powder missile?  Probably not.
Was it a fun memory? Hell yea. Playing with model aircraft taught me alot.

Parents want to do special things with their kids and under proper supervision they can play with fireworks, drive cars, go swimming and do all sorts of activities.    With a negligent adult a child can't even use the bathroom without tempting death.

We tend to focus on the immaturity of children but the real question is if the adult is responsible enough to play safely.
 
2013-05-01 10:39:41 PM
Business as usual in the USA.
 
2013-05-01 11:49:19 PM

pedrop357: People manage to be quite safe with their guns and take care of them just fine without being required to buy a statutory minimum spec safe or lock them up when not in house despite living alone. Laws in areas like DC used to require firearms to be locked up when not in use.

There's this weird thing in your post that seems to pervade the anti-gun movement and the left, it's that sort of "our way is the only way" thinking. You think that every gun being in a safe is the only way to be responsible, thus it's irresponsible to do it a different way, and it's also apparently OK to force that way on everyone regardless of circumstance. Sorry, no dice.

There is more than one way to be responsible with dangerous or powerful objects.


I don't know where you got that, unless you're making an ass of you and me. Again. I've posted lists of many things we can do to tackle the problem, and you've rejected them all. So it really seems like YOUR way is the only way.

And you still haven't explained how being required to be responsible with your guns = violating the Second Amendment.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Keizer_Ghidorah: Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns,

for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 310,000,000

The funny thing is that you can't even get one simple little fact right.  It's no wonder you're so wrong about everything else.


The funny thing is how you compared registered to estimated, and you only have a specific group in the car section while the gun section is ALL of the guns. It's no wonder everyone thinks you're a lying asshole.

trucktrash: Keizer_Ghidorah: Remember, bucko, you need to look at EVERYTHING when comparing things.

You mean like comparing apples to oranges?  Cars aren't made to kill people or animals, dipshiat.

Just like gun nuts to come out in droves when the simple fact of the matter is we have a degenerate cousin-humping inbred shiatbag Kentuckian that didn't have the brains (again:  Kentucky) to lock up his guns, left a gun accessible to a 5 YEAR OLD, and his daughter paid with her life for it.  I hope he goes to jail for the rest of his life; otherwise, he needs to be castrated so he cannot further contaminate the rest of the world with his stupidity.

So, fark OFF to any of you PUSSIES that thinks a 5 year old needs a gun.  Cry me a farking river, assholes.

I'd suggest a "Kentucky" tag but most of those farking retards can't read anyhow.  That's what inbreeding gets you.


Um, dude, was that meant for someone else? Slow down and read things better before you lash out.
 
2013-05-02 12:22:44 AM
Call me old-fashioned, but my 'first gun' was a Nerf product. Actually, my first SEVERAL guns were Nerf or Super Soaker products. Why any parent wouldn't want to save money and avoid noise by getting one of them instead of a .22 for a five-year-old, I will never know.

And you know, what with the ammunition shortages, I'm kind of glad I hung onto them. Sure, they aren't the SAME, but they're still fun, plus you can let your little nieces and nephews play 'Most Dangerous Game' with their Auntie and nobody calls the fuzz.
 
2013-05-02 01:00:53 AM

cs30109: No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

Five is a very typical age to start showing a kid how to shoot.  I probably started around that age.  I could see buying them their own small-sized gun too, if you had the money.

What I think is crazy is leaving the gun around for them to play with.  Loaded or unloaded, doesn't matter, a kid that age should never touch a gun without a parent standing right there (with their hand on the gun too, or maybe inches away from it ready to keep it from pointing at anyone).


Sure and lets learn them how to drive at age 6 so they can perform drive by's at age 7 .

Why is 5 a sensible age to  teach them how to shoot ?  i mean when i was five  firecrackers scared me and i was more concerned with  " would batman get out of this  trap of poision ivy and will robin th boy wonder be in time ? "  guns are not toys and when you give it to a 5 year old you treat it as one.
 
Displayed 50 of 613 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report