Giving rifles to children a bad idea?

[Uncensored2008]

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

And the price of cars is the occasional traffic fatality. And the price of keeping roaches out of the kitchen is the occasional child poisoning.

Guns are no more dangerous than a chain saw - less so in reality. Keeps kids away from both unless STRICTLY supervised.

 

[Ernie S.]

we are a gun loving culture...simple as that.....

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

The Boston Marathon bombing has made it abundantly clear that we should pass laws banning pressure cookers, right?
Oh well! We love our chicken and dumplings!




apparently more than our children.

 

[martybegan]

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

And the price of cars is the occasional traffic fatality. And the price of keeping roaches out of the kitchen is the occasional child poisoning.

Guns are no more dangerous than a chain saw - less so in reality. Keeps kids away from both unless STRICTLY supervised.

Trying to explain risk and probability to a progressive is a hopeless cause.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Can We At Least Agree That Giving .22 Caliber Rifles To Small Children Might Be A Really Bad Idea? - Forbes

n early May of this year, a 2-year-old Cumberland County, Kentucky girl was killed by her 5-year-old brother when a .22 caliber rifle the boy had been playing with—a gift to the child from his parents—discharged. According to the local coroner, the parents believed that the gun, which was kept in a corner of the house where the kids had ready access to the weapon, was not loaded.

....The grieving parents who are suffering the worse loss one can imagine are, no doubt, people who care deeply for their kids and would certainly have never knowingly left a loaded weapon readily available to their kids any more than they would have knowingly invited their little children to take the wheel of the family car. To do so would simply be foolishly dangerous.

... I do not believe that choosing to own a gun makes you, in any way, a bad person unless you use that weapon for evil purposes. For that reason, I respect that those who believe deeply in their 2nd Amendment rights would want to stand up in defense of those rights.

But, seriously, would anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights be infringed upon if we were to ask them Americans to simply acknowledge that there are many things in life that are just not appropriate for use by young children and that a working weapon might well be one such thing?

This is also why carrying guns around is a bad idea.

People make mistakes. Children get killed.

To those who say, ' ... yabut, not very many children ...'

One is way too many.

I don't believe for a minute a five year old was given a .22 as a gift.

 

[Ernie S.]

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

And the price of cars is the occasional traffic fatality. And the price of keeping roaches out of the kitchen is the occasional child poisoning.

Guns are no more dangerous than a chain saw - less so in reality. Keeps kids away from both unless STRICTLY supervised.

Trying to explain risk and probability to a progressive is a hopeless cause.

They understand the concept when it comes to elections and lying to the voters, but Progressive agenda is all emotion driven. Logic and reason are not in their repertoire.

 

[Spiderman]

A bicycle is not a hazardous thing in and of itself.

It is inherently dangerous for children. You don't let a small child take a bike out in the street without a helmet or supervision do you


No. A properly stored gun (unloaded and locked up) is not dangerous at all. A child with proper supervision can safely handle a gun.



And they are dangerous depending on how responsible the rider is.


And a properly handled gun is no danger to anyone.



True but kids get poisoned all the time nonetheless because the chemicals are not properly stored or there is inadequate supervision.




So is it that parents that are at fault or the gun?




I'm not rationalizing anything. You said one kid killed by a gun is too many but other accidents kill far more children than guns. Do you care to give a list of potential accidents and the number of child deaths for each that are acceptable?

If bicycles and staircases were designed primarily to harm, mankind would have come up with reasonable substitutes. Guns, however, have one design purpose.

You said a gun is designed to propel a projectile not to harm.

A child properly supervised with a gun is in no more danger than a properly supervised child with a bike, a go cart, a swimming pool etc etc etc etc etc.

Put the blame where it belongs: ON THE PARENTS!

And so we rationalize our love of guns with our disregard to children. We will find outlandish ways to justify guns in the house and call those guns safe. But we do not rationalize when children are killed by guns. We easily, if altogether ham handedly, reason "shit happens" other things are dangerous too. We have come to accept mass shootings as just another tragedy. All to justify our Ramboesque love of guns.

I though we were talking about accidental death here.

If someone points a gun at you intentionally and shoots that is not an accident.

Put the blame where the blame is due. Kids who die in accidents die because of the failure of the parents to properly safeguard them.

So charge the parents with negligent homicide.

Blaming an inanimate object instead of the parents makes no sense.

 

[Nosmo King]

we are a gun loving culture...simple as that.....

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

The Boston Marathon bombing has made it abundantly clear that we should pass laws banning pressure cookers, right?
Oh well! We love our chicken and dumplings!




apparently more than our children.

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

 

[Spiderman]

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

The Boston Marathon bombing has made it abundantly clear that we should pass laws banning pressure cookers, right?
Oh well! We love our chicken and dumplings!




apparently more than our children.

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Boston Marathon bombing has made it abundantly clear that we should pass laws banning pressure cookers, right?
Oh well! We love our chicken and dumplings!




apparently more than our children.

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

 

[martybegan]

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

You get all hung up on the purpose, and ignore the end result when it suits you, and only when it suits you.

A gun can be used to defend oneself, it can be a deterrent against harm against you, it can be stress relief via target shooting, and it can be a source of nourishment when used for hunting. Like a car, it is dangerous if used improperly, and less so when used properly. Cars are in fact more dangerous because driving is almost treated as an end to a means, where when someone pulls the trigger of a gun, they tend to concentrate on the act, and not what they need to pick up at the Piggly-Wiggly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

The contortions you go through in your war on civil rights are amusing to watch; but don't imagine that anyone sees you as clever...

 

[koshergrl]

It is inherently dangerous for children. You don't let a small child take a bike out in the street without a helmet or supervision do you


No. A properly stored gun (unloaded and locked up) is not dangerous at all. A child with proper supervision can safely handle a gun.



And they are dangerous depending on how responsible the rider is.


And a properly handled gun is no danger to anyone.



True but kids get poisoned all the time nonetheless because the chemicals are not properly stored or there is inadequate supervision.




So is it that parents that are at fault or the gun?




I'm not rationalizing anything. You said one kid killed by a gun is too many but other accidents kill far more children than guns. Do you care to give a list of potential accidents and the number of child deaths for each that are acceptable?




You said a gun is designed to propel a projectile not to harm.

A child properly supervised with a gun is in no more danger than a properly supervised child with a bike, a go cart, a swimming pool etc etc etc etc etc.

Put the blame where it belongs: ON THE PARENTS!

And so we rationalize our love of guns with our disregard to children. We will find outlandish ways to justify guns in the house and call those guns safe. But we do not rationalize when children are killed by guns. We easily, if altogether ham handedly, reason "shit happens" other things are dangerous too. We have come to accept mass shootings as just another tragedy. All to justify our Ramboesque love of guns.

I though we were talking about accidental death here.

If someone points a gun at you intentionally and shoots that is not an accident.

Put the blame where the blame is due. Kids who die in accidents die because of the failure of the parents to properly safeguard them.

So charge the parents with negligent homicide.

Blaming an inanimate object instead of the parents makes no sense.

You can't throw parents in jail for every preventable accident that kills a kid. Parents accidentally run over kids with vehicles, they accidentally
dump babies out of carriers, they walk out of the room and children are killed by falls, choking, strangulation...all preventable but all accidents. Accidents happen.

I've always had horses. I have had very young children with me around horses...there is the potential that a child will be killed by a horse falling on it, kicking it, knocking it down, smashing it into a fence. \

We go to the beach..I could get occupied with one child for 2 minutes and have another child wander into the surf and like that, poof, gone. Completely preventable..and completely accidental. Not criminal.

Guns are no different. Now there are of course cases where people are criminally negligent...but criminal negligence requires a callous disregard for human life. The prosecution has to prove that the person knew there was a risk, and didn't care at all. Not that they thought the kid was in another room and turned their back for a minute, and boom, kid grabs the trigger and kills someone.

I just don't understand the mindset that says if accidents happen, someone must be punished. An accident is by definition UNINTENTIONAL, happenchance.

I know a family who were spending a day along the river, upriver where it is shallow and relatively safe. Their 7 year old daughter got her hair tangled in some roots under the surface of the water...and she drowned while the family stood there, unable to extricate her. Should they be tried for negligence? Perhaps because rivers are dangerous, and a 7 year old shouldn't have her hair loose or be playing in the water where there are roots?

It's ridiculous. No matter what the situation.

 

[Ernie S.]

And the price of that love of guns is the occasional shooting of innocents. Oh well! We LOVE our guns!





apparently more than our children.

The Boston Marathon bombing has made it abundantly clear that we should pass laws banning pressure cookers, right?
Oh well! We love our chicken and dumplings!




apparently more than our children.

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

The gun was made with the capability to kill. The pressure cooker was made with the capability of being turned into a bomb. The gun, despite it's capability to be used as a murder weapon, is inherently no more evil than the pressure cooker. There are 9 guns right now in a cabinet, not 6 feet from me. None has loaded itself and went out to commit a murder.
The brothers that made the bombs that killed and maimed in Boston bought 2 pressure cookers. They killed 3 people and injured an estimated 264 others.
Logically, pressure cookers are infinitely more dangerous than guns.

Or is it the people who own pressure cookers/guns?

It is people that murder, not guns. My guns have not murdered, but they have saved my wife from a rapist and me from a would be robber with a knife.

 

[Ernie S.]

Were pressure cookers designed exclusively to be made into bombs? Were guns designed exclusively to propel lead at phenomenal rates of speed? Which product was specifically designed to kill?

We rationalize our love of guns so ineptly. Guns are evidently more precious than children. We excuse a gun death with "shit happens", just so our embrace of the gun culture can make some sense to us. Should children be given guns? They will no doubt develop a life long love of the gun and its allure. But can that allure be enough to rationalize the death of the innocents?

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

A gun's purpose is to save lives, not take them.

 

[Nosmo King]

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

You get all hung up on the purpose, and ignore the end result when it suits you, and only when it suits you.

A gun can be used to defend oneself, it can be a deterrent against harm against you, it can be stress relief via target shooting, and it can be a source of nourishment when used for hunting. Like a car, it is dangerous if used improperly, and less so when used properly. Cars are in fact more dangerous because driving is almost treated as an end to a means, where when someone pulls the trigger of a gun, they tend to concentrate on the act, and not what they need to pick up at the Piggly-Wiggly.

Well, when debating whether a young child should have something, isn't it pertinent to know what the designed use of that object is?

 

[Nosmo King]

Propelling a projectile at a target does not mean the purpose is to kill.

Car engines are designed to propel thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high rates of speed.

A gun, a car, an axe, a baseball bat etc are only as dangerous as the person wielding them.

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

A gun's purpose is to save lives, not take them.

Right! And how many concealable pressure cookers have been taken into convenience stores after dark to make stew in half the time? How many times has a pressure cooker been taken into a school to kill as many students and staff as possible? When was the last time you saw a military unit conducting close order drill with a pressure cooker?

Sure. Guns are benevolent and benign and we LOVE THEM! We just have to callous ourselves and accept the murder of innocents to justify our lust for guns.

 

[koshergrl]

Shut up, halfwit. It's obvious that you are not capable of debating this intelligently. Your cowardice prevents you from understanding that risk is involved in almost every aspect of our lives, and sometimes accidents happen. You can put people in a padded room with no clothes..and sometimes they still die in a preventable manner.

 

[Ernie S.]

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

You get all hung up on the purpose, and ignore the end result when it suits you, and only when it suits you.

A gun can be used to defend oneself, it can be a deterrent against harm against you, it can be stress relief via target shooting, and it can be a source of nourishment when used for hunting. Like a car, it is dangerous if used improperly, and less so when used properly. Cars are in fact more dangerous because driving is almost treated as an end to a means, where when someone pulls the trigger of a gun, they tend to concentrate on the act, and not what they need to pick up at the Piggly-Wiggly.

Well, when debating whether a young child should have something, isn't it pertinent to know what the designed use of that object is?

I suppose it is and the child should be instructed in it's safe use.
Kids must wear bicycle helmets because bicycles are dangerous. Pools must have fences to keep kids out because they are dangerous, but we don't outlaw either one. We teach our kids to use them in a safe manner.

Would you buy your kid his first bike and tell him he's on his own? Do you judge whether your kid is ready for his first bike? Well, parents should use that same kind of judgment before they give a child a gun. They know their children best and should make that decision just like you should decide when your son is ready for his first bicycle.

Or do you think the government is better able to make that decision for you?

 

[koshergrl]

Many, many more children die as a result of accidental drowningins in the home than accidental shootings:

"
Bathtubs
Children drowning in bathtubs account for about two-thirds of the 459 reported drowning deaths in the home. The majority of these bathtub deaths occur when the caregiver is not present. In the time it takes to step out of the room to get a towel or answer the phone, a young child can drown. In at least 29 of the 292 bathtub drowning deaths reported to CPSC between 1996 and 1999, the victims were using bath seats.
Buckets
Many parents and caregivers may not realize the danger buckets pose. From 1996 through 1999, CPSC received reports of 58 children under age 5 who drowned in 5-gallon buckets. Even a small amount of liquid can be deadly. Of all buckets, the 5-gallon size presents the greatest hazard to young children because of its tall, straight sides. That, combined with the stability of these buckets, makes it nearly impossible for top-heavy infants and toddlers to free themselves when they fall into the bucket headfirst.
Toilets
Toilets can be overlooked as a drowning hazard in the home. The typical scenario involves a child under 3-years-old falling headfirst into the toilet. CPSC has received reports of 16 children under age 5 who drowned in toilets between 1996 and 1999."

CPSC Warns: Pools Are Not the Only Drowning Danger at Home for Kids - Data Show Other Hazards Cause More than 100 Residential Child Drowning Deaths Annually | CPSC.gov

 

[Ernie S.]

Such rationalizations are not only inept, but an insult to any intelligent person reading these posts. Outside of propelling lead, what purpose has a gun? We can certainly come up with purposes other than the potential to kill and maim to an automobile.

A gun's purpose is to save lives, not take them.

Right! And how many concealable pressure cookers have been taken into convenience stores after dark to make stew in half the time? How many times has a pressure cooker been taken into a school to kill as many students and staff as possible? When was the last time you saw a military unit conducting close order drill with a pressure cooker?

Sure. Guns are benevolent and benign and we LOVE THEM! We just have to callous ourselves and accept the murder of innocents to justify our lust for guns.

When was the last time terrorists used a gun to kill and maim people at a marathon in Boston?

Murder of innocents justifies the death penalty, perhaps, but the US Constitution justifies our "lust" for guns just like it justifies the Left's "lust" for abortions.