Paul and Jeff, stop making sense... It won't change the haters minds....

Your argument is ludicrous.

No young child should have access to a gun, loaded or not, without an adult present. The problem here is not the gun. The problem is the adult or adults that are responsible for the children.

I started shooting guns (rifles and shotguns) when I was 8 years old. I used guns that was appropriately sized for a kid my size. Using an adult sized rifle or shotgun would have be stupid. So yes, a 'child-sized' rifle was a "godsend".

Scott

Having read through this thread, it is abundantly clear that you never really wanted anyone to "explain to me my first gun". You are here simply to rail against something with which you disagree. That is your right - more power to you, as long as that is where you intend to leave it (and that is what you insist, that you have no intentions of forcing your view upon others, but I have my doubts...).

You failed to answer my question - what is your personal, or your family's experience with any of this? I'll say it again - your view very much appears to be based on emotions brought forth by this incident, with absolutely no real world experience of your own. Your view runs contrary to the experiences of millions of Americans, spread over generations, who have successfully taught their children to shoot at very early ages and have suffered no ill consequences as a result.

And yes, a properly fitting rifle is a godsend. I say that based upon personal experience in teaching not only kids, but adults, to shoot. Your accusation of "ludicrous" is based upon... upon... what? Certainly not practical experience in the matter so, in the absence of that, it is clearly based upon ignorance. With a large helping of emotion. Hardly a solid footing on which to base such an accusation.

So, again, it is clear that you are not here to learn anything or to listen to anyone, in spite of the title of this thread. You are here to state your position, rant, and vent. You have summarily dismissed anyone's explanations that do not agree with the viewpoint you already had when you started this thread.

God doesn't give two ****s if kids have guns available to them. Let's be real here. Perhaps in frontier times a properly fitted rifle for a kid was indeed a godsend as the boy might be protecting his family while dad was out on a cattle drive or some such thing...but in these times a firearm for kids is entirely a pleasurable pursuit and nothing more.

While I don't agree with much of weenies thoughts on the matter I think we need to be honest when there is something accurate amidst the comments.

This is the vibe I get as well.

berettafan,

Oh, stop it!

You are interpreting the word "godsend" too literally.....it's a noun that means "A very helpful or valuable event, person, or thing."

Scott

THIS is a movement i'd put money behind. without question. It is a perfect example of the selective morality being applied to the subject of guns. Fat ass pussified attorneys (aka politicians) in DC don't 'get' guns so they push against them. They sure as hell need to be able to text their mistresses while riding in their limos to the 5 star hotel for a tryst though.

The term used should have been 'helpful' then. 'Godsend' is just a silly term to use here and I think it was reasonable of weenie to say so. Not saying I agree with the rest of his feelings.

That's your opinion...but it is off the mark based on how the word is actually used in everyday conversation.

Scott

What a bizzare little sidetrack. Oh well, back on track.

Seems to me that many folks have been made aware of a very deeply rooted American tradition that they never knew existed. Unfortunately, they were made aware only through a tragic accident, parental negligence, or whatever you want to call it. The record of safety and success enjoyed by the vast majority participating in this tradition is immaterial to them. They do not want to hear about it. They have an agenda. Pointing out the almost limitless ways in which children are tragically killed or seriously injured (in numbers vastly exceeding those by firearms) means nothing to these people. They have an agenda. They will focus on this one way, and just this one way, because of that agenda. The kids mean nothing compared to that agenda. That much is clear. Hiding behind "please explain to me..." is pretty damn transparent.

Actually, SYNC on my F250 disables a lot of features when the truck is moving. For example, you cannot add a new phone device via Bluetooth while the vehicle is in motion.

I don't have time to read the whole thread.

I'm a gun owner and advocate and agree that the problem here is lack of parental responsibility.

However isn't there some concern with making guns into toys? Guns are serious business and dangerous, yes with proper training and adult supervision they can be used by children safely and they should have small scale firearms for youngsters to use. However doesn't making them in fun colors and putting cartoon characters on them takes away for the seriousness of their function? For children AND adults? "Oh here honey play with your cute little pink toy." Perhaps untrained and unexperienced parents are buying these firearm and handing them to there children thinking they are harmless "toys"? "What is that Billy? You want the GI Joe .22? OK... here...now shut up, go play, and don't bother daddy."

I would agree with you save for the fact that purchasing one of these is far different from purchasing a toy. They are not sold in toy stores. One must go to a federally licensed dealer to purchase one. Yes, in a WalMart or similar large department store, they will be found all under the same roof. But we still cannot simply pluck one off the shelf, throw it in the shopping cart, and check it out with your other items. The transaction must be made at the gun counter. The transaction must be preceded by the mandatory background check through NICS. The purchaser must fill out the federal form. At the end of all of this, if it is still not clear that we are not buying a toy, there is probably little else we can do to help the situation.

Sorry, not persuaded. Marketing a toy-like gun to 4-10 year olds -- as a toy -- is wrong. Apparently the advertising has been pulled as a result of social media pressure.

As for the process to purchase a gun for a child, the majority of states waive any paperwork for gun show purchases. So it's really no different from buying an action figure.

So TW, having a discussion with you is pointless

How would your cell phone know if you were driving or were a passenger on a bus or train?

It isn't as simple as you might think seahawk.

Again, marketing an item to small children (bright colors, cartoon figures) like a rifle is wrong. If Keystone was serious with regards to making sure this is an activity that always involved adult supervision - they would market the rifle to adults - no cartoon figures, no bright colors that appeal to children and not adults. Just like we don't have Dora the Explorer out there hawking cigarettes to children, we shouldn't have a little cartoon cricket hawking guns to children.

If your idea of 'having a discussion" is that I have to agree with you, then maybe not.

I heard no compelling reason for a toy like gun to be marketed to 4-10 year olds. I got a lot of 'tradition' and personal history... I think its inevitable that bad results come from giving very young kids the notion that a gun is their toy.

By the way, a speaker at the NRA convention a couple days ago said all kids should keep a gun in their bedroom. I doubt this is a widespread view, but it shows -- to me at least -- that the topic brings more emotion than logic.

Sure, parental control makes everything okay. But how many of us found dad's stash of dirty magazines as a kid? You cannot provide 100% oversight to a child.

my opinion is the better good is served at the cost of convenience. a small side benefit might be that people would have to re-learn how to talk with each other in public instead of staring at their phones and ignoring the world around them.

It might make for a more 'human' world - but business moves at the speed of light - and if you are unable to do certain things, for instance, while traveling for business on Amtrack, between NYC and DC, millions of dollars could be in the balance.

Luddites were quaint and well meaning, but eventually buried.

business is not what is taking place on phones. you have business to do you go to the office or pull the car over. what's so hard about that? I don't think our economic system will fall apart if people can't text their buddies on the metro.