Please explain to me "My first gun."

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by Jferr006

The amount of guns you have, or don't have, has no bearing on how responsible you are as a parent. I'm guessing all of us own other things that are dangers to kids if used unsupervised, used improperly or at all like someone already said. The responsibily still lies on the parent no matter what the object is, plastic bag or assult rifle.

My initial post isn't really about any of the above, although there are few things you can put in a child's hand more deadly than a gun. Accidental stabbings don't count for many deaths.

My point was that if you market a gun to kids, you are creating a product to be owned by the child. This is the problem. I don't think 4-7 year olds should think of a gun as theirs.

I think young children need to be taught the function of a gun and to have some respect for it -- okay, a lot of respect for it. I don't think guns should be made to be like toys, and I don't think they should be treated as toys. And part of the problem with "My first gun" is that the manufacturer is doing those things -- making it small, giving it a pink stock; following the Mattel/Barbie marketing path.

I don't think the product should exist at all -- any more than Chevrolet should market "my first Suburban" to 4-10 year olds.

[Jferr006]

My kids only have plastic toy water guns and if they or my husband decided they need a real one I will fight him tooth and nail on it.

No, companies should not be marketing real weapons as toys to kids but, at the end of the day the parents make the decisions on what is purchased and brought into the house. It doesn't take a genius to realize anything that shoots a bullet is to be closely supervised when kids are involved, despite what color the plastic is.

[red-beard]

The marketing is designed around a:

1) Smaller than normal firearm
2) Designed/Sized for children
3) Bolt action
4) Single shot - no magazine
5) low recoil
6) low power

This is not a firearm designed with an adult or teenager in mind. It is designed for sized for 4-10. Mature has nothing to do with the design.

A 5 year old should not have access to ANY firearm except with adult supervision. At what age can someone be trusted with a firearm like this? It will depend on the person. 14 year old with no sense/training shouldn't have access. An 9 year old that has been trained from age 5 probably does have the maturity to use it on their own.

I blame the parent since not only was the firearm accessible, so was the ammunition! It is sad that a 2 yr old died!

[70SATMan]

I think all 5 yr olds should be allowed to drive, drink, shoot and engage in explicit sexual discussions (with adult supervision of course).

I understand where TechW is going with this. Just because a Capitalist company can doesn't mean it should.

At some point there should be a moral responsibility to our society.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I think all 5 yr olds should be allowed to drive, drink, shoot and engage in explicit sexual discussions (with adult supervision of course).

I understand where TechW is going with this. Just because a Capitalist company can doesn't mean it should.

At some point there should be a moral responsibility to our society.

Thank you for reading what I actually said instead of imagining it.

Crickett has shut off their social media presence and their website appears broken. Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear if they shut their doors. They can regroup and make "My first crack pipe" next.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Thank you for reading what I actually said instead of imagining it.

Crickett has shut off their social media presence and their website appears broken. Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear if they shut their doors. They can regroup and make "My first crack pipe" next.

Well, there it is.

[BeyGon]

At some point there should be a moral responsibility to our society.

Yes, that comes with the parents, some parents teach their kids to ride and race motorcycles at 5, some teach them to drive go carts, it should be up to the parents to teach the kid safety if they want them to shoot.
the government wants to teach your kids about sex, birth control, abortion, at a very early age, you have no choice in that, but it should be up to the parents.
The government says the more the children know about sex and how to handle it the safer they are. So why not guns.

[Jferr006]

Originally Posted by techweenie

LOL. All the usual knee jerk responses.

I'm not one of those people who values the lives of children over adults. The whole point of the original post was that children as young as 4 are not an appropriate target for gun marketing.

The inevitable happens. And this is far from an isolated incident. At least three times in the past 6 weeks a small child has shot and killed another small child.

My problem is with 'gun nuts' that give access to guns to small children. It's bad enough when its carelessness and it's -- IMO -- worse when its a company's policy to put guns in the hands of 4, 5, 6 or 7 year olds.

Sure, there are kids who are mature at 8 or 9 or 10. There are plenty here who aren't mature in their 30s and 40s.

How many children do you know who are 4-7 years old who should be handling a weapon of any kind?

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I think all 5 yr olds should be allowed to drive, drink, shoot and engage in explicit sexual discussions (with adult supervision of course).

I understand where TechW is going with this. Just because a Capitalist company can doesn't mean it should.

At some point there should be a moral responsibility to our society.

I agree with all of that and I don't buy that any activity is ok just because a kid is being supervised by an adult.

All I'm saying is my responsibility a parent superceeds that of society. In this case society failed but, my kid still doesn't have a gun because I didn't take soceity's word for it.

Any indsutry will do anything if it make them a buck and kids are gullible... and that's why kids don't have credit cards.

[Rikao4]

then again..
a School in Texas decided not to let the NRA give gun safety classes...
this is purely a move against the NRA..
the school has no interest in the safety of those kids..


Rika

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Thank you for reading what I actually said instead of imagining it.

I do that sometimes....

What I don't understand is the current climate being such that if an individual happens to disagree with one iota related to the 2nd, no matter how obscure, they are automatically branded as anti gun.

I get that crap all the time because I have essentially the same feelings about 30 + cap magazines for handguns...

Doesn't matter if they were raised around hunting all their life, were sitting a deer stand on their own by 14, owned several guns, etc.....Such as myself.

Personally, I think 6 years old is too young to be placing a weapon in the hands of a child. I don't care if it is pink or blue, low recoil or not, it is a weapon.

My dad who along with a myriad of Hunting/Sport shooting uncles in Cent. Ill would likely agree. I think I was 10 before I was allowed to hold and shoot a .22 under supervision.

I'm sorry....anyone who thinks TechW is blaming the Company for the death of the child and not the parent is not rationalizing his posts properly.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

At some point there should be a moral responsibility to our society.

Yes, that comes with the parents, some parents teach their kids to ride and race motorcycles at 5, some teach them to drive go carts, it should be up to the parents to teach the kid safety if they want them to shoot.
the government wants to teach your kids about sex, birth control, abortion, at a very early age, you have no choice in that, but it should be up to the parents.
The government says the more the children know about sex and how to handle it the safer they are. So why not guns.

Dean, keep your Government rantings in Parf where they can be summarily ignored.

This is not an issue of Government.

[matt711]

If adults are responsible for their own actions then why are you railing against the manufacturer and their marketing of a perfectly legal product? The parents are responsible not only for the decision to make the purchase but also for the safe handling of the weapon after the fact. You can't have it both ways...

[red-beard]

People, the CHILD didn't buy the firearm! An adult had to buy it.

As far as the crack pipes and non-safe sex, your Reductio ad absurdum is idiotic!

[Jferr006]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I'm sorry....anyone who thinks TechW is blaming the Company for the death of the child and not the parent is not rationalizing his posts properly.

I'm reading back through all of them and I can't find a consistant collective thought, -it's the "gun nuts" fault, it's the parents', it's worse when a manufacturer is marketing to them-

Yes, tragedies suck, use common sense with weapons, everyone.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Thank you for reading what I actually said instead of imagining it.

Crickett has shut off their social media presence and their website appears broken. Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear if they shut their doors. They can regroup and make "My first crack pipe" next.

So, help me understand a little better... Would you say that a 5 y/o wielding a rifle at the gun range with their parent is OK? If so, why is it such a problem for you to envision a company that would market that rifle to the child? And since that is virtually the only reasonable scenario where the child should be in the company of the rifle, where is your problem?

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

So, help me understand a little better... Would you say that a 5 y/o wielding a rifle at the gun range with their parent is OK? If so, why is it such a problem for you to envision a company that would market that rifle to the child? And since that is virtually the only reasonable scenario where the child should be in the company of the rifle, where is your problem?

A 5 year old supervised at a gun range is absolutely fine, and it's probably a good thing.

IMO the child should have a parent's gun and recognize it as the parent's gun and under the control of the parent. That shooting it -- or even touching it -- is a privilege reserved for the child when he/she is pronounced "ready" by the parent.

All access to the gun by the child should be 100% controlled.

A child should not be expected to understand that the gun he/she owns is different than any other thing he/she owns. A downsized pink gun marketed as a child's gun is going to appear to be a toy to many children, and especially other children who may be visiting that child. That's where this company crosses the line, IMO.

I hope that's clear?

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by matt711

If adults are responsible for their own actions then why are you railing against the manufacturer and their marketing of a perfectly legal product? The parents are responsible not only for the decision to make the purchase but also for the safe handling of the weapon after the fact. You can't have it both ways...

Bingo. Ahhhh, but liberals know what's best. They have powers of reasoning others aren't blessed with. Therefore, we should simply obey.

[Rikao4]

I would say no..
he's sure to be playing video games were..
like those targets..
you can put them back up // or reload game..
and start over..
Sis didn't get back up..
I'm sure he's wondering why..

Rika

[livi]

Wow. Talk about trying to pitch an idea to the wrong crowd. What did you expect, Tech?

One guy mentions what he finds at least somewhat problematic on the topic of guns and gets run over completely.

Hehe I am the durn forīner so I get a free card to agree with Tech. You canīt touch me from over here.

As far as the incident, it is just beyond tragic. The human race at its finest.

Rant over. As you were.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by red-beard

People, the CHILD didn't buy the firearm! An adult had to buy it.

As far as the crack pipes and non-safe sex, your Reductio ad absurdum is idiotic!

In the past our society deemed some actions by good capitalist companies as innapropriate even though they were within the law. Society reacted.

I see no difference in marketing real weapons to children than say cigarettes or a good Single Malt.