Please explain to me "My first gun."

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

And this is where the problem lies... a reasonable, law-abiding citizen slowly becomes affected by the emotion of the issue, rather than the logic, and allows for just the slightest infringement, after all, think of the lives that could be saved...

Yep..

[gshase]

This is only about the parents now. How did the gun get loaded? Most 5 year olds can't even tie their shoes. You could teach a monkey to shoot a 22 at a target, but gun safety is another story.

[Hugh R]

Originally Posted by flipper35

My 11 year ...since we just bought her a Marlin in 30-30 for deer season. .

Really? I have a lever action Marlin 30-30 and I couldn't imagine an 11 year old firing one. It has quite the kick. Not saying you shouldn't or anything like that, just that's a big gun for an 11 year old.

I think 5 or 6 is a little young for guns with kids. Not enough focus of what they have in their hands. 10 to 12, sure. Hell, the first time I took my sister to the range she was like 45 and I was getting pissed at her with her disregard for range protocol. Then again, she is a lawyer.

[ZOA NOM]

Hugh, I would disagree. I think it's common knowledge that kids are sponges at that age, and there should be no difference in the material you feed them, whether it's gun safety or math. I say the earlier, the better, as long as the parent is in control.

[widgeon13]

My FIL gave our son a 22 for his first b'day. Never a problem. He received instruction and was under observation until he could get his own hunting license. Never a problem.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by Jferr006

Whether it s a gun marketed for 5 y/o's or adults it the parents' resonsibility to make sure guns are secured!

This.

[sc_rufctr]

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?

Sorry but I don't agree.

IMHO they are an appropriate target for gun marketing because you can teach them gun safety and supervise them accordingly. Get them trained young and those lessons will be with them for life.
A child raised like this will be a responsible gun owner when they're adults.


If you're going to have guns available to civilians in a society then those same civilians must know about gun safety. That is absolutely mandatory.

The problem is that so many gun owners don't seem to have any common sense.
Like... If you don't plan to shoot something then don't point the gun at that "something".

[Hugh R]

ZOA, to each his own. I'm not against it at younger ages. I first took my son shooting at about 11 or 12. We had a J.C. Penny 410 that I had bought probably 40 years ago. He closed the barrel (breech) and it blew a hole in the fence in front of us. I asked if he had his finger on the trigger and he said "No!". I reloaded again and it did the same thing. A broken firing pin. He had paid attention to pointing it down range not near his foot. Those little details make a lot of difference.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Really? I have a lever action Marlin 30-30 and I couldn't imagine an 11 year old firing one. It has quite the kick. Not saying you shouldn't or anything like that, just that's a big gun for an 11 year old.
....

I can remember like it was yesterday. Thanksgiving day at my grandfathers back when I was 9 (and believe me, I was a SCRAWNY little thing)...going out in the field with my dad and shooting his 12 ga shotgun for the first time...at eleven, it was the gun I hunted with

ps: I do agree with ya though....30-30 packs a pretty decent recoil for a child, but not that unreasonable.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

ZOA, to each his own. I'm not against it at younger ages. I first took my son shooting at about 11 or 12. We had a J.C. Penny 410 that I had bought probably 40 years ago. He closed the barrel (breech) and it blew a hole in the fence in front of us. I asked if he had his finger on the trigger and he said "No!". I reloaded again and it did the same thing. A broken firing pin. He had paid attention to pointing it down range not near his foot. Those little details make a lot of difference.

Sounds like he was well taught. I would say each parent should be able to assess when their child is ready to learn.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Sounds like he was well taught. I would say each parent should be able to assess when their child is ready to learn.

I still have my patch & card..


Had to take & pass when I got my 20 gauge..
Respect & Discipline are key to safe fire arm ownership....

[foxpaws]

The problem becomes when does society (often with laws) step in because children occasionally need to be protected from parents, and society needs to be protected from poor decisions by those parents. We have, as a society, decided that a 5-year-old driving a car isn't appropriate, not only can the child hurt himself, but that child can injure others (a car makes a darn good weapon). When you market guns to children, how many others are put into danger by a poor decision made by a parent. The parent looks at the advertising, assumes the gun is appropriate for their child - the ad says so. And does a 5-year-old child really understand the difference between pointing a real gun (which looks and is the same size as a toy gun) and toy gun towards his baby sister. Whether that parent purchased the gun for a child that was in no way prepared mentally or physically to handle a gun, or whether that parent was lax and allowed the firearm to be accessible to an unsupervised child, that parent has not only put their family into a potentially dangerous situation, but has endangered the lives of others. Advertising that guns are appropriate for all children is irresponsible because it endangers children and others outside of a family unit.

I would hope that the parents get charged with child endangerment.

[Joel8005]

Ok, relax Francis and all of you PC nimrods....... gun culture is all about parneting. My whole family was tought to respect guns at a young age, heck killed my first deer at 8. Matter of fact we had a gun club and a motor cycle enduro club in elementary school, growing up in Northern Michigan was great.
Those that have never owned guns are the first to say how not to handle them......

What happened in this case was a tragedy but all you PC jackasses who are ranting because the gun was a gift to a kid or was pink need to get a grip.

People die every day...... in a car wreck, did you blame the car when the driver ran over the bicyclist, how about the tire manufacture, the cell phone company that they were using while they were texting.........

GMAFB!!!!!!

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

The problem becomes when does society (often with laws) step in because children occasionally need to be protected from parents, and society needs to be protected from poor decisions by those parents. We have, as a society, decided that a 5-year-old driving a car isn't appropriate, not only can the child hurt himself, but that child can injure others (a car makes a darn good weapon). When you market guns to children, how many others are put into danger by a poor decision made by a parent. The parent looks at the advertising, assumes the gun is appropriate for their child - the ad says so. And does a 5-year-old child really understand the difference between pointing a real gun (which looks and is the same size as a toy gun) and toy gun towards his baby sister. Whether that parent purchased the gun for a child that was in no way prepared mentally or physically to handle a gun, or whether that parent was lax and allowed the firearm to be accessible to an unsupervised child, that parent has not only put their family into a potentially dangerous situation, but has endangered the lives of others. Advertising that guns are appropriate for all children is irresponsible because it endangers children and others outside of a family unit.

I would hope that the parents get charged with child endangerment.

Well, you can thank mindless idiots who are stupid enough to

The parent looks at the advertising, assumes the gun is appropriate for their child - the ad says so.

aren't smart enough to raise kids, and a big thanks to liberal & public schools for dumbing down America to the point that someone would even think of the crap in quotes..

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

Sorry but I don't agree.

IMHO they are an appropriate target for gun marketing because you can teach them gun safety and supervise them accordingly. Get them trained young and those lessons will be with them for life.
A child raised like this will be a responsible gun owner when they're adults.


If you're going to have guns available to civilians in a society then those same civilians must know about gun safety. That is absolutely mandatory.

The problem is that so many gun owners don't seem to have any common sense.
Like... If you don't plan to shoot something then don't point the gun at that "something".

No. Kids in preschool, kindergarten and first and second grades are not appropriate targets for marketing.

Parents can teach gun safety at any age without having "kiddie guns." Marketing a downsized gun that looks like a toy has nothing to do with gun safety training. Two separate issues.

Sure, we all know there are some low-information parents who are going to get the idea they ought to get their toddler a gun because of an ad. And we all know they're not the ones with upper-quintile intellectual capability. And yeah, we all think, oh well, not a big hit on the quality of the gene pool... but it's the neighbor's kid who is often the recipient of the bullet.

There is a trend for children to have huge influence on family purchases that did not exist when (some of us) were growing up in the 50s. The fast food companies have cashed in on this and are doing very very well. Intellectually lazy parents are creating kids with a sense of control and entitlement that may not exist among the highly enlightened here, but go to the mall and see it for yourself. These families are easy to spot. They're often overweight and the kids are headed for a lifetime of medical problems. And everybody is carrying shopping bags full of stuff.

Anyway, My first gun is not a big threat, and I don't mean to imply it is. As a marketing guy, I just don't like the use of children to sell this particular product -- one I consider an adult product; one I consider worthy of some respect and care.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by gshase

This is only about the parents now. How did the gun get loaded? Most 5 year olds can't even tie their shoes. You could teach a monkey to shoot a 22 at a target, but gun safety is another story.

Seriously?

[foxpaws]

Racer - playing the blame game isn't the route to take here. We put real age limits on driver's licenses, because we expect that the child be able to make some decisions when dealing with a potentially lethal item (the car) when the parents aren't around. Just like we do with liquor and cigarettes, we expect the individual to make some responsible decisions when life and death items are involved. Therefore, we have decided as a society that we don't allow companies to market those lethal items to children. A gun is a life and death item. We don't expect a 4-year-old to make responsible decisions when it comes to gun safety, yet, if their parents are making bad decisions regarding guns and their children, not only will the family be affected, but others outside the family unit will likely be affected.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Joel8005

Ok, relax Francis and all of you PC nimrods...

Those that have never owned guns are the first to say how not to handle them......

What happened in this case was a tragedy but all you PC jackasses who are ranting because the gun was a gift to a kid or was pink need to get a grip.
...

GMAFB!!!!!!

I suspect that virtually everyone posting on this thread has been a lifelong gun owner too and I've never given a rat's behind about being PC about anything
I also have an issue with pink guns and some of the other gun hype/marketing that seems to be prevalent today...will you GMAFB too? Jackass...why yes I am

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

If "you" can teach children about sex, abortion, and how not to have babies why can't you teach them to safely shoot and not kill someone.

Wait, you have to start sex education at age 4 now?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Racer - playing the blame game isn't the route to take here. We put real age limits on driver's licenses, because we expect that the child be able to make some decisions when dealing with a potentially lethal item (the car) when the parents aren't around. Just like we do with liquor and cigarettes, we expect the individual to make some responsible decisions when life and death items are involved. Therefore, we have decided as a society that we don't allow companies to market those lethal items to children. A gun is a life and death item. We don't expect a 4-year-old to make responsible decisions when it comes to gun safety, yet, if their parents are making bad decisions regarding guns and their children, not only will the family be affected, but others outside the family unit will likely be affected.

Sounds like we don't really need parents, as long as we have the government...

Is there ANYTHING that you would not legislate, Fox?