Please explain to me "My first gun."

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by livi

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

Exactly what happened.

:-)

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

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

You and Dean! You can always go to Parf and discuss pool cues.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by techweenie

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?

No, it is wrong. An Adult size rifle will not fit a childs body properly. When we were trained in the Boy Scouts, we used, basically, THAT rifle. We were adult supervised and allowed to fire rifles at a rifle range, I think starting at age 8 (Cub Scouts).

That model of rifle has been around for close to 100 years. The difference is that this is now National News, because of an anti-gun agenda.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by techweenie

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.

Pssshah! Any four year old can make the distinction.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

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.

Alcohol and Cigarette are NOT the same as firearms. Reductio ad absurdum again.

[matt711]

The color of the rifle is not the issue. The child should never have possesion of it without hand's-on adult supervision. The child should be educated on gun safety and the fact that the rifle isnt a toy, this should be done every single time it comes out of the safe. This is an issue of negligent parenting. Would be the same thing is the mother plugged in an electric knife, handed it to the kid and then went outside. The mother is at fault, plain and simple. Blame the mother and her poor decision not the rifle.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

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.

So, what you're saying is that it is the parents' responsibility to ensure safe handling: Education and controlled access. I agree with you 100%.

But now you go on to say:

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.

If the parent(s) ensures safe handling as you and I both agreed above (education and controlled access) then this is a non-issue.

If the parent is responsible then it doesn't matter what color, shape, or size the gun is. Do you see the point?

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by red-beard

No, it is wrong. An Adult size rifle will not fit a childs body properly. When we were trained in the Boy Scouts, we used, basically, THAT rifle. We were adult supervised and allowed to fire rifles at a rifle range, I think starting at age 8 (Cub Scouts).

That model of rifle has been around for close to 100 years. The difference is that this is now National News, because of an anti-gun agenda.

Oh, lord. Pink plastic (real) rifles that look like toys have been around for 100 years? That is just a bizarre comment.

Sorry, folks, I reserve the right to think the company is doing the wrong thing by marketing a .22 that's designed to look like a toy, and I haven't seen an ounce of logical discussion that persuades otherwise.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by techweenie

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?

So you have a problem with the appearance of the gun?


Isn't the point of taking the child to the range to TEACH that child about the weapon? Wouldn't it make MORE SENSE to use a gun that looks like a toy, BUT ISN'T? If it isn't a toy, and is controlled by the parents, it shouldn't matter that other kids may see it.

Clearly, your argument is based purely on emotion, absent of any real logic.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

So you have a problem with the appearance of the gun?

How many ways do I have to say it: its design is toy-like.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Alcohol and Cigarette are NOT the same as firearms. Reductio ad absurdum again.

Sure they are... All three illegal for children to own. Many people feel a little alcohol for children under the age of 18 is not a terrible thing. Quite common in many foreign countries.

It is legal in some states for persons under the age of 18 to smoke, however they cannot legally purchase the cigarettes.

It was found to be socially unnaceptable for companies to market those types of products either to children or at times when children were most likely to be exposed. Laws were generated to limit the capitalist companies who were making conscious decisions to try and influence their future market share.

They were only acting within the law after all.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

How many ways do I have to say it: its design is toy-like.

You're late to the party, mister.

Matter of Chwick v Mulvey (2010 NY Slip Op 09911)

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by techweenie

How many ways do I have to say it: its design is toy-like.

Do you suppose the child retains the toy-like image of the gun after a visit to the range? Or would you say the child might learn otherwise?

[Jferr006]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Oh, lord. Pink plastic (real) rifles that look like toys have been around for 100 years? That is just a bizarre comment.

Sorry, folks, I reserve the right to think the company is doing the wrong thing by marketing a .22 that's designed to look like a toy, and I haven't seen an ounce of logical discussion that persuades otherwise.

I don't even disagree with you there but, they do make it(as well as tons of other fake/real/toy/weapons) and that's where that whole parental accountability kicks in. It's a shame both parties failed here.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Wouldn't it make MORE SENSE to use a gun that looks like a toy, BUT ISN'T?

Not in my world. You don't impress the dangers upon a 5 yr old by downplaying the situation...

What taught me respect for a firearm as a yoot, was it's size and deadly potential.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Jferr006

It's a shame both parties failed here.

I agree....

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

Not in my world. You don't impress the dangers upon a 5 yr old by downplaying the situation...

What taught me respect for a firearm as a yoot, was it's size and deadly potential.

Well, agree to disagree. I think it's a teachable moment that can be used by a responsible parent to instill a sense of respect for any gun, whether it looks like a toy or not.

[Rikao4]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Do you suppose the child retains the toy-like image of the gun after a visit to the range? Or would you say the child might learn otherwise?

depends on the kid / I would say probably yes..
he will know it goes boom and makes a spot on the paper..
& Daddy is proud..
like I stated...
he didn't think his sister would be hurt..
she was supposed to get up..
it's just a little hole..

Rika

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Jferr006

It's a shame both parties failed here.

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I agree....

Failed at what? Passing meaningless legislation to make the uninformed electorate THINK they did something?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Rikao4

depends on the kid / I would say probably yes..
he will know it goes boom and makes a spot on the paper..
& Daddy is proud..
like I stated...
he didn't think his sister would be hurt..
she was supposed to get up..
it's just a little hole..

Rika

True enough in this case. The difference lies in the quality of parenting.