Please explain to me "My first gun."

[flipper35]

Matt, they get them at gunshows, no paperwork that way.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by EMJ

The irony of this post is that it seems very clear that you've not experienced, fortunately, an incident in which an accident has occurred with a child and a firearm, as you profess throughout. With all due respect, seems to me for someone who is calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant, misinformed and emotional, you have absolutely no experience with the issue. How can you summarily dismiss the known statistics of the unfortunate accidents where children have actually killed other children or others when the parent was standing right there? A split second of inattention and a tragedy occurs. Because it hasn't happened to you or your circle, and hopefully it never does, it isn't an issue? I can respect and appreciate your view, but your experience of utopia around this issue is just not real world. Accidents happen all the time involving even the most diligent parents. For those who say this is the price of freedom, that is very sad.

I have "summarily dismissed" nothing. I have never said anything even remotely resembling "it is not an issue". These are your constructs on what I said - your additions, your misrepresentations. Again, I have said nothing of the kind.

I could not agree more that the loss of any child in a firearms accident is tragic. So is the loss of a child in a drowning accident, car accident, bicycle accident, or any other way. While I have experienced none of these in my immediate family (there have been some in the extended family, over the generations), I don't think I need to in order to be able to sympathize with any parent who has suffered such a loss.

Originally Posted by EMJ

Personally, I wouldn't put my little 5-year-old girl in the position of shooting weapons, and I, once upon a time, instructed hundreds of military personnel, and shot thousands of rounds in a multitude of weapons. I've seen the accidents ADULTs have, the odds are much greater for pre-schoolers. But again, I am open minded enough to understand that in some demographics, this simply is a way of life (Young children firing weapons). And with this, it is a riskier proposition for the children involved. To say it isn't is simply disengenuous, and I guess that's the issue that I have. If a child is blown away because a parent, responsible or not, put a gun in their hand, that's just one too many.

It certainly remains your prerogative to keep your kids away from firearms. I won't argue your decision. And yes, I agree - children being around firearms exposes them to risks they otherwise would never encounter. I never even hinted otherwise - again, that is your addition. Don't attribute it to me.

Children face a myriad of risks when growing up. The generally accepted notion is that they are not responsible enough, smart enough, aware enough, or anything "enough" to make their own choices regarding these risks until a certain age. That is why they have parents. Some parents are uncomfortable with exposing their children to any sort of risk or, therefor, the responsibility that comes with making decisions (guided decisions, at first) pertinent to those risks. Some parents are far too comfortable exposing their children to far too great of risk at a given age (I'm being generous here - these parents are more like lazy and inattentive, like the mother of this poor kid) and their kids inevitably get hurt. All of our comfort levels fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes. It's up to us to decide. I won't decide for you; I won't let you decide for me. I think that's fair. My comfort level includes assuming the risks (and reaping the rewards) of introducing my children to firearms at an early age. Yours does not. That's fine.

Just don't put words in my mouth in an effort to make my position appear unreasonable or untenable. You may not like it, it may not be for you, but it worked for me, my extended family over many generations, and millions of other like me.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Matt, they get them at gunshows, no paperwork that way.

Private sellers are not required to do background checks in 33 states. Even at gun shows. Other states have varying restrictions.

Walmart has gotta be 100% checked... and god knows, I'd sure be hoping these folks are scrutinized.

Shoppers at WalMart

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

What you don't understand is you mitigate the deaths - you avoid marketing rifles to 5-year-olds.

Life is fatal - it will happen to all of us. However, marketing guns that look like toys, marketed like toys, however are not toys, to 5-year-olds are fatalities waiting to happen.

This ^^^^^. Well stated.

[matt711]

The majority of the 4-10 year olds can't fill out the paperwork because the public education system has failed them...they can't read and write. This injustice must be addressed, I suggest higher taxes, increased regulation and more standardized testing. These 4-10 year olds have rights!

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

What "quoted text" are you referring to?

You can't POSSIBLY be as dense as you're acting and still be able to operate a keyboard.

But just in case you are, here is the quote. AGAIN.

Originally Posted by techweenie

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.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

You can't POSSIBLY be as dense as you're acting and still be able to operate a keyboard.

But just in case you are, here is the quote. AGAIN.

So you're simply saying that what I say is wrong and you're calling that 'evidence?' That may be the case inside your head, but I need something more empirical.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

AT&T or Samsung does not have marketing items such as videos and promo items that encourage children to text and drive - Keystone has marketing items such as videos and promo items that encourage 5-year-olds to shoot rifles.

Yes, texting and driving does need to be addressed - just like drinking and driving was addressed, just like marketing guns to 5-year-olds needs to be addressed.

Texting and driving is illegal. Shooting is not. Keystone markets for a legal activity, just like Samsung and AT&T.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

So you're simply saying that what I say is wrong and you're calling that 'evidence?' That may be the case inside your head, but I need something more empirical.

What 'evidence' are you talking about?

The contents of the quote is unadulterated BS. You either made it up, or are so ignorant about the subject matter that you are merely repeating what someone else made up. So why should we believe anything else you post?

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I have "summarily dismissed" nothing. I have never said anything even remotely resembling "it is not an issue". These are your constructs on what I said - your additions, your misrepresentations. Again, I have said nothing of the kind.

I could not agree more that the loss of any child in a firearms accident is tragic. So is the loss of a child in a drowning accident, car accident, bicycle accident, or any other way. While I have experienced none of these in my immediate family (there have been some in the extended family, over the generations), I don't think I need to in order to be able to sympathize with any parent who has suffered such a loss.



It certainly remains your prerogative to keep your kids away from firearms. I won't argue your decision. And yes, I agree - children being around firearms exposes them to risks they otherwise would never encounter. I never even hinted otherwise - again, that is your addition. Don't attribute it to me.

Children face a myriad of risks when growing up. The generally accepted notion is that they are not responsible enough, smart enough, aware enough, or anything "enough" to make their own choices regarding these risks until a certain age. That is why they have parents. Some parents are uncomfortable with exposing their children to any sort of risk or, therefor, the responsibility that comes with making decisions (guided decisions, at first) pertinent to those risks. Some parents are far too comfortable exposing their children to far too great of risk at a given age (I'm being generous here - these parents are more like lazy and inattentive, like the mother of this poor kid) and their kids inevitably get hurt. All of our comfort levels fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes. It's up to us to decide. I won't decide for you; I won't let you decide for me. I think that's fair. My comfort level includes assuming the risks (and reaping the rewards) of introducing my children to firearms at an early age. Yours does not. That's fine.

Just don't put words in my mouth in an effort to make my position appear unreasonable or untenable. You may not like it, it may not be for you, but it worked for me, my extended family over many generations, and millions of other like me.

These are not my "misrepresentations" or "additions" to your comments. I have no reason to do this - I think you've put your view out very clearly for us all to interpret, and that's exactly what I've done - interpreted your comments. That said, your comparing a pre-schooler's accidental shooting death to an "accidental drowning, bike accident, car accident, or any other way" just further displays how absolutely clueless you are on the subject. Your comparison is without question - preposterous. Absurd, really. That said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

What 'evidence' are you talking about?

The contents of the quote is unadulterated BS. You either made it up, or are so ignorant about the subject matter that you are merely repeating what someone else made up. So why should we believe anything else you post?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of factual support for your ideas. Feel free to prove it's BS, if you can.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

What you don't understand is you mitigate the deaths - you avoid marketing rifles to 5-year-olds.

Life is fatal - it will happen to all of us. However, marketing guns that look like toys, marketed like toys, however are not toys, to 5-year-olds are fatalities waiting to happen.

Apparently, according to you racer, the people who had this terrible tragedy happen to them aren't 'smart enough' or don't have enough 'common sense', and their family is suffering for their 'not enough' actions. But, who paid the price as well - society. We all lost a child, who knows what amazing things Caroline Sparks may have done...

Obviously you didn't read earlier - I think the parents, at the very least, should be charged with endangering a child. I think they should be held very responsible for their neglect.

Again, the kids are too young to buy the guns and ammo, and yes, the parents who DIDN'T secure the weapon and left a 2 year old alone, just as stupid as leaving a 2 year old near a pool, that they can drown in or backing over them in the driveway. When have you ever seen an ad for a gun on Saturday morning cartoons?? If the parents were better parents, the 5 year old;
1) wouldn't have had access to the gun and ammo.
2) would have known better than to"play" with the weapon.

I knew at 5 where my fathers guns were, but I also knew better than to mess with them, and they weren't locked up either.

Apparently there's an epidemic of 4-10 year olds texting and driving that I was unaware of.

6-year-old boy steals family car & goes on joyride for Chinese food | ¿Qué Más?

6-year-old boy steals family car & goes on joyride for Chinese food
EN ESPAÑOL

by Michelle Regalado
April 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM
(0)




A mischievous 6-year-old Michigan boy was recently busted taking his family's car out for a morning joyride to get Chinese food. Wow, he must've been really hungry.

Apparently, the unidentified child wanted more of the food he'd eaten the night before for dinner. So at 6 a.m., he took the car and drove off, somehow managing to get all the way to the restaurant safely. Unfortunately for him, the place was closed ... but his adventure still didn't stop there.

On his way back from the restaurant, the young boy hit a traffic sign and decided to make his way to a repair shop before heading home. Jeez! Well, at least we know he didn't have malicious intentions and was actually trying to be responsible in his own bizarre way.

Other drivers spotted the vehicle swerving down the highway and dialed 911 before cornering him into a turnaround until police arrived. By the time officers got there, the boy was about three miles from his home and had already pulled the keys out of the ignition.

Read more ¿Qué más?: 6-year-old steals car to visit dad, crashes on the way (VIDEO)

"I don't know how he was able to operate everything and see at the same time," Sapp said. "Apparently, he was close enough that he could reach the pedals."

The boy told police he learned how to drive from watching his dad, who reportedly had no clue his son had taken his car and was woken up at his home by another deputy to go pick him up.

I know it was extremely dangerous for him to take the car, but I kind of feel like I have to give this kid credit for being so amazingly fearless. When I first started driving at 16, I was terrified. Still, I'm just glad that he's okay and that no one was injured on his ride. Hopefully, his parents have learned to hide the car keys from now on…and will maybe take him more seriously when he says he.

Boy, 11, Steals Car Goes for Joy Ride: Caught on Tape
4-Year-Old Boy Steals Mom's Car for a Joy Ride - YouTube
4-Year-Old Boy Steals Mom's Car for a Joy Ride - YouTube
By geobeats · 1 min · 510 views · Added Sep 28, 2012
4-Year-Old Boy Steals Mom's Car for a Joy Ride ... The young child reportedly stole his mother's keys while she ... 11, Steals Car Goes for Joy Ride: ...
4-Year-Old Boy Steals Mom's Car for a Joy Ride - YouTube

Boy, 7, Steals Grandmother's Car for Mall Joyride | Fox News
Boy, 7, Steals Grandmother's Car for Mall Joyride | Fox News
May 01, 2010 · ... grandmother's car on a joyride to an ... Steals Grandmother's Car for Mall Joyride. ... her car was, The Star Press reported. Child welfare ...
4-Year-Old Steals Mom's Car & Goes on a Joy Ride | The Stir
thestir.cafemom.com/toddler/144230/4yearold_steals_moms_car_goes
4-Year-Old Steals Mom's Car & Goes on a Joy Ride by Mary Fischer September 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM 19. ... What 4-year-old child has ever driven a car before?!

Young girl steals car, goes on joy ride - FOX19.com-Cincinnati ...
www.fox19.com/story/20967184/young-girl-steals-car-goes-on-joy-ride
Young girl steals car, goes on ... A six-year-old girl managed to take her mother's car for a joyride in ... telling firefighters he could no longer care for the child.
8-year-old boy steals grandma's car, crashes near Schuylkill …
articles.mcall.com › Schuylkill Haven
An 8-year-old Schuylkill County boy took his grandmother's car for a joy ride this ... the unnamed child was wearing a seat ... allegedly steals car ...
7 Year old steals car and goes on a GTA RAMPAGE !!! - Page 2 ...
7 Year old steals car and goes on a GTA RAMPAGE !!! - Page 2 - Xbox360Achievements.org
65 replies in thread
7 Year old steals car and goes on a GTA RAMPAGE !!! ... He should have been hurt. ... If that were my child he would have got his ass spanked.

Hungry 6-Year-Old Crashes Minivan During Junk Food Joyride | …
thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/119100/hungry_6yearold_crashes_minivan...
Has your child ever done anything ... everyone is home so that he can't get out. ... glad he wasn't hurt and no one else was either. however i don't ...
4-Year-Old Takes Mom’s Car For a Joyride - ABC News
abcnews.go.com/.../2011/10/4-year-old-takes-moms-car-for-a-joyride
Oct 14, 2011 · 4-Year-Old Takes Mom’s Car For a Joyride Email 1 Smaller ... No bystanders or fellow drivers were hurt, and police said the child sustained minor to ...

[matt711]

And the background check is not waived by a majority of states. That is simply not true. Only sales between private individuals are exempt and only in certain states. Im not sure how many gun shows you have been to in your life but my experience has been that at least 1/2 of the sellers at every gun show I attend are dealers. I have been to hundreds of shows.

[techweenie]

Yes, and you're making my point. This isn't about going to the show and trying to buy a gun from a dealer who is obliged to run a background check. This is about going to the other vendors (probably more like 40%) who are private parties.

You can go to any private seller/collector and buy without a background check in 33 states. That *is* the majority, per my original quote.

[matt711]

So the manufacturer is marketing the pink rifle through some sort of backdoor plan by which the gun is first legally purchased at a dealer and then later sold between private sellers at a gun show...

What is next? The parents of the tragically killed child sue the private seller form the gun show for not making sure they understood the gravity of thier decision to allow a child access to a gun?

Either way it's the parents that would be checked through NCIS. The purchase would likely be legal through either a dealer or private seller. In the end it still comes back to parenting, background check or not.

[techweenie]

We don't disagree on the bigger points, but some people seem unwilling to accept the notion that lots of guns are purchased without background checks. Universal background checks are supported by the majority of NRA members and a larger % of the public.

But that's just an overarching context to the 'rifles marketed as toys' problem. Looks like social pressure has caused Crickett to pull back its images of kiddies with guns. The predictable response will be a surge of parents running to buy Crickett rifles. And on it goes.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by techweenie

We don't disagree on the bigger points, but some people seem unwilling to accept the notion that lots of guns are purchased without background checks. Universal background checks are supported by the majority of NRA members and a larger % of the public.

But that's just an overarching context to the 'rifles marketed as toys' problem. Looks like social pressure has caused Crickett to pull back its images of kiddies with guns. The predictable response will be a surge of parents running to buy Crickett rifles. And on it goes.

What's the problem with guns purchased without background checks? Why should two law-abiding citizens have to tell the government what they're doing? The criminals certainly won't.

[matt711]

Im all for social pressure over new regulation. So they drop the cartoon and paint all the rifles black, whatever.

I just don't see how increased background checks will make much of a difference. Those who can't pass them will still find guns. Those who lie on the forms still won't be prosecuted, and still won't be able to complete the transaction.

I agree that a whole lot of guns are purchased without a check. Not sure how to stop that, even with a new law requiring universal checks. The government doesnt know if I have a gun, and if I sell one to a person I know without a check they won't know about that either. Since there is no database there really isn't a way to make it work. We currently don't prosecute those who lie on the background check form, the Toomey bill didn't contain any additional enforcement provisions. The DOJ and Obama really don't care about prosecutions, they care about gaining a political victory.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by EMJ

These are not my "misrepresentations" or "additions" to your comments. I have no reason to do this - I think you've put your view out very clearly for us all to interpret, and that's exactly what I've done - interpreted your comments.

Well then, so be it - but your "interpretations" include things you directly attribute to me that I never said. Your "interpretations" accuse me of holding positions which I do not hold. Nowhere in any of my comments will you find anything even remotely ressembling these things which you accuse me of saying. Nowhere. That is simply not "interpretation" by any stretch - you have misrepresented and added to my comments.

Originally Posted by EMJ

That said, your comparing a pre-schooler's accidental shooting death to an "accidental drowning, bike accident, car accident, or any other way" just further displays how absolutely clueless you are on the subject. Your comparison is without question - preposterous. Absurd, really. That said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Preposterous? Really? Let's take just my first example - drowning. How is a child drowning unlike a child getting accidentally shot? Assuming we are talking the same age child, both tragedies require that the parent(s) either allow access to, or are so inattentive as to not be aware of access too, the potentially lethal situation. Both can be readily avoided if the parents show some responsibility and follow some very basic safety rules. Both involve a child who is probably completely unaware of the dangers. Yes, keeping the kid away from the gun is a sure-fired way to avoid that tragedy, but so is keeping the kid away from the pool, the lake, the river, or what have you. And, finally, both tragedies can be avoided by attentive parents willing to take the time to properly instruct their child and supervise their child until such time that the child can be trusted to go it unsupervised.

Feel free to explain how these activities are dissimilar, and why my comparison is "preposterous".

[Rick Lee]

Drowning in their parents' pools is the number cause of death for kids in AZ. And we have a LOT of guns here with few restrictions.