Please explain to me "My first gun."

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Again, the kids are too young to buy the guns and ammo, and yes, the parents who DIDN'T secure the weapon...
< snip >
Many examples of children driving...
< snip >

So, how much marketing has Toyota done showing 6-year-olds driving?

Or how much marketing has Budweiser done aimed at 5-year-olds, made grape flavored beer, and then packaged it in a Mickey Mouse decorated can? According to the logic here - that would be OK, responsible adults wouldn't buy grape beer for their children who begged for their folks to buy it, so they can be like Tommy next door, or at least let them have access to it when they aren't around (but if they are around - throwing back a cold one with dad would be OK) however, in 29 states it is legal for parents to buy kids booze and for kids to drink with parent's consent, just like it is OK for parents to buy 5-year-olds guns.

We don't allow booze to be marketed to children, not just because they can't buy it (but they can use it - just like guns - can't buy, but can use), but because it just is a bad idea. We have decided, even if it is OK for parents to buy them liquor, and for them to drink liquor (at private locations that don't sell booze with parental consent), we don't market or create liquor products that are appealing to 5-year-olds.

Just like we shouldn't be marketing or creating firearms that are appealing to 5-year-olds.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, so we agree the status quo sucks. Do we just throw up our hands and do nothing? (With 300 million guns in private hands, that's actually a valid choice.)

I don't have the answer, but we should be able to improve the situation.

This guy got a gun because someone helped him:

N.Y. man who shot dead 2 firefighters killed grandmother in 1980 - CNN.com

Children get guns because they find (primarily) family weapons. Things are bad enough without making toy versions that confuse children... [Yes, I know all Pelican parents are perfect. But not all parents are.]

There's a stat on the Internet that may be valid or maybe not (I've heard sometimes things on the Internet aren't true.) that from 1979 to 2010, 111K children were killed by gunshots. If true, that's more than all US soldiers in 60 years of war. Accidental gun deaths are not 'isolated incidents.' Adding to the rate of death just seems dumb to me.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

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

It's not incumbent on me to prove you are FOS. You made the statement, support it with facts.

When was the last time you were at a gun show?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Well, so we agree the status quo sucks. Do we just throw up our hands and do nothing? (With 300 million guns in private hands, that's actually a valid choice.)

I don't have the answer, but we should be able to improve the situation.

This guy got a gun because someone helped him:

N.Y. man who shot dead 2 firefighters killed grandmother in 1980 - CNN.com

Children get guns because they find (primarily) family weapons. Things are bad enough without making toy versions that confuse children... [Yes, I know all Pelican parents are perfect. But not all parents are.]

There's a stat on the Internet that may be valid or maybe not (I've heard sometimes things on the Internet aren't true.) that from 1979 to 2010, 111K children were killed by gunshots. If true, that's more than all US soldiers in 60 years of war. Accidental gun deaths are not 'isolated incidents.' Adding to the rate of death just seems dumb to me.

How is teaching a child to properly use and respect a firearm adding to the death rate? And how many of the 111k had been taught?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Universal background checks are supported by the majority of NRA members

And more BS.

NRA-ILA | Don't Believe Everything You Read

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.



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".

First of all, you're not on trial here, so I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm merely interpreting your comments and forming my opinion - you've clarified your stance, and we're just having a debate. Secondly, let's not key in on the awful drowning scenario, you stated that a kid who dies in a "bike, drowning, car, or any other type of accident is the same as a preschooler dying in a shooting accident, and to this I again say, it is absolutely preposterous. Perhaps, I again misunderstood, but I don't think so. The risk level of a kid riding along his driveway is exponentially less than a 5-year-old shooting a rifle. Mom and dad taking a 5-year-old for ice cream in their mini-van, buckled in, is not the same as that parent putting a rifle in that same kid's hands. If you don't know the perceived level of risk of the parents in these two scenarios, you're still obviously missing the point.

In the drowning scenario, sadly, any miscalculation by the child and/or the supervising parent can result in instant tragedy. But again, you'll be hard pressed to convince the population that these two fall into the same risk category (5 year old shooting a rifle, 5 year old swimming). I guess I'm further perplexed by this notion of "irresponsible" parents are to blame for these accidents with rifles, drownings, etc. I guess what it seems you're not considering, and it's been stated by several posters, is that participating in high risk activities with children, such as shooting rifles at 5, increases the risk for danger if an ACCIDENT should occur, even when parents are responsible and diligent. Which is why we are saying mitigate the risk and an issue (tragedy) won't happen. That's it. We will agree to disagree.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Preposterous? Really? Let's take just my first example - drowning. How is a child drowning unlike a child getting accidentally shot?.

How many 5-year-olds have accidentally drowned their brother, sister, father, neighbor, etc with a filled swimming pool left on the kitchen table?

[Jeff Higgins]

Ed, I think you are unfairly raising the risk level of having a rifle in the hands of a child with proper parental supervision. The stats simply do not support your position. Stated as a percentage of actual participants in these various activities, the shooting sports enjoy a lower child accident/mortality rate than swimming, bicycling, or any number of other "safer" activities. Far lower.

So, as far as your "risk catagories", the shooting sports are actually far lower on that scale than many other common recreational activities that we thing nothing of letting our kids enjoy. Guns add an element to the equation that nothing else does - emotion. Looking at the cold, hard statistics, though, shows the shooting sports as one of the most risk-free any child can undertake.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

So, how much marketing has Toyota done showing 6-year-olds driving?

Or how much marketing has Budweiser done aimed at 5-year-olds, made grape flavored beer, and then packaged it in a Mickey Mouse decorated cans? According to the logic here - that would be OK, responsible adults wouldn't buy grape beer for their children who begged for their folks to buy it, so they can be like Tommy next door, or at least let them have access to it when they aren't around (but if they are around - throwing back a cold one with dad would be OK) however, in 29 states it is legal for parents to buy kids booze and for kids to drink with parent's consent, just like it is OK for parents to buy 5-year-olds guns.

We don't allow booze to be marketed to children, not just because they can't buy it (but they can use it - just like guns - can't buy, but can use), but because it just is a bad idea. We have decided, even if it is OK for parents to buy them liquor, and for them to drink liquor (at private locations that don't sell booze with parental consent), we don't market or create liquor products that are appealing to 5-year-olds.

Just like we shouldn't be marketing or creating firearms that are appealing to 5-year-olds.

My god, you can't really be this stupid, maybe you aren't a good parent and allow your kids to dictate your life and buy them what ever they want.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Ed, I think you are unfairly raising the risk level of having a rifle in the hands of a child with proper parental supervision. The stats simply do not support your position. Stated as a percentage of actual participants in these various activities, the shooting sports enjoy a lower child accident/mortality rate than swimming, bicycling, or any number of other "safer" activities. Far lower.

So, as far as your "risk catagories", the shooting sports are actually far lower on that scale than many other common recreational activities that we thing nothing of letting our kids enjoy. Guns add an element to the equation that nothing else does - emotion. Looking at the cold, hard statistics, though, shows the shooting sports as one of the most risk-free any child can undertake.

Do you have source on that (and I would appreciate source that isn't biased) - hours biked-fatalities - hours spent shooting-fatalities. You have to take into account when the sports equipment is in the home, not being used for sporting activities. Bikes may be more lethal per hour enjoyed, but when the bike is hanging in the garage, compared to when the gun is at home, I would imagine that the scales then get tipped to the lethal attributes of the weapon. You have to take into account the '24 hour' aspect of the problem as well as 'when the equipment is actually in use' part of the equation.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

My god, you can't really be this stupid, maybe you aren't a good parent and allow your kids to dictate your life and buy them what ever they want.

You still don't get marketing do you racer - marketing responsibly to children is something many in advertising take very seriously. People in the liquor and tobacco industries take it very seriously, they go out of their way not to cross the legislative line that has been hoisted in front of them. They don't market to children. They market to age appropriate audiences. Why did Crickett not go down that same road - they didn't market to adults - they marketed lethal weapons to 5-year-old children, children young enough to not only not have much comprehension of the lethal nature of the weapon they are holding and aiming at their sister, but probably not able to distinguish it from a toy gun in their toy box.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Do you have source on that (and I would appreciate source that isn't biased) - hours biked-fatalities - hours spent shooting-fatalities. You have to take into account when the sports equipment is in the home, not being used for sporting activities. Bikes may be more lethal per hour enjoyed, but when the bike is hanging in the garage, compared to when the gun is at home, I would imagine that the scales then get tipped to the lethal attributes of the weapon. You have to take into account the '24 hour' aspect of the problem as well as 'when the equipment is actually in use' part of the equation.

Then you should provide statistics showing the casualties of children who were not trained in the proper use/respect for the firearm vs those who were. If you are serious about protecting the children, you should support teaching them. You support sex-education of children, right?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Then you should provide statistics showing the casualties of children who were not trained in the proper use/respect for the firearm vs those who were. If you are serious about protecting the children, you should support teaching them. You support sex-education of children, right?

I could counter with how many of those biking children were trained in proper road and safety use/respect. As I was trying to point out to Jeff, statistics usually just show a small window to the problem, and rarely give a clear picture of all of the aspects of a particular issue.

I certainly think that before any Crickett is sold the parents and children should attend a 20 hour training course regarding all safety/hazard aspects of the weapon, that is what you are advocating - right Zoa?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I could counter with how many of those biking children were trained in proper road and safety use/respect. As I was trying to point out to Jeff, statistics usually just show a small window to the problem, and rarely give a clear picture of all of the aspects of a particular issue.

I certainly think that before any Crickett is sold the parents and children should attend a 20 hour training course regarding all safety/hazard aspects of the weapon, that is what you are advocating - right Zoa?

Nope, I'm advocating that a law abiding parent should be allowed to teach their children about guns. The government (nanny) has no business being involved.

You could counter with how many of the kids on bikes were trained? Really? Which government-sponsored bicycle training program would that be?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Nope, I'm advocating that a law abiding parent should be allowed to teach their children about guns. The government (nanny) has no business being involved.

You could counter with how many of the kids on bikes were trained? Really? Which government-sponsored bicycle training program would that be?

Did I say the government had to be involved - you are assuming a lot here zoa.

So, do you get the point that your statement regarding training and proper use is an impossible thing to factor in when looking at the statistics regarding children on bicycles/fatalities vs children with guns/fatalities?

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

You still don't get marketing do you racer - marketing responsibly to children is something many in advertising take very seriously. People in the liquor and tobacco industries take it very seriously, they go out of their way not to cross the legislative line that has been hoisted in front of them. They don't market to children. They market to age appropriate audiences. Why did Crickett not go down that same road - they didn't market to adults - they marketed lethal weapons to 5-year-old children, children young enough to not only not have much comprehension of the lethal nature of the weapon they are holding and aiming at their sister, but probably not able to distinguish it from a toy gun in their toy box.

I have made my living with it, but you don't understand Personal Responsability, or the fact that kids can't buy the guns, an adult is still the one who has to buy the gun & ammo, no matter who it is marketed towards. I have put. A lot of miles in the past few weeks to track events, but I didn't see one billboard, TV or radio comorcial for a Crickett child's weapon, now that I think about it, I have never seen one, and I have put a lot of miles all over the country for racing. And for someone who claims to know about guns, while one may be pink, there is a difference in weight, and again, it is back on the parents to keep the guns secured and to TEACH the child proper weapon handling and the difference between a toy gun and a real one. Market all you want to kids, but it still requires an adult to make the purchase. Most 5 year olds don't have a couple hundred dollars in their pocket to drive to Wally World to buy a gun, and IF someone at the store "did" sell a 5 year old a gun, well, they would go to jail, just as a bartender would go to jail for serving a minor. Personal Responsability and good parenting are the key to keeping kids safe..

[foxpaws]

I understand a whole lot about personal responsibility - and why we place very little value in it.

We could say - you are personally responsible for driving at a safe speed. Ha, how high would the fatality rate be on the roads today if that were the case. Or in the case of corporate America - you are personally responsible for not dumping pollutants into this lake... if that were the case, and we had responsible corporate citizens, Lake Michigan wouldn't have caught on fire.

So, when it comes to children, who are dependent upon the 'personal responsibility' of others, we usually err on the side of caution. We as a society understand that unfortunately far too often parents are sadly lacking in the 'personal responsibility' aspect of parenting, but, should we place children, and almost uniquely others when it comes to firearms (irresponsible parents who let their children have access to guns place many others at risk, not just their families) at increased risk because of parental irresponsibility? Again, we usually err on the side of caution. We don't market booze to children, even though it is legal in most states for children to have a drink with their parents. Don't you think it would be perhaps a little more responsible for gun manufacturers not to market guns to children, even though it is legal for children to use firearms?

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

It's not incumbent on me to prove you are FOS. You made the statement, support it with facts.

When was the last time you were at a gun show?

I can't believe you have missed three months of national discussion over universal background checks. And I guess your Google is broken, so here you go:

Background:
The Case Against Gun Background Checks - ABC News

Background checks for guns: What you need to know - U.S. News

The most recent bill:
Bill Summary & Status - 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) - S.649 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

When is the last time you were at a gun show?

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

When is the last time you were at a gun show?

So, deflection.

I guess you didn't like losing.