11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[Alyeska]

Do you need a computer? Do you need books? Do you need video games? A child might find target shooting to be enjoyable. If done with proper safety precautions, that is sufficient need.

None of those are potentially lethal...are you being purposefully dense or something?

Riding in a car with a parent is potentially lethal. In fact its more lethal than youth shooting in the real world. Just because something is potentially lethal does not make it so in real life. Adequate safety precautions including age appropriate calibers and sizes, proper education and training prior to shooting, make the act a safe one.

A youth with a gun is potentially lethal. A youth with a gun who is proper supervised and trained is not potentially lethal. Are you being purposefully dense or something?

[Yogi]

Do you need a computer?

Yes. I need it for my job, which involved a great deal of working with computer. This allows me to get money, which in turn allows me to eat, have a place to live, and have medical attention, all of which are mandatory for my continued existence.

Do you need books?

Yes. Reading and doing researching via books is quite essential to by job.

Do you need video games? A child might find target shooting to be enjoyable. If done with proper safety precautions, that is sufficient need.

See, at least Coyote makes an effort in making a case in favor of firearms training, and how handling real guns will mitigate the long term risk by imparting important firearms safety information. I disagree with him in that I don't feel that real child-sized guns are necessary for the same benefit, but you can actually see his argument. You're not even trying.

[Alyeska]

Do you need a computer?

Yes. I need it for my job, which involved a great deal of working with computer. This allows me to get money, which in turn allows me to eat, have a place to live, and have medical attention, all of which are mandatory for my continued existence.

Do you need books?

Yes. Reading and doing researching via books is quite essential to by job.

Do you need video games? A child might find target shooting to be enjoyable. If done with proper safety precautions, that is sufficient need.

See, at least Coyote makes an effort in making a case in favor of firearms training, and how handling real guns will mitigate the long term risk by imparting important firearms safety information. I disagree with him in that I don't feel that real child-sized guns are necessary for the same benefit, but you can actually see his argument. You're not even trying.

Not even trying? Why the fuck should I have to justify the safe exercise of guns for entertainment purposes? It is up to you to prove that the SAFE exercise of firearms is bad. I have repeatedly stressed in this thread that the use of firearms by children is qualified with proper training and safety. And yet you still haven't created an argument to counter that. Proof of incidents indicate improper safety and training. Examples of bad use is not proof that something shouldn't be used. Examples of bad use are proof that further training and education is a good thing.

[Ryan Thunder]

Not even trying? Why the fuck should I have to justify the safe exercise of guns for entertainment purposes?

Because you're using a device that is explicitly designed to kill and/or injure for said entertainment purposes. We've gone over this territory before, haven't we?

[Yogi]

Not even trying? Why the fuck should I have to justify the safe exercise of guns for entertainment purposes?

Because, since you are a trained firearms expert, you know that guns are dangerous. Hence, it is up to you to prove that there is some really good reason to make dangerous tools for children to use. You know, the same thing with other very dangerous items.

It is up to you to prove that the SAFE exercise of firearms is bad. I have repeatedly stressed in this thread that the use of firearms by children is qualified with proper training and safety. And yet you still haven't created an argument to counter that. Proof of incidents indicate improper safety and training. Examples of bad use is not proof that something shouldn't be used. Examples of bad use are proof that further training and education is a good thing.

Except this is not what's happening. This isn't a gun used only at a firing range and only under safe supervision by trained professionals. This is a gun that anyone can buy and take home.

[Akkleptos]

I have repeatedly stressed in this thread that the use of firearms by children is qualified with proper training and safety. And yet you still haven't created an argument to counter that.

How about the fact that the more often more people do something, the chances for something -whatever- going wrong also multiply?

Proper training and safety, that's good as well as necessary. But also, why is it necessary that kids shoot real guns? I mean, if at all?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Okay, to put a stop to your bullshit broken record debating tactics, this is why:

Link here.

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

* In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:

• 214 unintentional
• 1,078 suicides
• 1,990 homicides
• 83 for which the intent could not be determined
• 20 due to legal intervention

* Of the total firearms-related deaths:

• 73 were of children under five years old
• 416 were children 5-14 years old
• 2,896 were 15-19 years old

Firearms are not fucking safe. Not even under controlled conditions and with supervision. They are safer, but they are still not even close to safe. Frankly, the reason it requires justification is because the smart things to do, aren't what a lot of people do. And that's why you have statistics like the ones I just quoted.

Guns are dangerous. In the hands of responsible adults they are dangerous, and in the hands of children who are almost by their very nature thoroughly irresponsible, they are particularly dangerous. To the child, to the child's friends, and to their family.

If you're going to take a weapon for killing, put live ammunition in it, and give it to a child, even under strict supervision, then fuck yes you need justification.

[Coyote]

For those who intend to use firearms in their lives, there is a 100% need for proper and complete training. Under those circumstances, they'll fire at a supervised range until they are ready to exercise their rights and responsibility in daily life.

I know that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that guns for children need to fire real bullets. Everyone needs to learn about safe sex. However, we don't use the real thing in sex-ed classes.

Well, then, what the hell are they training for, if they don't eventually fire the real thing? Are kids going to sex-ed classes so they can learn to masturbate better?

Where did I say that? I'm perfectly happy with non-lethal training for kids, getting them started with things like BB guns, the difference is that that is where you want to stop the training, and I see it as a stepping stone to more advanced training with the real thing-- so, once again, you try to warp and distort what I'm saying. You are very dishonest.

Really? It's the first you said it.

Well, that's what you get for assuming. Before you learn guns, you can practice with something less or non-lethal. We weren't arguing that; we were arguing the point where the kid starts to learn firing the real thing. Just like in the aforementioned sex-ed class; they learn about it before doing the real thing, eventually.

Is it? Let's face it, the percentage of kids learning guns is lower than the percentage of kids learning bicycles. Almost every kid, at some point, learns bicycles. ....

Statistics? Evidence? Nope, more personal ancedotes and unsubstanciated facts. Bicycles (and cars) are more widely used (because they are more useful for the normal person) and so there will be more accidents.[/quote]

It wasn't a direct correlation to cars and gun deaths I was trying to make. It was the perceptions of danger and the adults' reactions to it through the implementation of safety standards. A parent who goes "Oh, my, I'd never let my child fire a gun!" may well be the same parent who doesn't think twice about slapping a bike helmet on little Johnny and sending out to play and be back by dinner. You know what a bike helmet will do in a car crash? It improves the chances the ceremony can be open casket. It's about the perception of danger and the likelihood of danger. Unless you're going to say that children killed in bike accidents are "less dead" than children killed by guns or something.

Anyhow, here's the bike stats: US Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Facts for 2005 on vehicle accidents. The first number is killed; the second is injured. Unfortunately, it is not broken down by age.

Nonoccupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,849 -118,000
Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,881- 64,000
Pedalcyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784- 45,000
Other/Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184- 8,000

Unfortunately, I cannot find any "kids fatalities at gun ranges" because the searches only connect me to sites that are agenda-driven one way or another and it is next to impossible to get unbiased information. The FBI statistics website only gives stats for crimes, not accidents. I doubt you'd accept any date from the NRA; I sure as fuck won't accept data from the Brady Campaign.

Also, is there evidence that a bicycle makes someone more of a target for cars than a person on foot?

I wasn't initially comparing people on bikes to people on foot; it appears from the above that people on foot (which I think it is safe to assume that some people on foot are children) are, in fact, more of a target. WTF does this have to do with the situation at hand, except giving me one more example of a very dangerous activity kids are allowed to do because the perception of danger is dulled by successful repetition?

You're entire argument is that there is some great need for children as young as 11 to be able to shoot real bullets from a real gun. However, you have yet to demonstrate such a need. People shouldn't be handling guns on their own until they turn 18 anyway, so there is no real reason why they have to start at 11.

I think I see what you're getting at with your argument-- the "people/children don't need to have guns, so why have them"? The perception of "needing" to have a gun will not be solved, because you will never accept the concept that, regardless of perceptions of need, some people want to have them and there's no reason to restrict them so long as they are safe and responsible. Right now, guns are legal and it is you who has to prove that they must be taken away unless a "need" can be demonstrated. I've already stated that it is a good idea that kids learn concepts of gun safety with non-lethal devices to start, and that any training with live weapons and ammo should be done under strict adult supervision. That's as far as I'm going because I think that is sufficient and reasonable. You're trying to fish for me to say something about when kids "need" guns, and I'm not going to play your game.

Kids can start learning weapons when they are at an appropriate age and maturity level to handle themselves responsibly. There is no magic age at which a person suddenly becomes wise and learned; I've met 50-year-olds I would give a pointy stick to and I've met 14 year olds I'd trust with my life. It's a judgment call made in accordance with the individual and the involved parent.

Knowing how to handle firearms safely and responsibly is a good skill to know, and if someone has a chance to learn it early, and develop good habits earlier, is better off than someone who has not.

First, let's take the same argument and apply it to driving. Make a fully functional car, only made easy for an 11 year old to drive.

Your attempt to draw a connection would work if I ever tried to say that firing guns is as safe, or more safe, than driving. I never said that. Guns are quite dangerous; are you operating under the assumption that I ever said otherwise? That's why I've been talking about careful and thorough instruction all along. You're not really reading along, are you?

You speak of the Need for training, but you have yet to connect it with the Need for child-sized guns that fire real bullets.

Because the kids are learning how to fire guns, not play with cap pistols, is it that difficult for you to figure out? Not everybody is afraid of guns and a lot of people think it is just fine for kids to learn about firearm safety. As long as that training is being done in a careful and supervised manner. If the majority of kids who learned about guns at an early age turned into psychotic killers, I'd probably be on your side of the fence, but as it stands I don't see anything wrong with it, and your personal squeamishness or demands for "need" be damned. If you think the practice should be ended, it is up to you to provide the rationale to amend the current law allowing it.

[Coyote]

Okay, to put a stop to your bullshit broken record debating tactics, this is why:

Link here.

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

* In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:

• 214 unintentional
• 1,078 suicides
• 1,990 homicides
• 83 for which the intent could not be determined
• 20 due to legal intervention

* Of the total firearms-related deaths:

• 73 were of children under five years old
• 416 were children 5-14 years old
• 2,896 were 15-19 years old

Did the statistics say how many children were injured in context of how many children were firing guns, or how many rounds? After all, if you have 73 children under five dying, out of, say, five million children at gun ranges, that is an envious goddamn statistic. Of course I don't believe that was how many children were at ranges, but we need a context.

It also says nothing about if those children were killed because they were at a range trying to handle a gun under the supervision of an adult, or if the kids found an unsecured gun and waved it around and it went off, or if an adult accidentally shot a kid (or shot a kid on purpose for whatever reason). Hell I remember one news item where a man was out hunting and his dog shot him by stepping on the trigger.

It also includes 18 and 19 year olds, which are not "children" and could very easily be skewing the statistics, and it also omits how many of those children may have been gang members involved in crimes where they may have been shooting with or against other "children" (kids join gangs at early ages, you can have a 12 year old robbing and killing, it's not unheard of). Or, it doesn't allow for situations where a 17-year-old gang member was shot by a citizen legally defending himself.

Your statistics are only partially illuminating.

[EDIT]: The source of the statistics also encourages safe storage of guns, which is something I've been in agreement with here from the start, and also mentions teaching children the difference between what they see on TV and what a gun can really do. I also note that it draws some statistics from the Center for Disease Control, which is not entirely neutral in the culture war over guns; note they were trying to classify gun ownership as a "disease" in the 1990's.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Did the statistics say how many children were injured in context of how many children were firing guns, or how many rounds? After all, if you have 73 children under five dying, out of, say, five million children at gun ranges, that is an envious goddamn statistic. Of course I don't believe that was how many children were at ranges, but we need a context.

It also says nothing about if those children were killed because they were at a range trying to handle a gun under the supervision of an adult, or if the kids found an unsecured gun and waved it around and it went off, or if an adult accidentally shot a kid (or shot a kid on purpose for whatever reason). Hell I remember one news item where a man was out hunting and his dog shot him by stepping on the trigger.

It also includes 18 and 19 year olds, which are not "children" and could very easily be skewing the statistics, and it also omits how many of those children may have been gang members involved in crimes where they may have been shooting with or against other "children" (kids join gangs at early ages, you can have a 12 year old robbing and killing, it's not unheard of). Or, it doesn't allow for situations where a 17-year-old gang member was shot by a citizen legally defending himself.

Your statistics are only partially illuminating.

I'm aware that the statistics aren't ideal. Frankly, finding gun statistics that aren't horribly biased one way or another is difficult (and I'll conceed even the ones I posted may contain such bias, though it was the least biased-looking collection of statistics I could find on short notice), and ones dealing with specifics like you mention are almost impossible to find, although I may as well keep looking.

Still, it's not much of a leap to deduce that at least a portion of those 3000 something deaths in a single year were due to parents teaching their children how to fire guns in "safe" and "controlled" conditions. And it's even less of a leap to deduce that more of them are due to negligent parents who don't feel it's necessary to teach the children in such heavily controlled conditions, or who feel it's not necessary to lock up their guns securely, because they taught their children the responsibility of gun safety. A responsibility that most children can only understand on the most basic level.

Those sort of incidents are why I feel justification is necessary. Because not all parents are responsible. Because children are almost never mature enough to handle such a responsibility. And because guns are dangerous weapons, despite Alyeska's mastabatory "GUNS ARE SAFE AND HARMLESS FUN" bullshit.

[Ryan Thunder]

[...] I also note that it draws some statistics from the Center for Disease Control, which is not entirely neutral in the culture war over guns; note they were trying to classify gun ownership as a "disease" in the 1990's.

Well, perhaps they meant it in the sense that its some kind of psychological disorder where you find yourself inexplicably compelled to own and make use of the most efficient personal weapon avaliable for purchase as a recreational activity...

[Alyeska]

Not even trying? Why the fuck should I have to justify the safe exercise of guns for entertainment purposes?

Because you're using a device that is explicitly designed to kill and/or injure for said entertainment purposes. We've gone over this territory before, haven't we?

Did you miss the whole concept of safe exercise? Guns are legal. The burden is on YOU to prove that safe use is bad. Yes, we have been over this territory again. You have failed repeatedly. Your argument does not address the issue of SAFE usage.

[Alyeska]

Because, since you are a trained firearms expert, you know that guns are dangerous. Hence, it is up to you to prove that there is some really good reason to make dangerous tools for children to use. You know, the same thing with other very dangerous items.

Burden of proof fallacy and shifting the goal posts. Guns are legal, it is your burden to prove that a safe usage of them should be banned. And yet you tell me that I must defend them. I provide a perfectly justifiable reason and now you say that I have to provide a reason that you consider good. This isn't a fucking game here. I don't think its a very good idea to shred books, but if someone wants to buy them and shred them for fire starter who the fuck am I to say they can't do that? We have given reasons and we have addressed the issue of safety and you still write it off as bullshit without giving a fucking justification. I'm sorry asshole, but this fucking stops here. Put up or shut the fuck up.

Except this is not what's happening. This isn't a gun used only at a firing range and only under safe supervision by trained professionals. This is a gun that anyone can buy and take home.

We are talking about children using guns here. And so as a result your little example is BULL FUCKING SHIT. Children cannot purchase weapons and you fucking know it. You are creating a strawman argument to try and make children's use of guns as bad when you fucking know they don't have a single fucking thing in common.

[K. A. Pital]

Children cannot purchase weapons and you fucking know it.

Yes, but adults go, and store them at home. It's not a biathlon shooting range or anything. It's home, the child's territory of life. Weapons are also often recklessly stored. As I gathered, you are a proponent of reckless, safe-less storage of weapons since you do that yourself, from the other thread, and so I'll have to wonder just how much of your outrage is really relevant to the point he made.

Guns are legal.

So is alcohol and tobacco. Want to make your child a smoker, or guzzle him down with vodka? Come on.

Your argument does not address the issue of SAFE usage.

What is "SAFE" usage? Something you think is safe? Joe Sixpack from down the road might think safety is a little laxer than what you think. His child shoots himself, or Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. Maybe accidentaly, maybe with intent. The question - why should we make excuses for you if you cannot even have a common safety standard? Much less even trust the parent not to give the child a gun, if that carries no legal penalties.

Also, what fucking part of guns being INHERENTLY unsafe, just like cars or explosives, did you not understand? What justification does one need to remove explosives from children? "But maybe their dad is an expert sapper, they'll have fun at the little mine field he made in the backyard! Look, here goes logic!".

[Alyeska]

Yes, but adults go, and store them at home. It's not a biathlon shooting range or anything. It's home, the child's territory of life. Weapons are also often recklessly stored. As I gathered, you are a proponent of reckless, safe-less storage of weapons since you do that yourself, from the other thread, and so I'll have to wonder just how much of your outrage is really relevant to the point he made.

I don't have any children numbnuts. Weapon storage with children around is incredibly important and ANY gun owner will attest to that. Your entire set of examples right there is pure fucking bullshit as it has NOTHING to do with children shooting firearms in a controlled setting.

So is alcohol and tobacco. Want to make your child a smoker, or guzzle him down with vodka? Come on.

You list items with known negative attributes and no useful purpose for children. Not even comparable to guns when used safely.

What is "SAFE" usage? Something you think is safe? Joe Sixpack from down the road might think safety is a little laxer than what you think. His child shoots himself, or Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. Maybe accidentaly, maybe with intent. The question - why should we make excuses for you if you cannot even have a common safety standard? Much less even trust the parent not to give the child a gun, if that carries no legal penalties.

Appeal to ignorance. Why the fuck should I listen to your useless drivel and fucking blatant strawman arguments? You know, the first fucking paragraph that has fuck all to do with children using guns in a controlled environment? You just pointed out that ANYTHING that can be used safely can be abused by idiot parents. Congratulations on stating the fucking obvious. These same dumbass parents let their children drive cars and let them play in the street. You just made my argument that children should be required to use weapons in a safe environment.

Also, what fucking part of guns being INHERENTLY unsafe, just like cars or explosives, did you not understand? What justification does one need to remove explosives from children? "But maybe their dad is an expert sapper, they'll have fun at the little mine field he made in the backyard! Look, here goes logic!".

Children can drive cars and shoot off fireworks. Whoops, your entire argument just blew up into ity bitty pieces. Of course your going to argue that only OLDER CHILDREN are allowed to drive and that only LESS DANGEROUS explossives (fireworks) are allowed to be used by children. Congrats, you just made ANOTHER argument in my favor as I have already stated several fucking times that I do not support unrestricted use of guns by children. Since we have just established that a scaled system already exists to allow children to do and use certain potentialy dangerous system we have established precedent that such a system can also work for guns.

Will accidents happen? Of course. But then again children die from seemingly safe things to. Shit happens. And to use the claim that because shit happens we should ban it entirely without using our brain is the height of stupidity.

Use your fucking brain and think things through. Stop throwing strawman arguments that have fuck all to do with the topic at hand.

[Ryan Thunder]

So, basically, Asslick here has brought us full circle back to this;

Why is it necessary? In a free society built on civil liberties, we do not have to provide a justification for what we do.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.
Handle high-explosives and you need a permit, which requires justification.

Why should guns be any different?

Great. How productive.

In any event, you mention smoking and alcohol as "items with known negative attributes and no useful purpose for children." Yet we are expected by him to accept out of hand that guns aren't on this list... :3

[Coyote]

Still, it's not much of a leap to deduce that at least a portion of those 3000 something deaths in a single year were due to parents teaching their children how to fire guns in "safe" and "controlled" conditions. And it's even less of a leap to deduce that more of them are due to negligent parents who don't feel it's necessary to teach the children in such heavily controlled conditions, or who feel it's not necessary to lock up their guns securely, because they taught their children the responsibility of gun safety. A responsibility that most children can only understand on the most basic level.

That's the problem. Those leaps you're making are, to me, as completely unfounded as I am sure folks like Yogi feel about the assertions I am making. We look at these statistics or reports or experiences and see what we want to see. That is why certain items are part of the morass of 'culture wars'.

Those sort of incidents are why I feel justification is necessary. Because not all parents are responsible. Because children are almost never mature enough to handle such a responsibility. And because guns are dangerous weapons, despite Alyeska's mastabatory "GUNS ARE SAFE AND HARMLESS FUN" bullshit.

Well, I certainly hope I never gave the claim that guns were "safe" or "harmless'; it is precisely because they are dangerous that I'd prefer to see more training and, yes, control of certain types. (FTR, I don't think Alyeska's been saying that guns were safe or harmless, either, but that's just me).

I never tried to waylay the mantra that "guns are designed to kill people!"-- of course they are. They'd be pretty useless tools for defense if they didn't kill or at least injure/incapacitate people in an efficient manner. That's why they replaced swords and battle-axes. That's why cops and soldiers have them. I also happen to believe that they are not magical talismans of destruction that is beyond the reach of filthy peasants; with the right training and sense of responsibility any person has a right to have access to this. And part of that is the teaching of another generation that shooting can be a fun sport (and potentially useful for self-preservation) under the right circumstances.

[Coyote]

[...] I also note that it draws some statistics from the Center for Disease Control, which is not entirely neutral in the culture war over guns; note they were trying to classify gun ownership as a "disease" in the 1990's.

Well, perhaps they meant it in the sense that its some kind of psychological disorder where you find yourself inexplicably compelled to own and make use of the most efficient personal weapon avaliable for purchase as a recreational activity...

Do you have anything to add? Because Yogi and Sephirus and some of the others here are actually going places with their posts; you're just engaging in drive-by commentary.

[Coyote]

Yes, but adults go, and store them at home. It's not a biathlon shooting range or anything. It's home, the child's territory of life. Weapons are also often recklessly stored.

And I, personally, think there should be stiffer penalties for unsafe storage. And stiffer still if there is a child in the house.

Guns are legal.

So is alcohol and tobacco. Want to make your child a smoker, or guzzle him down with vodka? Come on.

There are ages where alcohol and tobacco are allowed, typically the age of majority (18 mostly in the USA, or 21 for alcohol). I can't say for cigarettes, but many children in families that drink alcohol allow their children to have "a sip" from time to time or even pour them a small glass of wine on special occasions.

[Coyote]

In any event, you mention smoking and alcohol as "items with known negative attributes and no useful purpose for children." Yet we are expected by him to accept out of hand that guns aren't on this list... :3

There is no net gain to anyone in teaching kids how to smoke tobacco. It harms the child and it harms those around him.

Alcohol can be a lot of fun, if used responsibly. Used irresponsibly, it causes a lot of damage.

Guns can be fun and useful (hunting, defense) and, used responsibly, does not guarantee any danger to others. It is possible for peopel to own guns their entire lives and never harm another person. Same with alcohol. If anything, tobacco is the only one on that list that is the oddball.

[Ryan Thunder]

In any event, you mention smoking and alcohol as "items with known negative attributes and no useful purpose for children." Yet we are expected by him to accept out of hand that guns aren't on this list... :3

There is no net gain to anyone in teaching kids how to smoke tobacco. It harms the child and it harms those around him.

Alcohol can be a lot of fun, if used responsibly. Used irresponsibly, it causes a lot of damage.

Guns can be fun and useful (hunting, defense) and, used responsibly, does not guarantee any danger to others. It is possible for peopel to own guns their entire lives and never harm another person. Same with alcohol. If anything, tobacco is the only one on that list that is the oddball.

Yes. They aren't children. And until they're old enough to not be children, they gain nothing from using potentially lethal ammunition. So get them a BB gun or something. That's still pushing it, but at least its difficult to kill someone with one of those.

[Coyote]

... since you are a trained firearms expert, you know that guns are dangerous. Hence, it is up to you to prove that there is some really good reason to make dangerous tools for children to use. You know, the same thing with other very dangerous items.

I don't know about Alyeska's experience with firearms, but part of what we're dealing with here is a sense of perspective, perception, and knowledge. To me, a gun like a .22 is, in fact, a logical graduating step in teaching a kid firearms safety. It's what you go to when you're done with the BB gun phase. A .22 is small, light, easily controllable and the damage it could potentially cause in a Worst Case Scenario is considerably less than other weapons. A .22 is not likely to scare a child or cause them to panic.

I'd never take a kid from BB guns to, say, a .50-cal sniper rifle. That's "too much gun" for a novice shooter to handle. They'll be scared, jerk the trigger, can't control the recoil, etc. You've referred to me (and Alyeska) as "firearms experts"; I'm going on the assumption that you're being serious and not sarcastic. I have no idea how much/if you're familiar much with weapons. But the thing that makes me so impatient in these sorts of debates is when people who have no knowledge at all try to lecture people with knowledge about what they're supposed to do. A kid who composes himself well and maturely with a BB gun will, eventually, move to a .22. Eventually, he'll move on to something bigger.

At what age that happens depends a lot on the kid in question. I'd never tell a parent "well, at this age, he should be ready for [M-16/Motorcycle/car/airplane/etc]" because that's not my judgment call to make based off of supposed maturity at a certain age. The law does that in some cases, at ages 18 and 21, with things like voting, joining the military, drinking, smoking, signing legal contracts, and having sex. We've met people that, even at 20+ years, or older, are incapable of dealing with having a kid. They're irresponsible. But the [random legal age] says by that time, they should be ready and cuts 'em loose (unless they are mentally impaired).

The law does prohibit gun purchases until they are 18 for long guns, and 21 for pistols. That means a parent has to buy the weapons for them (or, at least, an adult). Now because we don't ask our adults to get some training and schooling on the law as it applies to gun owners, maybe that's the problem there. Theoretically, an adult should know whether the child they are buying for can handle it or not.

As for weapons tailor-made for childrens' sizes, bear in mind a lot of people buy weapons that are sized to them (women tend to favor smaller pistols since they have smaller hands, when the Russian-designed SKS was sold to China and Vietnam they had to make a cut-down stock because Asian body frames tended to be smaller. If you're trying to fire a gun that does not seat properly in your hand, you will have a hard time controlling that weapon and the likelihood of an accident has increased. Proper sizing is important, and not merely a means to "teach t3h childr3nz t0 killzorz!" or something like that.

[Alyeska]

Yes. They aren't children. And until they're old enough to not be children, they gain nothing from using potentially lethal ammunition. So get them a BB gun or something. That's still pushing it, but at least its difficult to kill someone with one of those.

They gain nothing from playing video games. They gain nothing from watching movies. Thats a bullshit excuse and you know it.

[Alyeska]

Those sort of incidents are why I feel justification is necessary. Because not all parents are responsible. Because children are almost never mature enough to handle such a responsibility. And because guns are dangerous weapons, despite Alyeska's mastabatory "GUNS ARE SAFE AND HARMLESS FUN" bullshit.

Are you fucking stupid or something? I have never made such claims. I have pointed out multiple times that guns are safe only when used with proper education and in a controlled environment. I have stated a dozen times that they are dangerous and that restrictions should be taken into account. Your willful ignorance of my position is duly noted.

[Akkleptos]

Those sort of incidents are why I feel justification is necessary. Because not all parents are responsible. Because children are almost never mature enough to handle such a responsibility. And because guns are dangerous weapons, despite Alyeska's mastabatory "GUNS ARE SAFE AND HARMLESS FUN" bullshit.

Are you fucking stupid or something? I have never made such claims. I have pointed out multiple times that guns are safe only when used with proper education and in a controlled environment. I have stated a dozen times that they are dangerous and that restrictions should be taken into account. Your willful ignorance of my position is duly noted.

You still have to come up with a reason why kids shooting potentially-deadly guns -proper supervision and instruction or not- is necessary at all. Don't think I forgot that, even if you happen to have done that for the last 18 posts.

Proper training and safety, that's good as well as necessary. But also, why is it necessary that kids shoot real guns? I mean, if at all?

BTW, this doesn't qualify, as Keevan hinted here:

Do you need a computer? Do you need books? Do you need video games? A child might find target shooting to be enjoyable. If done with proper safety precautions, that is sufficient need.

None of those are potentially lethal... are you being purposefully dense or something?