11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[His Divine Shadow]

Wait, you're talking about university (high school is university, right) students training to shoot at practice ranges, acting in sports like biathlon and such? How the fuck is that comparable to 10-year old children? Shove that strawman back where it belongs - adults aren't children.

I am not. I am talking about youth shooting, the kind you get in boy scouts and do for fun rather than serious sports(but those do exist as well). JROTC is for kids from the age of 14. The other link 4-H shooting Sports has varying age limits depending on state, from 8-12 years minimum age.

10 year old?

I was 14 in school but before that I had shot with my father and his single shot .22 rifle.

Yup, I obviously never played biathlon... but wait, I did. Except it's generally either a sports school, or starts from age 16 upwards in normal schools. Here, at least. If you let 10 year old kiddos play biathlon in ordinary schools (not sports schools which teach kids, um... to become professional sportsmen, and little else), I do have a problem with that.

I never played biathlon either, just some ski shooting in school which wasn't very professional level at all, I sure didn't turn out be a great athlethe or even go on ot any competitions. At any rate I have no accurate data on how low it goes but according to a swedish youth ski shooting FAQ I read they said 9-10 would be around when you could expect to start shooting, I do not know if they mean with air rifle or the usual .22lr rifle, but I do not know any air rifle that'd be usable at 50 yards (without being almost as lethal as a .22lr anyway).

[K. A. Pital]

Well, that's not something I find positive, but it's irrelevant since my stance won't change your laws. Happy shooting. As for the claim:

No deaths were attributed to youth target shooting activities.

Depends on how many people exactly engage in said activity; also, it may not be representative since the sports practice weapons are inspected far more rigorously than home-kept guns, and they are also kept away from the shooters most of the time, given out only for the moment of practice and not present anywhere in vinicity during daily life - what I said earlier. Fatal gun errors thus have a reduced chance of happening.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Stas, since you indicated you had a misunderstanding of the term: High School is an American English term for Secondary School, the last 3 or, depending on how it's organized, 4 years of mandatory education in which the student is prepared for vocational or university training and receives the diploma indicating completion of their course of mandatory education.

[Ryan Thunder]

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?

You have to prove a justification to restrict them in the first place numbnuts.

They're designed with the express purpose of causing destruction of one sort or another, just like explosives. The only difference is that they're much more precise in the destruction they cause. Deal.

[Alyeska]

They're designed with the express purpose of causing destruction of one sort or another, just like explosives. The only difference is that they're much more precise in the destruction they cause. Deal.

You have defined what they are capable of. You still haven't worded that in a justification to restrict them.

[Akkleptos]

They're designed with the express purpose of causing destruction of one sort or another, just like explosives. The only difference is that they're much more precise in the destruction they cause. Deal.

You have defined what they are capable of. You still haven't worded that in a justification to restrict them.

Restricted to children, that is... (and they should also be restricted to adults who can prove to be responsible enough to be trusted around firearms, and keep them out of the reach of children or otherwise unqualified people without proper supervision)*yawns* That's been done...

The same reason it's illegal to drive a car without a license that -at least supposedly- credits your hability to handle the vehicle in a relatively safe way without endangering your life or others' any more than reasonably expected.

Ummm, isn't that why we don't let kids get their hands on cars or powerful medications?

The fact it hasn't been forbidden yet in the US yet -for whatever reasons only Americans understand- doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even necessary (you have mentioned recreational and sports uses. Those don't count as anything near necessary).

Let's get rid of the labels: Having kidsunexperienced, non-fully-developed individuals use gunsdevices capable of dealing great damage or a quick death to themselves and others -not to mentionproperty damage- is NOT a good idea, and most certainly NOT necessary in any practical way.

[Adrian Laguna]

High School is an American English term for Secondary School, the last 3 or, depending on how it's organized, 4 years of mandatory education in which the student is prepared for vocational or university training and receives the diploma indicating completion of their course of mandatory education.

That's what they're supposed to do, anyhow. These days they have thrown vocational training by the wayside and shifted to focusing entirely on college preparation, which they are generally not very good at.

[Ryan Thunder]

They're designed with the express purpose of causing destruction of one sort or another, just like explosives. The only difference is that they're much more precise in the destruction they cause. Deal.

You have defined what they are capable of. You still haven't worded that in a justification to restrict them.

You are being intentionally dense. Should explosives not require some kind of justification, either?

[Darth Wong]

They're designed with the express purpose of causing destruction of one sort or another, just like explosives. The only difference is that they're much more precise in the destruction they cause. Deal.

You have defined what they are capable of. You still haven't worded that in a justification to restrict them.

What would you consider a valid justification to restrict anything from childrens' use?

[Yogi]

Actually, the way it works is like this-- owning guns is currently legal, and despite some crimes and accidents that gather a lot of media attention, the majority of people involved in shooting events are doing so in safe and responsible manners. The firearms industry promotes safety by issuing rules with each weapon about safe handling, instructions for use, and so forth; various clubs and organizations offer safety courses and provide instruction for shooters. Mechanisms are in place to allow this activity to be carried out in a safe manner.

OK, this is where people need to apply the same logic they use on guns to other things, and realize how stupid those arguments sound then.

"Lots of people do it and it's legal, so it's fine by default!"

That is not an argument. "Guns are dangerous, and therefore should not be handled by children." is. Anyone who has actually HAD firearms training should have it drilled into their heads that guns are dangerous, they are not toys, they should be handled very very carefully etc. etc. So there has to be a pretty good reason to place something like this in the hands on a child.

[Coyote]

Actually, the way it works is like this-- owning guns is currently legal, and despite some crimes and accidents that gather a lot of media attention, the majority of people involved in shooting events are doing so in safe and responsible manners. The firearms industry promotes safety by issuing rules with each weapon about safe handling, instructions for use, and so forth; various clubs and organizations offer safety courses and provide instruction for shooters. Mechanisms are in place to allow this activity to be carried out in a safe manner.

OK, this is where people need to apply the same logic they use on guns to other things, and realize how stupid those arguments sound then.

"Lots of people do it and it's legal, so it's fine by default!"

That is not an argument. "Guns are dangerous, and therefore should not be handled by children." is. Anyone who has actually HAD firearms training should have it drilled into their heads that guns are dangerous, they are not toys, they should be handled very very carefully etc. etc. So there has to be a pretty good reason to place something like this in the hands on a child.

You're jumping to the conclusion that people are handing guns out to children and telling them to "go play, be back by dinner". That's not what we're defending. It has been stated several times here that we're talking about situations where the adult carefully coaches the children, is withing arm's reach at all times, and makes sure to reinforce all the safety precautions inherent to gun handling.

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

[Ekiqa]

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

But the fact that you can get toy-like guns, child sized and painted barbie pink does imply that they are toys.

[Yogi]

You're jumping to the conclusion that people are handing guns out to children and telling them to "go play, be back by dinner".

I'm not, so the rest of your post means nothing.

What you have done so far is to articulate that the risks of putting guns in the hands of children can be mitigated. However, you have not yet mentioned one single reason as to why we would want to introduce such as risk in the first place. Some sort of reason why children need real functioning weapons, as opposed to . . . say . . . modified weapons that don't fire standard ammunition and only fire special non-lethal rounds. What possible benefit would justify the risk of a real gun, as opposed to less lethal alternatives.

"I can lower the risk on this dangerous activity" does not immediately mean "This dangerous activity should be done.'

[Kanastrous]

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

But the fact that you can get toy-like guns, child sized and painted barbie pink does imply that they are toys.

Not really. Child-sized firearms make sense for training shooters with small hands and bodies (like children) and the bright colors are just a matter of marketing (if I want to sell a youth rifle, and I suspect that brightly-colored youth rifles sell, well, make 'em brightly colored).

Having been on the selling end I can attest that the youth models come with precisely the same safety warnings in the packaging and manuals as full-sized not-brightly-colored adult models, and will have the same safety instructions stamped into the metal of the firearm itself as the adult model does. And of course the intent is that the child will use the weapon only under adult supervision, anyway.

One viewing of the effects the weapon has upon its target will drive home the understanding that despite its bright coloration a firearm is a destructive instrument. Any child too dense to absorb that shouldn't be permitted near a range.

[Beowulf]

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

But the fact that you can get toy-like guns, child sized and painted barbie pink does imply that they are toys.

I guess Hentai is for kids too. After all, it's animated.

[Keevan_Colton]

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

But the fact that you can get toy-like guns, child sized and painted barbie pink does imply that they are toys.

I guess Hentai is for kids too. After all, it's animated.

I guess you're a fucking retard since hentai is restricted from children...gee...way to grab the wrong end of the metaphor.

[Coyote]

You're jumping to the conclusion that people are handing guns out to children and telling them to "go play, be back by dinner".

I'm not, so the rest of your post means nothing.

What you have done so far is to articulate that the risks of putting guns in the hands of children can be mitigated. However, you have not yet mentioned one single reason as to why we would want to introduce such as risk in the first place. Some sort of reason why children need real functioning weapons, as opposed to . . . say . . . modified weapons that don't fire standard ammunition and only fire special non-lethal rounds. What possible benefit would justify the risk of a real gun, as opposed to less lethal alternatives.

"I can lower the risk on this dangerous activity" does not immediately mean "This dangerous activity should be done.'

At some point, they have to work with the real thing, and the sooner they develop good habits about safety and handling, the better. If they're up for it at 11 (and the kid in the OP obviously wasn't, but he's not the representative for all kids) then let them learn it at 11. Learning guns at an early age gives them that many more years of experience at safe handling, and it can also take the "gee-whiz! Awesome!" factor out of guns. When we started getting M-16s in the Army, you could tell the guys who knew about guns because they casually slung them and walked off. The others waved them around like Rambo (until the Drill Sergeants put them in the front leaning rest; took just a couple seconds). I'd never known guns, growing up, and I was intimidated as all hell.

For those who are doing it right, let them do it right. A parent who is paying attention to his kid should be able to tell if little Junior isn't ready for this. Same goes for the move from tricycle to bicycle, go-karts, riding a mini-bike or small frame motorcycle (I had one of those when I was 10, myself).

Keeping people in the dark until the last possible minute isn't always the best thing.

[Alyeska]

You are being intentionally dense. Should explosives not require some kind of justification, either?

So you cannot create a justification? Its a simple thing. Provide a justification to restrict weapons from children. If its so blindly obvious, make a fool of me. I am not going to do your work for you. You think children should not have guns at all, I disagree. I am asking you to make a justification. Make an explicit statement. It is not my responsibility to write your argument for you.

Your original statement just says "they are dangerous". I can use that same argument on all number of things. How dangerous are guns? How dangerous are they in the hands of children? Provide me a justification. I want to know.

[Alyeska]

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

But the fact that you can get toy-like guns, child sized and painted barbie pink does imply that they are toys.

Dildos come in a variety of colorful designs. Does that make them toys? Ok, bad question. Does that make them childrens toys? I guess your making a style over substance error. You assume the style means they are toys without considering the practicality.

[Yogi]

At some point, they have to work with the real thing, and the sooner they develop good habits about safety and handling, the better.

Why? Is it inevitable that people will have to use real firearms sometime in their life?

If they're up for it at 11 (and the kid in the OP obviously wasn't, but he's not the representative for all kids) then let them learn it at 11. Learning guns at an early age gives them that many more years of experience at safe handling, and it can also take the "gee-whiz! Awesome!" factor out of guns. When we started getting M-16s in the Army, you could tell the guys who knew about guns because they casually slung them and walked off. The others waved them around like Rambo (until the Drill Sergeants put them in the front leaning rest; took just a couple seconds). I'd never known guns, growing up, and I was intimidated as all hell.

Ah, I see. It's to prepare the kids for a military career. That's why we should make child-sized guns, it's to prepare for when they join the army!

What kind of bullshit reason is that?

For those who are doing it right, let them do it right. A parent who is paying attention to his kid should be able to tell if little Junior isn't ready for this. Same goes for the move from tricycle to bicycle, go-karts, riding a mini-bike or small frame motorcycle (I had one of those when I was 10, myself).

You're comparing bicycles to a gun?

Keeping people in the dark until the last possible minute isn't always the best thing.

If we go on the premise that every single person will need to use a firearm at some point in their life, you would make sense.

But that's not the case.

[Alyeska]

If we go on the premise that every single person will need to use a firearm at some point in their life, you would make sense.

But that's not the case.

I remember watching a TV program that was about a woman who claims she had a sure fire way to teach children the danger of weapons and to stay away from them. It involved teaching the child that guns are extremely dangerous and you should never touch one for any reason. The producers decided to put her child to the test. They placed several fake weapons in the classroom when a teacher was not around along with both unused cartridges and spent shell casings. Her son was caught on camera playing with one of the guns.

Teaching a child how to use a firearm and respect it for the danger that it is capable of might do better. Then again, these were like 5 year olds and they aren't capable of comprehending the issues to begin with.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

You are being intentionally dense. Should explosives not require some kind of justification, either?

So you cannot create a justification? Its a simple thing. Provide a justification to restrict weapons from children. If its so blindly obvious, make a fool of me. I am not going to do your work for you. You think children should not have guns at all, I disagree. I am asking you to make a justification. Make an explicit statement. It is not my responsibility to write your argument for you.

Your original statement just says "they are dangerous". I can use that same argument on all number of things. How dangerous are guns? How dangerous are they in the hands of children? Provide me a justification. I want to know.

How's this for justification? Guns are weapons that can kill people. More than that, they make killing people quite easy. A lot easier than a knife or scissors or other "dangerous" things that have uses beyond putting holes in people. Guns even make accidently killing or injuring someone quite easy. And more than that, there's no legitimate reason to let children use them that offsets the major safety issues involved with them.

Many varieties of explosives are quite "safe" if used responsibly too. Are you going to teach your kids how to use C4? Even in a controlled environment, would you not agree that that is a fucking retarded thing to do? If not, I'd like you to answer the question Wong asked earlier.

They're designed with the express purpose of causing destruction of one sort or another, just like explosives. The only difference is that they're much more precise in the destruction they cause. Deal.

You have defined what they are capable of. You still haven't worded that in a justification to restrict them.

What would you consider a valid justification to restrict anything from childrens' use?

[Keevan_Colton]

No one here in their right mind is saying 'hand out guns to kids and let them figure it out'. No one has said they are toys. No one has implied they are toys.

But the fact that you can get toy-like guns, child sized and painted barbie pink does imply that they are toys.

Dildos come in a variety of colorful designs. Does that make them toys? Ok, bad question. Does that make them childrens toys? I guess your making a style over substance error. You assume the style means they are toys without considering the practicality.

Again the retard brigade grab the wrong end of the metaphor. Or are you planning to hand out dildos to kids?

Oh and frankly, thanks to the bright colours etc, if they get their hands on them they generally do think they're toys you fucking moron.

[Keevan_Colton]

Hm actually looking over this, Coyote do you support giving children high powered motorcycles?

[Alyeska]

How's this for justification? Guns are weapons that can kill people. More than that, they make killing people quite easy. A lot easier than a knife or scissors or other "dangerous" things that have uses beyond putting holes in people. Guns even make accidently killing or injuring someone quite easy. And more than that, there's no legitimate reason to let children use them that offsets the major safety issues involved with them.

Many varieties of explosives are quite "safe" if used responsibly too. Are you going to teach your kids how to use C4? Even in a controlled environment, would you not agree that that is a fucking retarded thing to do? If not, I'd like you to answer the question Wong asked earlier.

That sounds like an argument for preventing unrestricted use of guns. That does not sound like an argument against restricted use. A child using a weapon with proper safety precautions significantly minimizes the danger issues. In essence the control is taken away from the child. After rereading your argument, you don't actually address the topic at hand. You haven't created an argument for children not to use guns. You have created an argument that guns shouldn't be used at all by civilians.

]What would you consider a valid justification to restrict anything from childrens' use?

You would be surprised what a child may do under supervision. They can even fly an airplane. I myself would put some degree of age restrictions on weapons that scales according to age. I happen to agree with several of the points you have raised. But I would not issue a blanket ban on firearms use for all minors.