11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[Yogi]

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.

I remember reading a news article about a child taking a weapon designed for a child to use and using it.

Anecdotes != Evidence, remember?

[Alyeska]

Anecdotes != Evidence, remember?

Yeah, thats what my last sentence kinda implied. I pointed out two possible claims on how to handle guns and then acknowledged it was all irrelevant to begin with.

[Darth Fanboy]

Even with parental supervision, guns can be very deadly, or are some people forgetting about the child who died a while back because his parents let him fire an uzi with supervision and still accidentally killed himself?

I think we can restrict children from using guns for the same reasons we restrict them from drinking alcohol or driving cars. They lack the necessary maturity and reasoning ability to use weapons safely. Aly, the anecdote you gave about that TV show hurts your position in my opinion because the child was clearly warned about the dangers of weapons and yet still decided to play with the "weapons" provided.

Now i'm not going to sit back and argue for a blanket ban on fireams use by minors, but no kid who isn't even old enough to drive a car, let alone attend middle school, should have any control over access to a firearm.

[Alyeska]

Even with parental supervision, guns can be very deadly, or are some people forgetting about the child who died a while back because his parents let him fire an uzi with supervision and still accidentally killed himself?

There is a difference between supervision and proper control. There was no control in that situation. An absolute failure by both the Father and Instructor. Worse, they choose a weapon that was physically uncontrollable by the youth. Had the situation been operating under proper control the Father or Instructor would have been immediately behind the child and also held his forearms to brace the child's aim. In essence the child would only be pulling the trigger. If something stupid were to happen they can assume absolute control and stop the situation completely.

They did none of this. So I would call the "supervision" non existent. They merely observed the kid without assuming any control like they are supposed to. The range instructor is especially liable because he is supposed to know better.

You are correct in pointing out that accidents happen. Thing is, accidents will always happen. They will happen with adults as well. You mitigate the problem with proper safety precautions. This includes the control examples like I mentioned. It also involves an appropriate sized weapon for the individual. Had that child had a simple bolt action .22 rifle, there would have been no accident.

I favor allowing children to use firearms under safe situations. Letting an 8 year old have an Uzi does not qualify as safe. Letting a 17 year old fire an Uzi under supervision at a firing range after having undergone firearms safety training is safe.

I think we can restrict children from using guns for the same reasons we restrict them from drinking alcohol or driving cars. They lack the necessary maturity and reasoning ability to use weapons safely. Aly, the anecdote you gave about that TV show hurts your position in my opinion because the child was clearly warned about the dangers of weapons and yet still decided to play with the "weapons" provided.

Hurts my argument? My argument is that children should always be supervised when in the presence of firearms and that if they are to be allowed to use firearms proper safety precautions should be taken. My anecdote agrees with my argument.

Now i'm not going to sit back and argue for a blanket ban on fireams use by minors, but no kid who isn't even old enough to drive a car, let alone attend middle school, should have any control over access to a firearm.

I largely agree with what you just said. I have been saying that consistently through this entire article.

[Coyote]

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?

I never said it would be a requirement for everyone. But to be honest, I think it'd be a good idea if basic gun safety was taught on a broad level-- what they are and are not capable of, how to tell if it is loaded, how to unload and 'safe' it, etc.

Chances are most people will never need a firearm, but then again I also learned the basics of CPR and I've never needed that, either. I see heart defibrillators in the mall; I have no idea how to work one but I think it's a good idea to learn. I also have insurance on my house, but that doesn't mean I intend for it be burned down.

Learning how to handle or deal with dangerous things in a safe manner is rarely a bad idea, y'know?

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?[/quote]

People who don't learn anything about guns tend to either be scared of them (for unrealistic reasons) or in awe of them (for equally unrealistic reasons). Teach them the reality at an appropriate age and both misperceptions dry up. You realize you're advocating in favor of ignorance here, right?

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?

Quite strawmanning me you dishonest bastard. I'm searching for examples of gradiated responsibility. A parent should know when a child is ready to graduate from one thing to another, more dangerous thing that requires more skill and responsibility. Unless you're going to tell me that there is no inherent danger whatsoever in children riding bicycles.

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.

[/quote]

They may not need to, but they may want to, and if that's the case, they'll need to know how and what to do safely and develop good habits early. Again, even people who have no interest or need for firearms probably would not have their lives destroyed by knowing basic safety tips and what to do and how/why not to freak out.

[Coyote]

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.

The old "if I can have a gun, why can't I have a nuclear bomb, huh? huh?" canard comes up a lot. I've answered it in other threads; I'll repeat it here:

A gun, in order to unleash its destructive potential, must be pointed in a direction/aimed, and the person firing it cannot claim ignorance of their responsibility in that.

An explosive, from a grenade to a nuke, releases its destructive power in an uncontrollable ball of destruction, with no reasonable way for a person to 'aim' it. Both are destructive, yes, but they are not entirely comparable.

[Coyote]

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

Define "high-powered"? I had a Yamaha 80 when I was a kid.

When I was growing up, Idaho allowed kids to get driver's liscences at 14. I was one of them. I took driver's education in school on a driver course with a school instructor as a class elective. Cars and the course were provided as part of school. I got my first street-legal bike shortly after that, a Honda 460. I had some restrictions, like not driving at night, but I and the vast majority of my peers did just fine driving at 14.

[Coyote]

Even with parental supervision, guns can be very deadly, or are some people forgetting about the child who died a while back because his parents let him fire an uzi with supervision and still accidentally killed himself?

I think we can restrict children from using guns for the same reasons we restrict them from drinking alcohol or driving cars. They lack the necessary maturity and reasoning ability to use weapons safely. Aly, the anecdote you gave about that TV show hurts your position in my opinion because the child was clearly warned about the dangers of weapons and yet still decided to play with the "weapons" provided.

Now i'm not going to sit back and argue for a blanket ban on fireams use by minors, but no kid who isn't even old enough to drive a car, let alone attend middle school, should have any control over access to a firearm.

They let the kid fire a 'Micro-Uzi' ion full-auto with virtually no training or introduction, and no real control over the kid's actions. The people running the firing range were found negligent. However, that kid's experience is not typical of all kids' experience with firearms. Remember, the reason the Uzi situation and this situation in the OP made the news was because they were outside the norm.

[Akkleptos]

When I was growing up, Idaho allowed kids to get driver's liscences at 14. I was one of them. I took driver's education in school on a driver course with a school instructor as a class elective. Cars and the course were provided as part of school. I got my first street-legal bike shortly after that, a Honda 460. I had some restrictions, like not driving at night, but I and the vast majority of my peers did just fine driving at 14.

Precisely. You had take a course, to pass a standardised test, and tolerate restrictions. This is only for a thing that can mostly harm only you. Why is it so hard for some to grasp that equally -at the very least- requirements should be met by people who are to use guns, which are by definition designed to efficiently kill other living beings (I'm talking shotguns, not BBs or .22s for sports).

Only after that should it be up to parental or supervisor's discretion to let a child fire a gun (provided they have also passed similar tests and obtained certification).

[Alyeska]

Why is it so hard for some to grasp that equally -at the very least- requirements should be met by people who are to use guns, which are by definition designed to efficiently kill other living beings (I'm talking shotguns, not BBs or .22s for sports).

*Gasp* Thats just what I was thinking!

Good god man. I've ALWAYS thought that people should get proper training and education on firearms before they use them. Ever hear of Hunters Ed? Its not just about going into the woods. Its all about firearms and firearms safety. Coyote and myself quite agree that a child should always meet requirements before getting to shoot a gun. And a graduated requirement is a good thing. Don't start a kid on a 12 gauge shotgun. Start them small and work their way up as they prove their capabilities. Age also plays a factor.

When I described my very first time shooting a gun I noted that they had me practicing with a pellet pistol for two days prior and the gun that I got to shoot was a .22 pistol with an adult behind me the whole time. I have NEVER argued for unrestricted access to weapons.

[K. A. Pital]

You would be surprised what a child may do under supervision. They can even fly an airplane.

Yes, and the person who gave his controls to a child in an airplane, a pilot, caused a crash. It was sometime in 1994, under Mezdurechensk, and the black box records astonished everyone.

That's fucking reckless. No matter what the parent thinks, if he gives something as dangerous as an airplane to a child to fly, he's a fucking idiot. He should be stripped of parental rights and preferrably thrown to jail, to make an example for all idiots in the world, including the asshole who caused deaths by giving his son the plane controls.

Here's the result of a child flying a plane under the pilot's supervision;

Nice ain't it? That's an A-300-310. Have fun proving anyone that children can operate dangerous tools without increased danger.

[Alyeska]

You would be surprised what a child may do under supervision. They can even fly an airplane.

Yes, and the person who gave his controls to a child in an airplane, a pilot, caused a crash. It was sometime in 1994, under Mezdurechensk, and the black box records astonished everyone.

That's fucking reckless. No matter what the parent thinks, if he gives something as dangerous as an airplane to a child to fly, he's a fucking idiot. He should be stripped of parental rights and preferrably thrown to jail, to make an example for all idiots in the world, including the asshole who caused deaths by giving his son the plane controls.

Here's the result of a child flying a plane under the pilot's supervision;

Nice ain't it? That's an A-300-310. Have fun proving anyone that children can operate dangerous tools without increased danger.

When I say child, I mean anyone under the age of 18. That is a technical definition. Children can legally fly and obtain pilots licenses under the age of 16. That is exactly what I was getting at. So take your attitude and go shove it up your ass.

[K. A. Pital]

When I say child, I mean anyone under the age of 18.

Yeah, but there's a difference in brain and physical maturity and ability to respond to critical situations between a 16 YO and a 10-12 YO. Moreover, this difference is critically large, large enough to make difference between life and death in case of operating a gun, industrial machinery, car and plain.

So yeah, you were getting at something else, while failing to acknowledge that the "technical" definition of a child includes a really large degree of physically mature organisms.

[Alyeska]

When I say child, I mean anyone under the age of 18.

Yeah, but there's a difference in brain and physical maturity and ability to respond to critical situations between a 16 YO and a 10-12 YO. Moreover, this difference is critically large, large enough to make difference between life and death in case of operating a gun, industrial machinery, car and plain.

So yeah, you were getting at something else, while failing to acknowledge that the "technical" definition of a child includes a really large degree of physically mature organisms.

Really? I already qualified that kids should have restrictions, proper supervision, education, and graduated allowances. Kinda like a license. Try reading what I write instead of making assumptions.

[K. A. Pital]

Kinda like a license.

Except it's not a legal license, but merely your perception of a "controlled environment" being equal to that. The child is not trained at a special, designated training center, and his training capabilities in any case are less relevant than those of an adult, due to the issue of brain and physical maturity, as well as psychological maturity issues. Legal allowances for children to use firearms already exist: sport complexes, shooting ranges, biathlon. At least they are trained professionaly there, as opposed to the roll-a-dice that the parent in question won't fail to contain the situation versus a professional, and the danger tool being accessible at all times due to it's presence in the household.

So instead of giving the children more leeway with dangerous tools, perhaps we should just be content with what we have, and not give them more of a chance to kill themselves or others with objects of extreme lethality and potency?

[Yogi]

I never said it would be a requirement for everyone. But to be honest, I think it'd be a good idea if basic gun safety was taught on a broad level-- what they are and are not capable of, how to tell if it is loaded, how to unload and 'safe' it, etc.

Chances are most people will never need a firearm, but then again I also learned the basics of CPR and I've never needed that, either. I see heart defibrillators in the mall; I have no idea how to work one but I think it's a good idea to learn. I also have insurance on my house, but that doesn't mean I intend for it be burned down.

Learning how to handle or deal with dangerous things in a safe manner is rarely a bad idea, y'know?

Not what you said. You said that everyone will need to use the real thing sooner or later. If you're talking about just mandatory firearms training, why use child-sized weapons that can fire real bullets, and then allow them to be carried off the firing range? According to you, it should never be used outside of one.

People who don't learn anything about guns tend to either be scared of them (for unrealistic reasons) or in awe of them (for equally unrealistic reasons). Teach them the reality at an appropriate age and both misperceptions dry up. You realize you're advocating in favor of ignorance here, right?

Evidence please?

Quite strawmanning me you dishonest bastard. I'm searching for examples of gradiated responsibility.

But against the idea of non-lethal training guns for kids.

A parent should know when a child is ready to graduate from one thing to another, more dangerous thing that requires more skill and responsibility. Unless you're going to tell me that there is no inherent danger whatsoever in children riding bicycles.

Classic black-white fallacy. There are degrees of danger, and I HOPE that, being the trained firearms expert that you are, you can see that a gun is more dangerous than a bicycle.

They may not need to, but they may want to, and if that's the case, they'll need to know how and what to do safely and develop good habits early. Again, even people who have no interest or need for firearms probably would not have their lives destroyed by knowing basic safety tips and what to do and how/why not to freak out.

I see. Unless you're trained with real guns when you are 11, you cannot ever gain any firearms training ever. Not when you're 15, not when you're 18, not when you're 21, not when you're 90, not ever.

You keep on using the word "need" but I don't think you know what it means.

[Coyote]

When I was growing up, Idaho allowed kids to get driver's liscences at 14. I was one of them. I took driver's education in school on a driver course with a school instructor as a class elective. Cars and the course were provided as part of school. I got my first street-legal bike shortly after that, a Honda 460. I had some restrictions, like not driving at night, but I and the vast majority of my peers did just fine driving at 14.

Precisely. You had take a course, to pass a standardised test, and tolerate restrictions. This is only for a thing that can mostly harm only you.

Cars can harm a lot ofpeople besides just the driver if mishandled.

Why is it so hard for some to grasp that equally -at the very least- requirements should be met by people who are to use guns, which are by definition designed to efficiently kill other living beings (I'm talking shotguns, not BBs or .22s for sports).

Only after that should it be up to parental or supervisor's discretion to let a child fire a gun (provided they have also passed similar tests and obtained certification).

Well, bear in mind I *am* arguing in favor of intense instruction, here, as well. When I say it is okay to teach a kid shooting, I am talking about intense, hands-on involvement in a very carefully controlled environments. An added dimension is added when I say that the parent doing the teaching, unlike the school course, adds the dimension of knowing the child's maturity level at an almost instinctive point, and should know when the child is starting to go past his comfort level.

So what you're saying here is, in fact, in agreement with what I've been saying all along.

Now, I'd like to go a step further and have basic firearms awareness and safety taught in schools, like driver's courses, as well. There's not enough there to teach a whole semester course on it, but having it as part of a general civics course wouldn't hurt. It wouldn't be range shooting, just an awareness of what is and is no legal, rights and responsibilities of owning a gun (if they choose to do it) and how to tell if one is loaded, check the safeties, etc. It could be taught within a few days' of class time, easily, just enough to keep ordinary people from making a mistake about guns.

People can then argue for or against various controls all they want, but at least they'd be doing it from a point of knowledge and understanding based on facts, instead of hype and ignorance, like today when many people still try to pass laws to ban "machineguns" without realizing that such laws were passed back in 1934.

[Coyote]

You would be surprised what a child may do under supervision. They can even fly an airplane.

Yes, and the person who gave his controls to a child in an airplane, a pilot, caused a crash. It was sometime in 1994, under Mezdurechensk, and the black box records astonished everyone.

That's fucking reckless. No matter what the parent thinks, if he gives something as dangerous as an airplane to a child to fly, he's a fucking idiot. He should be stripped of parental rights and preferrably thrown to jail, to make an example for all idiots in the world, including the asshole who caused deaths by giving his son the plane controls.

Nice ain't it? That's an A-300-310. Have fun proving anyone that children can operate dangerous tools without increased danger.

I admit I am very surprised that someone gave the controls of an airliner to a child; that is indeed reckless. But I was given the controls of a plane when I was about 15 or 16, as part of a group of friends that went with a neighbor who was a qualified pilot. It also happens in Civil Air Patrol a lot. The thing is, you cannot take one (stupid, unfortunate and dramatic) incident and use that as the mean for all such events. That'd be like immediately banning all cars the moment the first car crash happened; or immediately halting all space flight the moment the first rocket blew up in launch. You increase training, you increase controls and procedures, you install safety devices, etc.

I have never been an advocate of "zero tolerance" policies because it sets an unrealistic bar for human endeavor. If proper safeties and controls are followed, accidents will be minimized. With firearms, the prevailing attitude today is that there are no "accidents" so much as there is "negligence" in exercising proper controls.

But with the airplane, as with a gun, I would never just hand such a thing to the kid and "walk away". When I flew the Cessna, briefly, the pilot had his hands and feet inches from the controls and ready to take over if I was starting to get too nervous. He released the controls gradually and described to me the sensations to expect from the plane and what was normal. He didn't just say "hold the stick like this and wake me up when we reach the airport".

[Coyote]

I never said it would be a requirement for everyone. But to be honest, I think it'd be a good idea if basic gun safety was taught on a broad level-- what they are and are not capable of, how to tell if it is loaded, how to unload and 'safe' it, etc.

Chances are most people will never need a firearm, but then again I also learned the basics of CPR and I've never needed that, either. I see heart defibrillators in the mall; I have no idea how to work one but I think it's a good idea to learn. I also have insurance on my house, but that doesn't mean I intend for it be burned down.

Learning how to handle or deal with dangerous things in a safe manner is rarely a bad idea, y'know?

Not what you said. You said that everyone will need to use the real thing sooner or later. If you're talking about just mandatory firearms training, why use child-sized weapons that can fire real bullets, and then allow them to be carried off the firing range? According to you, it should never be used outside of one.

Okay, I should clarify: I'm talking partially about the population of people who intend to learn firearms and use them for whatever purposes, and the general population who will probably never need or want to use them. When I say that most people will never need a firearms I'm saying that people who buy guns for home protection rarely ever need to defend themselves. Even policemen and soldiers can go an entire career, or decades, without ever using their weapons for anything more than training range practice. I myself went to the Sunni Triangle in Iraq and fired all of 7 shots the whole year I was there, and all of them were warning shots. So I never truly "needed" the weapon to engage and kill an enemy. But I sure wasn't going to go there without it, either.

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. Whether that includes daily carrying of a weapons or not is besides the point; I'm talking about training phase for those intended to use weapons.

For those who never intend to use firearms, I personally think there is a need for education and familiarization training because it would help cut down on misunderstandings and misconception, and it would also be a good idea if people who don't use firearms could still undertake basic safety actions if they should run across one... and also know the legalities of what rights and responsibilities their gun-owning neighbors have.

People who don't learn anything about guns tend to either be scared of them (for unrealistic reasons) or in awe of them (for equally unrealistic reasons). Teach them the reality at an appropriate age and both misconceptions dry up. You realize you're advocating in favor of ignorance here, right?

Evidence please?

I don't know if there are any in-depth psychological studies done about people who are taught about guns at an early age vs. people who aren't taught about guns at an early age. I know only from experience and what other trainers tell me from their experience. There's also ignorance that I think is safe to infer, when people lobby for laws banning "machineguns" and think that things such as bayonet lugs, carry slings, and other cosmetic changes made to guns will make them somehow less dangerous. I've met a lot of people who believe that full-auto fire makes it possible to mow down masses of people like wheat before a scythe, which is rarely true. A lot of the ignorance that crops up about guns corresponds closely with what people see guns doing in Hollywood movies, which says a lot right there.

Quite strawmanning me you dishonest bastard. I'm searching for examples of gradiated responsibility.

But against the idea of non-lethal training guns for kids.

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.

A parent should know when a child is ready to graduate from one thing to another, more dangerous thing that requires more skill and responsibility. Unless you're going to tell me that there is no inherent danger whatsoever in children riding bicycles.

Classic black-white fallacy. There are degrees of danger, and I HOPE that, being the trained firearms expert that you are, you can see that a gun is more dangerous than a bicycle.

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. And because of attitudes like yours, people relax about bicycle safety because they are ubiquitous among children. Drivers don't really "see" them much beyond part of the normal daily landscape and kids frequently don't pay attention to their surroundings or they try to do some silly stunt. This last week I saw two bicycle accidents that could have resulted in serious injury or death. People see bicycles every day and get lazy about them. A bicycle is a mode of wheeled transportation that has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. People think nothing of putting their 10-year-old kid on a bicycle out on a road with one-ton cars full of people texting, eating Big Macs, putting on makeup in the rearview mirror or talking on cell phones. Even coutry roads, with little traffic, is no guarantee because people relax their alertness even more.

I think kids on bicycles exposes then to far, far more danger than an afternoon at a gun range under an adult's close supervision.

They may not need to, but they may want to, and if that's the case, they'll need to know how and what to do safely and develop good habits early. Again, even people who have no interest or need for firearms probably would not have their lives destroyed by knowing basic safety tips and what to do and how/why not to freak out.

I see. Unless you're trained with real guns when you are 11, you cannot ever gain any firearms training ever. Not when you're 15, not when you're 18, not when you're 21, not when you're 90, not ever.

Where did I say that? Did I say that? Show me where I said that. I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you; either you're going to start being honest about this or it's over.

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. A lot of our ease with handling any device or procedure comes with experience. When I was first learning how to drive, I was very nervous. Someone passing me, or a big truck, would be intimidating. Now it is very ordinary and I am very much at ease; I suspect the same is true for many people. Experience helps with ease of use and good habits become instinctive. From traffic to guns to piloting... the more you know and experience, the better you are. Do you think Captain Sullenberger could have landed his plane in the Hudson if he'd just graduated flight school a month prior?

You keep on using the word "need" but I don't think you know what it means.

Need for a firearm can mean a lot of things: a policeman or soldier needs a firearm as part of his daily job. He may never "need" to use it to kill a criminal/enemy. A private citizen may feel he needs a firearm to protect himself from anything from criminals to dangerous animals if he lives in the country. He may never "need" to actually fire it, though.

But it doesn't matter whether any of these people need them or "need" them; they do all need to have safety training, and that is what I am arguing in favor of right here.

[Keevan_Colton]

So, here's a scary idea. Restrict firearms ownership to those that complete a license course in firearm safety since you admit everyone with a gun needs that safety training. Children have no place fucking about with deadly weapons, if you want to teach them use training weapons. It's not fucking rocket science is it?

[Alyeska]

So, here's a scary idea. Restrict firearms ownership to those that complete a license course in firearm safety since you admit everyone with a gun needs that safety training. Children have no place fucking about with deadly weapons, if you want to teach them use training weapons. It's not fucking rocket science is it?

I quite agree. I think it would be a good idea for even adults to have to get a firearms license. Its unrealistic in my country, but in a more ideal setting such a license would be a very good thing.

[Coyote]

So, here's a scary idea. Restrict firearms ownership to those that complete a license course in firearm safety since you admit everyone with a gun needs that safety training. Children have no place fucking about with deadly weapons, if you want to teach them use training weapons. It's not fucking rocket science is it?

Did I... ever disagree with this idea? Or give the impression that I disagreed with this idea? I certainly hope not; I've been advocating mandatory training for some time. For adults as well as kids.

As for kids getting training, the difference here is that I see nothing wrong with it because I am operating under the assumption that said training would be thorough and careful. They'd start out with BB guns, for example, but at some point they'd learn about the real thing.

My ideal world (as far as firearms laws, anyway) would include basic safety and understanding in school, along with the rights and responsibilities. A safety & range course for anyone wanting to own weapons. Mandatory safe storage. Stuff like that.

[Yogi]

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. Whether that includes daily carrying of a weapons or not is besides the point; I'm talking about training phase for those intended to use weapons.

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.

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.

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. And because of attitudes like yours, people relax about bicycle safety because they are ubiquitous among children. Drivers don't really "see" them much beyond part of the normal daily landscape and kids frequently don't pay attention to their surroundings or they try to do some silly stunt. This last week I saw two bicycle accidents that could have resulted in serious injury or death. People see bicycles every day and get lazy about them. A bicycle is a mode of wheeled transportation that has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. People think nothing of putting their 10-year-old kid on a bicycle out on a road with one-ton cars full of people texting, eating Big Macs, putting on makeup in the rearview mirror or talking on cell phones. Even coutry roads, with little traffic, is no guarantee because people relax their alertness even more.

I think kids on bicycles exposes then to far, far more danger than an afternoon at a gun range under an adult's close supervision.

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.

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

Where did I say that? Did I say that? Show me where I said that. I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you; either you're going to start being honest about this or it's over.

They may not need to, but they may want to, and if that's the case, they'll need to know how and what to do safely and develop good habits early. Again, even people who have no interest or need for firearms probably would not have their lives destroyed by knowing basic safety tips and what to do and how/why not to freak out.

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.

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. A lot of our ease with handling any device or procedure comes with experience. When I was first learning how to drive, I was very nervous. Someone passing me, or a big truck, would be intimidating. Now it is very ordinary and I am very much at ease; I suspect the same is true for many people. Experience helps with ease of use and good habits become instinctive. From traffic to guns to piloting... the more you know and experience, the better you are. Do you think Captain Sullenberger could have landed his plane in the Hudson if he'd just graduated flight school a month prior?

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.

Second, why does this require a perfectly functional weapon. Again, everyone needs to learn about safe sex. It's not necessary to instruct using the real thing.

Need for a firearm can mean a lot of things: a policeman or soldier needs a firearm as part of his daily job. He may never "need" to use it to kill a criminal/enemy. A private citizen may feel he needs a firearm to protect himself from anything from criminals to dangerous animals if he lives in the country. He may never "need" to actually fire it, though.

But it doesn't matter whether any of these people need them or "need" them; they do all need to have safety training, and that is what I am arguing in favor of right here.

*Facepalm*

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.

[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.

[Keevan_Colton]

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?