The parents should always be held responsible for when something like this happens. At five years old the child does not know exactly what they are doing. The parents do know exactly what they are doing. Ergo the parents should be punished
US boy shoots two-year-old sister dead.
- Thread starter Takure
- Start date
The gun control laws worked.
The kid never bought a firearm.
You mean people control laws did not work, as these parents were, obviously, able to decide what their child had access to within the house.
Clearly, this was in error. A police officer needs to be assigned to every home to prevent poor parenting practices.
My dad bought one for me when I was born.
I was never allowed to handle it without him around (until I was out of highschool) and he taught me proper handling of a weapon.
... What law could one possibly write that would prevent someone from doing something stupid?
Common sense should say that you shouldn't drive while intoxicated, right? ... Pretty stupid to take the $30,000, 1500 pound rolling death machine out for a drive when you can't walk five feet without stumbling, right?
So, why do we need to have a law against it?
.... Or, perhaps the more relevant question is "How many drunk drivers do those laws prevent?" Not a one. If a person doesn't care about the investment made into their vehicle or have respect for the land-borne cruise missile they sit behind... why the hell are they going to respect a piece of paper enforced by someone in a uniform?
Laws exist to penalize behavior, not prevent it. Short of lining people up in the street and executing them for their behavior, you're not going to see laws serve as much of a prevention. Even then - you'll only see a brief correction until people find the holes in your ability to enforce those laws, and you're back to square one.
What is wrong with a child handling a firearm?
If you have firearms in your home (even locked up), you should always take the opportunity to reinforce proper handling and safety with a firearm. When they are physically able (especially if they show an interest) - you should allow them to handle and become familiar with a firearm under proper supervision. When they show themselves to have a solid understanding of proper handling and safety, you can take them out to really use a firearm in a controlled setting and environment.
Allow them to gain an appreciation for what the firearm actually does. Take them hunting for small game and let them see how that little .22 will pop a squirrel's head like a grape. They need to see and understand that there are consequences for using that weapon. It's not like a video game where you put a rocket launcher into someone's chest, then scamper off to another corner of the mysterious box-world before they pop back up and do the same to you.
It's never too early to introduce a child to firearm safety. It is, however, possible to be too late.
The same thing can be said about cars.
About scissors. Knives.
Or how many parents turn their ten year old loose with an automatic foot remover (also known as a lawnmower)?
Or give their kids a pair of hedge-trimming shears (scissors as long as your forearm designed to cut through bone-like wood about the size of fingers) and tell them to do their chores?
Hell... parents, these days, allow their kids onto computers (or, themselves, are allowed onto computers and should be beaten mercilessly for even thinking of touching a computer) where they pick up malware and viruses that hijack their computer so that it can participate in network-wide attacks on banks and government systems.
I'd argue that "computer control" is a far greater concern than "gun control" or "health insurance" - because stupid people allow themselves to be compromised in a way that allows malicious individuals to steal from us and disrupt critical services.
Now - I'm not at all for the government getting involved in the internet - but the fact remains that stupid people behave irresponsibly and **** things up for the rest of us. Rather than trying to write laws to save stupid people from themselves - we should simply encourage them to self-terminate or... where possible... give them assistance in terminating themselves. That way, they're only a problem once or twice, rather than a recurring problem that serves as the poster-child for every major legislative impetus.
Dissonant Values
Active member
As opposed to? The US is the worlds last super-power. Isn't really anyone else to focus on...
It was a tragedy yes, but this has nothing to do with gun control laws.
"A little rifle made for a kid"? I never knew they made guns specifically for kids. The weapons industry is rather pathetic. Money over human lives.
The parents are the ones liable tho. Shame
The parents are the ones liable tho. Shame
This is a rifle MADE FOR CHILDREN. Not a boy getting out of high school. Can't you see the difference?
Last edited:
Sasukenumberonelover
Banned
Awards
edo tensai wilmaso
Active member
you can't fix stupid ... people need to buy toy guns for their kids not a real one, that my friend is a hunny boo-boo f'in rednecks
There are no such things as 'guns for kids.'
Car manufacturers allow their cars to go considerably faster than the speed limit. They also advertise their vehicles as being able to perform intense maneuvers through sorms and adverse terrain.
People are responsible for their children. We should start beating the parents of some of these kids who act up in school.
Do you... bother to look into anything, or do you just immediately resort to emotional responses?
There is no such thing as a rifle for children. Unless you're talking about a Nerf gun, or something. Even spring and air rifles are marketed as part of adult sporting goods.
A .22 rifle is generally classified as a small game rifle. There are a few different cartridge standards, but the .22 "long rifle" is relatively popular. The round is supersonic when it leaves the barrel and is roughly the same size as a 5.56mm rifle round (except I've never run into a .22 LR jacketed round).
You must be registered for see links
I, actually, am planning on getting a decent .22 rifle in an AR-15 form factor for urban defense. Recoil is negligible and you can put a dozen rounds down range for the price of a single 5.56 cartridge. Plus, the round is perfectly lethal against soft targets - and for home and urban defense, the likelihood of encountering an armored target is relatively null.
Now, if the parents thought this was a rifle made for a kid, then they are retarded and the actions of their spawn were well deserved.
Darthlawsuit
Active member
You don't give a 5 yr old unrestricted rights to a gun. You can let them shoot it but do not give them a gun for their room, they are too young. Let them learn how to use a gun properly and once they become responsible from good parenting then you can consider it.
Too bad we cannot legislate good parenting.
Too bad we cannot legislate good parenting.
Most of the founding fathers used rifles as kids. Seems smart to make a rifle small enough for a kid to handle as it prevents accidents. Nothing worse than giving someone a gun that is too big or powerful for them to handle. Actually smaller rifles increase safety for kids as they can handle them easier than ones made for adults.
Last edited:
