Where? I don’t really see anything wrong with that statement. While I’m not condoning leaving hot weapons in easy reach of children, there isn’t anything surprising or unbelievable about expecting the average 8 year old to learn, understand, and apply basic gun safety and that’s something the parents should have seen to whether they store their weapons properly or not.
I know lots of people, myself included, who grew up around firearms (rounds chambered, ready to go firearms even) and never accidentally shot anybody. This is all dependent on the kid, of course. We don’t know enough about this particular one to judge his capabilities but, again, that falls on the parents and they should have evaluated that and adjusted accordingly. My dad could have (and probably did, I never went looking) left loaded weapons all over the house and I never would have so much as touched one without first asking and then checking it, never mind just grabbing one and knocking a round out. Teaching could have gone a long way in this story.
I know people who were taught how to behave around firearms when they were toddlers (their families hunted). It sounds insane when you first think about it, but remember, these kids aren’t being given guns to use and loaded guns aren’t just kept lying around the house. I think it’s one of the most responsible things a gun-owning parent can do.
And now all the gun loving wingnuts that we had in the last thread will come out and start telling us how there is absolutely no risk associated with firearms, none whatsoever.
I 'm very neutral on the firearms issue. I was actually slightly on the pro-gun side prior to that thread. Now I’m neutral.
Nobody has ever asserted that the risk is zero. The question is whether or not it is a risk you are willing to assume. For a very large percentage of Americans, the answer is yes.
We have created an interesting problem with regard to guns as they relate to children. There is little to no discussion of guns in schools, and what little there is is entirely negative. Rather than having a meaningful educational discussion, even something as little as “if you see a gun, don’t touch it, walk away, and tell an adult”, it usually goes “guns are bad” and that’s the end of it. Any doubt about that should be dispelled by the application of zero-tolerance policies for something as insignificant as a drawing of a gun. Thus there is no room for discussion. Guns are bad, end of story.
How is a gun owner able to teach their child the proper thing to do when the child has been repeatedly taught that guns are a forbidden subject? I can’t even begin to tell you how much time and effort it took for me to get through that wall to have any sort of meaningful discussion about gun safety with my son.
Now, do I advocate gun education in schools? I would, but I am cognizant that some parents do not want their kids to be exposed to that so I certainly would not mandate it for that reason. What I would advocate is that rather than just shutting down the subject or automatically treating it as something horrible the schools take a strict policy of neutrality and tell the student to discuss it with their parents. At the minimum it would make it an easily approachable subject at home in addition to putting the onus of responsibility on the parent, which is where it belongs anyway.
I can’t be bothered hunting for the rest of the references form that thread where wingnuts said that firearms posed no risk at all.
Like I said, I was slightly pro-gun before that thread. After reading the comments by numerous nutjobs saying that there was no risk at all form *their *firearms and telling me that I had no right not to have firearms in my own house, my support slipped downhill quite a bit.
Clearly many people should not have firearms, and separating out the responsible ones is difficult. Even the ones that seem sensible and intelligent are clearly irresponsible nutters once you give them enough rope.
I see we’re conflating two different things here. I thought we were talking about the risk of having guns in a home with a child. That is what this thread is about, after all. But you want to talk about a firearm in the possession of its owner, something else entirely.
I’m not doing this. Pick a topic and we’ll discuss it. I’m not jumping back and forth between the two.
No, I don’t. That thread was also about having a firearm in a house with children.
Those quotes specifically stated that firearm posed zero risks to the *occupants *of the house, after it was noted that the occupants included children.
And the gun nuts still kept saying that it presented zero risk to anybody at all. One of them even went so far as to say that it was physically impossible for him to fall asleep and have a child find his concealed handgun.
No one is jumping anywhere. The gun nuts said that a firearm presents zero danger to children occupying a house.
What you don’t want to do of course is have to admit that these nutters are on your side in this debate. I can understand that, but unfortunately for you they are. Trying to disown them by pretending they never said that a gun in a home with a child presented zero risk isn’t going to work. They did say that, in black and white, and I provided the quotes.
People who believe that *any *firearm presents zero risk to children are, by definition, incapable of managing the risk that the firearm presents. And I’m expecting more of the same nonsense of nutters saying that *their * guns pose zero risk to children to show up in this thread
I am doing nothing of the sort. I will simply say that the risk of a child picking up a rifle lying unsecured in a house is exponentially greater than the risk of a child grabbing a handgun from my hip. It’s not even remotely the same thing.
So, like I said, pick one and we’ll talk. Otherwise I’m out.
Only if the child drowned because the parents had no security gate and left the house door wide open on a 95F hot day. Temptation, access and the impulsiveness of children. Seems about right to me.
I hate guns, I really do. But if responsible gun owners want their guns, I’m not going to stand in their way. It was a .22, not a semi-automatic assault gun (or whatever). However, it is imperative not to be stupid with your children’s lives. Leaving a loaded gun in easy access of young children is criminally negligent parenting. It has nothing to do with gun rights.
You don’t have enough information to determine that the rifle in question wasn’t “a semi-automatic assault gun (or whatever)”; the article only mentions caliber. I won’t even ask you what difference it makes as far as “criminally negligent parenting” goes because the level of ignorance contained in this statement alone is enough for me to conclude that your answer doesn’t matter.
Considering how many supposedly properly trained adults fail to practice proper gun safety, it’s pretty naive to expect that an 8 year old will do it all the time.
Do you remember all that stuff your mother told you not to do because you’d put your eye out? Did you do it anyway? Yeah, I thought so.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean that “8 year old + firearm = instant death”, but it’s certainly clear that…
… is a ludicrous assertion.
More simply put, the fact is that 8 year olds don’t necessarily do and often don’t do as they’re told.
Why does this conversation always end up as either/or? It’s like the only options either boil down to “NO GUNS, WITH CHILDREN, EVER”, which is foolish if the parents are gun-using people, or “GUNS ALL THE TIME, THEY ARE SO SAFE, USE THEM USE THEM USE THEM.”
The 8 YO Should have been taught about gun safety and how to use the gun
The three year old should have been told repeatedly “When you’re older” and maybe even been showed the gun, unloaded, and told never to touch the thing
The damn gun should have been locked up, unloaded, out of reach of the children. Playtime is with supervision only. No temptation!
These three things are not mutually exclusive!
And I don’t know about the past but in the last year or two Airman Doors has been quite reasonable, calm, and intelligent in his gun thread postings. How he doesn’t knee-jerk respond all the time I don’t know.
Ditto. Best thing I’ve ever seen was my uncle’s method–any of his kids (from the point of first language skills) could ask to see his guns at any time, and he’d go over all the safety procedures to the letter, check it was unloaded, etc, and go to a safe backstop anyway, then let the kid hold it and ask questions, gently but firmly correcting when the kid did something wrong like pointing it in an unsafe direction.
The result? His kids perceived guns as a pretty boring, mundane thing, and didn’t fuck around with them.
OK, fair enough. I assume all .22s were a certain type. My bad.
I assumed it was a typical shot gun that people may have for hunting and other more mainstream recreational uses, as opposed to assault weapons which, IMHO, as harder to justify owning. Others disagree with that statement, but that was why I even said it. That it’s more typical for random people to have hunting rifles than assault rifles.
You are correct- the criminally negligent parenting of leaving a loaded gun available to a young child is, and remains, my point. I guess I’m not sure what severe level of ignorance I’m showing that invalidates everything I said. Not quite sure how I riled you up with my statement, but sorry if I tripped over my own ignorance.
I’m planning on kids. The guns will be in a safe with a combo lock (or biometric, if I’m feeling flush with cash). The ammo will be in a separate lockbox. Hell, I’ll probably leave the keyed trigger locks on the guns in the safe.
The human wasteland who owned the gun in the OP should have his gun ownership rights permanently revoked, in addition to having the book thrown at him for anything he can possibly be charged with.