They’re not. We have a .22 semi-auto rifle. We also have what you might refer to as a semi-automatic assault whatever (not my photo, but it’s close), the ownership of which I don’t feel I have to “justify” anymore than I have to justify having the .22, or any other weapon I choose to possess.
I also have a seven year old.
The ignorance comment was perhaps a bit harsh (I am also pregnant and thus more easily provoked/more emotional than usual; sorry) but my point is, leaving a hot weapon in easy reach of a child is stupid, full stop. The .223, while it looks scary and dangerous, poses no greater risk than the .22 or a handgun or whatever. A three year old getting shot with a BB gun can be deadly. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon and there shouldn’t be any distinction with regards to issues of safety and children.
I didn’t like your comment that “*t was a .22, not a semi-automatic assault gun (or whatever)” as if leaving a .22 out and ready to fire is somehow more acceptable than leaving out what is simply a bigger rifle. It seems now that your feeling is that a .22 is more socially acceptable to OWN (which is probably true and more than a little ridiculous, but rather beside the point), hence your comment.
No, not really. Some kids listen. I didn’t really get rebellious until my mid-teens. And you’re right, saying that if the parents had properly instructed the boy then the shooting would never have happened is ridiculous. I must have mentally inserted a “maybe” in there. My post still stands: Properly instructing kids on the storage, handling, use, etc. of firearms and working to remove the mystery and the “cool” factor can go a long way toward preventing weapons-related accidental injury/death. Of course, instructing your kids “no touchy!” or whatever should never be the ONLY safety measure. These parents failed either way, but it doesn’t seem, from what little information we have, that this kid (or the parents, really) knew very much about gun safety at all.
I think Anaamika spoke too soon, because it seems that people are determined to ignore anything that I have said and piss me off. So, rather than do that, I’ll quote myself yet again for the benefit of people who want to comment but don’t want to read:
Bolding mine, mostly to point out that I had anticipated someone bringing up Lee Paige, the “subject” of that video.
I’m either too clever for my own good or people are just ignoring me in their zeal to chime in. One is annoying, the other is insulting.
*Excellent *point, RedFury. Maybe next you can explain that we shouldn’t have sex ed because it would involve the teachers fucking in the front of the classroom. :rolleyes:
I’m pretty pissed about a kid dying because of irresponsible parenting. If you’re irresponsible, don’t have kids or guns. And definitely don’t combine them.
As already stated – teachers don’t have sex or expose themselves in order to teach sex Ed. There doesn’t need to be live firearms in order to teach gun safety.
I don’t know what the common definition is, but the correct definition is a selective fire (which means it has either a full auto or 3 hot burst option), intermediate caliber (meaning, .223 or in that range) rifle (for “assault rifle”). Anything other than that is incorrect, and fear mongering. There is no flexibility in that definition, it’s a military term derived from sturm (storm), in German, meaning assault.
The way to achieve genuine safety is to eliminate the possibility of error. That’s how all workplace safety works, how all home safety works, how everything safety works. Training is great but elimination of risk is better.
If you do not want children accidentally discharging guns, the safest approach is to make it physically impossible for children to touch the guns. Teaching them not to fire guns is a vastly less safe alternative (of course, both is better) because you can teach someone anything you want but it’s still possible to make errors if the loaded gun is available. If you teach Junior how to handle the .22, you lower (maybe; there’s an argument to the contrary, but never mind) the chance of an accidental shooting. If you get rid of the .22, you eliminate the risk.
Hell,** that’s why guns have safeties.** You wouldn’t say “Well, they shouldn’t other putting a safety on a firearm; we should just teach people not to pull the trigger at the wrong time.” It’s obvious that the best way to prevent accidental trigger-pulling once the gun is being handled is to put a mechanism on the gun that makes it impossible to pull the trigger.
Another nitpick.
Full auto firearms can legally be owned privately by regular people ( in 45 states) willing to pay the fees and follow the needed paperwork.
More fun facts:
You got your sub-machine guns which fire a pistol round- Uzi 9mm, Tommy gun .45 acp.
Then you step up to battle rifles, select fire guns which use rifle rounds, M14, G3, M16, L1A1, etc.
"Real’ machine guns are belt fed, not magazine fed, and are mounted on a tripod, not shoulder fired.
