I agree with clayton_e. I’ve grown up around guns and realize the potential for danger that’s there for any situation involving firearms. From a very early age, we were told that we were not to play with any of Daddy’s gun stuff or ELSE. Unfortunately, not all parents are as responsible as mine or as many of the parents in this thread who have guns in their homes, as in situations like http://www5.cnn.com/2000/US/02/29/school.shooting.03/"]this.
Children are not adults: they do not have the same thought processes and for this reason are not as culpable as adults in many situations. The fact that children do not think in the same way as adults leads them to think things like, “Oh, this piece of plastic is red and shiny, cherries are red and shiny, therefore this Lego must be a cherry and I can eat it.” Followed by a tracheotomy. It seems to me that the close proximity of guns to toys could lead to children thinking, “Ooh, shiny plastic and metal. Toy!” I think we can all agree that isn’t a good situation by a long shot. (This is also why I’m opposed to toy guns. Not actual guns, used in constructive and legitimate ways. Toy guns. For children.)
Because not all parents can be relied on to provide their children with sufficient gun education, society (and by connection the corporation and the government) should take steps to protect as well as save their own asses in situations like the one clayton_e described with the bb-gun. It’s not possible to mitigate all dangers, but we should take steps to help prevent those that we can. Gun education is one way, another way is to limit the associations of “gun” with “toy”, instead of a tool. The way you respect a gun is totally different than the way you respect a toy.
While I agree that moving the gun section away from the toy section just because some boy got hit by a bb-gun and thinking that this will magically prevent that from every happening again is horribly naive, I don’t think children should be presented with guns in anything but a respectful, almost sacred manner.
Not to cheapen anyone’s life, but would you be more horrified if you heard about a toddler being shot in an accident or if you heard about an adult being shot in accident? Which would bring more bad press? If anything, it’s in the best commercial interest of a store to move the guns away from the toys.
By Clayton_e: “Just think, that BB could have hit something other than a kid… Maybe something like a big bag of fertilizer.”
And…? To get a bang out of fertilizer, you’d need to soak ammonium nitrate fertilizer in Diesel fuel then insert a dynamite cap into it. At least that’s the method I use to blow stumps up.
Shoot a bag of fertilizer with a BB gun, or for that matter a 7mm magnum, and you get no bang, just a stopped projectile.
Since this is IMHO, mine is that I see no safety advantage to moving gun and toy sections away from each other.
Eh, sorry John. I should’ve been clearer in my example. I was trying to say that that would be a harmless alternative target that would simply stop a little BB. Something like a bag of dog food would’ve been a better example.
clayton_e, that last post was very disingenious of you, I must say.
If a round of metal-cased ammunition is caused to ignite when it is not in an captive enclosure such as a gun chamber, the projectile (bullet) moves very little - but the casing becomes the moving object. My brother still carries a scar from a childhood experiment: lining up .22 LR ammo on a fence and shooting them with a BB gun.
Did you even read my post? How about, instead of being outraged that the loaded gun was displayed near the toy section, we be outraged that the loaded gun was displayed at all. Would the kid who was shot have been less wounded if the display had been near the gardening department? Or if it had been an adult looking at automotive supplies or tools, would it have been less wrong for the gun to be loaded?
I’ve read this whole thing, twice, and I’m confused. clayton, where do you propose the sporting goods be located where a kid cannot see them? When does it become the responsibility of the store to teach kids about guns over their parents? If you are a parent who is an anti-gun freak, keep them away from guns. If that means they can’t see the toy section because they might see a shotgun in the next aisle, tough cookies.
I don’t know anybody who will voluntarily take their kid through the toy section at any time of the year. If you are a parent, taking a kid through the toy section is hell to be avoided at all costs. The shotguns in the next row is the least of concerns. Personally, I’ve rather buy my 9 year old son a Remington 870 than all the crap he wants in the toy section. I’d save a lot of cash.
The kid can’t buy a gun… Can he find someone who can buy it for him? Sure he can, but it isn’t the store’s fault.
Yessir, that’s why I specifically stated: a round of metal-cased ammunition. My experience with shotshells is that the plastic or paper hull will rupture (like split at the sides, like) and not “explode” if restricted in movement front and rear.
A shell of whatever kind is contained in the chamber. When the firing pin hits the nipple it sets off a controled explosion. The gun barrel keeps the shell from exploding outwards, as there is no space for it to go. The side with the projectile is the easiest way for the expanding gasses to escape, so they do, pushing the projectile along with it.
As I’ve mentioned a couple times above, I used to teach gun safety.
As a former gun safety instructor, surely you know the mechanism of internal ballisitics? Never heard a primer called “a nipple” before - is that a Canadian term?
Nope, they’re called primers here, too. Only time I’ve heard ‘nipple’ (in reference to guns, that is ), it’s is the thing you slip the percussion cap on with a muzzle-loader…
Yessir, viking, me, too. And there are some gun enthusiasts who would take exception to the notion that ammunition undergoes a “controlled explosion” in the chamber. Maybe some more study is warranted…
Well, I think we’ve gone through just about everything this topic could cover… most of it more than once. And not much headway was made… So I guess, if there isn’t anyone who would like to continue this the thread could be closed.
If there’s anyone who would like to continue, ignore this.
Let me see if I’m following you guys here. We should move the sporting goods so kids won’t be around guns, right? What part of the store, exactly, do you think won’t have kids in it? In our local Walmart, there are unescorted children running rampant in every single department on any given day. So where would you move the guns to make the children safe?
If the guns are kept under lock and key, and the ammo is kept likewise, what is everyone screaming about? The chance that someone will for some reason open their new box of shells and drop one, and then some kid will swoop in like a dog on a dropped cupcake and somehow manage to get hurt? I don’t think that’s likely, and it could just as easily happen next to the shoe department.
Let’s see, 32,000 stores are all laid out this way, and have been for years. So far we’ve dug up one incident. Even if we had one incident a year, that would still be one in 32,000. That’s pretty good odds, really; the odds of my birth control failing is one in 300, for heaven’s sake.
Uh… CrazyCatLady, we ain’t all screaming about this topic… We are attempting to employ reasonable and rational discourse in an effort to effect a moderated solution to an endemic “problem” that some segment, albeit small, of our citizenry perceives as a threat to the common safety. Or some such bullshit…
Whoa! That was really strange! I went to the IMHO front page and saw that CrazyCatLady was the last poster. So I opened the thread and saw that I was actually the last poster. Back to the IMHO front page and clicked on CrazyCatLady profile - my details came up! Hmmm…
), it’s is the thing you slip the percussion cap on with a muzzle-loader…