5 year old boy shoots his sister with his own rifle

Witcher

true-or-false wrote: »

I've never needed a gun, so I can accept that I know nothing about them. I asked for an explanation, and none of the reasons provided to me seem valid (in my opinion). So I've said I still disagree, and unless any other reasons come up, I'll just have to continue to disagree.

I wouldn't have asked the question unless I was willing to have my mind changed. It's just that no one here has provided me with information that would change my mind. To be honest I'd love to be able to understand why so many people want guns, as it's clear there must be a reason for it since it's so widespread.

So you want to take firearms off shooters in Ireland...for what reason? What does it achieve?

IvySlayer

Parents are idiots clearly. He gets a gun, you'd think the parents would teach him not to point it at anyone, but he goes and shoots his sister in the chest...

BattleCorp

IvySlayer wrote: »

Parents are idiots clearly. He gets a gun, you'd think the parents would teach him not to point it at anyone, but he goes and shoots his sister in the chest...

Yes, the parents are idiots. But, to be fair, you can't teach a 5 year old not to point a gun at anyone. 5 year olds just don't have the sense to be careful with a gun.

In my opinion, there are no circumstances where you can leave a 5 year old unsupervised with a gun.

Ravenid

I wanna check with gun owners here.

This was on the Crikett rifles FAQ on their website

Q. Do all Crickett Rifles come with an internal safety lock?
A. NO. We manufacture Crickett Rifles with and without internal safety locks.

Would you buy a weapon without a safety for yourself?

BattleCorp

Ravenid wrote: »

I wanna check with gun owners here.

This was on the Crikett rifles FAQ on their website



Would you buy a weapon without a safety for yourself?

Personally, all the guns I have ever used have had safety switches on them. Seems daft to have a gun without a safety.

In my opinion though, a safety mightn't have made any difference in this case. The kid would be able to switch it on or off himself. They are only buttons after all.


Oops. I am mixing up safety switches and internal safety switches...... my bad.

It wasn't me!

Ravenid wrote: »

I wanna check with gun owners here.

This was on the Crikett rifles FAQ on their website



Would you buy a weapon without a safety for yourself?

Depends really. For target shooting, it's an irrelevance. The firearm is either loaded and in the control of whoever's using it, or it's empty, with a flag in to show empty. There's no use for a mechanical safety there. Other firearms have designs which function as a safety while not having a specific internal mechanism. For instance, you can load some lever action rifles, lower the hammer and it's safe, it can't fire as the hammer now can't do anything to strike the cartridge. To fire then, you just cock the hammer manually and squeeze off the shot. I'd have no objection to carrying a rifle like that in the field as it's still safe, even without a mechanical safety.

Witcher

Ravenid wrote: »

I wanna check with gun owners here.

This was on the Crikett rifles FAQ on their website



Would you buy a weapon without a safety for yourself?

It does have a safety switch, an internal safety lock is a different thing, you activate an internal safety lock with a small key. Ruger 22/45's come with one. The sstem isnt really popular in the US from what I've heard.

Crickett sell some rifles with am internal safety lock because here are the keys for it:

http://www.crickett.com/product_info.php?products_id=110

Noreen1

true-or-false wrote: »

Yeah, I only mentioned household guns because I can see how they might be acceptable, the same way I'd understand people wanting to use them for target practice if it was in a club where the guns didn't leave the club. It's domestic guns I don't understand.

true-or-false wrote: »

I've never needed a gun, so I can accept that I know nothing about them. I asked for an explanation, and none of the reasons provided to me seem valid (in my opinion). So I've said I still disagree, and unless any other reasons come up, I'll just have to continue to disagree.

I wouldn't have asked the question unless I was willing to have my mind changed. It's just that no one here has provided me with information that would change my mind. To be honest I'd love to be able to understand why so many people want guns, as it's clear there must be a reason for it since it's so widespread.

I don't own a gun, and my children have never been in close proximity to one.

Having said that, I was raised on a farm, and my father always had a gun.
It was kept, unloaded, in a locked room - and we wouldn't have dared touch it, if by some chance we'd managed to gain access.

That gun saved many a sheep and newborn lambs life.
Like it or not, packs of marauding dogs attacking sheep is not uncommon - nor is it a nice death for the sheep/lambs.

Guns are a necessity for farmers to protect livestock.

Giving them to children, or growing up with the idea that a gun is a necessity for self-defence purposes is another thing entirely.

Having said that - given the rise in house break-ins, some of them extremely violent, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of a gun for self defence purposes became increasingly attractive to vulnerable people.

Sparks

Ravenid wrote: »

Would you buy a weapon without a safety for yourself?

No, because the Gardai would arrest me, seeing as how a weapon is something that you've used on another person.

Would I buy a firearm without a safety? Yes, I've bought one (my air pistol).
It lives in its case until it gets to the firing point, then it's taken out, and only there is it ever charged and loaded, and when it's done, the safety flag goes back down the barrel (it's just a length of strimmer cable but it's brightly coloured and easy to quickly check visually - if it's coming out both ends of the barrel, the thing's unloaded and safe) and it goes back into its box.

A safety wouldn't be of much use for that. There are safeties on my two rifles but I've had those for over a decade and never used the safety, for the same reason.

There's also the point that if you're depending on a small bit of metal inside the firearm's mechanism (where you can't check it) to be your only safety precaution, then you probably should be thinking of an alternative as quickly as possible.


edit: safety locks, on the other hand, I use any time the rifles are going to be out of my sight, like when I'm going to an international match - a trigger lock on the rifle, and two padlocks on the peli case it goes into - or when they go in the safe at home.

UCDVet

A lot of people seem to think that if a child dies as a result of X, people shouldn't have X.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

LiamMc

UCDVet wrote: »

A lot of people seem to think that if a child dies as a result of X, people shouldn't have X.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

The outcome of the action of the 5-year old is being considered. The action of the 5-year old resulting in the outcome is being considered. The opportunity given to the 5-year old to take the action resulting in the outcome is being considered. The opportunity of the Parent/Guardian to give their opportunity to the 5 year year to the action resulting in the outcome is being considered.

As the gun-owners will insist, the 5 year has entitlements.

Gatling

Saw this on the news its not a big deal in america if sandy hook is anything to go by,
Funny parents can't afford a funeral but can afford firearms for there kids

BattleCorp

Gatling wrote: »

Saw this on the news its not a big deal in america if sandy hook is anything to go by,
Funny parents can't afford a funeral but can afford firearms for there kids

Sorry but it's always a big deal when anybody dies through use of a firearm, and especially more so when it's a child that dies.

As a gun owner, I especially am horrified that a 2 year old child died in this way.

It was very very bad parenting, simple as that.

Sparks

LiamMc wrote: »

As the gun-owners will insist, the 5 year has entitlements.

Which gun-owners, exactly?
Hm?

Or is that your idea of an argument, making cheap jibes at people who happen to agree with 90% of what you're saying just because of that last 10%?

Gatling

Sparks wrote: »

Which gun-owners, exactly?
Hm?

Or is that your idea of an argument, making cheap jibes at people who happen to agree with 90% of what you're saying just because of that last 10%?

Not looking to make an argument Sparks but if there was an outcry over this shooting and there was calls to prevent kids having access to fire arms , wouldn't the NRA go on the attack claiming kids civil liberties were being attacked and there 2A rights ,
Personally I think the parents should be charged, a lot of people will blame the parents others will question why there was a loaded firearm where a child could access it/them
Then you get the whole yes it was tragic but 2A trumps all

Manic Moran

It's parenting fail, simple as. There's a right way to have your youngster involved in shooting, and a wrong way. They are now paying the price.

A lot of weapons have no external safety. Look at the typical Glock or SIG. They perform no valuable function and are dispensed with. If you aren't handling your firearm correctly, the external safety is the least of your problems.

Sparks

Gatling wrote: »

Not looking to make an argument Sparks but if there was an outcry over this shooting and there was calls to prevent kids having access to fire arms , wouldn't the NRA go on the attack claiming kids civil liberties were being attacked and there 2A rights ,

No, because five-year-olds don't have 2A rights. They also don't have the vote, driving licences or have to pay taxes.

Personally I think the parents should be charged, a lot of people will blame the parents others will question why there was a loaded firearm where a child could access it/them

Damn right.

daithi1970

leaving the right to own guns aside..would the pro-gun people not see anything wrong with a lethal weapon being marketed at toddlers?? If cigarettes were marketed in the same way ie brightly coloured cigarette packaging containing sugar-laden cigarette-like sweets, there would be uproar. the average 4-5 yr old boy does not have a lick of sense and surely could not be expected to fully appreciate the dangers associated with a loaded gun.

Would it not make more sense to wait until the kids were a bit older,say 12 ,and then get them a bb gun and educate them about the dangers of weaponry ?
the marketing of guns to little kids smacks of brainwashing and the creation of new markets by the gun industry and is completely insidious imo.

oh, and by the way, bad parenting didn't kill the little girl;it was more likely to be hypovolaemic shock caused by the bullet penetrating her chest cavity and the destruction of major vital organs but of course the NRA wont see it that way....

daithi

robindch

Gatling wrote: »

Saw this on the news its not a big deal in america if sandy hook is anything to go by [...]

Around 2,300 people die in the USA each month from gun violence, so one can only assume it's pretty normal.

Here's one video I came across. It's hard to know if it's a parody or not, but some of the references check out, so I'm assuming it's genuine. Poe's Law all the same.

The video shows how guns are seemingly marketed to parents and very young children in the USA -- some people believe handing over a lethal weapon to a six-year old is "totally appropriate" and a nice "family activity" good for "bonding". The kids are also shown shooting soap, toothbrushes and school books -- one of the kids even appears to put a round through Snow White's forehead.

Shortly after the bulky guy mentions that having kids playing with lethal guns is better than playing with pellet guns (his thinking is that you "get into a complacency" with pellet guns), the blonde presenter says that when she was six, she chased her sister around the house with a loaded gun. The same presenter is shown at 5:40, without any trace of apparent irony, pausing just for half a second too long just after you can hear a kid shouting strangely.

The gun being marketed is, I believe, the same (or a similar) one to the one the five year old boy used to kill his sister.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAsfDujAM88

A few question to the gun owners on here.

1. Do you think it is acceptable for a minor to carry a loaded weapon? If so, from what age?

2. Should laws be passed that state the legal age for carrying a weapon?

Manic Moran

Well, define "very young?" I suspect my daughter will have her own rifle at seven or eight. Doesn't mean she will have unfettered access to it or the ammo, but it will be "hers." I'm thinking a SIG 522 right now.

Why would your 7/8 year old daughter need a gun?

Edit: sorry, rifle

Gatling

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, define "very young?" I suspect my daughter will have her own rifle at seven or eight. Doesn't mean she will have unfettered access to it or the ammo, but it will be "hers." I'm thinking a SIG 522 right now.

Nice choice actually 522 is a lovely .22

I need adopting daddy

Personally i think 4 or 5 is too young to own a .22 or bigger is some cases ,

7/8 years old can be fairly intelligent and responsible with the right instruction id be all for assuming gun/s are stored in a safe ,

Anything younger I'd be worried about

belcampprisoner

hes been grounded for 1 month and the rifles not coming back till christmas

JustAddWater

UrbanSea wrote: »

Don't worry though, Kinder eggs are illegal due to choking hazards, but real fire guns are okay for youths

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/us-ban-of-kinder-eggs-cracked-at-last-8539723.html

Manic Moran

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Why would your 7/8 year old daughter need a gun?

Edit: sorry, rifle

She doesn't. Why would an 8 year old need half the things the typical 8 year old has?

Gatling, 522 because I have a 556, as well as it being a great little rifle. Her own little version to take with her when I take her with me!

So why will you be getting her a rifle then? For what purpose?

Manic Moran

So she can come shooting with me and actually participate. And take some "ownership" in the hobby instead of just being dragged out.

It wasn't me!

Also, at eight or thereabouts, a lot of kids start the sports they get serious with in adolescence. In a lot of the world, that includes shooting.

Suryavarman

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

A few question to the gun owners on here.

1. Do you think it is acceptable for a minor to carry a loaded weapon? If so, from what age?

2. Should laws be passed that state the legal age for carrying a weapon?

Suppose there were laws stating you had to be 18 to have a gun, do you really think this tragedy could have been prevented? If the parents are leaving a loaded gun lying around the house what makes you think they would obey that law? They could just show the child how to shoot with their own gun and leave that loaded around the house with the consequences being the exact same.

This terrible case has nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with bad parenting. Changing the law so that the parents could be charged with negligent homicide in such a case could be easier to enforce and reduce accidental deaths more than a law that puts a minimum age on owning a gun.

robindch

Suryavarman wrote: »

This terrible case has nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with bad parenting. Changing the law so that the parents could be charged with negligent homicide in such a case could be easier to enforce and reduce accidental deaths more than a law that puts a minimum age on owning a gun.

In the absence of laws which ban the ownership of lethal weapons, one option is to legislate that gun owners must insure their weapons -- a bit like car owners insuring cars -- so that when people get injured or killed, there's some recourse.

Or even more simply, health insurers could ask (or be permitted to ask, as I believe it's illegal in at least some states), whether or not there's a gun in the house, and for the health insurance premiums to rise accordingly, with the substantially increased danger to whoever lives there.

It would have the excellent side-effect of using the power of the economic marketplace to drive home the truly appalling societal costs of gun-ownership in the USA.

During the twentieth century, a similar tactic was used to get the message out about the damaging effects of smoking. The government couldn't legislate as much of it was in the pockets of the tobacco industry but nobody could argue against health premiums that were substantially higher for smokers. But even if insurance were legislated for, it would probably take decades, and more hundreds of thousands of dead men, women and children, for the message to have any significant effect on attitudes and habits.

Sparks

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of laws which ban the ownership of lethal weapons, one option is to legislate that gun owners must insure their weapons -- a bit like car owners insuring cars -- so that when people get injured or killed, there's some recourse.

Who would sue whom in this case?
And how much is a two-year-old worth?

Manic Moran

Out of curiosity, I had a look at the Civilian Marksmanship Program. This is a program set up by the US Government. Their competitions include a novice air rifle match of 8-12 year olds. (Adult must be present with each shooter on the line).

BattleCorp

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

A few question to the gun owners on here.

1. Do you think it is acceptable for a minor to carry a loaded weapon? If so, from what age?

2. Should laws be passed that state the legal age for carrying a weapon?

At 14, someone in Ireland can get a training licence. That means that you can use a gun under supervision. Do you mean minor as someone under 18?

It's my personal opinion that children under the age of 16 should never be allowed to have a gun unsupervised. The law in Ireland agrees with me too.

Anybody carrying a loaded gun has to be especially careful. The only time I can think of anybody needing to carry a loaded gun here in Ireland is when hunting. Americans are allowed guns for self defence so that's their reason for carrying around loaded guns. That's their law.

There are laws here in Ireland stating the legal age for carrying a firearm. It's 14 if under supervision and 16 if you have your own licence. Not sure about over in the US.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

There are laws here in Ireland stating the legal age for carrying a firearm.

Actually, those are the legal limits for owning a firearm.
There's no legal limit for how old you have to be to use a firearm at an authorised range unless it's in the range's authorisation explicitly.
And kids much younger than 14 have been taught to shoot on ranges around the country for decades now. They've represented their country internationally in target shooting events. A few have gone on to shoot in the Olympics (where their competition would all have been training with their own firearms from around age 7-8).

The difference is that we're talking here about supervised use of a firearm in formal target shooting; not "carrying a loaded weapon" or being left alone in a room with a loaded firearm while Mommy goes outside for a quick cigarette.

In other words; it's not the firearm, or we'd have been seeing these kinds of tragedies in Ireland for the past few decades. It's the stupid fecking parents who think a loaded firearm and a five-year-old is a grand combination to leave alone in a room unsupervised.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, those are the legal limits for owning a firearm.
There's no legal limit for how old you have to be to use a firearm at an authorised range unless it's in the range's authorisation explicitly.
And kids much younger than 14 have been taught to shoot on ranges around the country for decades now. They've represented their country internationally in target shooting events. A few have gone on to shoot in the Olympics (where their competition would all have been training with their own firearms from around age 7-8).

The difference is that we're talking here about supervised use of a firearm in formal target shooting; not "carrying a loaded weapon" or being left alone in a room with a loaded firearm while Mommy goes outside for a quick cigarette.

.

Our range has a rule that all shooters must be 14 or older. Nobody under 14 allowed on range. I thought it was the law to be honest.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Our range has a rule that all shooters must be 14 or older. Nobody under 14 allowed on range. I thought it was the law to be honest.

It is if it's in the range authorisation. It's not in most authorisations. And of course, this doesn't apply at all at funfairs, which is where I first shot a rifle (a break-barrel .22 air rifle, but that's more than enough to blind or cause serious soft tissue damage in the right spot - and don't forget that your femoral and carotid arteries are "soft tissue"...). And that was at age four.

People think teaching younger kids to shoot is just an american thing, but it's not - it's a worldwide thing. We're not even the exception, it's just that everyone assumes that (a) it's dangerous and (b) we don't do it and that that's normal; because they don't know any better.

robindch

Sparks wrote: »

And how much is a two-year-old worth?

Far less than the enjoyment a gun brings, at least to the gun-lobby anyway.

Sparks

robindch wrote: »

Far less than the enjoyment a gun brings, at least to the gun-lobby anyway.

Not so deflectively fast there robin, you were the one who suggested monetary compensation as a safety measure, so let's hear some details. How much for a two-year-old? Is it more or less than for a three-year-old? What about an adult? What about a serious injury, is that less or more than a fatal one, given that serious injuries would lead to more financial stress for the family involved? And how will you enforce this? Random inspection without warrants by designated officers with the power of search and seizure in the event they find a gun in the house of someone without insurance? Or tracking every purchase ever made and cross-referencing that with a national "who's got insurance" register?

Come on robin, don't just swing by and say we all revel in the blood of slain children, give us some details on how your plan will stop this. :rolleyes:

UCDVet

LiamMc wrote: »

The outcome of the action of the 5-year old is being considered. The action of the 5-year old resulting in the outcome is being considered. The opportunity given to the 5-year old to take the action resulting in the outcome is being considered. The opportunity of the Parent/Guardian to give their opportunity to the 5 year year to the action resulting in the outcome is being considered.

As the gun-owners will insist, the 5 year has entitlements.

Realistically, as tragic as it is; people (including children) are going to die. It might be easy to think that if one child makes the news after dying in a swimming pool (after all, who NEEDS a swimming pool?) that swimming pools are dangerous and unsafe. Children have been killed by pets, and really, we don't NEED pets - why should a child have to die because someone wants a dog? It might seem reasonable to take a stance against dogs.

But it's really hard to draw any sort of reasonable line....some kids are going to choke to death just eating; and it's not reasonable to ban food; but maybe we should ban solid food until a child is 18. Solid food is not a basic requirement of life.

All of these things are really rare, and really tragic, I just don't see it as making any meaningful impact on a discussion about whether or not something should be legal. Those should be rational discussions based on actual data - none of this 'One dead child is one too many! Ban X!' because you'd end up with EVERYTHING banned.

bnt

hearny wrote: »

And as for the type of gun have a look at this http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php

The website has been pulled.

.22 guns are not toys. For example, the Mafia and others used them for close-in assassinations. (The restaurant scene in The Godfather, in which Michael Corleone kills two people with a .22 pistol, was based on real events.)

Still ... fun for all the family, eh? Have a look at some of the comments on this video. To some Americans, "Europe" is a non-place where everything is wrong, nothing good comes of it, and they can therefore ignore it entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtypdPnPCGM

Suryavarman

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of laws which ban the ownership of lethal weapons, one option is to legislate that gun owners must insure their weapons -- a bit like car owners insuring cars -- so that when people get injured or killed, there's some recourse.

If gun owners had to get insurance then they would become more reckless with their guns. There's no need to be safe when the insurance company is going to pick up the bill.

Or even more simply, health insurers could ask (or be permitted to ask, as I believe it's illegal in at least some states), whether or not there's a gun in the house, and for the health insurance premiums to rise accordingly, with the substantially increased danger to whoever lives there.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal in some states. There's a provision in Obamacare that says gun owners don't have to disclose if they own a gun or not if they are asked.

pabloh999

Suryavarman wrote: »

If gun owners had to get insurance then they would become more reckless with their guns. There's no need to be safe when the insurance company is going to pick up the bill.

The same way we all drive around recklessly crashing into each other all the time:rolleyes:


Use your head.

Manic Moran

Here's a 13-year-girl. I suspect she's been shooting for a couple of years.

Probably a different style of parenting and instruction than some kids receive.

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's a 13-year-girl. I suspect she's been shooting for a couple of years.


Probably a different style of parenting and instruction than some kids receive.

Nothing like a bit of old fashioned indoctrination into American gun culture. What a great sport, she learns how to reload guns, aim guns, shoot at targets. Fun for all the family. Why oh why don't we have these lovely adventure centres in Ireland for 13 and under.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

Realistically, as tragic as it is; people (including children) are going to die. It might be easy to think that if one child makes the news after dying in a swimming pool (after all, who NEEDS a swimming pool?) that swimming pools are dangerous and unsafe. Children have been killed by pets, and really, we don't NEED pets - why should a child have to die because someone wants a dog? It might seem reasonable to take a stance against dogs.

But it's really hard to draw any sort of reasonable line....some kids are going to choke to death just eating; and it's not reasonable to ban food; but maybe we should ban solid food until a child is 18. Solid food is not a basic requirement of life.

All of these things are really rare, and really tragic, I just don't see it as making any meaningful impact on a discussion about whether or not something should be legal. Those should be rational discussions based on actual data - none of this 'One dead child is one too many! Ban X!' because you'd end up with EVERYTHING banned.

Very few people die from methadone. Should we allow anyone to use that?

Guns are designed to kill. That's their primary purpose, wether it's hunting or self defense. yes, there might be some that are designed specifically for target shooting in the olympics, but they're rare. And bringing them up in an argument is like bring up the example of a formula one car when discussing road safety.

Swimming pools are not designed to kill. Neither is solid food. And if you really think you have a rational argument comparing apples to guns then you are off your fcuking rocker.


I actually have no problem with anyone who hunts keeping a hunting rifle or a shotgun that is designed only for that purpose. Handguns should not be allowed because the only purpose a colt semi automatic has is to kill and the only reason to own one over a shotgun or a rifle is because it's small. The same goes for all assault rifles and machine guns.

If people need to own one for a sport it can be kept in a special club. These clubs don't have to be in the middle of no-where and they can have damn good security. If it costs more, so what. Loads of sports cost money and people have to travel for them.

And if anyone want to disagree, I'd like them to explain why they have a human right to own a gun. Seriously, if people are going to say that they are being discriminated against or it's unfair, they'd have to say why it's an unalienable human right.

Witcher

Grayson wrote: »

Handguns should not be allowed because the only purpose a colt semi automatic has is to kill.

You were doing so well there for a while but ignorancealways shines through

If people need to own one for a sport it can be kept in a special club. These clubs don't have to be in the middle of no-where and they can have damn good security. If it costs more, so what. Loads of sports cost money and people have to travel for them.

Eh yeah they kinda do...I don't see 100/200/300 metre ranges or a clay grounds being situated right in the centre of towns. So once again...firearms cannot be left at clubs

And if anyone want to disagree, I'd like them to explain why they have a human right to own a gun. Seriously, if people are going to say that they are being discriminated against or it's unfair, they'd have to say why it's an unalienable human right.

Nobody said it was a human right, you inserted that little bit yourself.

These threads always throw up the same tired suggestions...ban guns..ban certain guns...store the guns at X...restrict magazines.

trashcan

Sparks wrote: »

Can't speak for the other normals, but to me, olympic target shooting was my sport the way that football is a county player's sport. I've shot for 20 years, I've trained people to shoot for ten years, I've owned firearms for nearly fifteen years, I've won national titles, I've won a medal for my country in a (small) international event in an olympic sport, and that sport has the single best safety record of any sport in the country. So when someone says "gun bad, shooters just want to kill kids", well, that's somewhat insulting both in its content and in its ignorance of the details of what people are talking about. And when, as in this case, some mouth-breathing cretin I wouldn't trust with a dog decides that it's fine to leave a five-year-old alone with a loaded rifle while they nip outside for a quick smoke and the inevitable happens, I don't think that the problem is the gun. I think the problem is the parent who decided that parenting is a hobby you can stop doing when you want a quick break.

If shooting is your hobby, fine. You're an adult, fire away (pun intended:)) But this was the five years olds own gun. Do you really think it's acceptable to be buying a lethal weapon for what's still basically a baby ? Because that just seems mental to me.

Witcher

trashcan wrote: »

If shooting is your hobby, fine. You're an adult, fire away (pun intended:)) But this was the five years olds own gun. Do you really think it's acceptable to be buying a lethal weapon for what's still basically a baby ? Because that just seems mental to me.

Buying a kid a gun they can only under your supervision is fine. The problem is allowing them near it when you're not around...which happened in this case.

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

Very few people die from methadone. Should we allow anyone to use that?

Methadone is a mind altering substance for drug addicts. Are you comparing me to a drug addict because I enjoy shooting?

Guns are designed to kill. That's their primary purpose, wether it's hunting or self defense. yes, there might be some that are designed specifically for target shooting in the olympics, but they're rare. And bringing them up in an argument is like bring up the example of a formula one car when discussing road safety.

You have a dislike for target guns, especially pistols. Can you please tell me how many legally held pistols have been used to murder people here in Ireland in the last 30 years? I'll answer that one for you if you don't mind. It's a huge number, 0. Nobody has been killed using a licenced target handgun here in Ireland. America is very different so you can't compare them like for like.

Swimming pools are not designed to kill. Neither is solid food. And if you really think you have a rational argument comparing apples to guns then you are off your fcuking rocker.


I actually have no problem with anyone who hunts keeping a hunting rifle or a shotgun that is designed only for that purpose. Handguns should not be allowed because the only purpose a colt semi automatic has is to kill and the only reason to own one over a shotgun or a rifle is because it's small. The same goes for all assault rifles and machine guns.

As I have mentioned above, nobody has been murdered by someone using a legally licenced target handgun here in Ireland so why do you want to ban them? Oh yeah, it's because they are small. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

If people need to own one for a sport it can be kept in a special club. These clubs don't have to be in the middle of no-where and they can have damn good security. If it costs more, so what. Loads of sports cost money and people have to travel for them.

The Gardai don't agree with your rationale about keeping the guns in clubs. They are the experts and they think that's a bad idea.

And if anyone want to disagree, I'd like them to explain why they have a human right to own a gun. Seriously, if people are going to say that they are being discriminated against or it's unfair, they'd have to say why it's an unalienable human right.

I don't claim to have a human right to have a gun. But if I am a good law abiding citizen, behave in a safe manner, am properly trained and take all the security precautions that are required, then why shouldn't I be allowed a gun.


I'm always amazed at the amount of people who can't tell the difference between a legally held gun in the hands of somebody responsible and an illegal gun in the hands of a scumbag.

They are not the same thing. Just the same as a car in the hands of a sober person isn't the same as a car in the hands of a drunk driver.