5 year old boy shoots his sister with his own rifle

Grayson

Blay wrote: »

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

I said for hand guns. And they can be located on the outskirts. Thanks for calling me ignorant btw. Especially when you couldn't post a single reason why you have a right to have a handgun.

Read that correctly? Not a single reason. Not one. Not even the tiniest effort.

That's because you can't think of any right? So you resorted to name calling. Pretty infantile really.

BTW, all rights are either human rights, civil rights, economic rights etc.. If it was a civil right, then it can be given or taken at the whim of a government and there's nothing wrong with that. Your only reason for saying you can own a handgun would be to say because the government lets you. The reason there were civil rights marches with Rosa parks etc was because they wanted civil rights that would match their human rights. They were being denied the same civil rights as others and that is a human rights violation. Now if i were allowed own a gun and you weren't because of your colour/religion/etc... that would be an entirely different issue.

If you can't think of any logical reason why you should be allowed freely own a handgun, then say so. At least you'd be honest and admit you were argueing for something you had no right to.

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

I said for hand guns. And they can be located on the outskirts. Thanks for calling me ignorant btw. Especially when you couldn't post a single reason why you have a right to have a handgun.

Read that correctly? Not a single reason. Not one. Not even the tiniest effort.

That's because you can't think of any right? So you resorted to name calling. Pretty infantile really.

BTW, all rights are either human rights, civil rights, economic rights etc.. If it was a civil right, then it can be given or taken at the whim of a government and there's nothing wrong with that. Your only reason for saying you can own a handgun would be to say because the government lets you. The reason there were civil rights marches with Rosa parks etc was because they wanted civil rights that would match their human rights. They were being denied the same civil rights as others and that is a human rights violation. Now if i were allowed own a gun and you weren't because of your colour/religion/etc... that would be an entirely different issue.

If you can't think of any logical reason why you should be allowed freely own a handgun, then say so. At least you'd be honest and admit you were argueing for something you had no right to.

Please read my post re how many crimes have been committed by us target shooters using our handguns.

NONE

What's your gripe over sensible people like me owning a pistol?

You don't seem to know the difference between a legally held gun in the hands of someone sensible and law abiding and an illegal pistol in the hands of a scumbag.

Witcher

Grayson wrote: »

I said for hand guns. And they can be located on the outskirts. Thanks for calling me ignorant btw. Especially when you couldn't post a single reason why you have a right to have a handgun.

Read that correctly? Not a single reason. Not one. Not even the tiniest effort.

That's because you can't think of any right? So you resorted to name calling. Pretty infantile really.

BTW, all rights are either human rights, civil rights, economic rights etc.. If it was a civil right, then it can be given or taken at the whim of a government and there's nothing wrong with that. Your only reason for saying you can own a handgun would be to say because the government lets you. The reason there were civil rights marches with Rosa parks etc was because they wanted civil rights that would match their human rights. They were being denied the same civil rights as others and that is a human rights violation. Now if i were allowed own a gun and you weren't because of your colour/religion/etc... that would be an entirely different issue.

If you can't think of any logical reason why you should be allowed freely own a handgun, then say so. At least you'd be honest and admit you were argueing for something you had no right to.

I can't think of any? How about the one every pistol owner in Ireland placed on an FCA1 form when they got their licence; for target shooting. Your proposals arent in tune with the opinions of An Garda Siochana.

Do you think you know better than the Gardai? Yes/no?

Manic Moran

Mardy Bum wrote: »

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.

My guess is because there is some irrational public fear of the shooting sports in Ireland.

Probably because the majority of the Irish population don't understand it and couldn't be arsed to learn about it, instead just focusing on "eek! guns."
Ever notice how there are always shooters in the Irish Olympic team? Derek Burnett has represented Ireland for the last four Summer Olympics, not a feat accomplished by many Irish sportsmen. How many have even heard of him? In the 1800s, Ireland was the world's capital for sport shooting, with the best shooters and teams in the world. Something happened.

Irish shooters today work in the shadows created by fear and ignorance.

NTM

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

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


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:

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.

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.

I never said i wanted to ban handguns. Seriously where did i say that? I said that they should be held at target ranges. that's different. So please don't make stuff up. Secondly, I explicitely stated that comparing a handgun like a colt semi automatic is different to an olympic gun. Just as a car is different to a formula 1 car. Are you not able to understand the simple points I made or are you deliberately misreading them? Because it looks like you're just trying to troll.

The methadone comment in in direct response to another post which you seem to be ignoring. is that deliberate as well? Or can you not come up with an argment without ignoring my posts?
The post i was replying to said that a few people every year die from choking on food. i was saying that a few people die every year from methadone. I was saying that because comparing guns to apples is stupid (Which i said) and you could just as easilly extend that logic to methadone. BTW, it is possible for some people to enjoy certain mind altering drugs responsibly. the people using them know a lot about them. Does that mean that anyone who undergoes training should be allowed shoot up?
Actually, are you on methadone? It'd make sense based on the garbled responses you're giving.

If you're you're going to cite the gardai as experts, you have to back up their evidence. For many years the bible was an authoritative source. I have no problem with people citing it if they give another source as backup.

Finally, if you wish to have a lethal firearm and claim you have a right to it, then provide evidence. Give any argument what so ever.

EDITED FOR DUMBASS SPELLING MISTAKED

Grayson

Blay wrote: »

I can't think of any? How about the one every pistol owner in Ireland placed on an FCA1 form when they got their licence; for target shooting. Your proposals arent in tune with the opinions of An Garda Siochana.

Do you think you know better than the Gardai? Yes/no?

That's not saying why you have a right. It's saying why under current legislation you are allowed to. But you haven't stated why you have a right. Are you reading my posts?

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

Please read my post re how many crimes have been committed by us target shooters using our handguns.

NONE

What's your gripe over sensible people like me owning a pistol?

You don't seem to know the difference between a legally held gun in the hands of someone sensible and law abiding and an illegal pistol in the hands of a scumbag.

And you can't seem to provide an argument as to why you have a right to a gun.

Witcher

Grayson wrote: »

That's not saying why you have a right. It's saying why under current legislation you are allowed to. But you haven't stated why you have a right. Are you reading my posts?

Nobody here has said that people have rights to firearms...you're putting words in people's mouths. It's futile arguing with you. If you have an issue with people owning firearms in Ireland direct your opinions to the Gardai.

garv123

Grayson wrote: »

And you can't seem to provide an argument as to why you have a right to a gun.

You do not have a right to a gun in Ireland...

Having the right to have something means you are entitled to it...


You have to provide evidence to the gardai why you want one and if they decide you have reason to have one they'll grant you one..

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

I never said i wanted to ban handguns. Seriously where did i say that? I said that they should be held at target ranges. that's different.

The Gardai disagree with you. What's your logic behind holding pistols at a club? What does that achieve?

Secondly, I explicitely stated that comparing a handgun like a colt semi automatic is different to an olympic gun. Just as a car is different to a formula 1 car. Are you not able to understand the simple points I made or are you deliberately misreading them? Because it looks like you're just trying to troll.

Yes, I agree with you. A colt semi automatic handgun is very different to an Olympic style pistol. But you do realise that there are a hell of a lot of semi automatic Olympic style pistols out there. There are Olympic events where you need a semi automatic pistol. Apart from Olympic style events, there are plenty of lawful competitions where you can shoot using a semi automatic pistol here in Ireland. Colts included.

i was saying that a few people die every year from methadone. I was saying that because comparing guns to apples is stupid (Which i said) and you could just as easilly extend that logic to methadone.

Nobody is dying because of target pistols here in Ireland. Nobody.

BTW, it is possible for some people to enjoy certain mind altering drugs responsibly. the people using them know a lot about them.

You've just lost there mate. Illegal drugs are ok but licenced gun holders aren't?

Actually, are you on methadone? It'd make sense based on the garbled responses you're giving.

Funny, I thought I was being logical. Silly me.

If you're you're going to cite the gardai as experts, you have to back up their evidence. For many years the bible was an authoritative source. I have no problem with people citing it if they give another source as backup.

So now you have a problem with the Gardai as experts?

Finally, if you wish to have a lethal firearm and claim you have a right to it, then provide evidence. Give any argument what so ever.

The Gardai say I am the type of person they consider trustworthy with a firearm, and they are in charge.

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Gardai disagree with you. What's your logic behind holding pistols at a club? What does that achieve?

Yes, I agree with you. A colt semi automatic handgun is very different to an Olympic style pistol. But you do realise that there are a hell of a lot of semi automatic Olympic style pistols out there. There are Olympic events where you need a semi automatic pistol. Apart from Olympic style events, there are plenty of lawful competitions where you can shoot using a semi automatic pistol here in Ireland. Colts included.


Nobody is dying because of target pistols here in Ireland. Nobody.



You've just lost there mate. Illegal drugs are ok but licenced gun holders aren't?

Funny, I thought I was being logical. Silly me.



So now you have a problem with the Gardai as experts?
The Gardai say I am the type of person they consider trustworthy with a firearm, and they are in charge.

I was extending the logic that if anyone can be trained to handle something as dangerous as a firearm, then the only thing stopping someone from taking methadone every week is a training course.

Holding pistols at a club is safer. BTW, I would personally never allow anyone to own any type of handgun other than an officially sanctioned olympic pistol. And they would be as different to a regular hand gun as the forumla... you've heard me say it before. And before you say it isn't safer, that's because the security you're thinking of isn't as secure as mine

Grayson

garv123 wrote: »

You do not have a right to a gun in Ireland...

Having the right to have something means you are entitled to it...


You have to provide evidence to the gardai why you want one and if they decide you have reason to have one they'll grant you one..

So you're saying you're just allowed to? then why shouldn't we just ban them? You're not entitled to it. And having zero guns would be safer than haveing a few of them.

garv123

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying you're just allowed to? then why shouldn't we just ban them? You're not entitled to it. And having zero guns would be safer than haveing a few of them.

Far more people drop playing dead GAA or soccer in Ireland than are killed using legally held guns..

You're not entitled to play gaa or soccer so banning it and having no one playing it would be safer than having people playing it...


Your logic is terrible.

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

My guess is because there is some irrational public fear of the shooting sports in Ireland.

Probably because the majority of the Irish population don't understand it and couldn't be arsed to learn about it, instead just focusing on "eek! guns."
Ever notice how there are always shooters in the Irish Olympic team? Derek Burnett has represented Ireland for the last four Summer Olympics, not a feat accomplished by many Irish sportsmen. How many have even heard of him? In the 1800s, Ireland was the world's capital for sport shooting, with the best shooters and teams in the world. Something happened.

Irish shooters today work in the shadows created by fear and ignorance.

NTM

Yes because guns were invented primarily as sporting equipment and have very little negative effects attached to them.

You like guns, I suspect you are probably American. Certain parts America are steeped in gun culture like certain parts of Ireland are steeped in Catholicism. Slowly but surely as time advances both are loosening their grip on communities. Both are inculcated to very young children and so a level of dependence surrounds them. I know plenty of people who shoot in Ireland. However it is not anywhere near as pervasive or as insidious as in America. Its a money racket really, its big business. People get rich off it. The NRA and the gun corporations buy politicians and get what they want. Similar to the way the church has a say in any change in Ireland minus the cash investments from rich Republicans.

Ideologies are all consuming and America and Ireland are guilty of allowing two very dangerous ones to take roots and suck off the countries' teats.
You give a gun to a five year old and have them grow up with it do you think they will want to give it up?
Similarly give them a religion and the same consequences arise for the most part.

Now if guns were harmless say like a football I wouldn't be making these claims however American's alarming death rates at the hands of guns speaks for itself.

Grayson

garv123 wrote: »

Far more people drop playing dead GAA or soccer in Ireland than are killed using legally held guns..

You're not entitled to play gaa or soccer so banning it and having no one playing it would be safer than having people playing it...


Your logic is terrible.

See, that's a silly argument. What's your threashold? How many deaths just as a matter of interest.
At every point I've said comparing the number of deaths caused by something is stupid because it's a silly argument. So how many deaths do you think are acceptable.
btw, i'm not saying there have been many (Although i do remember a few years ago someone I knew in westmeath shot his neighbours), but you seem to believe a figure can be placed on it. So, how many are acceptable?

garv123

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying you're just allowed to? then why shouldn't we just ban them? You're not entitled to it. And having zero guns would be safer than haveing a few of them.

Grayson wrote: »

See, that's a silly argument. What's your threashold? How many deaths just as a matter of interest.
At every point I've said comparing the number of deaths caused by something is stupid because it's a silly argument. So how many deaths do you think are acceptable.
btw, i'm not saying there have been many (Although i do remember a few years ago someone I knew in westmeath shot his neighbours), but you seem to believe a figure can be placed on it. So, how many are acceptable?

No its not a silly argument.. You said no guns would be safer.. Im saying no gaa/soccer would be safer because more people drop dead or are badly injured playing Gaa than guns in Ireland...

So you're gonna have to come up with a better argument for banning them..

Use google for your numbers..

shane547

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying you're just allowed to? then why shouldn't we just ban them? You're not entitled to it. And having zero guns would be safer than haveing a few of them.

How would you propose having zero guns? Unless of course your only including your regular lawful person, in which case great fcking job you've now made vulnerable people in rural areas an even easier target for burglars.

Hopefully you never find yourself in a position where you wished to god you had a gun, because apparently your oblivious to the problems that people besides yourself face.

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

I was extending the logic that if anyone can be trained to handle something as dangerous as a firearm, then the only thing stopping someone from taking methadone every week is a training course.

Holding pistols at a club is safer. BTW, I would personally never allow anyone to own any type of handgun other than an officially sanctioned olympic pistol. And they would be as different to a regular hand gun as the forumla... you've heard me say it before. And before you say it isn't safer, that's because the security you're thinking of isn't as secure as mine

If that's your logic, then you need to get your logic machine checked.

What I'm saying is that if you are a reasonable, sensible, law abiding citizen who is trained to be safe with the pistol, and has a lawful use for the pistol such as target shooting, then they should be allowed to have the pistol. And the Gardaí agree with me on that one. I'm not saying it is a right to have a pistol, I'm saying that if you match the criteria that the Gardaí set out, then you are allowed the privilege of having one if you want.

I'm tired saying to you that holding pistols in a club isn't safer. The Gardaí don't want us shooters doing that because it's very hard for them to respond should anyone try and steal the guns if they are at a remote location. Loads of pistols and other types of guns at one location might be a juicy target for criminally minded people.

And lastly, how is having your target pistol at home a safety issue if nobody is being murdered with target pistols that are in the hands of licence holders?

If you can find me a list of Olympic sanctioned pistols I'd be delighted to see it. I highly suspect that there isn't one but I'm open to correction on that one though.

How is, if there is such a thing, an Olympic standard pistol any safer than my semi automatic pistol? It's just more expensive and more accurate than my one, but they both do the same thing.

Manic Moran

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Yes because guns were invented primarily as sporting equipment and have very little negative effects attached to them.

In fairness, most any form of sporting equipment can have negative effects. The point here, however, is that most competition firearms are used for competition, much like rally cars are used for rallying. The history in Ireland demonstrates basically zero negative effects from them at all that I'm aware of. It is a safe, fun sport.

You like guns, I suspect you are probably American.

I like firearms therefore I am likely American? I picked up my practical interest in firearms as part of the UCD rifle club (One of the few people to beat Trinity in the colours :P ), and my first experience of centrefire rifle shooting was in the Irish military.

However, I am now an American. I moved to the US at the age of 25 and have lived here the last 13 years. Over those 13 years my attitude to firearms has evolved from that of an Irish sports shooter to a US general purpose shooter, mainly due to familiarity with 'the other side' which caused a reassessment of what I had 'known' to be true in Ireland.

You give a gun to a five year old and have them grow up with it do you think they will want to give it up?
Similarly give them a religion and the same consequences arise for the most part.

Perhaps. Is having a religion wrong? Is having a firearm wrong? Or is it only when those things are effectively misused through either misunderstanding or malice?

Now if guns were harmless say like a football I wouldn't be making these claims however American's alarming death rates at the hands of guns speaks for itself.

I doubt many people have been killed as a result of the 3-gun matches such as those in which the girl in the video partakes. It basically comes down to legal and sensible use vs illegal or stupid misuse, and I'm not a fan of legislating for stupidity and affecting sensible people as a result.

NTM

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

I doubt many people have been killed as a result of the 3-gun matches such as those in which the girl in the video partakes. It basically comes down to legal and sensible use vs illegal or stupid misuse, and I'm not a fan of legislating for stupidity and affecting sensible people as a result.

NTM

What happens when the girl brings the gun home?
What happens when a young fella brings his football boots, hurley etc home?
How many alarming murders need to occur before regulating for stupidity becomes necessary? We legislate for stupidity on the road but not with something much more destructive.
So you believe guns should be marketed and given to kids for sport or otherwise?

Manic Moran

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What happens when the girl brings the gun home?

If she's like most people, she clears it, disassembles it, cleans it, reassembles it, and puts it back in the box or safe until the next time she wants to shoot it.

What happens when a young fella brings his football boots, hurley etc home?

If he's like most people, he knocks the mud off at the door (or mom will yell!), comes in, cleans them in the sink, puts them on the shelf or in the closet until the next time he wants to play football, hurling, etc.

How many alarming murders need to occur before regulating for stupidity becomes necessary?

Interesting how you correlate murder with stupidity or incompetence. The vast majority of murders are carried out by people with weapons they are not authorized to have to begin with. Two days ago, the California legislature hit the news by approving an expense which had $24million in it to seize weapons from some 20,000 people known to have firearms unlawfully.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/01/local/la-me-guns-20130502

And that's just the ones they know about.

Just like in Ireland, legally held, sensibly used sporting firearms just aren't a significant problem. The US has an extremely serious criminal violence problem involving firearms. This is not negligence or stupidity, this is deliberate unlawfulness.

We legislate for stupidity on the road but not with something much more destructive.

More people are killed in automobile accidents in the US than in all sorts of firearms deaths (Murder, suicide, accident and justifiable homicide) combined.
If we're legislating for stupidity on the road around here, I'm not seeing it. Over a thousand people are killed by trains in the US every year, and if there's anything which takes incredible stupidity (or insanely bad luck) to get killed by, it's a train. If you look at the Irish firearms scene, it would take, IMHO, getting-yourself-killed-by-a-train level of stupidity to come a cropper of a firearm. Actually, I'd argue it takes almost the same level of stupidity to come a cropper of a firearm accident in the US scene as well. Not shooting someone by accident is about as easy to prevent as not finding yourself under a train. You need to break at least two of the four firearms safety rules to have an accidental firearms death. You only need to break one to get run over by a train.

So you believe guns should be marketed and given to kids for sport or otherwise?

Yes. There's nothing wrong with it as long as appropriate, basic, safety precautions are taken.

NTM

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes. There's nothing wrong with it as long as appropriate, basic, safety precautions are taken.

NTM

I am honestly gobsmacked that someone who has been to university could honestly say that it is ethical to market guns to kids. Anybody who works with kids will know just how stupid this is. I'm going to make another presumption and say you do not work with large groups of children on a day to day basis?

Stupidity on roads is legislated for; speed limits, DUIs etc. granted American road laws are pretty lax compared with Ireland.
Explain to me why politicians seem incapable of legislating for background checks which would deter criminals from unlawfully attaining weapons in light of the Republicans recent refusal to pass the bill which would see this become a reality.

Could it be that the politicians receive a huge amount of money from the NRA and gun corps?
Where do they get all this money but from consumers of these weapons. Why do they receive so much because people have an unnecessary dependence on them. A very small proportion of the guns bought are for sport.
60000 kids guns were bought from one distributor alone last year; that is disgusting.

I have yet to see a valid reason why a child should have a gun or rifle.

Quite frankly, it is my personal belief that parents that deem it acceptable are really massaging their own pro gun egos rather than protecting their children from possible dangers as the title of this thread has shown.

If they want to learn to use a gun or rifle, they can wait till they are adults.

Mardy Bum

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I have yet to see a valid reason why a child should have a gun or rifle.

Quite frankly, it is my personal belief that parents that deem it acceptable are really massaging their own pro gun egos rather than protecting their children from possible dangers as the title of this thread has shown.

If they want to learn to use a gun or rifle, they can wait till they are adults.

Exactly.

However gun totting parents have been inculcated into a very dangerous mindset from a very young age - guns are normal and necessary for day to day life.

I have a funny feeling the same parents would not feel it comfortable to train their kids how to use knives but due to cognitive dissonance this never occurs.

Witcher

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I have yet to see a valid reason why a child should have a gun or rifle.

Quite frankly, it is my personal belief that parents that deem it acceptable are really massaging their own pro gun egos rather than protecting their children from possible dangers as the title of this thread has shown.

If they want to learn to use a gun or rifle, they can wait till they are adults.

If the kid wants to go shooting often then the parent's gun won't be suitable in the long term. They need one that's designed with a youth's measurements in mind.

14yo's in Ireland don't 'wait until they're adults' to learn to shoot.

Blay

Blay wrote: »

If the kid wants to go shooting often then the parent's gun won't be suitable in the long term. They need one that's designed with a youth's measurements in mind.

If the kid wants to go shooting? WTF? Then the kid doesn't go shooting.

Witcher

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If the kid wants to go shooting? WTF? Then the kid doesn't go shooting.

Did I say it was right?

No..I was giving you an answer.

I didn't ask a question Blay.

It wasn't me!

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If the kid wants to go shooting? WTF? Then the kid doesn't go shooting.

It's one of the safest sports in the world, with a myriad benefits for physical and mental health and a fantastic social element. There is absolutely no reason to deny that to anyone. It's also one of the core sports of the modern Olympics and the first medal given out every Games, for the serious athletes. These people start training from about the age of eight, just like those who go on to be serious rugby or football players do, and they're taught how to take care of themselves and to keep safe, just like participants in other sports.

Also, you keep going on about how pistols used in the Olympics are very different from a Colt semi-automatic (Though precisely which of Colt's many, many semi-automatic designs you mean is unclear). In what way are they different?

Witcher

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I didn't ask a question Blay.

You said you didn't see a reason why a child needs gun. I gave you a reason why Crickett and other companies make firearms for youths.

Itwasntme, was the gun/rifle that the 5 year old was holding an olympic weapon?

Edit: just saw your own edit. You must have the wrong poster. I have never mentioned different types of guns or rifles in any of my posts.

Blay

Blay wrote: »

You said you didn't see a reason why a child needs gun. I gave you a reason why Crickett and other companies make firearms for youths.

Is a 5 year old a youth, really?

It wasn't me!

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Itwasntme, was the gun/rifle that the 5 year old was holding an olympic weapon?

It would have been eligible for use in the Olympics, yes, but what has that got to do with it? Would the two-year-old be less dead if it had been purpose-built for Olympic competition? That's the central issue of this thread, after all, a terrible human tragedy. People are getting bogged down (on both sides) over the issue of the firearms involved, but they're not the core issue, which is that a five year old was left unsupervised with something they weren't capable of behaving responsibly with. That could be any number of everyday household items and the result could have been the same or similarly tragic, but the fact that it was a firearm drags an awful lot of emotive responses out that only seek to use the events as a vehicle for a previously conceived agenda. Not only is that missing the point, it's rather harmful, since it deflects blame from the parents, who failed in their duty as caretakers to provide a safe environment for their children. That safe environment can include firearms, as demonstrated by many thousands of households in Ireland alone, without even looking abroad, but it must be created as such, and that wasn't the case here, it would seem.

Edit: Sorry, reading confusion. Had you mixed up with someone else above, but I'd certainly like them to answer anyway.

Witcher

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Is a 5 year old a youth, really?

Lets not be pedantic here. I'm just stating thata child looking to start shooting cannot use an adult gun. I'm presuming you're not a shooter so you probably don't appreciate the importance of how a gun fits the user but its the reason companies target the youth market.

garv123

In Ireland all guns must be stored in a gun safe with the exception of it you only own one shotgun, that can be broken into its parts which have to be stores separately and a lock on the trigger.. this makes it safe to keep guns in homes with children as they can not have access to it unless the parent lets the key lying around... Again the would be down to bad parenting..

I dont think guns must be stored in proper safes in america.. This is why you hear tragic stories similar to this one of kids getting hold of their parents guns and shooting someone... But again that is a parenting fail... If a gun is kept in a drawer for self defence it means children can get at it..

These accidents wouldn't be happning if parents took the time to store them properly..

I am not being pedantic. This thread is about a 5 year old, is it not? In your opinion, do you think it is responsible to give a 5 year old a loaded weapon?

I have no issue with the right to have a gun and I am an olympic junkie and enjoy the shooting. My problem is that you can have a gun at any age. That disturbs me.

I can see the argument for youths having them but little children, it's just wrong.

Manic Moran

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I am honestly gobsmacked that someone who has been to university could honestly say that it is ethical to market guns to kids. Anybody who works with kids will know just how stupid this is.

OK, explain it to me, then. I will happily teach you about things I know about which you apparently don't (firearms), I am more than willing to see this exchange of knowledge go both ways. My one caveat is that your explanation accept the premise that kids don't buy their own firearms, and that an adult is involved in the process, as is generally the law.

Or more to the point, explain to me why I shouldn't buy my daughter a rifle to be used under the rules and conditions I set out as I currently plan to. Please also note that the US Federal Government's position is that it is OK to hold competitions for children as young as 8 (See Civilian Marksmanship Program, as chartered by Congress: CMP's mission is: "To Promote Firearm Safety and Marksmanship Training With an Emphasis on Youth". The vision is "That Every Youth in America Has the Opportunity to Participate in Firearm Safety and Marksmanship Programs"). Doesn't mean they're right, of course, but they probably have some reasonable arguments.
[Edit: The 8-year-old age limit was for the air rifle competition. Looking at the eligibility requirements for the National Rimfire Sporter competition in July, there is no minimum age requirement]

I'm going to make another presumption and say you do not work with large groups of children on a day to day basis?

No, I do not. Though the adults I work with do act like children on occasion...

Stupidity on roads is legislated for; speed limits, DUIs etc. granted American road laws are pretty lax compared with Ireland.

I believe that use of a firearm while intoxicated is already usually legislated for, as is shooting in places where you shouldn't be shooting, much like the aforementioned driving fast in places one shouldn't drive fast, and driving drunk. But you will note that there is a 'catch-all' in the speed limit example. No matter what the sign at the side of the road says, it's illegal to drive at a subjective, irresponsible speed when the totality of the circumstances are taken into account (fog, rain etc). Similarly, even though it may be technically legal for me to shoot in Donner Park unlike in the San Jose City park, there are still other laws which cover responsible firearms use in Donner park. Thing is, though, it's all generally common sense stuff which sensible people won't be breaking to begin with. If it's foggy, only an idiot doesn't slow down, no matter what the law says. If you have a firearm, only an idiot will break the fundamental firearms rules, no matter what the law says about when you can use it.

Explain to me why politicians seem incapable of legislating for background checks which would deter criminals from unlawfully attaining weapons in light of the Republicans recent refusal to pass the bill which would see this become a reality.

Not just Republicans, several Democrats from firearms-friendly States voted against as well. The bill didn't sit well with many firearms owners. Only a small minority has particular objection to background checks as a concept, but the issue of records-keeping is a much more controversial one. Had the bill basically said "No change from before, except it is now illegal to sell a firearm without having done a background check and this is how we will make it possible for that to happen", I suspect there would have been a lot more practical support. Instead, the bill as written resulted in a requirement for every trade to have a written record which must be kept for twenty years, costs additional money for the purchaser, and additional inconvenience for both seller and purchaser. It's a wonderful case of misdirection which sounded great to people who don't know how the system works and just point to the "Percentage of people who support background checks" figure.

However, the proposal for a system by Tom Coburn (Republican who voted against the bill) achieves the same background check requirement without mandating the additional costs, travel and records issues.

The devil is in the details.

Could it be that the politicians receive a huge amount of money from the NRA and gun corps?

Partially. There's also the issue that firearms are important to voters who vote not only with their money (eg NRA dues) but also with their ballots. As a general rule, people who are anti-gun have higher voting priorities, from homosexual marriage through marijuana to immigration. They don't punish politicians for voting pro-gun the same way that the pro-gun people punish them for voting anti-gun. The sheer size of the NRA is indicative of the depth of feeling behind it. Compare its membership with that of LCAV (The biggest anti-gun group), or even entirely different action groups like ACLU.

Where do they get all this money but from consumers of these weapons.

That would be about right. Of course, people who feel strongly about restricting firearms do have the option of giving money to politicians too, either directly, or through organisations like LCAV. It' not as if it's an uneven playing field.

Why do they receive so much because people have an unnecessary dependence on them.

Firstly, who are you to say it's un-necessary? Secondly, maybe they just very much like the idea of having their firearms for whatever lawful use they may have in mind and don't want to have people who don't like or know about their activities restrict what they do?

A very small proportion of the guns bought are for sport.
60000 kids guns were bought from one distributor alone last year; that is disgusting.

Out of interest, how many of those 60,000 kids guns do you believe were purchased for the purpose of something other than sport? And why is the figure disgusting, unless you just don't approve of the sport? (which is your personal opinion, not necessarily shared by all)

NTM

garv123

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I am not being pedantic. This thread is about a 5 year old, is it not? In your opinion, do you think it is responsible to give a 5 year old a loaded weapon?

I have no issue with the right to have a gun and I am an olympic junkie and enjoy the shooting. My problem is that you can have a gun at any age. That disturbs me.

I can see the argument for youths having them but little children, it's just wrong.

A weapon, no.. A weapon is intended to do harm to someone else.

A gun, If supervised at all times in a safe area and shown how to use it correctly there is no safety issue..

I wouldnt let any 5 year old off with one on their own or unsupervised with one even for a second.

Witcher

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I am not being pedantic. This thread is about a 5 year old, is it not? In your opinion, do you think it is responsible to give a 5 year old a loaded weapon?

It depends entirely on the situation. How many shooters here fired their first shot around that age?

If the kid was sitting behind the gun while it was on a shooting rest and was being closely supervised by an adult who was confirming the direction of the muzzle and making sure it was empty before the gun was moved or the target checked..then its fine.

In this case the child was left unattended with the firearm...which is not fine.

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

Firstly, who are you to say it's un-necessary? Secondly, maybe they just very much like the idea of having their firearms for whatever lawful use they may have in mind and don't want to have people who don't like or know about their activities restrict what they do?



Out of interest, how many of those 60,000 kids guns were purchased for the purpose of something other than sport?

NTM

Sport comment relates to guns in general rather than kids guns.

Unfortunately kids do not always act how one would expect (although some adults are the same) and may use a gun in an unexpected way. They are not fully cognitively until 17 or 18. Therefore handing them a weapon of such magnitude is incredibly stupid. By the way kids generally at the ages of 13 and below don't buy their own anything. Marketing however puts the seed in both the parents and child's head. Would you be ok with the reintroduction of cigarette marketing in Ireland? Of course they hold competitions sure there is plenty of money to be made from it.

Your reasoning for their refusal of the bill just proves how gun ideology has completely overtaken America. So because some extra work and cost incurred will have to be completed and forgone by gun owners they turned it down. Yet they are happy to pay €24 million as you cited to retrieve guns in Cali? Explain to me how this makes any sense?

The NRA can pay for a politicians campaign or they can pay for another guy to run against him instead if he refuses to follow their lead. Its the campaign that wins the election and they cost a hell of a lot which the gun corps are only to happy to throw at the NRA who then throws it at politicians. Its a sad indication of the decrepit nature of american "democracy".

Regarding the unnecessary dependence comment: America has more guns in it than any other country in the world. Now if America was winning every single shooting medal at the Olympics I would say perhaps this has one benefit. Funnily enough America doesn't even manage this winning only 4 in London. If America was in the midst of a civil war this may be appropriate but funnily enough there is no civil war (bar inner city gang wars). Therefore it is unnecessary.

You can do what you like with your daughter but as someone who works with children on a day to day basis I would encourage not to start bringing your child to a shooting range at a young age.

Sparks

Grayson wrote: »

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.

I'd love to see your figures on that. From what I can tell, firearms made for target shooting are one of, if not the most numerous.

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.

Doesn't matter that they're not designed to kill. They kill nonetheless. You think anyone designed a gun to kill children? Sat round the office and thought "how can we kill a child most effectively?" did they?

These clubs don't have to be in the middle of no-where

Going to pay for land in the middle of the city, are you? Going to let a fullbore rifle range be build in the city, with it's requisite backstops, miles of danger areas and so on, are you?
Please.
The only range built in the last 30 years in an urban area was in Dalkey and that was shut down in the early 90s because it was thought terribly dangerous to have a range in an urban area (even though nothing ever happened).

And if anyone want to disagree, I'd like them to explain why they have a human right to own a gun.

We don't.
And we've never claimed we do.

In the US, however, it's a different story and no explanation is required and the right cannot be revoked; the right is presupposed by the US constitution (no, it's not granted by that document; that's not what the second amendment does). For all your talk of rights, you seem to have forgotten the first property of a right, which is that it's inalienable even when unenumerated.

BTW, explain to me why internet access is a human right, would you?

And yet, it is...

trashcan wrote: »

Do you really think it's acceptable to be buying a lethal weapon for what's still basically a baby ?

Do I think buying a rifle for a kid is a bad idea? No, I think it's irrelevant.

Do I think letting your kids go unsupervised, whether or not you've bought them a gun, is a good idea? No, I think it's bad parenting. They're kids. They don't know how to spell danger, let alone avoid it. They'll drink from coke bottles because coke comes from them so how would they know this coke bottle has weedkiller in it because daddy had some left over so it stored it in an old bottle in the garage? They'll play with knives because they're shiny, they'll walk out on flat roofs because it's somewhere new to walk, they'll climb trees until they're so high a fall would kill them because why not -- you seem to think unless you buy them a gun they can't get hurt.

Feck no, we've been killing ourselves for centuries.

Want to keep your kid safe? Be a better fecking parent.

Grayson wrote: »

Holding pistols at a club is safer.

No, it really isn't.

BTW, I would personally never allow anyone to own any type of handgun other than an officially sanctioned olympic pistol. And they would be as different to a regular hand gun as the forumla... you've heard me say it before.

Meet the Manurhin M73, a .38 calibre olympic revolver. I'm dying to hear your explanation of how that's different from a .38 calibre police revolver or one of the .38 calibre handguns sold for self-defence in the US.

G'wan, then. You know enough to know what's safe better than people who've been shooting for decades, who've trained a hundred or two others to shoot safely, who've represented their country internationally in an olympic sport, who helped write the firearms act and who are parents themselves. So you can solve a little puzzle like this easily, can't you?

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

If the kid wants to go shooting? WTF? Then the kid doesn't go shooting.

My son will. I'd be damned if I let him go join the GAA. Why?
Fatalities in target shooting in Ireland since 1850 = 0.
How many fatalities of kids in GAA matches in the last decade? It's not zero.
Shooting's far safer. And when you look at what shooters learn, it's a damn sight better for him.

What do shooters learn?

What Competitive Shooters Learn
By: Michèle K. Makucevich


Guns. An emotionally charged word with connotations that vary from Norman Rockwell-like images of a man and his hunting hound to gang clad teenagers and drive-by shootings. As political candidates and the media focus on firearms issues and school shootings capture the national headlines, gun-control is often called upon to supplant self-control in the public agenda.

And yet, my own view of firearms is, perhaps, very different from the norm. As a professional educator and a volunteer rifle coach for the past 16 years, I am frequently asked to, at best explain, at worst, defend, my involvement with guns and youth shooting. Often, when speaking with the media about the accomplishments of my athletes, I am confronted with politically based questions pertaining to legislation rather than sport. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to separate the two. So, I would like to share a few of the many lessons that the shooting sports, particularly competitive shooting, impart.

Perseverance. Unlike many sports which are more dependent on physical stature or beauty, shooting is something anyone who is committed to improvement can excel at. Shooting athletes learn to continue trying even when faced with difficult challenges.

Part of learning perseverance, shooting athletes learn Patience. With the tremendous effect the wind has on a .22 bullet at 100 yards, or even 50 meters, competitive marksmen learn to anticipate and correct for the wind's effect, and, when necessary, to wait for the return of their condition. Even when not compensating for the movement of the bullet due to wind, the competitive shooter must discipline herself to execute the shot only when her hold and sight picture are nearly perfect. Sometimes this requires taking several "holds", thus, the shooter learns not only patience, but Self Discipline.

Like any worthwhile goal, shooting, sometimes can take on the aspect of work. Practicing for hours each week with sore wrists and aching backs can wear on even the most enthusiastic competitor when the results seem slow in coming. Once again, shooting teaches the lesson that hard work, over time, will be rewarded. Those with the self-discipline to stick it out will prevail.

Problem Solving is a critical part of growing up and becoming more self-sufficient. Because of its individual nature, even beginning shooters learn to make decisions based on their performance and match conditions.

The way we view setbacks is important. Optimists attribute failure to something they can change rather than to something beyond their control. Shooting teaches Optimism. The competitive shooter searches for answers instead of dwelling on problems.

Junior shooters, then, feel more in control of their lives. They are better equipped to handle obstacles and, quite possibly, may be more successful in their future endeavors.

A large part of Optimism is to be positive in one's approach to the individual performance. As a coach, I have learned that the most successful athletes will focus on performance over score. While those who focus on score can be easily rattled by loss of points and are more subject to losing additional points, those who effectively concentrate on body control will not be flustered by an errant shot, but, instead, will analyze and correct for it.

I remember my coach telling me, "don't worry about the score, it will take care of itself. Concentrate on performance." Now that has become my mantra with my own pupils.

Even more important, perhaps, has been the effect that that simple idea has had on the various aspects of my life. As a teacher, I use the idea every day. Rather than concentrating solely on outcome, I have learned to recognize the effort and adherence to prescribed procedures when facing a difficult task.

On the range I have learned to "let the bad shot go." Yes, I analyze what went wrong. Yes, I develop a plan to prevent it form happening again. But, I have learned to accept my errors, do my best to correct them, and not let them dictate my future.

Competitive shooters learn that once the shot is down range, there is nothing you can do to change it. No amount of self-reproach will bring that "7" back, however, analysis and self-discipline will prevent it from happening again.

Concentration, one's ability to focus, and attention span, the length of time that one can devote attention exclusively to one subject, are both learned skills. Very few activities force one to unite mind and body in such an exacting way as shooting.

When parents of young children (ten or eleven years old) ask me what can be gained from participation in the shooting sports, I frequently ask them, "How would you like to see your child hold still for two hours?"

Of course, competitive shooting is about far more than merely holding still, but the point is, the ability to concentrate and focus generally has the effect of improving school grades as well. It is a learned skill.

Confidence, like concentration, is learned. Success builds upon success. For the competitive marksman, the feeling gained by mastering oneself and "beating that target" is a stepping stone to a confidence that "I can succeed in other areas as well." After shooting offhand, algebra and term papers are not so scary. Like success in shooting, they must be approached with a positive attitude. And, also like shooting, they both have a basic structure that need be adhered to, though, there is some room for adjusting to fit the individual.

My shooters learn Responsibility as well. Certainly they gain this from a Safety standpoint, but they also gain this from a demand for Personal Accountability. When they shoot a personal best, they shot it. I may have been there to cheer them and put them in solid positions. I may have planned their training schedules and seen to it that they had the best equipment that they, or the club could afford. But, ultimately, they pulled the trigger. Conversely, when they have a poor performance, I am not the culprit. They shot the match. Maybe they went to a party the night before and didn't get adequate sleep. Maybe they tried making position changes in the middle of the competition. Maybe they just had a bad day. But, ultimately, they pulled the trigger. Shooters are held responsible for every shot they fire.

There are, of course, more lessons one learns from shooting. I honestly believe that my own involvement in the sport has helped me to become much more focused. I have born witness to the maturation of numerous youngsters through their involvement in the sport. I'm proud to say that I have had some hand in coaching a number of collegiate All Americans, some of whom, were it not for the scholarships they received, would never have attended college.

When some of my teaching colleagues invariably ask, "Why do you promote shooting?" and "As a mother, how can you support guns?" My response is quite simple, "How can I not?"

As a mother, how wonderful that I have a sport that both of my children (a boy and a girl) can compete in equally. How unusual to find a sport that we can share as a family on a local, regional and national level. How fortunate I am to have a tool for teaching them perseverance, patience, self-discipline, problem solving, optimism, concentration, confidence, responsibility, and personal accountability.

As an educator, I have the opportunity, every day, to see how many of these life's lessons are sadly lacking in our youth. While it is unfortunate that the issues of gun control have caused the tools of my sport to be at the center of a maelstrom of controversy, the rifles used by myself and my athletes are no different to us than a bat to a baseball player, a racket to a tennis player, or a javelin to a track and field athlete. The focus of shooting is the ultimate control of mind over body, and, as such, it is one of the least violent of any sports. You don't tackle, check, punch or grab your opponent. Because it is a non-contact sport, it has an unequaled safety record. There are no injuries.

In this time when so much attention is being focused on respecting and recognizing differences, when politicians and school boards call for us all to find beauty in diversity, I find it disheartening and, even hypocritical, that such a cry does not extend to sport. I celebrate the differences that hold my sport separate from the rest. Shooting is the most egalitarian of all sports, men and women compete on equal terms. Our National Shooting Champions have ranged in age from 15 to their 70's. It is both a summer and winter sport in the Olympic Games. And, uniquely, it affords both individual and team events. The main reason I coach and continue to compete, however, is that shooting, as both a mental and physical discipline, fosters those attributes that I want my children to share and that I continue nurturing in myself.


About the author:

A member of the National Rifle Association's National Coach Development Staff since its inception in 1994, Michèle Makucevich is currently the Civilian Marksmanship Program's Rhode Island State Junior Director. Makucevich is a national record holder in both smallbore and long range rifle, a past Collegiate National Champion in air rifle, and the head coach for the Newport Rifle Club. She has been competing and coaching since 1985 and has represented the US in international competition as a member of the US Randle Team. She was recognized by the National Shooting Sports Foundation as the 1998 USA Shooting National Coach of the Year.

Sparks

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The NRA can pay for a politicians campaign or they can pay for another guy to run against him instead if he refuses to follow their lead.

Ironically, the last time I heard of an NRA money scandal, they were saying the NRA had been bought by the GOP.

Which way round is it exactly? :rolleyes:

Mardy Bum

Sparks wrote: »

Ironically, the last time I heard of an NRA money scandal, they were saying the NRA had been bought by the GOP.

Which way round is it exactly? :rolleyes:

The way I first said it. Its not a scandal either it is common knowledge.
Link
Link

BattleCorp

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Sport comment relates to guns in general rather than kids guns.

Unfortunately kids do not always act how one would expect


You can do what you like with your daughter but as someone who works with children on a day to day basis I would encourage not to start bringing your child to a shooting range at a young age.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. The kid shouldn't have had access to the gun unsupervised. It was bad parenting, plain and simple.

Kids don't have the mental capacity to realise the dangers unless they are taught properly. 5 years old is too young to teach properly. But that doesn't mean that they can't shoot a gun under supervision.

valerossi

Red necks just don't understand guns are not toys. Why would you give a child a gun and access to ammo and who thought him to point it at people anyway. Golden rules your fire arm is always loaded and never point at anything you don't want dead.

Mardy Bum

BattleCorp wrote: »

Kids don't have the mental capacity to realise the dangers unless they are taught properly. 5 years old is too young to teach properly. But that doesn't mean that they can't shoot a gun under supervision.

In what circumstances would a kid under the age of 15/16 every ask a parent to shoot.
I know of two anyway; through marketing and through influence from a parent.
A kid learn lots of skills from taking up chess as a hobby and football as a sport and would never consider the need to take up shooting at inanimate objects at a shooting range.
Why is the fervour so ferocious? Mainly because the parents involved are heavily dependent on guns for some sort of recreation activity and ideologically which could certainly be exchanged for a less destructive one.

Manic Moran

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Unfortunately kids do not always act how one would expect (although some adults are the same) and may use a gun in an unexpected way. They are not fully cognitively until 17 or 18.

OK, I'll accept that. But similarly one can't prevent a child from doing anything at all until they are 17 or 18. Lewis Hamilton started hurtling around race tracks at the age of 8, but I'm not suggesting that he should have been permitted to drive on the Queen's highway, with or without supervision. And unlike the shooter dad who is right over the shooter's shoulder, Daddy Hamilton had absolutely no control over his son at all. For everything there is a balance point at which the parents have to decide that certain activities are OK under supervision, and certain activities are OK under no supervision at all. Would you argue that assessment?

Therefore handing them a weapon of such magnitude is incredibly stupid. By the way kids generally at the ages of 13 and below don't buy their own anything. Marketing however puts the seed in both the parents and child's head.

Sure, but I'm not an automaton either. There are plenty of things I see advertised that I don't purchase for whatever reason. Actually, most things, I don't purchase.

Would you be ok with the reintroduction of cigarette marketing in Ireland?

Is it possible to use cigarettes harmlessly? Without even harm to your own lungs? Is this really equivalent?

Of course they hold competitions sure there is plenty of money to be made from it.

I honestly don't know of CMP makes a net gain or loss. It's run by a 501(c)3, a non-profit organization. I did find an assessment from 1990 where the government spent $5m on the program (before it was transferred from the Army to the 501(c)3), and had 7,500 competitors in competition. Hardly a great return on the investment from competition.

There is also the question of the program's knock-on effects, such as extra-curricular activities keeping kids off the streets and the fact that training people to handle firearms safely probably reduces accidents and those costs.

Your reasoning for their refusal of the bill just proves how gun ideology has completely overtaken America. So because some extra work and cost incurred will have to be completed and forgone by gun owners they turned it down. Yet they are happy to pay €24 million as you cited to retrieve guns in Cali? Explain to me how this makes any sense?

There are a few issues.
Firstly, most people have less issue with the government spending money to enforce the laws that already exist. Creating new laws which add even further to the burden when existing laws are not enforced tends to raise objection.
Secondly, there is a very firm belief in the right to privacy. They just don't want people keeping track of what they do. They have an issue with records being kept of what they've done.
Thirdly, there is objection to mandating that individuals go out of their way to keep the government happy without good cause. If it is possible to achieve the same result without the hassle (and normally expense paid to a third party), then that's not a good cause.

The NRA can pay for a politicians campaign or they can pay for another guy to run against him instead if he refuses to follow their lead.

Again, why is this any different from LCAV, MAIG or any other anti-gun organization?

Its the campaign that wins the election and they cost a hell of a lot which the gun corps are only to happy to throw at the NRA who then throws it at politicians.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hypothesise that you have never looked into NRA funding sources. When you have over five million members paying about $30 a year in dues, that gives you a heck of a lot of money to throw about every two years, even before you take into account the additional donations. (Do the maths, and then note that the NRA spent all of $7.2million in lobbying in the 2010 federal election cycle). People keep talking about the NRA as if it is this nebulous faceless organization which is the puppet of the firearms industry, when in fact, the firearms industry contributes very little: The NRA doesn't need it! The NRA is so big and well funded because it is basically the single largest private organization in the world. When you have the membership of that many people, you get the benefits that come with it, to include the member's money.

Its a sad indication of the decrepit nature of american "democracy".

In fairness, lobbying is a problem which I think all people will agree to, and it is in no way unique to firearms. However, everyone knows how the rules are played, and if some 5-million-strong organization wants to lobby an anti-NRA position, they're more than welcome to.

Regarding the unnecessary dependence comment: America has more guns in it than any other country in the world. Now if America was winning every single shooting medal at the Olympics I would say perhaps this has one benefit. Funnily enough America doesn't even manage this winning only 4 in London. If America was in the midst of a civil war this may be appropriate but funnily enough there is no civil war (bar inner city gang wars). Therefore it is unnecessary.

When I was taking my pilot's course, I noted that until recently it was mandatory for a pilot in Alaska to have a firearm of sufficient size to deal with bears. Yep, you had to have a gun to be a pilot. (Post-9/11 legislation nixed that requirement, apparently unintentionally). There are parts of the country where you are outright stupid to go without a firearm, and in some places, preferably a large one. And, unfortunately, the most dangerous predator in the US is another human. Firearms are extremely handy against them. As long as you're not on the receiving end at the time, you can claim it's not necessary. If you are, however.... Of course, both those arguments are a bit redundant in Ireland where you have nothing more dangerous out in the forests than an angry badger, and where the self-defense argument has been legislated away, apparently on the grounds of statistics.

In what circumstances would a kid under the age of 15/16 every ask a parent to shoot.

That doesn't take much imagination.
"Daddy, where are you going?"
"Shooting range, dear"
"Can I come with you?"
"Sure"

[Edit. I see you sortof answered that with parental influence. But if I enjoy the sport, are you saying I should cease my sport in case my daughter wants to know what I enjoy?]

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course, both those arguments are a bit redundant in Ireland where you have nothing more dangerous out in the forests than an angry badger

Friend of mine as a child, when he was about five, was playing in a wooded area near his house one day, as kids do. Comes running back into the kitchen carrying a live hand grenade. Cue much Benny-Hill-esque chasing of the youngster and his hand grenade which he thought was great fun.

Turns out, it's more than angry badgers in Irish woods, there are old IRA arms caches too.

At the time, btw, we were banned from having most kinds of firearms because we're Irish and we're safe and sensible and it's far safer a place to raise kids than in the crazy, crazy US where a teacher beating a child until bones broke is treated as a crime instead of getting the local garda to say "ah, now, that was a bit much". (Ryan report. Lovely reading. Tralee has it's own appendix in it. And no, my point isn't that the Christian Brothers were more dangerous than guns; it's that the Irish get on a mighty high horse at times when their record really should dissuade them from that practise...)

Mardy Bum

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, lobbying is a problem which I think all people will agree to, and it is in no way unique to firearms. However, everyone knows how the rules are played, and if some 5-million-strong organization wants to lobby an anti-NRA position, they're more than welcome to.



NTM

Link regarding gun corps funding NRA.

I have addressed why kids feel the need to shoot in a post above. If you enjoy the sport enjoy it without shoving it down their throat and getting them a gun just because you like it. Get them one when he/she turns 16 and train them when they are better cognitively developed.

If the amount of guns in America is indicative of the dangers posed by humans and animals it can no longer call itself a civilised country. The point is fatuous. You have given very limited examples which I have also given in a previous post. Guns would be necessary if you are living in inner city areas or Wyoming/Ohio wilderness otherwise no they are not imperative to survival. And if they are well I reference you back to my civilised country remark.

Regarding the cigarette comment: I'm making about marketing and its dangers especially when aimed at a young impressionable audience.

Now if you can guarantee you will always be standing over your kids shoulder fair enough. However this is not always practical and can only amount to a tragedy.

Its not the CMP that makes the money its the gun corps. There are plenty of hobbies a child could take up to give them something to do rather than giving them a potentially fatal piece of equipment in the hope they will be kept busy.

My points have all came back to this massive support the NRA receives and why it receives this support. Firstly if it is privacy most of that has disappeared in post 9/11 America. It receives the support because America has been inculcated to gun ideology through the paying off politicians, marketing guns to kids and a lack of education in the deep south.

Sparks

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'm making about marketing and its dangers especially when aimed at a young impressionable audience.

You know that the kids can't buy guns on their own, right?
That it has to be a parent who buys them?
I mean, the gun laws in most of the US are less draconian than here, but they're not exactly anything-goes either, regardless of what the saturday morning cartoons Irish press say.

Now if you can guarantee you will always be standing over your kids shoulder fair enough. However this is not always practical and can only amount to a tragedy.

Having trained a few hundred kids to shoot safely, I think I can say with a little bit of experience that this is utter horse droppings. You can guarantee you'll always be at their shoulder when they're shooting, it's downright easy to do so.

It receives the support because America has been inculcated to gun ideology through the paying off politicians, marketing guns to kids and a lack of education in the deep south.

That's a very nuanced and informed opinion, obviously based on deep experience and widespread gathering of relevant social and cultural information as well as deep research into the immediately relevant facts.