arma virumque cano (et alia)
5-year-old fatally shoots 2-year-old sister http://t.co/qNZ9fKJuQt #GunSense #NotOneMore pic.twitter.com/KSHvEYLNhC— KHARY PENEBAKER (@kharyp) June 25, 2014
5-year-old fatally shoots 2-year-old sister http://t.co/qNZ9fKJuQt #GunSense #NotOneMore pic.twitter.com/KSHvEYLNhC
Actually, I prefer teaching my kids to shoot with a Ruger 10/22 with a youth stock. The Crickett sights are pretty flimsy. Teaching kids to shoot is an entirely different subject than safe storage of firearms which is what this is really about.
You're right it's more about safe storage, but it also touches upon the gun nut mentality of giving 5-year-olds their very own gun. That's too young.
I've gifted my teenage son with a rifle. It is his, though I'm obligated to secure it until he reaches his majority. The same is true of the afore mentioned Ruger. With the youth stock, it isn't comfortable for me to shoot, so it becomes for all practical purposed the kids' guns. And again, I'm obligated to secure it from improper use.
What age it to young to give a child a gun?
In Minnesota, there is no minimum age for children using a firearm with adult supervision. However, there is also a safe storage law placing the responsibility of not securing a firearm from access by children on the adult.
I suppose you can call it the kid's gun, but as long as you have to secure it and only let the kid use it when you're supervising, it's the kid's gun in name only. It's really yours.What should happen to a dad who allows his son access to his - the son's - gun? You know what I think.
"In Minnesota, there is no minimum age for children using a firearm with adult supervision."No surprise Minnesota would make such a ridiculous law. Parent present, or not, some children are to young for guns. By your thinking you support allowing a 6 month old to handle a gun, as long as a parent is present. Your gun loon credentials are solid.
"By your thinking you support allowing a 6 month old to handle a gun, as long as a parent is present. " Anon, when you extend the logic you espouse to unreasonable level like this, you don't help your argument. When I take my kids shooting, they get briefed on the rules EVERY time and are questioned on their understanding of the four rules of firearms safety, also EVERY time. No one shoots until they score 100%. They then shoot under my direct supervision. Under Minnesota law, I'm legally and civilly responsible for what happens with the firearms under my supervision. This laws governing this, like the state's carry permit law has been in place for a long time and it works. Your suggestion that I would be happy with a parent giving a six month old child is ridiculous.
It said "no minimum age."That's what it says. You support it so my criticism stands.To claim I'm unreasonable because I say that "no minimum age" includes a 6 month old, only shows your deceit which is prevalent in most of your comments and nothing new. Like the many times you outright lie about what I said, even though my words are right there in print for all to read. You can't have it both ways gun loon.
ss, what's ridiculous is your pretending that you yourself are representative of most gun owners. You're not. And you're certainly not representative of the 50% of lawful gun owners who should be disarmed for their various reasons. Many of them to extreme and bizarre things, not unlike what Anonymous suggested.
Guns are often bought by the mentally ill. However, religion is also a key feature of mental illness. Here we see a clear example: this idiot of a grandmother saying her grandchild is "in a better place". The child is dead. This is not a better place.
A year old story......
I suppose you mean to imply that there's such a scarcity of gun misuse stories out there that I need to recycle the old ones. If that's not what you meant, then what?