A LITTLE boy is shown how to use an automatic weapon in this chilling new al-Qaeda video.
The lad, as young as three, fires off shots, supported by a grinning fanatic.
The good folks over at Atlas Shrugs quoted The Sun and inadvertently made a funny. Being all for teaching young kids about guns themselves, which makes them fanatics, they called the Muslim dad a "grinning fanatic." Now that's a wonderful combination of hypocrisy and irony.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Where to begin... There's nothing fanatical about teaching children to shoot. Teaching children to kill innocents is evil. What this child is being taught isn't altogether clear, the sources being less than reliable.
ReplyDeleteNice Tokarev, by the way.
3-year-old children?
DeleteI don't know where this is taking place or what the context is. Just because the adult involved appears darker than I am does not make me automatically foam at the mouth. The only obvious thing I see wrong is the lack of hearing protection.
DeleteI thought even the Eddie Eagle proponents considered 3-year-olds too young for this. At that tender age the ONLY instruction is "don't touch." Do you disagree with this? Is there any age below which you think teaching shooting skills is inappropriate?
DeleteMikeb, Eddie Eagle teaches children what to do when they see a gun lying around. The teaching says go tell an adult. Well, there's an adult present. So there's nothing to report.
DeleteUnlike you, I don't want to draw absolute lines. As I've said before, we don't know the context here, so it's impossible to know what exactly is going on. The gun may even be empty. But why must you decide when a parent is allowed to teach his child about guns? It is none of your business.
Ages aren't magic boundaries. It's up to each parent to decide when their kid is ready. It's not up to you, no matter how much you wish it was, Mikey.
DeleteGreg and T., is it so hard for you guys to make a simple declarative statement? Of course it's up the the parents. But the question is, in your opinion, is 3 too young for actual shooting?
DeleteI suspect that you guys are both beating around the bush, hemming and hawing, because your honest opinion actually is in agreement with me. And you fucking hate that.
Gee, Mike, sorry I refuse to set a magic level that is "too young." It depends on the kid and what and how you are teaching them.
DeleteFirst, from the time they're moving around and able to understand, they need to be taught not to touch or grab at guns.
Eventually, (maybe a 3, maybe at 11) they may express interest in shooting, at which point I'm not going to say "No" based on age alone. I'm also not going to start them out with a sharp recoiling Tokarev pistol. If they're young and small, a Red Rider BB gun is plenty to let them punch a few holes in paper, feel included in the outing, and thus not have an incentive to try to sneak around and mess with a gun if they find one.
Mikeb, unlike you, I don't feel the need to lay down arbitrary rules to compel others to conform to my whims.
DeleteGreg, I'm not trying to compel anybody to adhere to anything. I'm asking for a simple opinion.
DeleteT., did you really say a 3-year-old may express an interest in shooting? Have you ever known a 3-year-old? Are they mentally capable of expressing an interest in something serious like shooting guns?
The kid in the picture is supposed to be 3, and he seems interested in what he's doing. Is it so inconceivable that a kid who is able to walk and talk might want to do what he sees his parents or older siblings doing?
DeleteEven TS, who is one of the staunchest gun-rights fanatics agreed that 3 is too young. But you, you will never give in, ever.
DeleteWhoa there, I thought I am a moderate.
DeleteDifference of opinion, Mike. But why are you throwing that in my face? No argument against my last response to you?
DeleteTS, is that a joke?
DeleteT., since you're a proven liar, it's no problem for you to lie about this in order to not agree with me. 3 is too young for shooting.
Ah, I'm a proven liar, am I? How and where?
DeleteIf I've said something wrong, I've owned up to it, retracted the statement, and adjusted my position based on the newly learned facts.
Show where I have not done this, or back off it.
I've shown you dozens of times, so many in fact that you complain about how often I use the work "lair."
DeleteI remember ONCE you admitted it claiming you'd misread the comment you were lying about.
I won't waste my time going back to find examples, you know I rarely do that. But, anyone who sticks around will surely see future examples of your lies and they won't have to wait long either.
Yes, I did misread that comment, and I retracted my statement within hours of making it--the very next time I came by the blog and saw my mistake. It was quite embarrassing. There have been other occasions, such as when Laci--yes, my "favorite" blogger here--dug up the self defense statute, corrected an errant understanding I had from early media reports, and I not only admitted he was right about the SYG language merging into the original statute, but I thanked him for taking the time to pull the statutory language and link to it.
DeleteThat's right, I Listend to and even Thanked Laci. Of course, later that week you went back to accusing me of lying when I described how the SYG element in that statute didn't seem to be material to the Zimmerman verdict since the case could be won without it.
I can't remember, off the top of my head, if you've shown me that I was wrong elsewhere, but I know my pattern when I am shown that I'm wrong. The rest of your accusations of lying have occurred when we deal with your definitions based on your opinions. You accuse me of lying when I use a standard definition rather than your definition that I don't know. Then, you when I know your definitions and I point to the lack of logic or morality in them, rather than try to convince me that I'm wrong, you just scream "Liar!"
So, no, you haven't Shown me dozens of times. You've shown me where I was unintentionally wrong twice that I can remember, and I've happily admitted it and changed my errant position. The rest of the time, you've made accusations but refused to back them up.
So, now the idea of teaching children firearms safety and teaching them to shoot if they want is a definition of being a fanatic.
ReplyDeleteWhen you stupidly redefine words, you destroy all ability to communicate, Humpty.
Yes, it's fanatical when the kid is fucking 3 years old.
DeleteNo it's not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a child about firearms safety and how to shoot. It takes the mystery away from firearms, and teaches him how to safely handle them. 3 years old is not too young to begin learning to be safe with firearms.
DeleteMikeb, since when do you get to decide how old is old enough for a parent to teach his child how to shoot?
DeleteI wasn't able to find the video this still came from. Anyone? In the photo shown, the kid isn't really firing the gun. And I'm doubting that its an automatic weapon.
DeleteGreg, Obviously I don't get to decide. But my opinion is what it is. What's yours? If you had a 3-year-old, would you take him shooting?
DeleteSarge, it's probably called an automatic since that was the older term for semiautomatic. The source of this appears to be a British tabloid, and I'm not familiar with the terms used across the pond.
DeleteMikeb, what does it matter what I would do with such a child? It would depend on the child. It would depend on the circumstances. As always, I'm not going to jump into absolute declarations without more imformation.
Stop making the damned excuse that it's just your opinion when you've called it child abuse before and defended the position that it should be treated as such, opening the door for the termination of parental rights.
DeleteSure, you don't decide now, but you want to decide and propose various laws and policies all the time.
I have indeed called it child abuse, but I did not call for the parents to be punished. I recognize the parents' right to make these decisions.
DeletePlease don't go searching for a gotcha.
Ah, so it's child abuse, but it shouldn't be punished. So it's ok to abuse children so long as it isn't Abuse abuse. Kinda like Whoopie talking about how Polanski didn't Rape rape the girl.
DeleteMost of us reserve calling things child abuse unless we think they rise to the level of punishable abuse, but here's just one more place where you redefine words so that you can use inflammatory language, and as a side effect you kill our ability to communicate.
It allows you to wriggle out of any gotcha, but at the cost of any honesty or integrity.
In our discussions I've always used child abuse in its wider sense. It includes what, in my opinion, is abusive to the child. Unfortunately this often does not rise to the level of lawbreaking.
DeleteYou should spend as much time on the actual discussion as you do in trying to catch me out.
When you and yours offer actual arguments, I discuss them.
DeleteWhen you offer ad hominems, insults, implications of abuse, etc. I call you out for them.
Maybe you should concentrate on making actual arguments rather than emotional pleas manipulations and defamation.
This is an "actual argument." I say 3 is too young for actual shooting, you secretly agree, but won't ever admit it. Agreeing with me on ANYTHING, in your mind, is a big no-no.
DeleteActually, that is not an "actual argument". That is an undefended statement--3 is too young--not backed up by any argument.
DeleteInstead, it is backed up with an accusation of dishonesty and bad faith--the suggestion that I secretly agree but won't ever admit it. Then we have a straight up falsehood--that Agreeing with you on ANYTHING is against my character. Of course other readers can confirm that I have OPENLY agreed with you on some things in the past. It's rare but it does happen.
So, care to try again, or just to toss more accusations and falsehoods about me?
Name one thing you've agreed with me on?
DeleteI don't have an exhaustive memory, but off the top of my head:
DeleteThe need to punish the Starbucks quickdraw sink shooter, the stupidity of Joe Scarborough, suppressors, importance of safety rules, and a couple of times that I can't remember the subject, but where I remember posting comments to the effect of my having just shit a brick in surprise since you took a position on guns that didn't expect of you and agreed with rather than having a pathological need to seek out a different position that you wouldn't agree with me on.
Wow, after all that you're still inexplicably stubborn about the 3-year-old? What's wrong with you, man?
DeleteI've explained myself already. No, I don't have kids yet and it's been a while since I've been around a kid I know was 3 rather than 4 or 5. I know that by 5 I was happily shooting my BB gun. I know that from 2 on I have pictures of me fishing with my grandpas--They were doing it, and I wanted to join in, so one of them bought me a tiny fishing rod that I could cast.
DeleteLittle kids see parents, siblings, and friends engaging in activities and want to take part. Frankly, I see no problem in using a .22 rifle, or especially a BB gun, airsoft rifle, etc. that the parent is holding, and teaching the little kid to shoot it.
I'm not suggesting you give a BB gun or a Cricket rifle to a 3 year old and let them have fun on their own with it. I'm talking about carefully supervised, parents with their hands on the gun, letting the kid shoot a few shots so that they feel included.
You can't comprehend that I would think this was ok. I, on the other hand, see this as pretty normal. Just like teaching a kid to cast a dangerous and nasty baited hook and having them stand on the edge of a pond waiting for a bite, this is a situation that can go very wrong if the parents aren't doing their job right. However, if they're standing over their kid, teaching them, helping them, etc. then it's a fun day for all and the kid learns some basics, including being told, over and over, guns are dangerous; never touch guns except when mommy and daddy are helping you.
3 years old is to young. At that age they have no comprehension of the deadly consequences of using the weapon.
ReplyDeleteHow many more stories must I read about young children killing others because they had no idea the gun they found and pulled the trigger on would kill the person they aimed at. See Mike's archives for the facts.
So you'd rather keep them having "no idea"?
DeleteI don't know, Jim, how many stories must you read? Death from accidental gunfire is the rarest of all categories--about 600 per annum. Would you care to tell us what percentage of total deaths or total gun owners that is?
DeleteOf course he would. The more people are kept ignorant and not given safety training with guns the more will die in accidents. That builds up greater and greater power for his side to pass restrictive controls that either eliminate gun ownership or restrict it to a tiny club of "in" people.
DeleteT., quit avoiding the question with you generic insults. Is 3 years old too young or not?
DeleteI think three is too young.
DeleteGeneric? I thought I was quite specific with them.
DeleteAs I said above: ages aren't magic boundaries, and it's up to the parents to decide what they're going to teach their children and when to start.
Thanks, TS. You see how easy that is, T. and Greg.
DeleteSee Above.
DeleteHere go these two again. A life obviously means nothing to them. I never mentioned a number, but they argue it's ok because the numbers are so low. 600? one? 30,000? No matter. Now give us your child expert opinion on a 3 year old's mental ability to understand the deadly ability of a gun. But thanks for enlightening us that 600 is an acceptable amount of dead children to you. Doesn't surprise me at all.
ReplyDeleteAh, and so you take our correction of your accidental death number and bring it in here, now turning it into 600 children per year rather than 600 total. And on top of that, you ignore our statements that this is the best number yet, but that we need to bring it down further, and instead you lie and say that we find 600 "an acceptable amount of dead children."
DeleteThe truth is not in you, worthless concern troll.
Go away and stir up trouble elsewhere.
1. This apparently isn't even happening in the United States, so any discussion of our laws is irrelevant here. We couldn't ban this if we wanted to.
Delete2. The number of child deaths from accidental gunfire is around 200 per annum. None of us have said that this is an acceptable number. My point is that the number is low enough to remove any justification for sweeping new laws on the grounds of safety.
3. If we're going to talk numbers, we have to bring in the 800,000 to 2.5 million that the National Academies of Science say use a firearm each year to defend their lives. That's not my estimate. Those numbers come from the scientific experts of the Federal government.
4. Your claim that I don't care about human life is false. I do care a great deal. I care about the full expression of human life, including the ability to exercise one's rights. I care about human life free from the burden of oppressive government. To me, human life is so much more than mere existence.
T., is that another one of your rights, the right to tell people to go away from MY BLOG. Who do you think you are?
DeleteMike,
DeleteIf the guy is going to slander me and make vile accusations against me, why is it unacceptable for me to politely tell him to fuck off?
I haven't really seen vile accusations and slander, but the point is you cannot tell people to leave the blog.
DeleteHyper-oversensitivity along with grandiosity are among your many mental disorders.
Hey hey hey! Ignore the comments Jim last made, and follow up with accusations of mental disorders!
DeleteFrankly, I care little what venom you or Jim toss my way. However, regarding my comment for him to go stir up trouble elsewhere, I said that as a goad for a potential troll--same as when I said similar things to E.N. in the past. I think we can all agree that E.N. is a troll, and I don't know why you wouldn't want to make him feel unwelcome.
And whether or not Jim is a troll, he's free to tell me to fuck off and go read TTAG instead of this blog. It's not like either of us can enforce that on the other. We can just express our disdain for each other.
Won't bother with liars like TN, and Greg the 600 was your number.
ReplyDeleteNow back to your world of acceptable death rates.
Troll? Who makes comments on almost every post? TN and Greg. Who is always in disagreement with the blog author? TN and Greg. If you disagree with this blog almost every post, why come here? You are a team. Here to disagree with ANY anti gun position. I suspect you are paid by the NRA to rebut all anti gun posts, and you two have been assigned this blog. You are against anything anti gun, no matter how stupid you sound, or how many times you call someone a liar. Now that's a troll.
Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. Nice.
DeleteAs for your comment on my supposed pay for this--how does one get such a job? How well does it pay?
Sorry, Jimmy, but you've got me wrong.
As for why I come here, I come for the spirited debates we used to have before Mike's standard reply became accusations of mental disorders and bloodthirst.
You come here to be an egotistical ass and call people liars and tell them to fuck off.
ReplyDeleteIndeed you are a paid troll for the NRA