Cricketts and Chipmunks??

[0121stockpicker]

I'd love to do that But as soon as i would post it you'd see ................................Thread locked. No opinions here.

Hey fire away or don't ask. Can't say I won't answer a question yet not ask one - correct?? No big deal, I always believe a discussion should be about the topic/issue being discussed and believe that making a discussion personal is juvenile. Best.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bum Luck]

Don't flatter your self.

Uh, WT, Picker was being facetious.

I don't think he needs to flatter himself.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Uh, WT, Picker was being facetious.

I don't think he needs to flatter himself.

Some people don't catch dry yankee wit - takes a little getting used to.

 

[Backbacon]

I'd love to do that But as soon as i would post it you'd see ................................Thread locked. No opinions here.

I truly do not think that would be the case....

 

[0121stockpicker]

So folks is there any age at which it is too young to handle and fire a firearm?? Even if it is under supervision, etc, etc ?

 

[packerbacker]

picker, you said that my comparison of a bow and arrow to the lethality of a gun "is completely foolish and counterproductive. One needs to now the lethality of a weapon and respect it". I won't go into detail but, if you get a little extra time, you might want to do some googling on the lethality of an arrow. It can penetrate a bullet proof vest where a 22 will not. I'd also like to point out that a gun designed to "fit" a child is much safer for the kid to use instead of trying to aim a large, cumbersome, full-sized gun. Just like a shorter golf club, a shorter fishing pole, a smaller chair, a shorter bow, smaller pants etc., etc. It is quite easy to teach a kid how to shoot, when and where to shoot, how to clean a gun and gun safety. The only thing you can't teach the kid is mental stability. There is absolutely nothing scary about a gun but there are a lot of scary people.

 

[packerbacker]

To answer your age question I'd have to say that when a kid is old enough to understand that his/her action caused the reaction. In other words, understanding that he/she had a direct effect on the target. Similar to seeing where an arrow flew when released and then adjusting that release to hit the target more accurately, or hitting a golf ball or releasing a bowling ball or casting a fishing pole. By the way, they make lighter bowling balls for kids. If I had to come up with an age for the masses I'd have to say around 5 or 6 for ALL of the above named activities although, as in everything, there are exceptions and the parents should be aware. That's another problem; how bright are the parents? At any rate, the sooner a child is exposed to anything, the quicker they learn but a one year old cannot grasp the concept of target shooting.

 

[packerbacker]

PS..........I think that taking a 2-year old to Disneyland is a waste of money.

 

[packerbacker]

I'd also add that, if the gun manufacturer were to promote the smaller guns as "killing" tools, I would be against that. To me, a small 22 rifle made to fit a kid's body is no different than making smaller skis for kids. Now, if you were to look at the video games you may not have any problems with, I'd suggest that you critique them as closely as you do the scary gun. I don't care what game it is. If you shoot something and the result of that shooting "kills or eliminates something" it is much more violent than a kid plinking cans with a single shot 22 rifle under close adult supervision. To me, even if it's a "monster" in a video game, that monster is "alive" and has to be "killed". What parent/child relationship do you find more appealing? A parent with a child outdoors in the fresh air, together, bonding, talking to each other, laughing with each other and the parent teaching the child something or do you prefer the child by themselves in the back room glaring at the tv screen and pretending they are killing things? It's a very simple choice for me.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I'd also add that, if the gun manufacturer were to promote the smaller guns as "killing" tools, I would be against that. To me, a small 22 rifle made to fit a kid's body is no different than making smaller skis for kids. Now, if you were to look at the video games you may not have any problems with, I'd suggest that you critique them as closely as you do the scary gun. I don't care what game it is. If you shoot something and the result of that shooting "kills or eliminates something" it is much more violent than a kid plinking cans with a single shot 22 rifle under close adult supervision. To me, even if it's a "monster" in a video game, that monster is "alive" and has to be "killed". What parent/child relationship do you find more appealing? A parent with a child outdoors in the fresh air, together, bonding, talking to each other, laughing with each other and the parent teaching the child something or do you prefer the child by themselves in the back room glaring at the tv screen and pretending they are killing things? It's a very simple choice for me.

Feel free to start a thread on dangerous video games as I'm sure you will get good responses.

At what age do you think a child understands death/mortality etc. that when you hit the target if it is living it will be gone forever.

When a very young child points and shoots a loaded gun at someone do you think they understand what will happen and what that means?? At least the commonly accepted answer is no which is why we charge very young law breakers differently than adults. We don't charge 5 year olds with murder even when they purposely kill.

I would say to your video game point that what worries my most is the combination of violent video game and real gun. Obviously a video game can not kill anyone. It is not a highly lethal weapon like a gun. And that young child that can hit the reset button after getting shot in the game might not understand you can't just do that in real life.

Just my 2 cents

Best

 

[onfire]

Feel free to start a thread on dangerous video games as I'm sure you will get good responses.

At what age do you think a child understands death/mortality etc. that when you hit the target if it is living it will be gone forever.

When a very young child points and shoots a loaded gun at someone do you think they understand what will happen and what that means?? At least the commonly accepted answer is no which is why we charge very young law breakers differently than adults. We don't charge 5 year olds with murder even when they purposely kill.

I would say to your video game point that what worries my most is the combination of violent video game and real gun. Obviously a video game can not kill anyone. It is not a highly lethal weapon like a gun. And that young child that can hit the reset button after getting shot in the game might not understand you can't just do that in real life.

Just my 2 cents

Best

I suppose the age thing can be determined by the parent It's how their taught Just buying a gun for your child and spending a very limited amount of time teaching them could be the problem. There are some people who take training serious. And some who don't. Besides a few accidents I don't hear much news of young children runing around playing cowboys and Indians with real gun's?
So i'll agree with you 5 may be a little young but at 7 they're smarter then you think. Hang around a few you may get a surprise.
The video thing was tried with the Columbine thing no legs there.
We don't incarcerate 5 year old's because they would fit thru the bars. Even spanking is out, I guess a time out will fit the punishment. correct?

 

[0121stockpicker]

I suppose the age thing can be determined by the parent It's how their taught Just buying a gun for your child and spending a very limited amount of time teaching them could be the problem. There are some people who take training serious. And some who don't. Besides a few accidents I don't hear much news of young children runing around playing cowboys and Indians with real gun's?
So i'll agree with you 5 may be a little young but at 7 they're smarter then you think. Hang around a few you may get a surprise.
The video thing was tried with the Columbine thing no legs there.
We don't incarcerate 5 year old's because they would fit thru the bars. Even spanking is out, I guess a time out will fit the punishment. correct?

And who protects the children from stupid parents or is it just the kids tough luck?

 

[dieselram94]

Hopefully some other family member. We don't need the govt in everything . Pickers, to many many many families funding with kids is a time honored tradition. This is one of the biggest reason parents buy these guns for their kids. And I don't really think many parents take guns lightly. You being a numbers guy should be able to find some honest statistics.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

Hopefully some other family member. We don't need the govt in everything . Pickers, to many many many families funding with kids is a time honored tradition. This is one of the biggest reason parents buy these guns for their kids. And I don't really think many parents take guns lightly. You being a numbers guy should be able to find some honest statistics.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

Not denying that, but is there a point of being too young no matter how competent and well supervised to handle a lethal weapon?

And having many relatives who are social workers and hearing the constant horror stories of neglect and abuse I'm sorry if I can't just trust to the parents or some other relative?? Way way too many instances of folks who frankly just should never have had kids and do need the government to protect those children - those children's have basic human rights too don't forget, they are NOT the "property" of the parents.

 

[mustangpalmer1911]

I have been shooting guns since about 5-6 my dad bought me my own about 10 and I never shot anyone. Half the problem now is parents don't want to be parents any more ...plop the kid down in front of the TV and don't bother with them or they are not allowed to be a parent any more. You spank your kid now guess what you are going to jail. My paerents NEVER beat me but they put the fear and respect in me. If I would have touched one of those guns with out permission I would have had my ass whooped. Enough of this P.C. bull of you cant lay a hand on your kid there are times when a kid need a boot in the butt. Abuse and a education are 2 very different things.

 

[dieselram94]

The kids are definitely not property of the govt. If we continue this nanny state mentality how as a society are we to instill personal responsibility? As well as why should we trust the govt ? They have a obvious agenda ...

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

 

[onfire]

Not denying that, but is there a point of being too young no matter how competent and well supervised to handle a lethal weapon?

And having many relatives who are social workers and hearing the constant horror stories of neglect and abuse I'm sorry if I can't just trust to the parents or some other relative?? Way way too many instances of folks who frankly just should never have had kids and do need the government to protect those children - those children's have basic human rights too don't forget, they are NOT the "property" of the parents.

Where did you read that dumb statement On a wall in a abortion clinic?

 

[0121stockpicker]

The kids are definitely not property of the govt. If we continue this nanny state mentality how as a society are we to instill personal responsibility? As well as why should we trust the govt ? They have a obvious agenda ...

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

No but who will look out for their rights??

 

[dieselram94]

No but who will look out for their rights??

Again other family members or neighbours, a.d there is no shortage of teachers who try to be more social worker than teacher. This is precisely why parents are afraid to discipline there kids these days. The nanny state practice is not paying off well at all. Please tale a moment to think about that statement and consider how much our society has slipped in the last fifty years .

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Tapatalk 2

 

[packerbacker]

okay, this is your thread and apparently you just want to discuss the small 22 rifles. Given that I'd have to end my participation in this thread with, "It's the parents fault that that 5-year old kid shot his sibling". That gun was left loaded and accessible to ANYONE. An adult could have picked it up and shot someone by accident. In our family we have the small 22's in our households. We are familiar with them as well as the kids in the family are familiar with them. We aren't just reading news reports about them and judging whether they should exist or not. We all know they aren't really that scary if used properly. The kids know how to use them because they have spent endless, fun hours using them with adult supervision. At this time they are unloaded and locked up in gun safes that none of the kids have knowledge of the combination to. They are manufactured to "fit" a child, simple as that. Is your "real" question whether a 5-year old should shoot ANY gun? Just the act of shooting a gun makes a kid a nutjob? If a manufacturer prints a brochure with a picture of a child wearing hearing and eye protection and shooting an adult-size 22 is that okay, they just can't manufacture a gun that fits a child's body? Admit it picker, you just don't think kids should shoot guns no matter what so the manufacturer should not promote guns to youngsters in any fashion. I simply disagree. I've seen parents that don't even let their kids get dirty so I understand there are folks out there afraid of just about everything.