***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[sporthenry]

Nice to see the Democrats playing politics with this. Not sure if this is a Honda but approval ratings for Senators who voted against the bill are plunging. http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-votes-approval-ratings-poll-senators-2013-4

Oh the irony

What is ironic? I applaud this. Sadly, it seems the only way to get anything done.

 

[ATC1]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

 

[timschochet]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

 

[ATC1]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

I'm sure somewhere on the package it reads, "Please drink responsibly" No, "This is a dangerous weapon, operate with extreme...." Sorry. I don't blame Budweiser for drunk drivers.

 

[timschochet]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

I'm sure somewhere on the package it reads, "Please drink responsibly" No, "This is a dangerous weapon, operate with extreme...." Sorry. I don't blame Budweiser for drunk drivers.

These analogies are terrible as always. A gun is not a Budwiser, and it is not a swimming pool, and it is not an automobile. A gun has a specific purpose that none of those other items have. It is a weapon designed for killing. And if you market it to a young child, and that young child ends up killing someone with it, then you as the marketer bears a lot of the responsibility.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

I'm sure somewhere on the package it reads, "Please drink responsibly" No, "This is a dangerous weapon, operate with extreme...." Sorry. I don't blame Budweiser for drunk drivers.

These analogies are terrible as always. A gun is not a Budwiser, and it is not a swimming pool, and it is not an automobile. A gun has a specific purpose that none of those other items have. It is a weapon designed for killing. And if you market it to a young child, and that young child ends up killing someone with it, then you as the marketer bears a lot of the responsibility.

That's funny, I bet if you surveyed every gun owner you would find close to 0% that said they purchased it to kill. A gun is bought primarily for self-defense to prevent the gun owner and his family from being killed. That's like saying swimming pools have a specific purpose to drown kids.

 

[Sammy3469]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

I'm sure somewhere on the package it reads, "Please drink responsibly" No, "This is a dangerous weapon, operate with extreme...." Sorry. I don't blame Budweiser for drunk drivers.

These analogies are terrible as always. A gun is not a Budwiser, and it is not a swimming pool, and it is not an automobile. A gun has a specific purpose that none of those other items have. It is a weapon designed for killing. And if you market it to a young child, and that young child ends up killing someone with it, then you as the marketer bears a lot of the responsibility.

That's funny, I bet if you surveyed every gun owner you would find close to 0% that said they purchased it to kill. A gun is bought primarily for self-defense to prevent the gun owner and his family from being killed. That's like saying swimming pools have a specific purpose to drown kids.

Why the hell does a 5 year old need a shotgun for protection?

 

[timschochet]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

I'm sure somewhere on the package it reads, "Please drink responsibly" No, "This is a dangerous weapon, operate with extreme...." Sorry. I don't blame Budweiser for drunk drivers.

These analogies are terrible as always. A gun is not a Budwiser, and it is not a swimming pool, and it is not an automobile. A gun has a specific purpose that none of those other items have. It is a weapon designed for killing. And if you market it to a young child, and that young child ends up killing someone with it, then you as the marketer bears a lot of the responsibility.

That's funny, I bet if you surveyed every gun owner you would find close to 0% that said they purchased it to kill. A gun is bought primarily for self-defense to prevent the gun owner and his family from being killed. That's like saying swimming pools have a specific purpose to drown kids.

Why the hell does a 5 year old need a shotgun for protection?

Apparently 2 year olds are a threat.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

I'm sure somewhere on the package it reads, "Please drink responsibly" No, "This is a dangerous weapon, operate with extreme...." Sorry. I don't blame Budweiser for drunk drivers.

These analogies are terrible as always. A gun is not a Budwiser, and it is not a swimming pool, and it is not an automobile. A gun has a specific purpose that none of those other items have. It is a weapon designed for killing. And if you market it to a young child, and that young child ends up killing someone with it, then you as the marketer bears a lot of the responsibility.

That's funny, I bet if you surveyed every gun owner you would find close to 0% that said they purchased it to kill. A gun is bought primarily for self-defense to prevent the gun owner and his family from being killed. That's like saying swimming pools have a specific purpose to drown kids.

Why the hell does a 5 year old need a shotgun for protection?

So your argument is parents buy guns so their children can learn to kill other people?

BRILLIANT!

 

[timschochet]

Why people buy guns has nothing to do with my comment about what they're for. If you want to purchase a gun to defend yourself, or because you enjoy hunting, or because you are simply a collector, or because you are afraid of the Black Helicopters- I don't care. That's your business; the Constitution says you have a right to own guns and personally I have no problem with it whatsoever- so long as you are (1) an adult (2) not a felon (3) not mentally ill. Buy as many guns as you want.

But the issue I was raising was a company that markets guns to children. Guns should not be marketed to children. Period.

 

[ATC1]

Why people buy guns has nothing to do with my comment about what they're for. If you want to purchase a gun to defend yourself, or because you enjoy hunting, or because you are simply a collector, or because you are afraid of the Black Helicopters- I don't care. That's your business; the Constitution says you have a right to own guns and personally I have no problem with it whatsoever- so long as you are (1) an adult (2) not a felon (3) not mentally ill. Buy as many guns as you want.

But the issue I was raising was a company that markets guns to children. Guns should not be marketed to children. Period.

First of all as stated as before (not Tim) this is not a shotgun it is a .22 caliber rifle. It is the next step up from a air rifle shooting pellets.

A lot of kids are shown a .22 because his/her father is a hunter. They may want to share that experience with their children. Learning how to shoot a weapon with your father can be seen as a bonding moment. So, to teach proper gun saftey they may start out at an early age knowing that handling a weapon while fun is dangerous and can kill things. I actually think these .22s that are developed for kids is actually safer then them shooting their daddy's bigger gun. You start off with a bb gun and work your way up. Each level is properly fitted for the child for saftey.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Why people buy guns has nothing to do with my comment about what they're for. If you want to purchase a gun to defend yourself, or because you enjoy hunting, or because you are simply a collector, or because you are afraid of the Black Helicopters- I don't care. That's your business; the Constitution says you have a right to own guns and personally I have no problem with it whatsoever- so long as you are (1) an adult (2) not a felon (3) not mentally ill. Buy as many guns as you want.

But the issue I was raising was a company that markets guns to children. Guns should not be marketed to children. Period.

Tim, so what if a kid wants to join a junior program and has a shot at qualifying for a shooting event in the Olympics. Are you going to deny that child of their dream to one day earn a gold medal because you don't approve of any marketing to their parents and you don't think girls should have pink guns? Tim why do you hate the Olympic spirit and the color pink?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.

Pretty sure anyone giving a gun to a 5 year old isn't reasonable.

A 5 year-old. Probably. Although it is normal for a 5 year old to shoot a bb gun if their daddy is a hunter. You go over saftey measures at a very early age and even a bb gun should not be accessible to the child without a parent. What is more irresponsible is that the cricket wasn't put away or used only in the supervision of the parent.

Nope. That is plenty irresponsible, but marketing that gun to little is equally or MORE irresponsible, and I'm not going to let you get away with trying to put this all on the parents.

Maybe I missed it, but could you link me to where they were marketing this to children? I watch a lot of children's TV and children's movies, we get boys life magazines and highlights etc, I've been to many children's events... I've never seen a commercial or any advertizement for guns in any of that.. To be honest, I've never even seen an advertizement for a BB gun in any of those..

I didn't even see where that 22 used here specificly belonged to that 5 year old... Maybe it belonged to an older sibling..

It is normal for a father who hunts to take a child (usually 10ish years old or older) target shooting or hunting with a 22 or 410 that was specificly purchased for that child's use.. I think the issue here is that the gun wasn't stored properly, obviously that's the parents fault.

Seems to me, guns that are made for children are marketed to parents who have children, not to children.. And usually there marketing is no more than making a smaller version of that gun available at a gun store..

I have no clue what you're carrying on about "marketing to children"...

 

[Spanky267]

Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.

“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.

Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”

Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.

“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.

The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!

The comments in regards to the remarks of Azzam the American are ridiculous at best. First that video is at least 2 years old and we are only hearing the MSM, the Administration and Members of Congress bringing it up now? Azzam's remarks are not even accurate. You cant buy automatic weapons at a gun show. You cant even buy Automatic Weapons from all FFL's. Also, unless the purchaser of a weapon is a known terrorist or a criminal, Sen. Manchin's bill wont catch them. The fatal flaw in expanded background checks is there is not really anything in the Manchin-Toomey bill that addresses the flaws in the NICS system. The flaw is that many states fail to provide the FBI with relevant criminal and mental health data to make the system truly effective.

I am sorry if this sounds crass but it will be difficult to say this in a way that doesnt come off as such. This bill will not save one life and even if it did would you abide by limitations on your 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights in order to save one theoretical life?

Manchin's bill is useless if they dont fix the problems in NICS. If they offered a bill that fixed NICS that would solve more problems than the bill they are currently offering.

1. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Azzim (I'm sorry, I don't know who that is.) The article I posted doesn't mention any such person.2. If there are flaws in the NICS, then they should be addressed. Not sure what that has to do with extending background checks. For reasons which I've posted over and over again in this thread, I think extending background checks is a great idea that will save lives.

3. I don't think you're being crass at all, but I disagree rather strongly with your conclusion. I can't fathom how you could reach such a conclusion, frankly. This law will make it more difficult for bad guys to purchase guns through legal means, meaning they will have to purchase their guns through illegal means, meaning their ability to obtain said guns will be curtailed, meaning lives will be saved. The very best one could reasonably argue from the other side is that it won't curtail their ability to obtain said guns enough, and therefore not many lives will be saved, and that therefore it's not worth the time and added expense and restriction. But for you to argue that it won't save ANY lives at all is sheer absurdity on your part.

4. You'll have to explain how this law limits the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment. That seems a rather extreme argument as well, and I don't think you can provide a coherent rationale for it. But I'm willing to listen.

Azzam the American is the Al-Qaeda terrorist your first post on Manchin referenced.Expanding the number of background checks in a system that is flawed will solve nothing. If you extend background checks to all private sales but you dont fix the NICS system, by requiring the states to send in the pertinent data, then the system will just be a farce. There are states which currently submit almost no data to the NICS system.

http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary/

This article has some interesting facts. If we focused on mental health records and tightening up NICS then we might actually stop killings and mass murders. The article specifically refers to the Va. Tech case.

Tim, bad guys dont purchase guns through legal means. Academic Studies and even Law Enforcement studies bear that out. Only tiny percentages of criminals try to buy guns through legal dealers or from legal dealers or private sellers at gun shows. Studies show that they either steal the weapons, borrow them from friends or use straw buyers. In the case of straw buyers, how do we stop that. Obviously these straw buyers are passing background checks. The only way to truly discourage straw purchases is to prosecute the straw purchaser of a gun after it is used in a crime. I dont see any other way to stop straw purchases while not infringing on the rights of people truly buying firearms for themselves.

I didnt say that Manchin's bill limits the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendments. Perhaps I worded it poorly. What I meant is why is it acceptable to curtail second amendment rights in this way, but there would be a hew and cry if the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendments were curtailed in similar manners.

You're obviously getting your "academic studies and law enforcement studies" from different places from me, because every source I have read tell me that plenty of bad guys DO purchase their weapons through legal means. So I simply don't believe you.

Also, in answer to your question: I would gladly accept any law which weakened the 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendment in the same way this law would weaken the 2nd Amendment, because that is not at all.

Tim in what seems to be your modus operandi on these boards. You picked out one thing in my post and refuted it with your opinion. It is not required for you to believe. A convicted felon can't go into 99% of gun retailers in this country and legally buy a gun. The ATF knows who the 1% of gun retailers are who may be selling weapons illegally and they should be working to shut them down. That being said even the Justice Department in surveys of prison inmates have discovered that most who use a gun in the crimes either borrowed it from a friend/relative 39%, or they bought it on the street or through some other illegal means also 39%.

But if you actually read the link I posted you would know that even Bloomberg's, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is saying that better reporting of Mental Health records to the NICS background check system would tighten the net further and could have succesfully prevented the Va. Tech, Aurora Colorado and the Tuscon shootings. All three of these shooters had mental health issues that did not get reported to either the local authorities or to the NICS system. In the case of Va. Tech, if the state of Virginia had the laws on Mental Health record reporting in the year of the shooting that it has now the the shooter, Cho, wouldnt have been able to purchase his firearms.

Increasing the amount of mental health data in the system and requiring the states to submit all of the pertinent data to the FBI for the NICS system would bear more proverbial fruit and avert more mass shootings that the Manchin Bill will on its own.

So you wouldnt be opposed to requiring a permit to exercise your first amendment rights? Or limiting your 5th amendment rights, "in a sensible manner" so as to prevent crimes?

Have you every read any of Dr. Gary Kleck's work? Do you dismiss his research on the subject of firearms out of hand?

 

[Spanky267]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

 

[eurotrashman]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

So, when is a child old enough to target practice under parent supervision?

 

[eurotrashman]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

So, when is a child old enough to target practice under parent supervision?

I'll never own a gun and I don't have kids, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

 

[Spanky267]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

It would be a childs first rifle. These arent the only pink weapons on the market. I am both a parent and a gun owner. I have frequented many sporting goods stores, gun stores and even a few gun shows. I have never seen these at any of my local gun stores. I have seen one at a Wal-Mart. I have also seen them at the gun shows that I have been to.

But to reiterate what another poster mentioned. I watch alot of childrens television programming and the commercials that come with them. I have never seen an advertisement for a BB gun, let alone a rifle like this. We also had a subscription to Boys Life when my boys were in scouting. You'd think for sure they would advertise there. No? Well never saw an ad for any firearms there either.

This company may make red, pink, purple, blue or orange rifles. They may also be designed to be used by children. But they dont seem to be actively marketing them to kids. I also read alot of firearms magazines and guess what not even any ads in there for these rifles or any of the other lines the company offers. The fact that these rifles are designed to be used by children does not magically absolve the parents of any responsibility. They are the ones who purchased it, gave it to their son and then stored it improperly. News reports have it that the rifle was merely stored in a corner. Are you freaking kidding me! That is not how you properly store a firearm. My kids dont know where I keep my gun and that is the way it should be. They also know that if when they encounter a firearm that it is not to be touched and that all firearms should be considered loaded and dangerous. We dont even let them hang onto their BB guns.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

BUT GUNS BAD THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

So, when is a child old enough to target practice under parent supervision?

I'll never own a gun and I don't have kids, so I'm the wrong person to ask.

Does that also suggest you're the wrong person to jump to conclusions on the subject?

From your own link:

http://banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/my_first_rifle.jpg

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/05/02/kids-guns_wide-14466afe54c2902a5feb30c2568b231e1bc68783-s6-c10.jpg

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3-660x259.jpg

Is there a problem with this?

 

[timschochet]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

It would be a childs first rifle. These arent the only pink weapons on the market. I am both a parent and a gun owner. I have frequented many sporting goods stores, gun stores and even a few gun shows. I have never seen these at any of my local gun stores. I have seen one at a Wal-Mart. I have also seen them at the gun shows that I have been to.

But to reiterate what another poster mentioned. I watch alot of childrens television programming and the commercials that come with them. I have never seen an advertisement for a BB gun, let alone a rifle like this. We also had a subscription to Boys Life when my boys were in scouting. You'd think for sure they would advertise there. No? Well never saw an ad for any firearms there either.

This company may make red, pink, purple, blue or orange rifles. They may also be designed to be used by children. But they dont seem to be actively marketing them to kids. I also read alot of firearms magazines and guess what not even any ads in there for these rifles or any of the other lines the company offers. The fact that these rifles are designed to be used by children does not magically absolve the parents of any responsibility. They are the ones who purchased it, gave it to their son and then stored it improperly. News reports have it that the rifle was merely stored in a corner. Are you freaking kidding me! That is not how you properly store a firearm. My kids dont know where I keep my gun and that is the way it should be. They also know that if when they encounter a firearm that it is not to be touched and that all firearms should be considered loaded and dangerous. We dont even let them hang onto their BB guns.

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

 

[timschochet]

If you actually knew anything about guns

Also, I am sick to death of the condescension of gun owners here. I fully admit to being ignorant about a lot of things. But when it comes to a pink or red rifle that is marketed to young children, there's not a whole lot I need to know.

 

[timschochet]

The Cricket "My First Rifle" website has been shut down suddenly, so there's no way to link how disgusting their advertising actually is. Gee, I wonder why? Scumbags running for cover.

 

[Cookiemonster]

The Cricket "My First Rifle" website has been shut down suddenly, so there's no way to link how disgusting their advertising actually is. Gee, I wonder why? Scumbags running for cover.

At what age do you think we should legislate children being allowed to learn to shoot under parental supervision? Do we legislate that they have to use a full-size weapon?

 

[tommyboy]

Im so glad we have the 2nd amendment and that it clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Because even though that is such a clear statement people like tim have been trying for over 200 yrs to ignore it.

 

[Cookiemonster]

IIRC you are of the opinion that most guns used in street crimes are stolen and not sold black market style by FFL holders or through straw purchases. If that is the case doesn't it concern you that so many gun owners are so irresponsible as to not know how to properly keep, maintain and protect their firearm?

That so many gun owners let their guns fall into the hands of criminals has to concern you. I would like to know who these people are and put them on the list of people who would not pass background checks, regardless whether the check itself is destroyed in 24 hours.

And crying "paperwork" hassles is a pretty lame excuse. If you can't handle some paperwork I don't want you handling a firearm.

So basically now if your gun is stolen you can never own one again?

That's fair.

Probably wouldn't help the passage of any gun control law that's for sure.

If you can't keep good enough track of your killing machines to the point where you let other people take them from you, I'm not sure you're responsible enough to own a killing machine.

Here is a $700 safe available at many big-box stores. How much should we have to spend on self defense?

$450 for a shotgun

$500 for a pistol

$30 for dealer registration fees (background check)

$30 for another background check to buy the pistol two months after the shotgun

$150 for a class

$150 for a concealed carry permit

$700 for a safe

$50 for a holster

$70 for a holster that works

$60 for a belt to carry the holster that doesn't kill my back.

$50 for a concealed carry permit renewal after 2 years

$50 for a class to renew the permit every 2 years

$2000 for a safe that actually stops a 17 year old with a prybar and 10 minutes to spend.

$50 per gun purchase for Tim's legislation to make him feel safer about me owning a gun.

$25 for annual NRA membership because I don't have the resources to fight congressional battles and billionaire governors on my own.

$30 per 50 rounds of target ammo to practice with times at least 10 boxes annually so I'm competent enough to not scare Tim.

Good thing I'm not poor and can afford to arm myself rather than steal someone else's gun for free.

 

[tommyboy]

For the record i shot my first gun (bb) at age 7 and graduated to shotguns and 22's by age 10. In the military i was an "expert"rated on pistol and rifle. Guns are no big deal except for peoples unhealthy fear of them. They are a tool, like a knife or chainsaw in that they can be dangerous if you misuse them but if used properly are perfectly safe and quite useful. I shoot a couple times a year either hunting or for practice otherwise the stuff is locked up and out of sight. Unfortunately with the urbanization of America the last few decades many people now grow up completely ignorant of things like guns, knives and chainsaws and have an irrational fear of the perceived danger of them.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Im so glad we have the 2nd amendment and that it clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Because even though that is such a clear statement people like tim have been trying for over 200 yrs to ignore it.

He likes to point to the "well regulated militia" part of it to discredit the rest.

Well regulated = law abiding (and I have passed multiple background checks to prove it)

Militia = We hope not, but being necessary to the security of our free state, I will stand by my opinion that we should be able to become one if necessary. I'm much less worried about our own government than I am about large-scale natural disasters and resulting disorder and lawlessness. I am more worried about unrest if our American Dollar was to suddenly take a ####.

If Feinstein gets her way, the Ruger 10/22 (a .22 rifle that is the first firearm for many and may be the single most common firearm in America) would become illegal because it has a (10 round) detachable magazine. My shotgun will become illegal because it has ONE evil feature (a pistol grip). That is why I oppose what they continue to spew about "common sense" and "reasonable."

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Reposting the below because I think people are giving the "other side" too much credit for what well-regulated meant at the time of the writing.

IMO:

It did not mean government-controlled (or government regulated)

It did not mean citizen of law-abiding status.

If you read the usage of the time, it meant prepared, practiced, well-rehearsed. A modern day interpretation might be that an individual shows proficiency with using the weapon in a safe manner.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

IIRC you are of the opinion that most guns used in street crimes are stolen and not sold black market style by FFL holders or through straw purchases. If that is the case doesn't it concern you that so many gun owners are so irresponsible as to not know how to properly keep, maintain and protect their firearm?

That so many gun owners let their guns fall into the hands of criminals has to concern you. I would like to know who these people are and put them on the list of people who would not pass background checks, regardless whether the check itself is destroyed in 24 hours.

And crying "paperwork" hassles is a pretty lame excuse. If you can't handle some paperwork I don't want you handling a firearm.

So basically now if your gun is stolen you can never own one again?

That's fair.

Probably wouldn't help the passage of any gun control law that's for sure.

If you can't keep good enough track of your killing machines to the point where you let other people take them from you, I'm not sure you're responsible enough to own a killing machine.

Here is a $700 safe available at many big-box stores. How much should we have to spend on self defense?

$450 for a shotgun

$500 for a pistol

$30 for dealer registration fees (background check)

$30 for another background check to buy the pistol two months after the shotgun

$150 for a class

$150 for a concealed carry permit

$700 for a safe

$50 for a holster

$70 for a holster that works

$60 for a belt to carry the holster that doesn't kill my back.

$50 for a concealed carry permit renewal after 2 years

$50 for a class to renew the permit every 2 years

$2000 for a safe that actually stops a 17 year old with a prybar and 10 minutes to spend.

$50 per gun purchase for Tim's legislation to make him feel safer about me owning a gun.

$25 for annual NRA membership because I don't have the resources to fight congressional battles and billionaire governors on my own.

$30 per 50 rounds of target ammo to practice with times at least 10 boxes annually so I'm competent enough to not scare Tim.

Good thing I'm not poor and can afford to arm myself rather than steal someone else's gun for free.

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

IIRC you are of the opinion that most guns used in street crimes are stolen and not sold black market style by FFL holders or through straw purchases. If that is the case doesn't it concern you that so many gun owners are so irresponsible as to not know how to properly keep, maintain and protect their firearm?

That so many gun owners let their guns fall into the hands of criminals has to concern you. I would like to know who these people are and put them on the list of people who would not pass background checks, regardless whether the check itself is destroyed in 24 hours.

And crying "paperwork" hassles is a pretty lame excuse. If you can't handle some paperwork I don't want you handling a firearm.

So basically now if your gun is stolen you can never own one again?

That's fair.

Probably wouldn't help the passage of any gun control law that's for sure.

If you can't keep good enough track of your killing machines to the point where you let other people take them from you, I'm not sure you're responsible enough to own a killing machine.

Here is a $700 safe available at many big-box stores. How much should we have to spend on self defense?

$450 for a shotgun

$500 for a pistol

$30 for dealer registration fees (background check)

$30 for another background check to buy the pistol two months after the shotgun

$150 for a class

$150 for a concealed carry permit

$700 for a safe

$50 for a holster

$70 for a holster that works

$60 for a belt to carry the holster that doesn't kill my back.

$50 for a concealed carry permit renewal after 2 years

$50 for a class to renew the permit every 2 years

$2000 for a safe that actually stops a 17 year old with a prybar and 10 minutes to spend.

$50 per gun purchase for Tim's legislation to make him feel safer about me owning a gun.

$25 for annual NRA membership because I don't have the resources to fight congressional battles and billionaire governors on my own.

$30 per 50 rounds of target ammo to practice with times at least 10 boxes annually so I'm competent enough to not scare Tim.

Good thing I'm not poor and can afford to arm myself rather than steal someone else's gun for free.

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

Can these proposals get any more ignorant?

Do you want companies that make chainsaws to be liable for when someone goes on a killing spree with one?

Manufacturers of pools?

Companies that manufacture hydrochloric acid?

Distillers of whiskey for when someone goes drunk driving and kills someone?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

It would be a childs first rifle. These arent the only pink weapons on the market. I am both a parent and a gun owner. I have frequented many sporting goods stores, gun stores and even a few gun shows. I have never seen these at any of my local gun stores. I have seen one at a Wal-Mart. I have also seen them at the gun shows that I have been to.

But to reiterate what another poster mentioned. I watch alot of childrens television programming and the commercials that come with them. I have never seen an advertisement for a BB gun, let alone a rifle like this. We also had a subscription to Boys Life when my boys were in scouting. You'd think for sure they would advertise there. No? Well never saw an ad for any firearms there either.

This company may make red, pink, purple, blue or orange rifles. They may also be designed to be used by children. But they dont seem to be actively marketing them to kids. I also read alot of firearms magazines and guess what not even any ads in there for these rifles or any of the other lines the company offers. The fact that these rifles are designed to be used by children does not magically absolve the parents of any responsibility. They are the ones who purchased it, gave it to their son and then stored it improperly. News reports have it that the rifle was merely stored in a corner. Are you freaking kidding me! That is not how you properly store a firearm. My kids dont know where I keep my gun and that is the way it should be. They also know that if when they encounter a firearm that it is not to be touched and that all firearms should be considered loaded and dangerous. We dont even let them hang onto their BB guns.

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

So, how old should a child be before that childs father takes him target shooting?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The Cricket "My First Rifle" website has been shut down suddenly, so there's no way to link how disgusting their advertising actually is. Gee, I wonder why? Scumbags running for cover.

At what age do you think we should legislate children being allowed to learn to shoot under parental supervision? Do we legislate that they have to use a full-size weapon?

this

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

I've seen the commercial as well, I had to look for it..

The child in the commercial is obviously no younger than 8, and more likely around 10 years old.

And I saw nothing in that commercial that makes me think it was designed for a child viewer. Maybe you can better explain your claim here.. The narrator on the commercial is talking about safety, affordability, and accuracy..

There are children in the commercial. Is that how you come to the conclusion that it was "designed for children to watch"? Anything with a child in it is designed for a child to watch? I can think of plenty of things that would be marketed to parents that include children in the advertisement..

You know why I had to look for it? Because that commercial is not placed in any video, TV channel, or movie that a child would watch.. Which blows apart your "they market these to children" and the "It was definitely designed for children to watch" argument..

I'm still waiting for you to show me one instance where this rifle was marketed directly to children..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

View the commercial here

 

[ATC1]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

It would be a childs first rifle. These arent the only pink weapons on the market. I am both a parent and a gun owner. I have frequented many sporting goods stores, gun stores and even a few gun shows. I have never seen these at any of my local gun stores. I have seen one at a Wal-Mart. I have also seen them at the gun shows that I have been to.

But to reiterate what another poster mentioned. I watch alot of childrens television programming and the commercials that come with them. I have never seen an advertisement for a BB gun, let alone a rifle like this. We also had a subscription to Boys Life when my boys were in scouting. You'd think for sure they would advertise there. No? Well never saw an ad for any firearms there either.

This company may make red, pink, purple, blue or orange rifles. They may also be designed to be used by children. But they dont seem to be actively marketing them to kids. I also read alot of firearms magazines and guess what not even any ads in there for these rifles or any of the other lines the company offers. The fact that these rifles are designed to be used by children does not magically absolve the parents of any responsibility. They are the ones who purchased it, gave it to their son and then stored it improperly. News reports have it that the rifle was merely stored in a corner. Are you freaking kidding me! That is not how you properly store a firearm. My kids dont know where I keep my gun and that is the way it should be. They also know that if when they encounter a firearm that it is not to be touched and that all firearms should be considered loaded and dangerous. We dont even let them hang onto their BB guns.

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

That's it. I locked MSNBC on my TV so my kids can not turn it on since they are marketing guns to my children. It's a shame to because just last week I was watching it with my 5 year old as we were discussing the photos of a mangled and ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaey.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

It would be a childs first rifle. These arent the only pink weapons on the market. I am both a parent and a gun owner. I have frequented many sporting goods stores, gun stores and even a few gun shows. I have never seen these at any of my local gun stores. I have seen one at a Wal-Mart. I have also seen them at the gun shows that I have been to.

But to reiterate what another poster mentioned. I watch alot of childrens television programming and the commercials that come with them. I have never seen an advertisement for a BB gun, let alone a rifle like this. We also had a subscription to Boys Life when my boys were in scouting. You'd think for sure they would advertise there. No? Well never saw an ad for any firearms there either.

This company may make red, pink, purple, blue or orange rifles. They may also be designed to be used by children. But they dont seem to be actively marketing them to kids. I also read alot of firearms magazines and guess what not even any ads in there for these rifles or any of the other lines the company offers. The fact that these rifles are designed to be used by children does not magically absolve the parents of any responsibility. They are the ones who purchased it, gave it to their son and then stored it improperly. News reports have it that the rifle was merely stored in a corner. Are you freaking kidding me! That is not how you properly store a firearm. My kids dont know where I keep my gun and that is the way it should be. They also know that if when they encounter a firearm that it is not to be touched and that all firearms should be considered loaded and dangerous. We dont even let them hang onto their BB guns.

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

That's it. I locked MSNBC on my TV so my kids can not turn it on since there are marketing guns to my children. It's a shame too because just last week I was watching it with my 5 year old as we were discussing the photos of a mangled and ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaey.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

That's it. I locked MSNBC on my TV so my kids can not turn it on since there are marketing guns to my children. It's a shame too because just last week I was watching it with my 5 year old as we were discussing the photos of a mangled and ran over Tamerlan Tsarnaey.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.

None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle?

This is an easy question. Please answer it..

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

The only comment I made was to laugh with ATC1 that you now need to block MSNBC so that your kids do not get marketed guns.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

And you seem to think that a single shot, bolt action .22 that is of the correct dimensions for a child <10 is just wrong. So again I ask, at what age should we legislate that a young shooter be allowed to step up from a bb gun and try shooting a cartridge under parental supervision? Should they have to manhandle and improperly hold a rifle built for a much larger person?

It just seems sad that we have so many people that feel we should use government control to ensure that we make rules for everybody so that we can make sure the weakest links in society don't do something dumb.

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously. I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

And you seem to think that a single shot, bolt action .22 that is of the correct dimensions for a child <10 is just wrong. So again I ask, at what age should we legislate that a young shooter be allowed to step up from a bb gun and try shooting a cartridge under parental supervision? Should they have to manhandle and improperly hold a rifle built for a much larger person? It just seems sad that we have so many people that feel we should use government control to ensure that we make rules for everybody so that we can make sure the weakest links in society don't do something dumb.

I just answered your question: guns should not be designed for children period. Isn't that what a bb gun is for? (And yes, I am aware that bb guns can be deadly, as can a sling, but it's not the same.)As to your second point, we have chosen as a society not to extend our libertarian values when it comes to protecting children. I think that's proper.

 

[ATC1]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

You rather them shoot dady's big gun made for an adult? Can you not see the saftey issues with that?

I would certainly have a problem if the ad was on the Disney Channel or cartoon network.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party.

I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

 

[timschochet]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party. I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

You rather them shoot dady's big gun made for an adult? Can you not see the saftey issues with that? I would certainly have a problem if the ad was on the Disney Channel or cartoon network.

If they are too small to handle daddy's gun, then they shouldn't be handling guns.