What age is too young for a child to learn to use a gun?

[Perchoutofwater]

That would certainly be preferable to what the NRA is doing now.

 

I used to be a member of the NRA. When I got my renewal letter this year I trashed it because of this.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I used to be a member of the NRA. When I got my renewal letter this year I trashed it because of this.

 

Also not a member. They focus on stuff they shouldn't and compromise when they shouldn't. Pantywaste fear mongors.

[Perchoutofwater]

So you don't want it to be offered and available as stated originally (because it is), but to be required.

 

Let's make it part of the public education curriculum. Right between Math and history. Heck, make it part of the Phys Ed curriculum. Rifles, shotguns and handguns could be covered in one school year, one class hour per week.

 

I used to go to summer camps that had rifle ranges. We had to take a course prior to being able to hit the range. Camp Longhorn at Ink Lake Texas. They still have riflery and archery activities even today. I learned archery, scuba diving, and sailing there. I'd already been taught to shoot before going. It is a great place to send your kids for two to three weeks in the summer.

[bpwallace49]

So you don't want it to be offered and available as stated originally (because it is), but to be required.

 

Let's make it part of the public education curriculum. Right between Math and history. Heck, make it part of the Phys Ed curriculum. Rifles, shotguns and handguns could be covered in one school year, one class hour per week.

 

Pssst . . . that is why I clarified my statement.

 

It doesnt have to be part of the public school curriculum, but is SHOULD be required before you can buy a gun. It doesnt have to be administered by the state at all . . it can be from a private entity like the NRA, but a safety class should be required.

 

caveman, do you think people actually actively seek these courses out? Or "assume" like the father that was killed, that they know enough to do it on their own? People that can handle guns already wouldnt have to worry if they can opt out and take the final exam and pass it. It is designed for the first time gun purchaser/ kid learning how to shoot.

[Azazello1313]

rarely does a thread here break down so clearly the divide between those who want a nanny state telling everybody what to do, and those who actually value individual freedom.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

rarely does a thread here break down so clearly the divide between those who want a nanny state telling everybody what to do, and those who actually value individual freedom.

 

And those of us who realize that the only thing that makes sense is a rational position somewhere in the middle.

[Azazello1313]

And those of us who realize that the only thing that makes sense is a rational position somewhere in the middle.

 

well everybody realizes you have to draw the line somewhere, duh. nobody wants kids to be allowed to take guns to school, for instance. and nobody is arguing that any toy that could possibly hurt a kid should be outlawed by the government. but as I guess a fairly close question, this one is revealing the folks who are comfortable taking a lot more instruction from the government in their day to day lives and imposing it into everyone else's.

[i_am_the_swammi]

rarely does a thread here break down so clearly the divide between those who are only concerned for their own selfish wants, and those that are more concerned about creating a compromise that everyone can live within.

 

ummm...fixed.

[bpwallace49]

There are laws in place, if I accidentally shoot you it is manslaughter and I go to jail for 10 years, have to live with it, and am no longer allowed to own a gun or vote.

 

I'm a strong proponent of hunters education courses. The State of Texas has the following requirements:

 

Extremely dumb comment perch . . . I am sure that if my wife is killed, having the guy sent to jail will be enough for my kids.

 

If there was safety courses first, then maybe some of these deaths dont occur. No different than turning a 16 year old kid loose with a car without any instruction first. Some things should have required safety courses first.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

well everybody realizes you have to draw the line somewhere, duh. nobody wants kids to be allowed to take guns to school, for instance. and nobody is arguing that any toy that could possibly hurt a kid should be outlawed by the government. but as I guess a fairly close question, this one is revealing the folks who are comfortable taking a lot more instruction from the government in their day to day lives and imposing it into everyone else's.

 

I guess I don't feel it's that much of an imposition to have a law that states a 7 year old shouldn't be handling firearms, but that's just me.

Edited July 14, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[bpwallace49]

well everybody realizes you have to draw the line somewhere, duh. nobody wants kids to be allowed to take guns to school, for instance. and nobody is arguing that any toy that could possibly hurt a kid should be outlawed by the government. but as I guess a fairly close question, this one is revealing the folks who are comfortable taking a lot more instruction from the government in their day to day lives and imposing it into everyone else's.

 

Soooo having the NRA help provide a mandatory safety class (kinda like drivers ed) before you buy a gun is a "nanny state"? You obviously feel that drivers ed is also a bad idea?

 

This really isnt any different than the application for a concealed carry permit

[i_am_the_swammi]

I guess I don't feel it's that much of an imposition to have a law that states a 7 year old shouldn't be handling firearms, but that's just me.

 

don't bother, capn...its people like them that are the reason we likely need more supervision in the first place. You can always tell when their flustered...the name calling (nanny's) starts....basically means they're, ironically, out of ammo.

[Azazello1313]

don't bother, capn...its people like them that are the reason we likely need more supervision in the first place.

 

so I'm the reason you need government to tell you what you can and can't do.

[Perchoutofwater]

If there was safety courses first, then maybe some of these deaths dont occur. No different than turning a 16 year old kid loose with a car without any instruction first. Some things should have required safety courses first.

 

I have no problem with people having to have an education course prior to getting a hunting license or prior to purchasing a gun. You haven't seen me say anything different. I I have a big problem with the government telling me when I can teach my kid to shoot on my own property, that is where Az's nanny state comments come in as far as I'm concerned.

[Azazello1313]

rarely does a thread here break down so clearly the divide between those who are only concerned for their own selfish wants, and those that are more concerned about creating a compromise that everyone can live within.

 

I guarantee my kids won't be anywhere near a gun when they are 7 years old. this has nothing to do with selfish wants on my part. I just don't think we need to pass a law outlawing something every time something bad happens.

 

some of you bemoaned the lack of responsibility among many parents out there? well in my opinion, the number one way to foster irresponsibility in the citizenry is for the government to treat them like children.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Pope Flick]

I just think we need to pass a law outlawing something every time something bad happens.

 

 

F'ing nanny.

[Azazello1313]

[bpwallace49]

I have no problem with people having to have an education course prior to getting a hunting license or prior to purchasing a gun. You haven't seen me say anything different. I I have a big problem with the government telling me when I can teach my kid to shoot on my own property, that is where Az's nanny state comments come in as far as I'm concerned.

 

We agree again . . . but I would like to see a kids gun safety class too, as many people are not as responsible as you when it comes to firearms. This example of the dad and the child is a perfect example of how the teacher needed to be taught first . . .

[Scooby's Hubby]

maybe this has already been said, GUN SAFE with one key on daddy's key ring.

 

that being said Scooby and I do not want my guns in the house, the y are at my brother's...

 

I was think of buying my little boy a BB gun and hiding it in the attic, but I know he is too young right now. however, we would only shoot it at the range and I could get him a membership with the NRA, etc. I think he would like that. I could teach him gun safety and an aprpreciation for being responsible in judgement. Safety first!. Scooby can weigh in on that one if she wants ...

[Jimmy Neutron]

This topic sure sets off a crazy amout of ZMOG! compared to the potential danger it represents.

 

Half of all violent crime is committed by people with alcohol in their system, yet I don't hear anyone clamouring for Prohibition II. Don't we want to be safe? Maybe we should require drinking licenses issued only to those that can prove they only drink responsibly.

 

Then there's the whole swimming pool crisis...

Edited July 15, 2010 by Jimmy Neutron

[polksalet]

I have no problem with people having to have an education course prior to getting a hunting license or prior to purchasing a gun.

 

When did Barknee Frank hijack perch's account?

[jetsfan]

Maybe we should require drinking licenses issued only to those that can prove they drink daily.

 

Now that is a test I can pass!

[westvirginia]

ummm...fixed.

 

FAIL.

 

This is what you people don't seem to get - there is NO such thing as compromise when a right is involved. Folks think if they can get 50% plus one vote then it can and should be done by fedgov. That's why the BoR was included in the constitution in the first place. There are some things that fedgov isn't ALLOWED to do. Why can no one see past their irrational phobias about an inanimate object and get that?

[i_am_the_swammi]

FAIL.

 

This is what you people don't seem to get - there is NO such thing as compromise when a right is involved. Folks think if they can get 50% plus one vote then it can and should be done by fedgov. That's why the BoR was included in the constitution in the first place. There are some things that fedgov isn't ALLOWED to do. Why can no one see past their irrational phobias about an inanimate object and get that?

 

FAIL.

 

No one is asking that guns be outlawed. Guns are controlled in a variety of ways. You can't bring them to school, onto planes, into stadiums, etc.

 

Are you really saying, based on your "all or nothing" approach, that there is "NO such thing as a compromise where a right is involved"...and that these compromises that have already been made are the result of irrational phobias?

[billay]

FAIL.

 

This is what you people don't seem to get - there is NO such thing as compromise when a right is involved.

Of course there is, the SC just stated explicitly, that the fundamental right pertaining to the second amendment deals with defense of the home, and that certain restriction on guns are necessary and proper. Your assertion of the scope of the second amendment is exagerrated.