News Should Young Children Be Given Real Firearms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Children Year
AI Thread Summary
A tragic incident in Burkesville, Kentucky, involved a 5-year-old boy accidentally shooting his 2-year-old sister with a .22-caliber rifle he received as a gift. The rifle, made by a company that markets firearms for children, was left loaded and accessible, raising serious concerns about parental responsibility and gun safety. The mother was briefly outside when the shooting occurred, highlighting negligence in securing the firearm. The discussion reflects a cultural divide regarding gun ownership, particularly between rural and urban perspectives, with many emphasizing the need for stricter regulations and better education on firearm safety. Participants express outrage over the idea of providing guns to young children, questioning the morality of companies that manufacture such products. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of parenting and societal attitudes toward gun safety, with some arguing that personal responsibility should take precedence over regulation. Overall, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of negligence in gun ownership and the importance of responsible parenting.
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,029
Reaction score
3,323
This is sick and twisted. A rifle for a four year old child?

BURKESVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A 5-year-old boy accidentally shot his 2-year-old sister to death in rural southern Kentucky with a rifle he had received as a gift last year, authorities said.

The children's mother was home at the time of the shooting Tuesday afternoon but had stepped out to the front porch for a few minutes and "she heard the gun go off," Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift.

"It's a Crickett," White said, referring to a company that specifically makes guns, clothes and books for children. "It's a little rifle for a kid. ... The little boy's used to shooting the little gun."

The shooting, while accidental, highlights a cultural divide in the gun debate. While many suburban and urban areas work to keep guns out of the hands of children, it's not uncommon for youths in rural areas to own guns for target practice and hunting.

http://news.yahoo.com/5-old-boy-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-161229579.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Aren't there regulations on how old one must be in order to hold a gun? Like for alcohol or driving?
 
". . . the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it." That's an example of a family that shouldn't have guns in the house. They have payed a high price for their negligence.


Interesting webpage - PRODUCT CATEGORY - CRICKETT TOYS & BOOKS :rolleyes:
http://www.crickett.com/index.php?cPath=12

Somehow I don't think guns and toys go well together.

Monique said:
Aren't there regulations on how old one must be in order to hold a gun? Like for alcohol or driving?
Apparently not in Kentucky, or the laws are insufficient. A child could not purchase a gun, but that would not preclude a parent from providing a gun to a child.

This appears to be the Ky statutes on guns.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/237-00/chapter.htm
 
Last edited:
My favorite comment at the bottom of the article:
All the gun laws in the world can not cure stupidity.
So true.
 
Astronuc said:
". . . the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it."
When I was in my twenties, I had a friend who pointed an empty shotgun at me and pulled the trigger. I have seldom been angrier at anyone. Although it wasn't over this particular incident, we aren't friends anymore.
 
Right. Gun safety rule #1: Always treat a gun like it is loaded.
 
russ_watters said:
Right. Gun safety rule #1: Always treat a gun like it is loaded.
I knew that when I handled guns, and also to make sure any gun I handled was empty unless I was preparing to use it. I shot 0.22, 0.3006, 0.303 rifles, 0.22 pistol and 20 and 12 gauge shotguns. I'd keep the rifle/shotgun down or vertical, and safety on if the gun had one, when carrying it. I never pointed a gun at someone.

I'm not sure a 4 or 5 year old understands that it's inappropriate to point a gun at someone.

I'm sad for the family.
 
Same here. When handling a weapon, I am always aware of where it's pointed. That includes paying attention to whether it's pointed at hard surfaces w.r.t. potential ricochets. A five year old can't be expected to think like that.
 
Ugh, this is awful. I don't know how much I'm repulsed by the idea of a "gun for a child" (honestly, if you want to teach your kid to handle firearms, that's your business) but the fact that the parents essentially left if up to a four year old to make safe decisions about a firearm is the worst kind of negligent parenting! I wouldn't trust a four year old with scissors without close supervision.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Right. Gun safety rule #1: Always treat a gun like it is loaded.

Basic common sense (and natural fear?) surely, as would be not giving a gun to a child, loaded or not. Does the availability of weaponry in America make people complacent about this or have peoples attitudes in general (not just in America) changed? Is common sense (and natural fear?) in decline?
 
  • #11
cobalt124 said:
Basic common sense (and natural fear?) surely, as would be not giving a gun to a child, loaded or not.

I think the issue of instructing your child in the use of a firearm is strictly a personal one. You and I might think it's dangerous and stupid, but it's no more illegal than telling your child about intelligent design. Furthermore, a four year old is certainly incapable of understanding and practicing firearm safety, however, a child may also be incapable of reading, but that doesn't mean you forbid them from reading or being read to.

So, I don't know if "common sense" indicates that you shouldn't instruct your child in the safe use of a firearm... but common sense CERTAINLY indicates that you don't leave a firearm, loaded or not, just lying around... ever.

cobalt124 said:
Is common sense (and natural fear?) in decline?

Evidently so.

EDIT: Also, I don't know is "natural fear" is fair. I don't have a "natural fear" of firearms. My heart doesn't race when my friends compare rifles; I don't panic when a buddy shows off his new handgun; and going to the firing range doesn't fill me with dread.

That being said, there are plenty of things that I do have a "natural fear" of: flying stinging insects, lightning, heights, and people wearing excessively baggy clothing.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Is this a "toy" gun or a real gun? Whatever it may, personally, I don't like giving kids' toys that can inculcate the value of "brutality". And it is the parent's responsibility to ensure their child's safety. They should have checked if the toy is safe or not before they give it to the kids...
 
  • #13
I'm not sure a 4 or 5 year old understands that it's inappropriate to point a gun at someone.

He'd have to be taught that it's inappropriate.

He's doubtless seen plenty of people shot on TV.

This one falls directly on those parents.
Who knows why they left a five year old, a two year old and a loaded gun together nsupervised. Presumably it's a case of terminal stupid but you can't rule out something worse.
 
  • #14
Some states here in the US just keep reinforcing the negative perception the rest of the US has of them.
 
  • #15
When I was 10, my family moved to a shamble of a house across the road. My father bought a new Rugger .44 magnum carbine, and I inherited his .30 cal M1 carbine, which I had trained on extensively under boot-camp dad. After our first hunting session with our "new" guns, I tore down my carbine, cleaned, oiled, and reassembled it as I had been taught. My father was outside talking to an uncle that had stopped by, so I tore into his gun, too. When he came back inside, he was shocked and asked if I knew to put that thing back together. There wasn't a problem, but he had me feeling nervous for a bit. Just don't have any spare parts when the puzzle is built.

BTW, 10 year-olds in Maine can hunt big game with supervision, though you have to be 16 to hunt on your own.
 
  • #16
cobalt124 said:
Does the availability of weaponry in America make people complacent about this or have peoples attitudes in general (not just in America) changed? Is common sense (and natural fear?) in decline?
No, I'm pretty sure it is incidents like this that are in decline , the just get a lot of publicity due to the tragedy factor. I'll look up stats though...
 
  • #17
leroyjenkens said:
Some states here in the US just keep reinforcing the negative perception the rest of the US has of them.

Some states here in the US just keep reinforcing the negative perception THE REST OF THE WORLD has on the US.

Immediate edit: Sometimes I wonder if we even deserve our independence (Hey, someone needs to keep us in check).
 
  • #18
ImATrackMan said:
Immediate edit: Sometimes I wonder if we even deserve our independence (Hey, someone needs to keep us in check).

You can certainly give up your's if you like. I'm going to keep mine, thanks.
 
  • #19
I'm not saying we should give it up, I'm just saying a bit of regulation may help... juuuuuuust a tad.
 
  • #20
ImATrackMan said:
I'm not saying we should give it up, I'm just saying a bit of regulation may help... juuuuuuust a tad.

You regulate yourself, and I'll regulate myself.
 
  • #21
FlexGunship said:
...Also, I don't know is "natural fear" is fair. I don't have a "natural fear" of firearms. My heart doesn't race when my friends compare rifles; I don't panic when a buddy shows off his new handgun; and going to the firing range doesn't fill me with dread...

I wasn't clear there. By natural fear I meant "natural parental fear", like you wouldn't leave your child wandering near a cliff edge unsupervised. Having said that, being from the U.K. and not used to firearms I do have a fear of them.
 
  • #22
FlexGunship said:
I think the issue of instructing your child in the use of a firearm is strictly a personal one. You and I might think it's dangerous and stupid, but it's no more illegal than telling your child about intelligent design. Furthermore, a four year old is certainly incapable of understanding and practicing firearm safety, however, a child may also be incapable of reading, but that doesn't mean you forbid them from reading or being read to.

So, I don't know if "common sense" indicates that you shouldn't instruct your child in the safe use of a firearm... but common sense CERTAINLY indicates that you don't leave a firearm, loaded or not, just lying around... ever.

I don't think comparing firearms and books makes a good analogy.

A better analogy would be firearms and baby walkers.

When my kids were young, they had very lightweight walkers. Just prior to learning how to walk (at which time the walkers were unnecessary) they could tear through the house at high rates of speed and really enjoyed them.

I was looking for one for my grandson, but it turns out they don't make the lightweight baby walkers any more. The ones you buy now are very bulky. They have to be wide enough that they don't fit through a standard width doorway, since one of the doorways you have to worry about is the basement door, which often lead to catastrophic results. The ones you buy now also have to have brake pads that catch the floor if any of the wheels roll off the edge of any raised surface (with stairways being the raised surface people are concerned about).

The old walkers worked fine with proper parental supervision. None the less, the industry had to enact safety measures to protect children even when there wasn't sufficient parental guidance. The new walkers are safer, but also have less utility - a baby can't walk from one room to the other, even when the rooms are on the same floor.

You're very unlikely to see something like that happen to guns - even guns designed for children too young to be depended upon to use the product safely. With guns, there's a lot more resistance to providing safety measures that may make the product less effective.
 
  • #23
FlexGunship said:
You regulate yourself, and I'll regulate myself.

No need to make a personal argument out of this. It was a matter of opinion that needed no other external input.
 
  • #24
Who the hell gives a 4 year old a gun? What the hell is wrong with people? They're kids, does no one care about preserving their innocence? Destroying their cherubic nature by corrupting them with weaponry ugh it makes me sick.
 
  • #25
WannabeNewton said:
Who the hell gives a 4 year old a gun?

A better question would be "Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to create a faction of the company solely devoted to making guns especially FOR childen?".


EDIT: Apparently Bill and Steve McNeal
 
  • #26
WannabeNewton said:
Who the hell gives a 4 year old a gun? What the hell is wrong with people? They're kids, does no one care about preserving their innocence? Destroying their cherubic nature by corrupting them with weaponry ugh it makes me sick.

I can't really blame the parents here. They're obviously stupid for leaving a bullet in the gun and for not teaching their child better. But my point is, the parents probably bought a gun to teach their child to be comfortable with guns and to be able to defend themselves. So I think their intentions were good.

On the other hand, the gun companies are the ones who are absolutely evil and insane. They actually produce weapons for children. They should know it's not a good idea and they know it sets a bad example. But still they produce those weapons for children. It's disgusting.
 
  • #27
micromass said:
I can't really blame the parents here. They're obviously stupid for leaving a bullet in the gun and for not teaching their child better. But my point is, the parents probably bought a gun to teach their child to be comfortable with guns and to be able to defend themselves. So I think their intentions were good.

On the other hand, the gun companies are the ones who are absolutely evil and insane. They actually produce weapons for children. They should know it's not a good idea and they know it sets a bad example. But still they produce those weapons for children. It's disgusting.

I disagree. The companies are not in business to do parenting. Anyone can produce anything and are in business to make money, not make moral choices. It's up to the parents to decide what is appropriate. They failed. You don't give your 5 year old kid a rifle or a stick of dynamite for that matter even if it's labeled for kids. The company would be out of business if the parents where any good. The problem would then solve itself. The government or businesses are not a substitute for decent parenting.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
cobalt124 said:
I wasn't clear there. By natural fear I meant "natural parental fear", like you wouldn't leave your child wandering near a cliff edge unsupervised. Having said that, being from the U.K. and not used to firearms I do have a fear of them.

Fair enough. I see what you're saying. Certainly that instinctual fear of a child injuring him/herself is lacking in this case. Still makes me cringe when I think about that situation.

I'm not "used" to firearms, either and I don't own any myself. But my friends are open about sharing theirs and I've been invited to gun safety courses and firing ranges. Between 9mm and 5.56mm ammo, I've probably fired a total of 200 rounds in my entire life. During that time I've probably met 50 gun owners and been around hundreds of guns. Not once have I ever felt threatened; in fact, the caution that responsible owners take is very reassuring. There's nothing mystical about a firearm. I'd be FAR more worried if I saw an individual toting a katana.

micromass said:
I can't really blame the parents here. They're obviously stupid for leaving a bullet in the gun and for not teaching their child better. But my point is, the parents probably bought a gun to teach their child to be comfortable with guns and to be able to defend themselves. So I think their intentions were good.

On the other hand, the gun companies are the ones who are absolutely evil and insane. They actually produce weapons for children. They should know it's not a good idea and they know it sets a bad example. But still they produce those weapons for children. It's disgusting.

Is this satire? That's a complete abdication of personal responsibility! I sincerely hope I'm missing some tongue-in-cheek slant here. So, it would've been okay if it had been an "adult" gun left loaded in the corner of the room?

Greg Bernhardt said:
I disagree. The companies are not in business to do parenting. Anyone can produce anything and are in business to make money, not make moral choices. It's up to the parents to decide what is appropriate. They failed. You don't give your 5 year old kid a rifle or a stick of dynamite for that matter even if it's labeled for kids. The company would be out of business if the parents where any good. The problem would then solve itself. The government or businesses are not a substitute for decent parenting.

Amen.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Greg Bernhardt said:
I disagree. The companies are not in business to do parenting. Anyone can produce anything and are in business to make money, not make moral choices. It's up to the parents to decide what is appropriate. They failed. You don't give your kid a rifle or a stick of dynamite for that matter even if it's labled for kids. The company would be out of business if the parents where any good. The problem would then solve itself.

I'm sorry, but I think it's disgusting if companies make money by doing immoral things. There is no way I can condone it.

I think it's sad to live in a world where money is more important than doing the right thing.

And also, I am absolutely a proponent of limiting the freedom of what companies can and cannot do. I think it's normal to have such a limitations. They don't sell beer or pornography to children. Those are limitations. In the same way, they shouldn't sell guns to children.

I know companies aren't meant to do parenting. But that's no excuse to sell such horrible things.
 
  • #30
FlexGunship said:
F
Is this satire? That's a complete abdication of personal responsibility! I sincerely hope I'm missing some tongue-in-cheek slant here. So, it would've been okay if it had been an "adult" gun left loaded in the corner of the room?

Of course it wouldn't be ok. But selling guns to children sets an example. It makes it seem that it's "ok" for 4-year old children to be handling guns. It isn't ok.

Of course the parents could buy an adult gun for their children. But maybe they thought: "a toy company is selling guns, so that means it's probably not abnormal to give guns to children".
 
  • #31
micromass said:
I'm sorry, but I think it's disgusting if companies make money by doing immoral things. There is no way I can condone it.

Great, then don't buy the products. Company goes out of business if people are decent. Problem solved. We can fight these things through education, not more laws.
 
  • #32
Greg Bernhardt said:
Great, then don't buy the products. Company goes out of business if people are decent. Problem solved.

So you would be ok if they would be selling pornography to 8-year olds?? After all, if people are decent, the company would be out of business.
 
  • #33
micromass said:
Of course it wouldn't be ok. But selling guns to children sets an example.

You aren't selling the guns to kids. The parents are buying them for the kid. That is the problem. Bad parenting. No 5 year old needs to know how to protect themselves with a gun. A parent should know that. If they don't, they are likely uneducated.
 
  • #34
micromass said:
So you would be ok if they would be selling pornography to 8-year olds?? After all, if people are decent, the company would be out of business.

They already make anime porn and whatever, that seems pretty kid like to me. Kids can't buy it though, just like they couldn't buy the gun. The parents did.
 
  • #35
Greg Bernhardt said:
You aren't selling the guns to kids. The parents are buying them for the kid. That is the problem. Bad parenting. No 5 year old needs to know how to protect themselves with a gun. A parent should know that. If they don't, they are likely uneducated.

Fine. Let's say that I publish alcohol that is called "alcohol for toddlers". Only adults can buy it. But the company advertizes it to children and tells the children to ask their parents to buy it. Would you be ok with that?
 
  • #36
micromass said:
So you would be ok if they would be selling pornography to 8-year olds?? After all, if people are decent, the company would be out of business.
Small children can't buy guns or pornographic magazines. To think that a parent would give either to a 4 year old child is beyond belief.

Edit: You can include alcohol in that list.
 
  • #37
Borg said:
Small children can't buy guns or pornographic magazines. To think that a parent would give either to a 4 year old child is beyond belief.

Edit: You can include alcohol in that list.

Well, 2 days ago, I thought it was beyond belief to give guns to a 4 year old. So I guess you never know.

You seem to think that every parent is a responsible parent. This is far from the truth.
 
  • #38
micromass said:
I'm sorry, but I think it's disgusting if companies make money by doing immoral things. There is no way I can condone it.

I think it's sad to live in a world where money is more important than doing the right thing.

And also, I am absolutely a proponent of limiting the freedom of what companies can and cannot do. I think it's normal to have such a limitations. They don't sell beer or pornography to children. Those are limitations. In the same way, they shouldn't sell guns to children.

I know companies aren't meant to do parenting. But that's no excuse to sell such horrible things.

Not everyone thinks guns are horrible things. I still don't have an issue with a parent choosing to educate a child in proper firearm use. I wouldn't do it, but that's a personal choice that people make.

Furthermore, you're conflating two ideas. No one is selling guns to children. They're selling guns to adults who are allowing their children to use them. I assure you that at no point in this story are four year olds buying firearms. I don't even think you can get a credit car when you're four.

micromass said:
Of course it wouldn't be ok. But selling guns to children sets an example. It makes it seem that it's "ok" for 4-year old children to be handling guns. It isn't ok.

Of course the parents could buy an adult gun for their children. But maybe they thought: "a toy company is selling guns, so that means it's probably not abnormal to give guns to children".

Your proposed solution to someone holding the opposite opinion as you do is to propose legislation to limit production by private individuals? I hope you see who is immoral in that picture. Please keep your proposed laws away from me; I'll decide which products I purchase and which I don't.

Greg Bernhardt said:
Great, then don't buy the products. Company goes out of business if people are decent. Problem solved. We can fight these things through education, not more laws.

Rationalism at its finest. Products with no market fail. Products with markets succeed.

micromass said:
So you would be ok if they would be selling pornography to 8-year olds?? After all, if people are decent, the company would be out of business.

Of course not. But if a parent, for whatever completely inscrutable reason, felt it necessary to purchase pornography and GIVE it to their eight year old, I wouldn't intervene in that person's parenting by making the sale of the product illegal. Frankly, I wouldn't intervene AT ALL because it's none of my business how a person raises their children.

micromass said:
You seem to think that every parent is a responsible parent. This is far from the truth.

You can't legislate behavior... or are you proposing compulsory sterilization?
 
  • #39
micromass said:
Well, 2 days ago, I thought it was beyond belief to give guns to a 4 year old. So I guess you never know.

You seem to think that every parent is a responsible parent. This is far from the truth.
No, I don't believe that every parent is responsible. I just find the level of stupidity and irresponsibility exhibited beyond belief sometimes.
 
  • #40
micromass said:
Fine. Let's say that I publish alcohol that is called "alcohol for toddlers". Only adults can buy it. But the company advertizes it to children and tells the children to ask their parents to buy it. Would you be ok with that?

I see what you are getting at, but I'm still in disagreement how much you let the parents off the hook. It could have been any gun. Why would the parent think this one was safe?
 
  • #41
FlexGunship said:
Not everyone thinks guns are horrible things.

I never said guns are horrible things, but I see how I could have come across that way. I say that guns that are advertized as children toys are horrible things.

I still don't have an issue with a parent choosing to educate a child in proper firearm use. I wouldn't do it, but that's a personal choice that people make.

Furthermore, you're conflating two ideas. No one is selling guns to children. They're selling guns to adults who are allowing their children to use them. I assure you that at no point in this story are four year olds buying firearms. I don't even think you can get a credit car when you're four.

I'm fully aware of the difference here. But I guess I didn't said it right in the thread.


Your proposed solution to someone holding the opposite opinion as you do is to propose legislation to limit production by private individuals? I hope you see who is immoral in that picture. Please keep your proposed laws away from me; I'll decide which products I purchase and which I don't.

I don't see it is immoral. Do you think we should sell nuclear bombs to individuals? You don't, which means you are already convinced that we should limit what companies sell to the public. I'm just going further in that logic than you. It's not immoral though.

Of course not. But if a parent, for whatever completely inscrutable reason, felt it necessary to purchase pornography and GIVE it to their eight year old, I wouldn't intervene in that person's parenting by making the sale of the product illegal. Frankly, I wouldn't intervene AT ALL because it's none of my business how a person raises their children.

So if a child is abused by their parents, you wouldn't intervene because it's none of your business how a person raises their children??
 
  • #42
Boy, that escalated quickly. Anyways, I still stand by the statement that the parents are plain nuts for giving their 4 year old a gun. Since when did we start living in a society where gun ownership is romanticized, especially in the hands of young kids?
 
  • #43
Greg Bernhardt said:
I see what you are getting at, but I'm still in disagreement how much you let the parents off the hook. It could have been any gun. Why would the parent think this one was safe?

I don't let the parents of the hook though. What they did is completely irresponsible. I may have sounded in my post as if the parents are completely innocent here.

When I said: "I can't blame the parents", then that probably gave the wrong impression. I do blame the parents for what happened. They are the biggest responsible. But my point was that the parents had no ill intentions.
 
  • #44
micromass said:
Of course it wouldn't be ok. But selling guns to children sets an example. It makes it seem that it's "ok" for 4-year old children to be handling guns. It isn't ok.

Of course the parents could buy an adult gun for their children. But maybe they thought: "a toy company is selling guns, so that means it's probably not abnormal to give guns to children".
One thing that I would agree with here is that normal rifles are too heavy for a child that small. I do find it extremely wrong that a company would produce a weapon that could be easily handled by a toddler. Whose brilliant idea was that?
 
  • #45
micromass said:
But my point was that the parents had no ill intentions.

Yeah and the man who was executed yesterday in texas also said he didn't intend to kill the baby he raped.

Now, I really just escalated the debate lol, but really, this is interesting. All fun and games here :)
 
  • #46
Greg Bernhardt said:
Yeah and the man who was executed yesterday in texas also said he didn't mean to kill the baby he raped.

Now, I really just escalated the debate lol, but really, this is interesting. All fun and games here :)

All fun and games, for sure. I hope it stays that way in the thread :-p Otherwise I'll back out

I agree with you that "no ill intentions" is pretty useless, because what happened happened.
 
  • #47
micromass said:
All fun and games, for sure. I hope it stays that way in the thread :-p Otherwise I'll back out

I agree with you that "no ill intentions" is pretty useless, because what happened happened.
No ill intentions here either. All fun and games. :smile:
 
  • #48
Greg Bernhardt said:
... We can fight these things through education, not more laws.

Greg Bernhardt said:
... I'm still in disagreement how much you let the parents off the hook.

Laws to protect children = parental education
 
  • #49
dlgoff said:
Laws to protect children = parental education

If that is so, then when you go pick up your baby from the hospital, you should be handed a children's law book to review. It should read, "How to raise your child by knowing what is illegal in (city) (state) (country)."

Laws cover .00001% of what parents teach their children about being a good person.
 
  • #50
The point was, the parents were the ones at fault. And the result of the law will teach them.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top