Guns for four year old children

In summary: Personally, I think it's up to the parent to make the decision, but I also think children should be taught about firearm safety, just not with a gun.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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 :tongue2: 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 :tongue2: 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.
 
  • #51
dlgoff said:
The point was, the parents were the ones at fault. And the result of the law will teach them.

Gotcha! It's too bad, it's too late for education for that child.
 
  • #52
Greg Bernhardt said:
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.

I know it's a bit off topic. But if you want to adopt a child, then you have to go through a lot of background checks and a lot of trouble. They really see whether you are right for the child. But if you get a child through natural means, then they don't do anything.

I'm not saying we should change laws for this of course. I just want to say that any idiot and aggressive parent can get children without any problems. Of course, the child will be taken away if it gets abused, but then the harm is already done.
 
  • #53
micromass said:
I know it's a bit off topic. But if you want to adopt a child, then you have to go through a lot of background checks and a lot of trouble. They really see whether you are right for the child. But if you get a child through natural means, then they don't do anything.

Trust me, I am radical when it comes to parenting. I see so many examples both in real life and in the news with people who never should have been allowed to procreate. I'm not convinced it's a basic right anymore. Not if it's likely the child or society in general will suffer.
 
  • #54
While the parents are at fault, we should have some sympathy for them. They are probably already feeling extremely guilty and distraught considering their daughter just died. Once people start bombarding them with hate through various mediums it will only destroy them ever more.
 
  • #55
micromass said:
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 don't believe they're being marketed as toys; they're being marketed as firearms that are small enough to be handled comfortably by children.

Minibikes (example: http://www.minipocketrockets.com/mini-bikes/) are responsible for the deaths of five children per year (source: http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articledetail.cfm?id=234). They are purchased by adults and given to children. Certainly they're not marketed as toys! They're marketed as motorcycles small enough to be operated comfortably by children. Would you propose to make minibikes illegal? Would you suggest that advertising a minibike is horrible (or amoral)?


micromass said:
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.

Okay. You're right that I wouldn't support the sale of nuclear bombs to individuals. To be completely and totally forthright, I'm not sure where I draw the line on what an individual can own. But that line is between firearms and nuclear bombs.

I'll drop the issue of amorality en exactus but leave open that the idea of restriction of productive freedom via legislative intervention is an amoral idea in premise and it what leads to legalized cartels.


micromass said:
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??

I understand the hyperbole here, but I consider teaching a child about literal hell-fire and brimstone to be child abuse and I'm not allowed to intervene.

If it's physical abuse, of course you have to intervene. In fact, I believe you have a moral responsibility to intervene. But I think you'd agree that intellectual abuse is a very gray area. The idea of educating a child about firearms is a far cry from abuse.

It's easy enough to argue that giving a young child alcohol is physical abuse, but many people don't have the same puritan knee-jerk revulsion to giving a 14 year-old a glass of wine that others do.

In the case of sexual education, I've heard it argued that giving the "birds and the bees" talk to a 12 year-old is abuse. Or that explaining the mechanical basics of reproduction to a child that is 10 years old is okay so long as you don't use images. Someone might argue that breast feeding in sight of children is abuse. Or maybe that NOT explaining what sex is to someone older than 14 is a form of abuse.

Certainly, sexual education in general is a murky area. When in doubt, let the parents decide what is appropriate. I cannot fathom a scenario in which giving an 8 year-old a pornographic magazine is any reasonable part of a responsible sexual education... HOWEVER, if another parent DOES, it's not my place to impose my ideas on them.

Okay, that being said, if their child shows my child that magazine, that's a very different story.
 
  • #56
Greg Bernhardt said:
Trust me, I am radical when it comes to parenting. I see so many examples both in real life and in the news with people who never should have been allowed to procreate. I'm not convinced it's a basic right anymore. Not if it's likely the child or society in general will suffer.
I don't think you can forecast if a child will suffer, but yea ... Seeing children's suffering? ... yea.
 
  • #57
FlexGunship said:
I don't believe they're being marketed as toys; they're being marketed as firearms that are small enough to be handled comfortably by children.

I was arguing based of this post by astro:

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

The link doesn't work for me anymore. But it certainly did give me the impression like they were treating guns as toys. If I misunderstood the website, then I'll drop this point.
 
  • #58
Greg Bernhardt said:
T...I'm not convinced it's a basic right anymore...

Theres another problem, making having children into a right. It never was.
 
  • #59
FlexGunship said:
It's easy enough to argue that giving a young child alcohol is physical abuse, but many people don't have the same puritan knee-jerk revulsion to giving a 14 year-old a glass of wine that others do.
I don't have a problem with that. But, when I learned that my own father put beer in my baby bottle at the age of 18 months so that I would go to sleep while him and his buddies stayed up all night... I thought that was pretty wrong. Young and dumb. :rolleyes:
 
  • #60
I think the law should work the same for guns as for alcohol and cigarettes: too young to buy should mean too young to have and too young to market to. That would make both the parents actions and company's product/marketing illegal.
 
  • #61
russ_watters said:
I think the law should work the same for guns as for alcohol and cigarettes: too young to buy should mean too young to have and too young to market too. That would make both the parents actions and company's product/marketing illegal.

That sounds fair to me.
 
  • #62
micromass said:
The link doesn't work for me anymore. But it certainly did give me the impression like they were treating guns as toys. If I misunderstood the website, then I'll drop this point.
The home page is showing a Linux server test page. Looks like they're having some web issues. I'm sure that it couldn't be due to the sudden publicity from this story. :wink:
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
I think the law should work the same for guns as for alcohol and cigarettes: too young to buy should mean too young to have and too young to market to. That would make both the parents actions and company's product/marketing illegal.

I never thought I would agree with you on something involving politics. But this post proves me wrong :tongue2:
 
  • #64
russ_watters said:
I think the law should work the same for guns as for alcohol and cigarettes: too young to buy should mean too young to have and too young to market to. That would make both the parents actions and company's product/marketing illegal.

That makes perfect sense.
 
  • #65
Flexgunship RE minibikes. Minibikes don't have performance anywhere close to that of full sized motorcycles, so they aren't a fair comparison. They really are toys.
 
  • #66
Borg said:
The home page is showing a Linux server test page. Looks like they're having some web issues. I'm sure that it couldn't be due to the sudden publicity from this story. :wink:
And I was wanting to see the "cricket with gun" image. :grumpy:
 
  • #67
Borg said:
The home page is showing a Linux server test page. Looks like they're having some web issues. I'm sure that it couldn't be due to the sudden publicity from this story. :wink:

Sad thing is when they get the server running, they will get a load of new orders from the free publicity.
 
  • #68
dlgoff said:
And I was wanting to see the "cricket with gun" image. :grumpy:
Let me Google that for you - Crickett rifle. Note how small they made this lethal weapon. Also, the colors could fool a cop into thinking it wasn't real.
Greg Bernhardt said:
Sad thing is when they get the server running, they will get a load of new orders from the free publicity.
No doubt.
 
  • #69
As an open note, I'm trying to keep this light-hearted also, but there are two insanely serious issues here: (1) the death of a child by parental negligence, and (2) the casual discussion of further abridging individual rights.

  1. This is as bad as parenting gets apart from physically hurting your own child. These parents should/probably will lose custody of their four year old as a result of this. The amount of time they spend in jail is debatable, but I don't think it'll end up being zero days and zero hours.
  2. There is a disturbing trend in the U.S. to make everything either compulsory or forbidden. Whether something becomes compulsory or forbidden depends mostly on which end of the the tragedy-spectrum becomes prominent in the media first.

Borg said:
I don't have a problem with that. But, when I learned that my own father put beer in my baby bottle at the age of 18 months so that I would go to sleep while him and his buddies stayed up all night... I thought that was pretty wrong. Young and dumb. :rolleyes:

I wish I knew what to say to this. I have to assume this happened in a time before it was known how dangerous it is to give young children alcohol.

My father once confessed to giving me a taste of beer when I was only a few years old (maybe six or seven?) just to discourage me from bothering him about trying it. Obviously I hated the small taste I got, and it was a LONG time before I was ever curious about beer again. His confession included a guilty apology and an explanation that he had no idea how dangerous it was (which I felt was unnecessary given the scenario).

russ_watters said:
I think the law should work the same for guns as for alcohol and cigarettes: too young to buy should mean too young to have and too young to market to. That would make both the parents actions and company's product/marketing illegal.

Eh, I could get behind this if the alternative were worse. But in one fell swoop, you've basically made father/son hunting trips, a classic American pastime, illegal.
 
  • #70
russ_watters said:
Flexgunship RE minibikes. Minibikes don't have performance anywhere close to that of full sized motorcycles, so they aren't a fair comparison. They really are toys.

Okay, fine. My point was more about that fact that they cause more child deaths per year than firearms made for children but there's no equivalent uproar.
 

Similar threads

Did a Stray Bullet on New Year's Eve Kill a Child at Church in Atlanta?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
60
Views
9K
Share your Story about Dad on Father's Day
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
Too Much Stellar Flux: Fixing a 25-year old Problem
    • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Four U.S. soldiers charged with rape and murder
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
My conversation with a six year old
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Things I Learned from Movies
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
Challenge Math Challenge - December 2018
    • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
67
Views
10K
The Sandpiper by Robert Peterson
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
8K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top