I shot a rabbit with my .22 rifle many years ago. I hit him right up the arse.............He jumped about 3 feet in the air and then ran (hopped) off.
Couldn't agree more. There's nothing wrong in teaching children to shoot. Learning to treat firearms with due respect and shoot proficiently demands a whole set of skills and disciplines which it is healthy for children to learn. The disease in America is an all-pervasive popular culture which gratuitously glamorises, even sexualises guns and trivialises armed violence to the point it is peddled as family entertainment. Its hardly surprising that people who don't need guns or have any interest in their proper use queue up to buy them as fashion accessories and status symbols and end up shooting each other or that children learn to copy them and massacre their school friends.
could petes view be a cryptic way of highlighting how quick we are to condemn? or am i reading to much into it, because it's a hell of a statement to make.
It seems to me that it is an uninformed kneejerk reactionary statement in response to a terrible accident where those involved showed a severe lack of judgement, guns are not bad or dangerous, people are.
You're being ridiculous. Attila is talking about the benefits of introducing children to shooting with properly supervised tuition using an appropriate type of gun. That is a responsible and wholly positive thing and a world away from letting an untutored child loose with an utterly unsuitable automatic weapon they cannot possible handle to give some watching adults a good laugh. Do you think it is better to shy away from the subject altogether and abandon children to be seduced by the fantasy world of firearms they will be bombarded with by the entertainment industry? Perhaps you also think teaching children the proper skills to ride motorcycles safely at a young age with mini-bikes and full safety gear under strict supervision also amounts to child abuse? I know which type of parenting I'd prefer.
Substitute the word "guns" and put "motorbikes" instead. Why are the owners of motorbikes allowing their children to be exposed to such danger? I am not arguing that bikes and guns are the same thing, I am just saying that guns are an integral part of the culture - why wouldn't you get your children involved in something that you believe in and are not ashamed of? Obviously, in the UK, we don't see guns as anything other than a menace to society, hence our reaction, but remember, there are folk around who see motorbikes as being nearly as much a menace as guns. It's all about perspective. To be clear, I do not support the idea of guns being placed in the hands of children (or of adults with the mental age of children, like you see in the Southern states ).
Agree 100 %. I started shooting rifles at a regulated small bore club at 12. Was properly instructed by the club, and specifically mentored by a couple of the club officials who also introduced me to pistol shooting as I progressed. In the end I was attending 3 sessions a week. It gave me a responsible attitude to all weapons, not just firearms, and several rewarding years of hobby in which I also won several trophies. I finally drifted away from it in my late teens, when beer/bikes/birds became more important pass times, but still look back on it all fondly now 30 years later. Its all about common sense and applying this with the correct attitude. Unfortunately, neither seem to have been part of this poor girls experience.
Yes. Perhaps I'd best clear that my comment was a joke? A joke whilst simultaneously expressing contempt: sarcasm. His death is a small Price to pay for upholding America's constitutional rights in my opinion. I will defend til my last breath a child's right to second amendment their second amendment instructor's brains out. What kind of parents are they anyway? She wasn't even wearing ear defenders.
There's nothing ridiculous about this subject. The topic under discussion is adults giving a firearm (an automatic, no less) to a 9 year old child and getting her to fire it. In my opinion, that action obviously amounts to a form of child abuse. Attila contradicted this. That means that he has explicitly supported this form of child abuse as I have said. He has the right to hold this objectionable opinion and express it - and I have the right to criticize it, do I not? Subsequent posts have wandered far away from the point, into discussions of older children, less harmful weapons, better tuition, and various alternative kinds of hazards - all irrelevant to this issue. Let's refocus on the matter in hand. * Is placing an Uzi in the hands of a 9 year old (with or without catastrophic results) acceptable or unacceptable? * Does it amount to abusing the child or does it not? * Should the adults who did this be blamed or excused?
You seem to be purposefully ignoring the idea that the the whole question has several different answers, all of which may be "culturally" correct, even if the answers contradict each other. Either that, or you do not understand the concept of culturalism. "Is placing an Uzi in the hands of a 9 year old (with or without catastrophic results) acceptable or unacceptable?" - the answer depends on the experiences and cultural background of the person you are asking. I would answer, "What, are you nuts?" but someone from Somalia, or Sierra Leone or the USA may have different opinions based upon different experiences or cultural traditions. If you insist upon asking such questions, at least try to understand why people might respond differently from what you expect or hope for, and their possible reasons for doing so. At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious ... the concept of "Right And Wrong" is most often a matter of perspective and rarely, if ever, based in absolute terms. "Moral Relativism" is a dirty phrase for many folks but denying such a thing exists and has value in a philosophical discussion is the height of stoopid-headedness.
Of course you have the right to criticize, it doesn't necessarily mean your criticism is correct or in fact in this case whether your interpretation of my opinion is correct! If you go back to my first post you will see quite clearly that i state Giving a child an automatic weapon is a rediculous stupid idea, is that clear enough for you to understand? At no point have i claimed that this tragic case is somehow justifiable. It is fairly obvious that you have no experience of target shooting as a hobby, if you had then there is no possible way you could come to such a rediculous and insulting sweeping statement. Learning to shoot teaches self control and it teaches the importance of safety, it is not about screaming 'yee ha' and spraying bullets wildly down the range like some holywood movie. I ask you this, is it abuse to teach a child self control? Is it abuse to teach a child about safety? Is it abuse to teach a child the importance of concentration? Is it abuse to introduce a child to a hobby where results are directly related to learned skills and practice? Is it abuse to teach a child that certain activities can only be carried out at the correct time and place? There is nothing wrong with teaching a child to shoot, as long as they are correctly trained in a safe environment with proper supervision and the right weapon for their ability. It is obvious in this tragic case that none of the above were adhered to. I have stated all of this before and you have repeatedly ignored it, instead opting for personal insults and rediculous comments about the police.
Again you introduce a series of straw-man issues which have nothing to do with the matter in hand. We are not discussing teaching children self control, concentration, learned skills, or timeliness - all those things are of course desirable as far as they go, but there are many and varied ways of teaching them to children which do not involve lethal weaponry. It is quite amusing that you struggle so much with giving straight, simple answers to the questions which actually arise in the instant case. To remind you, they are: * Is placing an Uzi in the hands of a 9 year old (with or without catastrophic results) acceptable or unacceptable? * Does it amount to abusing the child or does it not? * Should the adults who did this be blamed or excused? So let's see - are you going to answer them? Or come out with the usual evasions, misdirections, and irrelevancies?
Pete your initial statement, the one I took issue with, was a claim that putting a firearm in a 9 year olds hands was child abuse. I disagree with that statement as if handled correctly, with proper training and supervision and in the right environment they are perfectly safe. Target shooting is an enjoyable hobby which teaches a number of skills that are desirable. You seem unable to grasp that concept. if you had stated that this specific case amounted to child abuse then I would probably agreed but that is not the statement you made. As for your questions that I am supposedly avoiding. Number 1, I have stated on a number of occasions that this is unacceptable, try reading my responses... Number 2, it is unacceptable definitely, an error of judgment certainly and has had a tragic outcome. Child abuse, yes, I suppose it can be considered it in this case. Number 3, what sort of stupid question is this? A man has lost his life because of a stupid error of judgement, it's not the girls fault is it? Of course it is the fault of the Adults who put her in this position. My earlier points are perfectly salient, I and others were stating the benefits of safely learning to shoot, hardly evasive and certainly not 'straw man' issues. I am glad I amuse you though, its just a shame that its not a reciprocal arrangement...
