Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like anything else, the earlier you start teaching a child about something, the better they're going to understand it and the more naturally they're going to understand it. You said it yourself - young kids are impressionable. If you start teaching them firearm safety at a very early age, it's going to be ingrained in them for their entire life, whether they choose to own guns as adults or not.
By waiting until "they have even matured to puberty" (or later, as many have suggested) to give them their first hands-on experience with a gun, you're giving the media and society the opportunity to shape that child's relationship with and view of guns - before they've ever had a single lesson in safety.
In other words, people following your advice will end up with kids that think about guns in exactly the way you don't want them to. Their exposure to the point of young adulthood will be limited to what Hollywood shows them, and what the media tells them. Now maybe that's your objective - I don't know - but I do know that guns aren't going anywhere, regardless of what you might wish, and that if you want kids to not see guns as glamorous or as a status symbol, then you have to teach them early. No honest, thinking person could possibly disagree with that.
Well, the unfortunate five year old that just killed his little sister - apparently isn't learning by your algorithm. Despite his early exposure.
Responsible firearm owners would never dream of putting a gun in the hands of a toddler,
Yet another straw-man "issue" unrelated to anything in the thread, invented by a loser to try to distract attention from his getting his clock cleaned in the real debate.
This could get interesting. How long can the liberal loser go on faking and jiving his way along, avoiding the issue at hand and pretending he has anything relevant to say?
Now - tell us how to make sure not-so-bright gun owners keep their guns away from their 5 year old children AND their mentally disturbed.
Because it seems that, with frightening regularity, all the wrong people go 'round waving their guns.
If you can tell us how to keep teens from driving drunk, adults from driving drunk, teens from driving without insurance, adults from driving without insurance........
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,861,562 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
If that's so true, then why not start teaching kids to drive cars at age five? After all, the earlier we start teaching them, the better they will understand it.....Well if they can see over the steering wheel and reach the peddels.......
In other words, you can't run the risk of waiting for the child to actually grow up a bit, develop full cognition, and then trust him or her make informed decisions on their own. And so you must get that kid to a firing range before its walking straight for the sake of fellating your own ego and validating your politics. Parent of the year material right there...
I would much rather have my child learn firearm safety young so that if they happen on a firearm they know not to touch it.
Who are you going to let teach your child about sex? The older kid down the street. At what age? After the hormones are raging?
When are children easier to teach? When young and willing to learn or older, say teenagers, when they know it all?
If you can tell us how to keep teens from driving drunk, adults from driving drunk, teens from driving without insurance, adults from driving without insurance........
shall I go on....
Driving without insurance hasn't killed anyone yet. I do believe we have laws against driving drunk; quite stringent laws.
Where is the law that a stupid person can't own a gun?
There seems to me to be a direct correlation between low IQ and the incidence of accidental shooting. At least in my line of work.
Another responsible gun owner destroys the life of a child and ruins another because they believe that everyone including children should have a gun. They should throw the parents in jail and they should lose custody of their remaining child permanently.
Let me get this straight firsthand from you. You have talked to every single responsible gun owner yourself, and you have found out that every one of them including myself, think that a child out to have their own gun.
Really, you must be a very busy beeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Because sorry to disagree with you, i don't personally know a single responsible gun owner myself, who lets their child near a gun without an adult being in a room. In this may be because the Father is cleaning the gun, not because he carelessly leaves it out for a five year old to pick up.
And they each have their guns also, where their children don't even know they have these new high tech safes these days.
So just how many responsible gun owners have you personally yourself spoken to aobut this. Interested in knowing.
When you say they, you are generalizing that is very wrong to do, unless you have first hand knowledge and factual facts that every gun owner, admits to letting their children have a gun. You know that ain't so, don't you?
That is almost like generalizing that all Democrats are whackos. Would not be right now would it!
Yet another straw-man "issue" unrelated to anything in the thread, invented by a loser to try to distract attention from his getting his clock cleaned in the real debate.
This could get interesting. How long can the liberal loser go on faking and jiving his way along, avoiding the issue at hand and pretending he has anything relevant to say?
Should we start a pool?
It's a straw man issue to talk about guns in the hands of toddlers...says the guy who already has guns in the hands of a five year-old. That's before they have even gotten out of kindergarten and made it to the first grade.
So tell me, mister responsible gun owner: why not start at four? Why not three? The kid is walking and talking by then. They can point a gun and pull the trigger - with your "responsible" adult supervision, of course. Isn't the mantra to start them young? Is there any age, in your mind, that is too young?
Are you going to answer it, or are you going to dodge this question, like you have every other one? It has everything to do with the issue at hand, and you know it.
Yet another straw-man "issue" unrelated to anything in the thread, invented by a loser to try to distract attention from his getting his clock cleaned in the real debate.
This could get interesting. How long can the liberal loser go on faking and jiving his way along, avoiding the issue at hand and pretending he has anything relevant to say?
Should we start a pool?
I see you get quite angry when someone doesn't see things your way.
Let's start a pool to see how many times you can use the word 'loser' when someone doesn't agree with you. That right there is the hallmark of someone on the losing end of an argument.
Of course, posting about putting guns into the hands of a toddler is related to the thread; the entire thread is about being too young to handle a firearm. Hence the title.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
