unintended consequences? firearm edition

[Andara Bledin]

Experience with shooting a gun doesn't automatically translate into experience with the finality of death. It's the lack of connection that is at issue.

As for when kids start to understand about death, I know that both my brother and I understood what death was before we moved away from the ranch, and I wasn't quite 6 at that time while my brother is over a year younger. I suspect that the problem isn't so much that kids can't understand it as much as adults don't know how to approach the subject, which is what leads to the continued reliance on magical thinking.

We had cats disappear and die fairly regularly, which is what happens when you live on a ranch, have over a dozen cats, and are surrounded by coyote country. We also knew where babies came from, too.

Neither of those subjects are as difficult to grasp as some people seem to want to make them. But most modern children are so insulated and isolated from both of those that it's all some huge mystery.

That said, every child develops differently, and it's up to the parents to actually make some sort of determination before allowing their children access to weapons. Most parents manage to fail at that first step.

[Kheldarson]

No four year old obey's the rules 100% of the time. Otherwise parenting would be pretty easy. The very article we're talking about demonstrates that the problem perfectly. The child had owned and was experienced with shooting the rifle, but he still went and got it and started playing with it the moment mom was out of sight. Resulting in his sister's death.

There's been an odd rash of similar shootings in the last 2 months.

And since no one was there, how do we know he pointed it at his sister? I can give you a list of examples of accidental discharge even from much more experienced adults.

The bigger fail in the case of the particular incident in question was the lack of adult control over the gun. It should've been locked up in a safe until time to use.

But that still does not negate the fact that a 4/5/6 year old can learn about guns, gun safety, and death at their age.

[Gravekeeper]

Experience with shooting a gun doesn't automatically translate into experience with the finality of death. It's the lack of connection that is at issue.

That was kind of my point in a way. When your four, everything is a toy. Making a real rifle look like a toy makes it all the worse. -.-

As for when kids start to understand about death, I know that both my brother and I understood what death was before we moved away from the ranch, and I wasn't quite 6 at that time while my brother is over a year younger. I suspect that the problem isn't so much that kids can't understand it as much as adults don't know how to approach the subject, which is what leads to the continued reliance on magical thinking.

Just because you were an exception doesn't disprove the rule though. This is pure child psychology and physical cognitive development. Young children think in very literal, immediate terms. We don't really start comprehending abstract concepts until 6-10. Yes, some children may be a little bit ahead or behind, but the standard guidelines are well established in child psychology.

No matter how well you think you're raising your children, you're taking a huge risk by giving such a young child a gun. As evidenced by the weird rash of recent accidental shootings by young children. Its not the child's fault by any means.

Especially in this case. Thanks to parental neglience, this kid will have to live with what he's done when he's old enough to understand it.

[Andara Bledin]

Especially in this case. Thanks to parental neglience, this kid will have to live with what he's done when he's old enough to understand it.

This is really the only point that needs be made. The parent was negligent. How they were negligent should be studied, but most people are either going to fall into the "OMG GUNS!" camp or the "OMG, YOU CAN'T HAVE OUR GUNS" camp, and the people who actually care about the real heart of the matter will be shouted down.

Business as usual, really.

[Hyena Dandy]

enroll in a firearm safety class(which I, as a firearm owner believe should be mandatory, as well as proficiency testing-just FYI), isn't negligent, I do not know what is.

I don't understand how you could have this, or licensing as Green Day mentioned, without some sort of registry, which there seems to be a lot of pushback. At the very least, there would have to be a registry of people who are ALLOWED to have guns. Which would also encompass mandatory background checks, so that people who we're no longer allowing to have guns without passing the class don't get them.

Otherwise, how can the mandatory nature of a firearms class be enforced? Just carrying something around isn't enough. I mean, if I get a driver's license, it's not just a piece of plastic that I carry in my wallet. It goes down in a government registry, that way I can't fake it.

[Kheldarson]

I think a major consideration has to be the nature of the registration. What gets people twitchy is the government having a list of every gun they own...and then having the ability to confiscate them.

Which would be somewhat comparable to getting your driver's license (can have the license without the car, but car has to be listed with the DMV in order to be driven).

How insane a worry that is, I don't know, I don't own guns myself and don't intend to (I don't like the way a gun feels). But this is what people at my store worry about.

[Andara Bledin]

If the training requirement was just a certificate/card with relevant vital information (such as government issued ID number, birthdate, etc), and no record was kept on the part of the establishment that issued it, it would likely be palatable to those who fear government seizure of weapons.

Of course, were you to lose it, or it to be destroyed, a new one would have to be earned. And they would expire.

Even if the incidence of counterfeiting were on the high side, it would still go a long way to reducing the issues that are borne of ignorance and lack of education.

[wolfie]

A 4 year old cannot comprehend lethal force. If you give him a brightly coloured rifle, that's a toy. No matter what you tell him.

I remember a cartoon from YEARS back (I believe it was "Augie Doggie") with father-and-son anthropomorphic dogs. Son was patrolling the house with his toy rifle, and father thought it would be a good joke to dress up as a burglar to scare him. Son's line (talking to himself) on seeing the "burglar"? "I'm going to get my dad's really rifle".

Failure here, as another poster mentioned, is that the parents didn't keep proper control of the rifle, i.e. making sure it was only in the child's possession when they were supervised.

In the linked picture in an earlier post, one of the top row pictures shows a girl with a pink rifle. Detail isn't good enough, but from where she's holding it she might have her finger on the trigger - definite NO for when you're not actually aiming it (as she clearly isn't). Another picture shows a baby with a rifle - clearly too young to use it even under adult supervision. For the manufacturer to have used these photos (some of the others are OK, such as the kid showing off the target after a range session) shows that THEY are promoting irresponsible use.

[Gravekeeper]

In the linked picture in an earlier post, one of the top row pictures shows a girl with a pink rifle. Detail isn't good enough, but from where she's holding it she might have her finger on the trigger - definite NO for when you're not actually aiming it (as she clearly isn't). Another picture shows a baby with a rifle - clearly too young to use it even under adult supervision. For the manufacturer to have used these photos (some of the others are OK, such as the kid showing off the target after a range session) shows that THEY are promoting irresponsible use.

You mean the one where she has a rifle in one hand and a can of something in the other as if to say "Hold ma beer"? -.-

The manufacturer has pages worth of that on their website. But they took their website down right after this hit the news to hide from the public. As their website literally recommended the rifles for ages 4-10 and they came in pink, blue, yellow, tye dye, etc.

[Andara Bledin]

That page you just linked isn't bad. The baby with the rifle is in poor taste, but there's almost nothing a baby could do with a gun that large that could hurt someone.

The earlier one, however, with the "Hold ma beer" girl, was terrible. And, yes, I'm fairly certain that was a 40 of beer.

[crashhelmet]

"Cops & Robbers"
"Cowboys & Indians"
"Army"

Kids, more often than not they're little boys, play games like these that involve shooting and "killing" their friends.

Add in cartoons where Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam get shot in the face with a gun, cannon, or have a bomb explode on them.

Some understand what it means to be dead and others don't. Some understand what make believe is and what isn't.

Pink Gun Mistaken For A Toy, 3 Year old Killed

[Gravekeeper]

That page you just linked isn't bad. The baby with the rifle is in poor taste, but there's almost nothing a baby could do with a gun that large that could hurt someone.

The earlier one, however, with the "Hold ma beer" girl, was terrible. And, yes, I'm fairly certain that was a 40 of beer.

Yeah, they aren't all bad, its just that it seems like for every 4 or 5 showing it being used properly, there's one it bad taste and/or bad judgement.

[HYHYBT]

I despise the abuse of language that places the secondary definition of accident as implying impossible to avoid as if that were a necessary or natural connotation of every usage of the word when that isn't even remotely the truth. ALL it normally means is that the results were unintentional; rejecting the word in favor of "negligence," especially, is a cheat because not all things that are accidents in the usual sense of the word are either completely unavoidable (as the OP claims the word implies) OR the result of negligence.

None of which should be taken to address the main thrust of the thread, but the OP went through extra trouble just to put it in so it's fair game.

[BlaqueKatt]

I despise the abuse of language
None of which should be taken to address the main thrust of the thread, but the OP went through extra trouble just to put it in so it's fair game.

I wasn't aware I was required to be an english major to post. Hint when you start arguing semantics, and proper word usage(as opposed to common usage), it's usually because you don't have an argument. Want to nitpick some typos too?

and I never claimed it was the definition what I said was:

as accident implies nothing could be done to prevent it

Citing common usage and understanding of the word, not standard "oxford dictionary definition", as far as I'm aware stating common usage, rather than using a word to mean something it doesn't, is not "abuse of language". Which the common usage and understanding of the word is why the phrase "car accident" has been changed to car/vehicle crash/collision" And in the case of accidental shootings, they ARE caused by negligence, it is 100% impossible to have any kind of accidental shooting if you obey the 5 basic rules of firearm safety*, not obeying them IS negligence, hence negligent shooting over accidental.

Some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident". Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.That is why these organizations prefer the term "collision" rather than "accident".

All guns are always loaded.
Never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Know your target.
Keep your gun at the minimum level of readiness.

Minimum level of readiness means UNLOADED, however you treat it as if it is loaded, even after you have verified it is unloaded.

[Panacea]

Now, I don't hunt (not my thing) but if that's what these families do (and some do hunt for the purpose of eating), why shouldn't a child be trained early, if that's what's expected?

4 year olds lack the ability to think abstractly and understand consequence. Their bodies are not physically capable of handling a regular fire arm, so the fire arms companies made smaller weapons to attract new customers. When you have to change the weapon to get a gun into a child's hands, there is something very wrong with the picture.

A 4 year old cannot comprehend lethal force. If you give him a brightly coloured rifle, that's a toy. No matter what you tell him.

Exactly. You know, it's funny. In the US, at least, toy guns HAVE to be either brightly colored plastic OR if they are black have colored tips to keep them from being mistaken for guns by people with real guns . . . like law enforcement.

Can you imagine the tragedy if a child pointed one of these "Cricket" .22's at a cop who held his fire thinking it was a "toy", only to get shot by said child?

Because that's what will have to happen before law enforcement pushes for a change in the law to ban these weapons for kids.