Shoot In A Random Direction. Hit A Child. No Charges.

[Ginger Tea]

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that guns not be kept in the home where children are present, but that if the weapons must be present, then they be secured in a gun safe or with trigger locks, unloaded.

Keep gun's in kid's bedroom that is advice given at a gun show, granted he stated in a safe in their room as you would probably go to their room first if you were to find your home invaded so it's a two birds one stone, which makes sense, but it's still keeping a gun in a childs bedroom.

Also pics of kids with guns, inc pink child sized ones

[Panacea]

Keep gun's in kid's bedroom that is advice given at a gun show, granted he stated in a safe in their room as you would probably go to their room first if you were to find your home invaded so it's a two birds one stone, which makes sense, but it's still keeping a gun in a child's bedroom.

Also pics of kids with guns, inc pink child sized ones

A 5 year old recently shot and killed his 2 year old sister with a child sized .22 cal rifle the parents had given him. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/ken...ing/index.html

The kid had been playing with the gun, didn't know it was still loaded, and shot his sister. Mom was in the house.

Kids that age have no business owning real guns. We restrict alcohol and tobacco based on age, but not guns? Good lord.

And the idea guns should be stored in a kid's closet? Preposterous on its face. I don't know about any of you, but you couldn't find ANYTHING in MY closet when I was a kid.

[Ginger Tea]

Read about that, or at least comments elsewhere in fratching.

[BlaqueKatt]

"minimum level of readiness" cannot rationally mean unloaded.<snip>The second rule is also not always possible. I'm tempted to say the first rule isn't fully possible either.

I really hate repeating myself, but people can be quite obtuse.

The link goes into in depth explanations of these concepts

Try reading the link, it answers what you are claiming isn't possible, this is how I know you didn't read the link, because the answers are contained within it, I am not copying and pasting an entire webpage because someone can't be bothered to click a link.

[Ginger Tea]

I think a good idea is to keep the gun empty at all times but treat it as if it was loaded none the less, cos you never know, that one time you are sure it's empty is the time you shoot your toe off in a class room and get your dumb DEA ass on youtube

[lordlundar]

How is a gun useful for self defense if you keep it unloaded? It's not. So if you're carrying it for that purpose, "minimum level of readiness" cannot rationally mean unloaded.

The second rule is also not always possible. A gun is pointed *somewhere* at all times.

I'm tempted to say the first rule isn't fully possible either. Is there nothing you ever do with a gun that requires it being unloaded? If there are such things, then you CANNOT always treat the gun as if it is loaded. But wording those rules in the absolute-but-impossible sense makes it possible to call accidents when that absolute sense, but not the intent of the rule, is violated "negligence."

So now you're saying that the basic fundamental rules of owning and operating a gun, each and every one of them a rudimentary application of common sense, is bullshit and should not be taught?

Know what? you have now officially convinced me that anyone backing the NRA (who won't even recognize a discussion regarding mandatory education for gun registration) is an inbred hillbilly hick. Congratulations.

[HYHYBT]

The first rule is said like that because a lot of guns chamber a round. So you may have a technically unloaded gun that has one chambered. So you act like it's possible the gun could be fired at any point...even if you're positive you got all the shots out. It's just precaution.

Of course. I do know why the rules are stated as such. I was just pointing out that it is impossible to follow them 100.000% of the time. Nothing you said contradicts that in the slightest.

Two follows the first in that "if you are afraid to fire it at Point X, do not point it at Point X." Which is why for walking guns through a store, you'll see them carried barrel up (or down at the floor if the store is two story), because we're willing to let a shot be fired through the ceiling if something went wrong through the check in process.

Again, of course. Again, I was thinking of that when I said what I did, and it doesn't undo anything. Suppose there's someone upstairs when the gun goes off? Suppose the bullet bounces off a pipe in the ceiling? Yes, you could take this as silly. But that's the point I was making: AS WORDED AND TAKEN ON THEIR FACE the rules are impossible. Of course an accidental shooting can be called "negligence" if the standard for non-negligence is worded that way.

Try reading the link, it answers what you are claiming isn't possible, this is how I know you didn't read the link, because the answers are contained within it, I am not copying and pasting an entire webpage because someone can't be bothered to click a link.

You assume WAY too much. Nothing in that link "answers" anything I said. Little of it even can be considered to address what I said. Some of it even states, flat out, that the rule in question doesn't mean what it says; for example, explaining that the rule which on its face is worded in such a way that in most situations you couldn't have a gun pointing anywhere at all, it says it really only means not to point it at *people* you don't want to shoot. If that's true, the rule needs to be stated as such, and it's not my fault it's miswritten. If it's not true, then the description is wrong. Nothing on that page I didn't know before even opening this thread.

Simple. You engage the safety.

Not all guns have them, but setting that aside, how is that a response to "How is a gun useful for self-defense if you keep it unloaded?" A loaded gun with the safety on is not an unloaded gun.

[Duelist925]

Look, HYHYBT you are being too pedantic about this--the rules are not "never ever ever ever ever violate" they are a way for people for form safe habits. (Always checking to make sure wether a firearm is loaded or not, learning safe carry positioning, don't point it at people/thing like an idiot, etc)

They're written the way they are for ease of understanding. No other reason. The vast majority of people will understand "Always assume a weapon is loaded" or "Never point a gun at anything you aren't ready and willing to shoot" easily, and if they follow those guidelines if creates good HABITS.

[lordlundar]

A 5 year old recently shot and killed his 2 year old sister with a child sized .22 cal rifle the parents had given him. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/ken...ing/index.html

The kid had been playing with the gun, didn't know it was still loaded, and shot his sister. Mom was in the house.

Kids that age have no business owning real guns. We restrict alcohol and tobacco based on age, but not guns? Good lord.

And the idea guns should be stored in a kid's closet? Preposterous on its face. I don't know about any of you, but you couldn't find ANYTHING in MY closet when I was a kid.

Worst part about that? The family's saying there's no way they could have prevented it while defending giving the kid a lethal weapon with no education or training. I'd put good money they'd scream loudly if a bill was put out requiring weapon safety courses to be mandatory before you could purchase a weapon. After all, the second amendment only ensures that people can get stuff to turn their town into a warzone, not that they're required to make sure it doesn't turn into one.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the NRA is protecting. The right for little Billy-Bob Hickton to get a gun, shoot his family then say "I didn't know what would happen." You must be so proud of yourselves.

[Jaden]

So now you're saying that the basic fundamental rules of owning and operating a gun, each and every one of them a rudimentary application of common sense, is bullshit and should not be taught?

Know what? you have now officially convinced me that anyone backing the NRA (who won't even recognize a discussion regarding mandatory education for gun registration) is an inbred hillbilly hick. Congratulations.

Whoa, hold on a second.

That's not at all what HYHYBT was saying. Like, even a little bit. HYHYBT was trying to argue with BlaqueKatt's assessment that following those basic gun safety rules, one cannot ever unintentionally harm another person. HYHYBT was trying to say that, based on his brief look at the rules, he didn't think they were adequate to protect people. That's not even close to saying that they shouldn't be taught and guns should be used willy-nilly. I don't know how you managed to read that as him supporting the NRA, but I just figured I'd step in and point this out since nobody else was.

[Nekojin]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the NRA is protecting. The right for little Billy-Bob Hickton to get a gun, shoot his family then say "I didn't know what would happen." You must be so proud of yourselves.

And this right here is why we can't have rational discussions about gun rights / gun control anywhere, anytime - people on both sides of the aisle inevitably jump out to extremist name-calling, declaring the other side to be monsters and demons devoid of any possible rational thought.

Forget it. I'm out.

[Gravekeeper]

And this right here is why we can't have rational discussions about gun rights / gun control anywhere, anytime - people on both sides of the aisle inevitably jump out to extremist name-calling, declaring the other side to be monsters and demons devoid of any possible rational thought.

......Alrighty then. None of that actually happened here. >.>

[Hyena Dandy]

anyone backing the NRA (who won't even recognize a discussion regarding mandatory education for gun registration) is an inbred hillbilly hick.

Nope, no name calling here.

[Gravekeeper]

Nope, no name calling here.

I must have missed where someone said they were an NRA backer that refused to even acknowledge a discussion about firearms training. -.-

In fact I'm not entirely sure where that thought came from to begin with.

[Kheldarson]

I think it's more the fact that this topic area, along with a few others, tends to devolve into some very hard lines with very little discussion going on; just a lot of camp rhetoric.

That being said, I think we're conflating issues by bringing in the kid shooting. That shooting had obvious negligence on the parents' part and should be used as a cautionary tale as to why all guns not currently in use need to be locked up.

This dumbass should've known better than to fire at empty air (unless it was up. And then we might've been lucky that he'd Darwin himself).

I'd say we need to treat guns like we treat our cars, but given the accident rate there...I think we already do.