Rebecca 0 #26 April 5, 2005 Once again, can we please leave nationality out of this? Stupid doesn't recognize political boundaries. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #27 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt is obvious that a 10 year old kid is not mature enough, Obvious to who? You? Spaniards? Germans? I had my first pellet gun when I was much younger than 10. Almost every kid I know/knew did and you can be sure my kid will have his before then. He will have a .22 also by then hopefully. My 11 year old Brother in Law has high power rifles and larger bore shotguns in his gunsafe. I will let him clean and shoot my long guns anytime. Don't push your European ideals on us please. Ooooh, guy, slow down. Not everybody used to grow up with a "weapon" whatever. Let me just repeat: We Europeans are old fashioned enough to wait and check. My personal feelings are, to hide weapons no matter which kind, so my kids will not find them. This has nothing to do with Spaniards or Germans... It's just the feeling of a mother/father which does not want to see their kids bitching around with a killing item/tool. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #28 April 5, 2005 Quote Once again, can we please leave nationality out of this? Stupid doesn't recognize political boundaries. No, but extremism due to cultural upbringing does recognize political boundaries. Its that simple. For instance, our European friends think that its insane to let a 10yr old have a pellet gun. In my upbrining it was thought weird for a 10yr old to NOT have a pellet gun. I was shooting targets and bottles and whatnot in the woods when I was 10. Did I ever EVER point it at a person? Hell no, I was brought up to respect firearms and to handle them correctly. I wasn't brought up to fear them and then didn't know what to do or not to do when I encountered one.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #29 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt is obvious that a 10 year old kid is not mature enough, Obvious to who? You? Spaniards? Germans? I had my first pellet gun when I was much younger than 10. Almost every kid I know/knew did and you can be sure my kid will have his before then. He will have a .22 also by then hopefully. My 11 year old Brother in Law has high power rifles and larger bore shotguns in his gunsafe. I will let him clean and shoot my long guns anytime. Don't push your European ideals on us please. Ooooh, guy, slow down. Not everybody used to grow up with a "weapon" whatever. Let me just repeat: We Europeans are old fashioned enough to wait and check. My personal feelings are, to hide weapons no matter which kind, so my kids will not find them. This has nothing to do with Spaniards or Germans... It's just the feeling of a mother/father which does not want to see their kids bitching around with a killing item/tool. Here in South Arkansas, it's not uncommon for parents to take their 5 year-old children hunting. My cousin's child killed his first deer when he was 6. I'm not quite on board with the tradition of taking young children hunting, but I bet Austin (my cousin's child) at 10 is able to handle a firearms more safely than most adults. Just a hunch.... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #30 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuote Once again, can we please leave nationality out of this? Stupid doesn't recognize political boundaries. No, but extremism due to cultural upbringing does recognize political boundaries. Its that simple. I wouldn't call an anti-gun/non-gun culture extremist, but I see your point. I think we can all agree though, that giving a pellet gun to a trained 10-year old who respects the gun's potential for danger is much different than handing a random catoon-trained kid a gun and telling him to go have fun. In one case, it's reasonable to think no one will get hurt; in the other, someone's gonna get hurt before long. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #31 April 5, 2005 QuoteI think we can all agree though, that giving a pellet gun to a trained 10-year old who respects the gun's potential for danger is much different than handing a random catoon-trained kid a gun and telling him to go have fun. A "trained" 10yr old...ok, how do you think that 10yr old gets trained? For me it was the parents, but then again, my parents cared about my up bringing and didn't depend on the government, the schools, TV or anything else to teach me what I needed.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #32 April 5, 2005 I sure hope the pellet gun is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #33 April 5, 2005 QuoteI sure hope the pellet gun is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. True. Someone did not keep vigil over their gun properly. See whappens!?!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #34 April 5, 2005 Quote I have to admit that I was surprised at how strong these pellet guns were. The gun used, a Powerline 880 made by Daisy, shoots up to 665 fps. Quote From the article: Quote which shoots .177 caliber pellets, pumped it 7 times I don't think the manufacturer intended it to be pumped 7 times. Seems like way to much to me. I would guess that it was travelling much faster than 665fps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #35 April 5, 2005 Quote>The easy answer is that since you cannot regulate people, you > should regulate guns. As guns are notorious for not being able to read, regulations that instruct guns to not kill innocent people are not that useful. shhhh Bill, your going to ruin my campaign against illiteracy in firearms! i'm hoping that by focusing on two such desperate subjects i'll be able to pull in donations from all sides of the political fence, work up to corporate sponsorship and eventually sponsor a skydiving team.. "brought to you by 'the little colt reading room' " ps. shouldnt the title be 9 year old kills 12 year old? oh wait, not alarmist enough.. Gotta sell it!!____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #36 April 5, 2005 QuoteMost of them eventually got hit by cars (including the ones I shot) and I haven't had problems since. driving and shooting stray dogs! now there is a sport! ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #37 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think we can all agree though, that giving a pellet gun to a trained 10-year old who respects the gun's potential for danger is much different than handing a random catoon-trained kid a gun and telling him to go have fun. A "trained" 10yr old...ok, how do you think that 10yr old gets trained? For me it was the parents, but then again, my parents cared about my up bringing and didn't depend on the government, the schools, TV or anything else to teach me what I needed. We're discussing from the same side here, Dave. A parent who raises his child with guns - training, practice, cleaning and care, resposible ownership - can reasonably expect that child to know better than to shoot his friend in the chest. A parent who doesn't even care to know a BB gun's potential before letting a little kid play GI Joe with it is an idiot. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #38 April 5, 2005 QuoteA parent who doesn't even care to know a BB gun's potential before letting a little kid play GI Joe with it is an idiot. I feel the same way about a parent that doesn't teach firearm safety to their children as well. Not just "don't touch" (since kids will, especially as they get older), but how to handle the weapon safely. Not only will it teach them how to personally handle themselves, but it will give them the knowledge to know when someone is dangerous in handling a weapon as well.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #39 April 5, 2005 What if guns aren't a part of your household or activities or friends' activities? Do you feel it's necessary to introduce kids to guns when they would otherwise have no exposure to them? (Assuming you know where and with whom your child spends time - meaning you have control over whether or not they come into contact with guns) I think in that case, broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns but not including actual ownership and handling of them, ought to be enough. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #40 April 5, 2005 QuoteDo you feel it's necessary to introduce kids to guns when they would otherwise have no exposure to them? Sooooo, you assume that every household that doesn't own a weapon and doesn't teach their children about firearms, those kids NEVER encounter a firearm? There would be a lot less articles in news papers if that was the point. Well, gee, this thread started due to this very instance didn't it?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #41 April 5, 2005 >Sooooo, you assume that every household that doesn't own a weapon >and doesn't teach their children about firearms, those kids NEVER > encounter a firearm? Her reply to you included "broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns." That means teaching children about guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #42 April 5, 2005 QuoteHer reply to you included "broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns." That means teaching children about guns. I understand that; however, thus far "broader teaching about safety about guns" only includes "don't touch" for little children. Although that's a good thing for little children not under adult supervision, nothing else is done beyond that. Basically, I'm just very happy my parents cared.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #43 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you feel it's necessary to introduce kids to guns when they would otherwise have no exposure to them? Sooooo, you assume that every household that doesn't own a weapon and doesn't teach their children about firearms, those kids NEVER encounter a firearm? There would be a lot less articles in news papers if that was the point. Well, gee, this thread started due to this very instance didn't it? Dave, easy, I didn't ASSume anything. And no, that's not how this incident started, it started with parents letting their kids play with a gun. I'm saying, if you'd please read each word, that a good and vigilant parent shouldn't have to teach their child how to shoot a gun if there aren't guns around. A good and vigilant parent will teach their child how to be safe, how to use their brains, and never to point a projectile at another or someone could get hurt. If guns are a fact and a way of life in your household, or your friends', neighbors', uncle's, brother's lifestyles, then yes, teach them all about it, please. I'm saying that kids aren't always the stupid ones. They can learn not to mess with or shoot a gun without ever having touched one. But they need to be taught. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #44 April 5, 2005 QuoteI'm saying, if you'd please read each word, that a good and vigilant parent shouldn't have to teach their child how to shoot a gun if there aren't guns around. A good and vigilant parent will teach their child how to be safe, how to use their brains, and never to point a projectile at another or someone could get hurt. No, no, I read what you wrote, and I agree with you to a point. The point is by the time they're 12 they're gonna do what they want to do and if that includes going to a friend's house with no adults around and the other kid breaks into his dad's gun safe. The "don't point" and "don't touch" approach may not be enough, not only that but literally every single person I've seen handle a weapon if they haven't been training put their finger on the trigger as they pick it up instead of indexing their finger. My point is it would be a good idea to teach basic handling of a weapon, such as how to pick it up and how to check its condition (loaded, unloaded, chambered) simply since that would make them safer kids.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rebecca 0 #45 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteHer reply to you included "broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns." That means teaching children about guns. I understand that; however, thus far "broader teaching about safety about guns" only includes "don't touch" for little children. Although that's a good thing for little children not under adult supervision, nothing else is done beyond that. Basically, I'm just very happy my parents cared. Sooooo, you're assuming to know that I think "don't touch" covers it? Dude, come on. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #46 April 5, 2005 As for age, any child can pull a trigger, and any adult can be an idiot. I'd rather see a gun in the hands of a 8-year-old who knows and follows the rules rather than a legal adult who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I agree whole heartedly with this. Most kids who are taught proper gun safety would never point a gun at another person. When I was a kid, we may have been young and dumb, but we knew better than to do anything that stupid. I started out hunting birds with a BB gun with my best friend at age six. We later graduated to pellet guns, then 22's. Today this same hunting pardner and I still hunt together for everything from pheasants to elk. The same gun rule we learned way back then still applies today. "ALWAYS POINT A GUN IN A SAFE DIRECTION!" I have another friend, I jump with, who has a 22 caliber pellet buried in his skull directly between his eyes. (Hod Sanders) Apparently his pal didn't follow this rule and almost killed him. And they weren't kids when it happened either. The other guy was around 20 years old. It was too delicate for the Doctors to remove, so they left it....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #47 April 5, 2005 Quote Sooooo, you're assuming to know that I think "don't touch" covers it? Dude, come on Read my next post, I explain in further detail.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #48 April 5, 2005 QuoteI prefer to put people in that group (gun ownership) on a case by case basis. For example the police. It is as simple as this. Yeah, and let's carry this same strategy to other constitutional rights also. For example, the only people who should be allowed to print articles in newspapers are those who have journalism degrees and are personally approved by the government. And people shouldn't be qualified to vote unless they can demonstrate proficiency with a voting machine and knowledge of current events and American government. And if you want freedom from unwarranted searches, then you should have to demonstrate that you are a responsible law-abiding citizen with a clean arrest record. What say you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #49 April 5, 2005 QuoteI don't think the manufacturer intended it to be pumped 7 times. Seems like way to much to me. I would guess that it was travelling much faster than 665fps. I just read an article on pump BB guns last week. From what I understand, pumping it more than what is recommended doesn't really produce any more air pressure. There is a certain maximum for which it is built and rated, and any additional pumps don't increase that - they just leak past the seals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #50 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteOk, I want the responses in the following order: Kallend Christelsabine Botellines May I confuse you a little bit beeing the first to reply? This story, as sad as it is, is not surprising me. In a gun-orientated society, "one" has to expect that. End of message. Christel Please explain what you mean by "gun orientated society" ? Serious question meant here."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Zenister 0 #35 April 5, 2005 Quote>The easy answer is that since you cannot regulate people, you > should regulate guns. As guns are notorious for not being able to read, regulations that instruct guns to not kill innocent people are not that useful. shhhh Bill, your going to ruin my campaign against illiteracy in firearms! i'm hoping that by focusing on two such desperate subjects i'll be able to pull in donations from all sides of the political fence, work up to corporate sponsorship and eventually sponsor a skydiving team.. "brought to you by 'the little colt reading room' " ps. shouldnt the title be 9 year old kills 12 year old? oh wait, not alarmist enough.. Gotta sell it!!____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #36 April 5, 2005 QuoteMost of them eventually got hit by cars (including the ones I shot) and I haven't had problems since. driving and shooting stray dogs! now there is a sport! ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #37 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think we can all agree though, that giving a pellet gun to a trained 10-year old who respects the gun's potential for danger is much different than handing a random catoon-trained kid a gun and telling him to go have fun. A "trained" 10yr old...ok, how do you think that 10yr old gets trained? For me it was the parents, but then again, my parents cared about my up bringing and didn't depend on the government, the schools, TV or anything else to teach me what I needed. We're discussing from the same side here, Dave. A parent who raises his child with guns - training, practice, cleaning and care, resposible ownership - can reasonably expect that child to know better than to shoot his friend in the chest. A parent who doesn't even care to know a BB gun's potential before letting a little kid play GI Joe with it is an idiot. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #38 April 5, 2005 QuoteA parent who doesn't even care to know a BB gun's potential before letting a little kid play GI Joe with it is an idiot. I feel the same way about a parent that doesn't teach firearm safety to their children as well. Not just "don't touch" (since kids will, especially as they get older), but how to handle the weapon safely. Not only will it teach them how to personally handle themselves, but it will give them the knowledge to know when someone is dangerous in handling a weapon as well.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #39 April 5, 2005 What if guns aren't a part of your household or activities or friends' activities? Do you feel it's necessary to introduce kids to guns when they would otherwise have no exposure to them? (Assuming you know where and with whom your child spends time - meaning you have control over whether or not they come into contact with guns) I think in that case, broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns but not including actual ownership and handling of them, ought to be enough. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #40 April 5, 2005 QuoteDo you feel it's necessary to introduce kids to guns when they would otherwise have no exposure to them? Sooooo, you assume that every household that doesn't own a weapon and doesn't teach their children about firearms, those kids NEVER encounter a firearm? There would be a lot less articles in news papers if that was the point. Well, gee, this thread started due to this very instance didn't it?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #41 April 5, 2005 >Sooooo, you assume that every household that doesn't own a weapon >and doesn't teach their children about firearms, those kids NEVER > encounter a firearm? Her reply to you included "broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns." That means teaching children about guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #42 April 5, 2005 QuoteHer reply to you included "broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns." That means teaching children about guns. I understand that; however, thus far "broader teaching about safety about guns" only includes "don't touch" for little children. Although that's a good thing for little children not under adult supervision, nothing else is done beyond that. Basically, I'm just very happy my parents cared.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #43 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you feel it's necessary to introduce kids to guns when they would otherwise have no exposure to them? Sooooo, you assume that every household that doesn't own a weapon and doesn't teach their children about firearms, those kids NEVER encounter a firearm? There would be a lot less articles in news papers if that was the point. Well, gee, this thread started due to this very instance didn't it? Dave, easy, I didn't ASSume anything. And no, that's not how this incident started, it started with parents letting their kids play with a gun. I'm saying, if you'd please read each word, that a good and vigilant parent shouldn't have to teach their child how to shoot a gun if there aren't guns around. A good and vigilant parent will teach their child how to be safe, how to use their brains, and never to point a projectile at another or someone could get hurt. If guns are a fact and a way of life in your household, or your friends', neighbors', uncle's, brother's lifestyles, then yes, teach them all about it, please. I'm saying that kids aren't always the stupid ones. They can learn not to mess with or shoot a gun without ever having touched one. But they need to be taught. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #44 April 5, 2005 QuoteI'm saying, if you'd please read each word, that a good and vigilant parent shouldn't have to teach their child how to shoot a gun if there aren't guns around. A good and vigilant parent will teach their child how to be safe, how to use their brains, and never to point a projectile at another or someone could get hurt. No, no, I read what you wrote, and I agree with you to a point. The point is by the time they're 12 they're gonna do what they want to do and if that includes going to a friend's house with no adults around and the other kid breaks into his dad's gun safe. The "don't point" and "don't touch" approach may not be enough, not only that but literally every single person I've seen handle a weapon if they haven't been training put their finger on the trigger as they pick it up instead of indexing their finger. My point is it would be a good idea to teach basic handling of a weapon, such as how to pick it up and how to check its condition (loaded, unloaded, chambered) simply since that would make them safer kids.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #45 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteHer reply to you included "broader teaching about safety, including safety about guns." That means teaching children about guns. I understand that; however, thus far "broader teaching about safety about guns" only includes "don't touch" for little children. Although that's a good thing for little children not under adult supervision, nothing else is done beyond that. Basically, I'm just very happy my parents cared. Sooooo, you're assuming to know that I think "don't touch" covers it? Dude, come on. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #46 April 5, 2005 As for age, any child can pull a trigger, and any adult can be an idiot. I'd rather see a gun in the hands of a 8-year-old who knows and follows the rules rather than a legal adult who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I agree whole heartedly with this. Most kids who are taught proper gun safety would never point a gun at another person. When I was a kid, we may have been young and dumb, but we knew better than to do anything that stupid. I started out hunting birds with a BB gun with my best friend at age six. We later graduated to pellet guns, then 22's. Today this same hunting pardner and I still hunt together for everything from pheasants to elk. The same gun rule we learned way back then still applies today. "ALWAYS POINT A GUN IN A SAFE DIRECTION!" I have another friend, I jump with, who has a 22 caliber pellet buried in his skull directly between his eyes. (Hod Sanders) Apparently his pal didn't follow this rule and almost killed him. And they weren't kids when it happened either. The other guy was around 20 years old. It was too delicate for the Doctors to remove, so they left it....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #47 April 5, 2005 Quote Sooooo, you're assuming to know that I think "don't touch" covers it? Dude, come on Read my next post, I explain in further detail.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #48 April 5, 2005 QuoteI prefer to put people in that group (gun ownership) on a case by case basis. For example the police. It is as simple as this. Yeah, and let's carry this same strategy to other constitutional rights also. For example, the only people who should be allowed to print articles in newspapers are those who have journalism degrees and are personally approved by the government. And people shouldn't be qualified to vote unless they can demonstrate proficiency with a voting machine and knowledge of current events and American government. And if you want freedom from unwarranted searches, then you should have to demonstrate that you are a responsible law-abiding citizen with a clean arrest record. What say you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 April 5, 2005 QuoteI don't think the manufacturer intended it to be pumped 7 times. Seems like way to much to me. I would guess that it was travelling much faster than 665fps. I just read an article on pump BB guns last week. From what I understand, pumping it more than what is recommended doesn't really produce any more air pressure. There is a certain maximum for which it is built and rated, and any additional pumps don't increase that - they just leak past the seals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 April 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteOk, I want the responses in the following order: Kallend Christelsabine Botellines May I confuse you a little bit beeing the first to reply? This story, as sad as it is, is not surprising me. In a gun-orientated society, "one" has to expect that. End of message. Christel Please explain what you mean by "gun orientated society" ? Serious question meant here."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
