Youth Model Shotguns

[Bonoa]

To me that's a no-brainer. Some 11 year old boys still need their moms to tell them what to wear and when to shower.

I don't see anyone here who would disagree with your statement. NO child should EVER be responsible for maintaining and securing a gun.

Hear Hear!

I don't have one anymore, but in a rural area having a shotgun is often not a bad idea.

But do you really think that works? Is that the solution? It's too bad that lots of people in rural areas are thinking the same way and it's sad that people don't trust each other anymore! It's like becoming a monster to defeat the monster (to quote some famous singer). I'm very glad that guns are forbidden in Holland, because some parts of the big cities are unsafe areas already. It would even get worse when people start carrying guns in these neighbourhoods, just to be more secure!
And I'm sure that many parents in the US are responsible adults who keep the guns away from their children, but how often do the children find the gun by accident and bring it to school without the parent knowing? And the argument for bringing the gun into school is often that they don't feel safe and were bullied!

 

[Bonoa]

I'm pretty sure rebels who do those thing don't really care what size the gun is or who its specified for. They're going to give them a gun and make them commit terrible crimes with them.

I just wanted to point out that you must be a real sick mind to make an invention like that!

 

[Vincent Vega]

^No, the logic is a little flawed there. A manufacturer of hunting rifles designing rifles for children or smaller persons does this with the intention of providing them with a safer means to go hunting, in other words do the assigned task of the gun with a lower risk level. Such a manufacturer never intends these guns being illegally exported to countries where the rifles are given to children to be used in warfare, and it's not a sick mind at all.
Apart from that, I haven't heard of those rifles being a problem in these countries either. If you take a look at child soldiers, they are equipped with AK47, SKS Simunov and other large weaponry mainly, but not exclusively, of Russian origin. These kids carry assault rifles or carbines, but I haven't yet seen any pictures where they had the kind of weapon talked about here.

 

[Bonoa]

^No, the logic is a little flawed there. A manufacturer of hunting rifles designing rifles for children or smaller persons does this with the intention of providing them with a safer means to go hunting, in other words do the assigned task of the gun with a lower risk level. Such a manufacturer never intends these guns being illegally exported to countries where the rifles are given to children to be used in warfare, and it's not a sick mind at all.

My reaction, bringing up the child soldiers may have sounded a little exaggerating, but I can't help that it's the first thing which popped into my mind reading the article and certain reactions.
And maybe the manufacturer doesn't have any intention at all to sell this play toys abroad but I can't stop thinking 'children'+'guns'='only money on his sick mind'!!!

 

[Liesje]

My reaction, bringing up the child soldiers may have sounded a little exaggerating, but I can't help that it's the first thing which popped into my mind reading the article and certain reactions.
And maybe the manufacturer doesn't have any intention at all to sell this play toys abroad but I can't stop thinking 'children'+'guns'='only money on his sick mind'!!!

A little exaggerating? How about a LOT! lol Show us the connection between youth model hunting rifles and orphaned chilren brainwashed into carrying AK47s....

 

[yolland]

The kinds of firearms used for hunting, and much of sport shooting as well, aren't a major contributor to the US' (immense) gun homicide problems; most years less than 4% of gun homicides here are committed with those types of weapons, even though they're by far the most widely *legally* owned gun type. Obviously that doesn't make it any less tragic when something like this murder in Pennsylvania happens, but when you think in stereotypical terms of the US' gun violence problems, a kid with a hunting shotgun would not be the right image; it's the huge trade (both legal and illegal) in handguns and assault weapons that fuels that.

A youth model 20-gauge isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "toy," and no one buys one for their child with the idea that it is. We're talking no more than a few inches in length and maybe a pound in weight being trimmed off a gun that's already well over 2 feet long and weighs around 7 pounds to begin with; it's not some teensy-weensy "kiddie" device with cutesy decorations or something. It's certainly true that making firearm models that are easier for children to carry and control is profitable for gun manufacturers, compared to "the old days" when most kids just used an older relative's gun for hunting and shooting excursions. But it's also true that these models make such gun use by children safer, and at least in my experience, having spent most of my life in rural or semi-rural areas where many people hunt, the availability of 'youth models' has NOT had the effect of pushing back the age where most parents who hunt start training their children in the skill. That decision is made on the basis of things like how developed a child's eye-hand coordination is and how well they can concentrate and follow directions, not on precisely how tall or heavy or large-handed they are. Regardless, children are still children and they all tend to have immature judgment compared to adults, so keeping guns and ammo where kids can't access them unsupervised is a precaution any sensible adult should take. If more states had laws requiring household firearms to be LOCKED away in a secured place, and they should, then incidents like this would be even rarer than they already are.

At least based on what's been reported so far about this case in Pennsylvania, I still think all the known evidence appears to suggest that this was probably a very disturbed little boy, a child who at the age of 11 already had it in him to commit premeditated murder then nonchalantly hop the bus to school and coolly lie to the police afterwards about what happened. Remember Bobby Ray Brewster, the ringleader of that group of (mostly) young people who kidnapped and tortured a woman in West Virginia last year? He himself had shot and killed his own stepfather at around this same age, then only several years later attempted to kill his mother with a machete as well. I remember at the time the torture incident story came out being just mindblown that this guy was out walking free at all, with a history like that.

There are tragedies that happen because a very young child who truly didn't understand that a gun isn't a "toy," or grasped what it can do, got their hands on one. I don't think either Jordan Brown's case or Bobby Ray Brewster's case are like that. But any of these incidents work well enough as reminders why, at a bare minimum, both Child Access Prevention laws and extensive criminal and mental health background checks at point of purchase are very important precautions to take.

 

[indra]

But do you really think that works? Is that the solution? It's too bad that lots of people in rural areas are thinking the same way and it's sad that people don't trust each other anymore! It's like becoming a monster to defeat the monster (to quote some famous singer). I'm very glad that guns are forbidden in Holland, because some parts of the big cities are unsafe areas already. It would even get worse when people start carrying guns in these neighbourhoods, just to be more secure!

One of my neighbors had a dog mangled by a piece of farm machinery. There was no way the dog was going to be able to be saved, and the emergency vet was about 40 miles away (of course things such as this don't happen during regular business hours). Packs of dogs also roam and occasionally tear the crap out of livestock. Horses break legs or impale themselves on fence posts. Yes, sometimes it is a good idea to have a shotgun or rifle in a rural area, and it often has nothing to do with not trusting or fearing other people.

There's very little gun crime where I grew up, even though almost everyone had either a shotgun or a rifle (or both) in the house. And seriously, no one carries either of those around all the time -- generally they keep them in their houses unless they are going to use them.

 

[AchtungBono]

There is only one solution to this problem (and you're all going to hate me for this.....) - BAN ALL PRIVATELY-OWNED GUNS!!!

The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those in law enforcement, and certainly guns should never be accessible to young children.

Terrorists strap gun and bullet belts on their kids and teach them to kill from a very young age. Why would such an enlightened country like the U.S. encourage the teaching of violence to 11 year old kids? What possible good can come from it?

What's next? A baby bomb? A kiddie knife? A toddler tank?

BTW - I'd throw this kids parents in jail with him.....

Disgusting.

 

[Galeongirl]

There is only one solution to this problem (and you're all going to hate me for this.....) - BAN ALL PRIVATELY-OWNED GUNS!!!

The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those in law enforcement, and certainly guns should never be accessible to young children.

I won't hate you for this.

Guns have never been part of my life, they never will be and I won't feel left out on anything.

Why should I want to hunt with a gun? I can do plenty of other things in my life, and realisticly speaking we don't need to hunt anymore.

If people want to shoot things, fine, here you have special shoot clubs for that. With lockers, where you put your gun in and KEEP it. Aka, NO guns will be taken home.
That sounds like the safest option for me.

 

[Liesje]

Why should I want to hunt with a gun? I can do plenty of other things in my life, and realisticly speaking we don't need to hunt anymore.

But we could say the same about thousands of things. One of my friends died when we were 12 on a snowmobile (and two other people I know have been injured in accidents) and as such I have never, ever gone near one and never will. I think they are ridiculously dangerous and unnecessary. Same with alcohol. Even having an uncle (not a parent or grandparent) as an acoholic is enough to limit me to one drink maybe once a month. Again, something that in the wrong hands becomes life threatening to others (uncle has been arrested for DUI) and unnecessary for the vast majority of the population. But at the same time, I don't really care if others drink or ride their snowmobiles. *I* won't do it, but I don't judge people by it or see any need to legislate it.

Also, maybe where you live hunting is not necessary but where I live there are populations of animals that are out of control. They are dying of starvation or wasting diseases that are spreading because of the dense population. Hunting is not a free for all. Everyone I know hunts with valid permits. The DNR closely regulates permits and the animal population. What permits you can get totally depends on the gender of the animal you want to hunt, what type of land you hunt (private vs. gov't), and what county you are in. We actually need MORE hunting because the populations are still growing exponentially. Last fall they introduced an early rifle season on private land to try to get things under control. We have killed off and driven out all the natural predators (mainly wolves) by taking over the land for farms and suburban housing, so I guess it's only fair that the humans take responsibility for the current state of the animal population and try to keep things healthy and in balance.

My personal feeling is that concealed weapon permits need to be taken more seriously and I don't have any problem with laws or regulations regarding how weapons (hunting) and ammo are stored. I don't think anyone in our family would be bothered by being required to keep guns unloaded and locked in certified gun safes since that's what everyone does anyway.

But, as yolland again pointed out, these types of weapons just aren't responsible for the type of crime people keep alluding to. I don't think anyone but the active military & security have any business owning and operating an assault type weapon.

 

[Zoomerang96]

I don't have a problem with youth model hunting rifles or shotguns per se, but I think 11 years old is a little young, and under no circumstance should the child have free access to the guns in the house.

Poor parenting.

i would have to agree with this.

 

[Zoomerang96]

One of my neighbors had a dog mangled by a piece of farm machinery. There was no way the dog was going to be able to be saved, and the emergency vet was about 40 miles away (of course things such as this don't happen during regular business hours). Packs of dogs also roam and occasionally tear the crap out of livestock. Horses break legs or impale themselves on fence posts. Yes, sometimes it is a good idea to have a shotgun or rifle in a rural area, and it often has nothing to do with not trusting or fearing other people.

There's very little gun crime where I grew up, even though almost everyone had either a shotgun or a rifle (or both) in the house. And seriously, no one carries either of those around all the time -- generally they keep them in their houses unless they are going to use them.

exactly. i've lived in the countryside for most of my life, and it's humorous to read comments to those opposed to them when you find out that they've never lived outside the city.

now, that's not to say i advocate guns for everyone. far from it. but... guns will always exist, whether people like it or not. and besides, the removal of guns won't make things safer anyway.

have any of you been to london lately? what should they do... ban knives?

i

 

[Galeongirl]

But we could say the same about thousands of things. One of my friends died when we were 12 on a snowmobile (and two other people I know have been injured in accidents) and as such I have never, ever gone near one and never will. I think they are ridiculously dangerous and unnecessary. Same with alcohol. Even having an uncle (not a parent or grandparent) as an acoholic is enough to limit me to one drink maybe once a month. Again, something that in the wrong hands becomes life threatening to others (uncle has been arrested for DUI) and unnecessary for the vast majority of the population. But at the same time, I don't really care if others drink or ride their snowmobiles. *I* won't do it, but I don't judge people by it or see any need to legislate it.

Also, maybe where you live hunting is not necessary but where I live there are populations of animals that are out of control. They are dying of starvation or wasting diseases that are spreading because of the dense population. Hunting is not a free for all. Everyone I know hunts with valid permits. The DNR closely regulates permits and the animal population. What permits you can get totally depends on the gender of the animal you want to hunt, what type of land you hunt (private vs. gov't), and what county you are in. We actually need MORE hunting because the populations are still growing exponentially. Last fall they introduced an early rifle season on private land to try to get things under control. We have killed off and driven out all the natural predators (mainly wolves) by taking over the land for farms and suburban housing, so I guess it's only fair that the humans take responsibility for the current state of the animal population and try to keep things healthy and in balance.

My personal feeling is that concealed weapon permits need to be taken more seriously and I don't have any problem with laws or regulations regarding how weapons (hunting) and ammo are stored. I don't think anyone in our family would be bothered by being required to keep guns unloaded and locked in certified gun safes since that's what everyone does anyway.

But, as yolland again pointed out, these types of weapons just aren't responsible for the type of crime people keep alluding to. I don't think anyone but the active military & security have any business owning and operating an assault type weapon.

I know it's been like that for ages, but the same could be said about, say, slavery. That changed and people totally find that abnormal these days. For me the whole gun thing is similar. ofcourse you can't compare the two really, since slavery was much worse, but it's the only thing that comes to my mind right now.
There are a lot of dangerous things around these days, and I don't believe we should protect our children from all of that, they need to make mistakes to learn and grow. But we can limit the experiences, take away the unnecessary things that can only harm.

Here the wildlife organisation keeps an eye on the wild animal populations. Even in 2008 there was trouble with the wild boar population coming too close to highways. The organisation assigned hunters, who controlledly shot the boar.
So there are hunters here, it's just only a really small amount of people. Yet their weapons aren't being kept at home. They must be members of a shooting club here, and guns don't leave the club unless they go on a hunting trip. Afterwards the gun must be returned to the safe.
That sounds like a safer thing to me, if the guns aren't at home, people can still go hunting but only they can access the guns.

 

[Liesje]

Here the wildlife organisation keeps an eye on the wild animal populations. Even in 2008 there was trouble with the wild boar population coming too close to highways. The organisation assigned hunters, who controlledly shot the boar.
So there are hunters here, it's just only a really small amount of people. Yet their weapons aren't being kept at home. They must be members of a shooting club here, and guns don't leave the club unless they go on a hunting trip. Afterwards the gun must be returned to the safe.
That sounds like a safer thing to me, if the guns aren't at home, people can still go hunting but only they can access the guns.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Not sure how it works since most people hunt on private land though.

Honestly I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just trying to say that most poeple that do hunt are already doing so responsibly. It's not fair to make such general statements about hunting and hunters. You only hear about the worst cases and the nutcase people. My extended family has been hunting since we've been in this country and we've never had a single incident where a gun was used improperly. Having a cop and a DNR officer in your hunting group is good insurance of that.

 

[anitram]

I think the hunting argument is bolstered by the fact that there are many more guns per capita in Canada than the US, yet gun crime is much more rare. Most Canadian guns are in the hands of the rural communities and hunters, and they comprise only a very small fraction of what we consider to be gun crimes (accidents do not count here).

 

[Vincent Vega]

Terrorists strap gun and bullet belts on their kids and teach them to kill from a very young age. Why would such an enlightened country like the U.S. encourage the teaching of violence to 11 year old kids? What possible good can come from it?

What's next? A baby bomb? A kiddie knife? A toddler tank?

I would say you are arguing from an Israeli perspective here and, sorry to say, confuse it with what it actually is like in the US rural areas. Going hunting with a person that young is totally unheard of here in Germany as well, but it seems more like the norm in the States. But going hunting is much more about teaching those children responsibility about what they are doing, what they are actually carrying in their hands and responsibility towards the animals. It's not at all teaching them violence, and the argument of gun belts, bombs etc. is mute.
And looking at the case at hand, it's by far too simplified to infer that the gun made the kid commit the crime, and it is not safe to assume that the kid became violent due to going hunting. That's to be found by a closer examination of his case.

From hunting rifles to baby bombs really is a stretch.
And the issue of gun violence, or violent crime rates in general in the US as compared to other states is an extremely complex issue with no simple answers. Neither guns for all nor guns for no one is the answer to that one.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

There is only one solution to this problem (and you're all going to hate me for this.....) - BAN ALL PRIVATELY-OWNED GUNS!!!

The only people who should be allowed to own guns are those in law enforcement, and certainly guns should never be accessible to young children.

Violation of the Second ammendment. Americans should have the right to feel safe in their homes, becasue not everyone lives in a safe neighborhood.

It doesn't make sense. How would making a law stop people who are going to use a gun to break the law? This leaves the bad people with guns, and the innocents without.

 

[Galeongirl]

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Not sure how it works since most people hunt on private land though.

Honestly I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just trying to say that most poeple that do hunt are already doing so responsibly. It's not fair to make such general statements about hunting and hunters. You only hear about the worst cases and the nutcase people. My extended family has been hunting since we've been in this country and we've never had a single incident where a gun was used improperly. Having a cop and a DNR officer in your hunting group is good insurance of that.

We're not disagreeing.
I'm glad there are plenty of people who are responsible. My thoughts are just that the government should do something to make sure those irresponsible will be dealt with BEFORE they do something stupid.

 

[Galeongirl]

Violation of the Second ammendment. Americans should have the right to feel safe in their homes, becasue not everyone lives in a safe neighborhood.

It doesn't make sense. How would making a law stop people who are going to use a gun to break the law? This leaves the bad people with guns, and the innocents without.

Wrong. It's no violation of the ammendment.

It says they have the right to feel safe. Nothing mentioned about guns.
If nobody had guns, you wouldn't feel unsafe without one. There are plenty of things to be safe with, you can put an alarm on your house, get guard dogs or geese, that kinda stuff. If 'they' don't have guns, you don't need one.
It's a vicious cycle if you think like this. I need a gun because you have one, and you have one because they have one.

The law won't stop people breaking it with guns, but it'll make the treshold higher for those who might commit a crime or those who commit one out of panic or despair. They won't have easy access to guns so it'll be harder for them to actually commit the crime and a lot won't happen.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, the second ammendment specifically mentions the right to carry a gun, but the interpretation is quite dependent on the individual's position towards an armed society and in part due to the question how to read the commas.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

It says they have the right to feel safe. Nothing mentioned about guns.

quite the contrary

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't think when this was wrote they were talking about clubs and knives..

Obviosuly there must be some regulation. As much as I'd like to mount a howitzer on my roof, I can't I'm all for the ban of assault weapons and such. But banning all publicly owned guns is a clear violation of the second amendment.

 

[BVS]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obviosuly there must be some regulation. As much as I'd like to mount a howitzer on my roof, I can't I'm all for the ban of assault weapons and such. But banning all publicly owned guns is a clear violation of the second amendment.

What does what you wrote have to do with a militia?

 

[Liesje]

It says they have the right to feel safe. Nothing mentioned about guns.
If nobody had guns, you wouldn't feel unsafe without one. There are plenty of things to be safe with, you can put an alarm on your house, get guard dogs or geese, that kinda stuff. If 'they' don't have guns, you don't need one.
It's a vicious cycle if you think like this. I need a gun because you have one, and you have one because they have one.

But this is assuming that people have guns to "feel safe". A lot of people don't, they have guns to hunt. The guns are kept unloaded, often in pieces, in locked gun safes, obviously offering zero protection anyway.

Also, some people just collect them. I was just reading last night on another board one of the members was talking about how he almost purchased this vintage pistol that's never been fired.

I probably know three dozen people who own guns, and of those people, only two of them own or carry guns intended for protection or use on another human being, and these two people are trained officers who have to carry as their job (I don't know if either has ever had to use their weapon).

 

[Galeongirl]

But this is assuming that people have guns to "feel safe". A lot of people don't, they have guns to hunt. The guns are kept unloaded, often in pieces, in locked gun safes, obviously offering zero protection anyway.

Also, some people just collect them. I was just reading last night on another board one of the members was talking about how he almost purchased this vintage pistol that's never been fired.

I probably know three dozen people who own guns, and of those people, only two of them own or carry guns intended for protection or use on another human being, and these two people are trained officers who have to carry as their job (I don't know if either has ever had to use their weapon).

I know that, and I don't mind guns in possesion for that.

But what The_Pac_mule is trying to get across is that he apparently thinks he needs a gun to feel safe.

 

[LemonMelon]

But do you really think that works? Is that the solution?

I believe she was referring to protecting oneself from bears and the like, not walking around suburbia with a shotgun, taking down the paperboy. Rural areas are filled with wildlife that lack mercy and sound judgment.

 

[Liesje]

I know that, and I don't mind guns in possesion for that.

But what The_Pac_mule is trying to get across is that he apparently thinks he needs a gun to feel safe.

I agree with that. I don't like guns, I would feel LESS safe that I'd hurt myself or someone could take my gun and use it on me.

 

[yolland]

Well, the second ammendment specifically mentions the right to carry a gun, but the interpretation is quite dependent on the individual's position towards an armed society and in part due to the question how to read the commas.

Right, there's historically been considerable debate as to whether the positioning of the clause mentioning 'militias' might be taken to imply that the federal guarantee of this particular "right of the people" in fact only applies to guns 'kept and borne' in the context of state militia (National Guard) service. However, as of the US Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last year in District of Columbia v. Heller, it would seem that the answer is No, that federal guarantee of this right is NOT restricted to weapons 'kept and borne' for that purpose. But the District of Columbia isn't a state, so this still doesn't once-and-for-all resolve the question of whether and to what extent an actual state might be allowed to 'infringe' on this right. It's only a question of time now, though, before a case directly challenging some individual state's attempts to do so winds up in the Supreme Court. And since the Supreme Court has tended very strongly over the last century to rule that provisions of the Bill of Rights are also enforceable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, it seems likely that any such case would result in extensive 'infringements' by states on gun ownership (like Heller's near-total handgun ban) being found unconstitutional, given the precedent established by Heller.

So basically, we're very unlikely to see major changes in gun ownership rates being effected through law anytime soon, as present interpretations of the Second Amendment simply don't leave room for that.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

What does what you wrote have to do with a militia?

Ah, and thats where it gets tricky. The whole debate is whether the right to have firearms is only valid if you are part of a "militia," as stated above by Yolland.

But what The_Pac_mule is trying to get across is that he apparently thinks he needs a gun to feel safe.

I don't have a gun

 

[the iron horse]

"A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

~Shane

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

So is a gun as good or as bad as the child using it?

Do guns come equipped with impulse control?