‘We do not need a militia of toddlers': If Iowa law passes, children can use handguns
Source: Washington Post
One of Iowas legislative bodies has passed a bill to allow children to handle handguns.
The states House of Representatives voted Tuesday for a bill that would permit children under 14 to possess a pistol, revolver or the ammunition under parental supervision.
The bill which was debated among other gun proposals and is now headed to the Iowa Senate has been a polarizing issue.
What this bill does, the bill before us, allows for 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds to operate handguns, State Rep. Kirsten Running-Marquardt (D) said, according to CBS-affiliate KCCI. We do not need a militia of toddlers.
<more>
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/24/we-do-not-need-a-militia-of-toddlers-if-iowa-law-passes-children-can-carry-handguns/
Skittles
(153,169 posts)instill that fear as soon as possible!
mpcamb
(2,871 posts)restraint."
Vinca
(50,278 posts)C Moon
(12,213 posts)What the hell?!
mpcamb
(2,871 posts)If someone went to jail for introducing this I'd stand by and cheer as they frog-walked to prison.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)if the electorate don't like what their reps are doing, then they can vote them out of office.
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)not enough people are getting shot. If we want to embrace getting shot as the truly American way of death, more people need to be shot. Therefore it will be necessary to expand gun use. The NRA has worked hard to get guns into as many unqualified hands as possible. We must not infringe upon children's ability to shoot somebody. After all, nobody can experience true happiness unless they have shot somebody.
potone
(1,701 posts)Every time I think that this country can't get any crazier, I am proved wrong.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)"Mommy, give me my bottle now or you're toast". Insanity, sheer insanity.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)KentuckyWoman
(6,687 posts)The logical extension of the law being debated is that we give a 1 yr old the death penalty for the crime of shooting another person dead.
To them, the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right to every individual human and that has no legal limitations. Period. End of discussion.
Granted they are stark raving lunatics so consider the source.
Paladin
(28,264 posts)Let's hear your support for this Arm The Children proposal. Tell us all what a 10 year-old kid with a shiny new Glock contributes to a "well regulated militia" (or whatever remains of said militia, given Scalia's "originalist" trashing of the concept).
jpak
(41,758 posts)yup
hack89
(39,171 posts)same for my kids. No unsupervised access to ammo or weapon until 18.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)read the article.
"under direct parental supervision"
This means it would be legal for parents to, for instance, take their kids to the range and operate a handgun. My parents first took me, when I was 6. This is something I can and will do with my child when I deem him ready. Washington State has no law that prohibits children from operating a handgun under parental supervision. Neither does Montana. Iowa does.
Does Iowa experience fewer accidental shootings as a result of children UNDER DIRECT PARENTAL SUPERVISION using a handgun, than WA or MT?
(The Uzi story was tragic, and should never have happened. But a standard pistol is not automatic, and cannot run-away, requiring physical strength to control it.)
jpak
(41,758 posts)Gun Nut Fail
yup
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Fortunately, my parents (who are real) didn't. I was six. Not a toddler.
jpak
(41,758 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)jpak
(41,758 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)knowlege?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because that would be hilarious.
Sure glad you're down to nit-picking my spelling on a touchscreen on a bus, standing between two people at freeway speeds. Thanks for that.
Response to olddad56 (Reply #75)
Tab This message was self-deleted by its author.
crim son
(27,464 posts)How do you think this benefited you in the long term (aside from making you a proponent of what many consider to be irresponsible craziness)? And, your kids. Were they all armed and ready to rock by six years old and if so, how do you think that will benefit them in the long run?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Next month. I have not yet introduced him to firearms, because I do not deem him ready.
Pretty sure I already explained how this influenced me (Guns were not toys, to me, after firing one.)
xocet
(3,871 posts)Children are inherently immature regardless of parental supervision. (I've known adults that I would not go shooting with because they were cavalier in their treatment of firearms. Children are not better.) It would be stupid and dangerous to hand a child a gun and expect completely consistent responsible behavior.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Responsible stewardship is a little more involved than that.
Operating a gun that young, built a deep respect for firearms into me. Hence, zero accidents, and no frivolous/careless usage.
It's like getting on a horse for the first time. You form a healthy respect for the thing, that was previously just a thing, but suddenly you turned it into a 1,200lb animal you are riding on that has a mind of its own.
I view these things the same. Horseback riding. Dirt bikes. Guns. All inherently risky adventures that build respect, when children are exposed at an age when they have a capacity for respect.
xocet
(3,871 posts)capable of developing a serious enough attitude to properly respect the power of a gun. Some, yes, but then it comes down to the judgment of the parents and their capacity to accurately assess their child's level of maturity. The whole situation seems fraught with unnecessary risk.
At any rate, thanks for your commentary. It is appreciated.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I was exposed to guns younger than I have allowed my son. In fact, it's something he still hasn't been exposed to, and he's already a year older than I was.
I gauge it on his capacity. I know 15 year olds I wouldn't expose to firearms even in a controlled setting. And they'd be allowed under Iowa's current laws.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)They haven't got the cojones to tackle this one.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've never understood this.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Is English your second language?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)and the fact that words from many languages are assimilated into the American English language and come into common usage.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's the joke anyone can make. Boring.
Let's talk policy instead.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)"Cold dead hands" and so forth?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You value them differently because one is for creating and fixing, and the other is, probably in your view, for destroying.
I view them both as tools, for solving problems.
I don't let children play unsupervised with my band saw either.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just because I own guns.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Is English your second language?
hack89
(39,171 posts)grabbers are very creepy that way.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You don't have the courage to endorse or reject this Republican effort to promote guns. Is that clear enough for you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)10 is the youngest I allowed my kids to shoot rifles and 16 for handguns.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I no longer specualte about your courage.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Funny thing on that topic...
A couple of hours ago, in GD, there was an OP about a recent story in the British press that, not only did Hitler only have one ball, but also a micro-penis.
The subject line was "Turns out Hitler would be great NRA material" (I'm paraphrasing a bit).
It's known meme from the gun-control side, commonly used in snarky posts. Go visit GCRA for a while, you'll find some.
jpak
(41,758 posts)yes?
or
No?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Lot's of spin and panic in this thread, but the actual proposed law is almost identical to Connecticut's, which is one of the strictest gun law states in the land. I fired a handgun at a range when I was 8 with my father right there to supervise. This is really no big deal.
Happyslug posted the law below. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1358900
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)The only thing that can stop a homicidal maniac with a gun from shooting up another school is a child with a gun?
Yeah, sure, what could go wrong? Why did you give me an F on this repost, teacher?
William Seger
(10,779 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I weighed 39 pounds on my ninth birthday. I heard a lot of that kind of thing.
After awhile, I figured out that bullies are all bark and no bite.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Then they are supermen!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)That's why they pick on the smallest kid in the third grade.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)But seriously, what good can possibly come from this? I'll just stay put in my coastal hideaway.
debunction.junction
(127 posts)The last parent I want supervising a first grader is one who lets them have access to a handgun in the first place.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)to help the person using it to differentiate between GI-Joe lasers that never hit anyone, and an actual firearm that is not to be toyed with.
The reality of the experience is much different than Hollywood.
jpak
(41,758 posts)yup
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And that's ok.
jpak
(41,758 posts)Paladin
(28,264 posts)Now they're just toys to way too big a segment of the gun-owning public---"GI-Joe Lasers" is as good a term as any. We have to put up with the damage done by way too many immature adult gun handlers. Why spread the damage to kids? Parental supervision isn't any sort of effective safeguard. At a minimum, mandatory safety and handling programs ought to be in place for anything this crazy to move forward. But that would be a responsible approach, so it's probably not going to happen.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)has skyrocketed. So I'm not sure how that claim can be supported.
In 2014: "505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm"
In 1950 that number was over 900/year and the population was 150 million, HALF what it is today. That's not 505 per capita, that's 505 total.
Paladin
(28,264 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)debunction.junction
(127 posts)and has the parenting skills to convey to their 6 year old in terms they can understand, "At the range, yes. At home, no? It takes no skill to become a parent.
I know this is off the subject, but I was sitting in the doctors office today. A thirty-something female sat there in a crowded room talking on her cell phone so everyone in the room could hear (a whole other topic that makes my head explode) her talking about her kids...about someone said her kids were disrespectful, and commented that everyone's parenting skills are different. Oh My God! Too bad people are not required to take a competency test before becoming a parent.
For the record, I was given a single shot 22 rifle of my own on my 6th birthday. It was in the down stairs closet. It was not locked up. I had access to it any time. Things have changed since 1956, and there is a huge difference between that an a handgun. I am not sure that a 6 year old today has the ability to differentiate between video games and reality. To me, it is not worth the risk. The risks far outweigh the benefits.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But I'm not going to prohibit all parents from X because some parents aren't qualified.
debunction.junction
(127 posts)Too bad there is not a test to prove the parent is responsible before putting them in charge of teaching the child to be responsible.
I get your point totally. For me, the benefits don't come close to balancing the risks. I respect your opinion, so we can just agree to disagree.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And I enjoyed discussing this with you. Thank you!
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Unless you are saying they should shoot some living mammal and see it bleed and die?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)My father told me to try putting it back together. I couldn't.
He explained the gun would do that to anyone. Can't call the bullet back. Can't change your mind. Can't put the pieces back together.
made a lasting impression on me.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)How many will have to end up deformed or dead?
Sick.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)you aren't responsible in the first place.
hack89
(39,171 posts)take a look in the mirror. It is going to take more than broad brush smears and sophomoric insults to change things.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Some people would be horrified to see a 5 year old on a Yamaha pw50 2-stroke dirt bike, even with a helmet, and armor. For some people, that's just life. It's what we do.
It's not always about 'perfect, inviolable safety'. Sometimes it's about living, which has risks, even if you're 5.
xocet
(3,871 posts)Do you really believe that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)they can begin to, yes.
That's what parents are for.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I grew up around firearms, my children grew up around firearms, no problem.
rurallib
(62,423 posts)the bottom line is the bottom line.
lark
(23,105 posts)Hope they want to see a whole spate of parents/friends/siblings deaths and injuries from unstable hormonal teens messing around with guns. I swear this country has completely gone off it's rocker and is heading straight to cuckoo land.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Not sure why you would expect a massive surge in violence for some reason.
Does this come from the same part of the brain that always cries that the streets will run red with blood every time conceal carry rights get expanded? Followed by crickets when nothing happens....
lark
(23,105 posts)I wasn't aware of that.
It's open carry rights that I'm more concerned about. People brandishing guns aren't doing it for self protection, they are doing it to provoke trouble and hurt others. There's been 2 cases I know of very recently where concealed carry people have shot someone for no good reason, so no it's not crickets.
The latest one was just posted here last week.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... under parental supervision for generations.
Haven't run across many of them open carrying other than on their way to a gun related activity.
lark
(23,105 posts)Buying and owning their own guns is quite a different thing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Good grief, read past the headline.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,007 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Hoist by his own Petard.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-shooting-range-instructor-dies-20140826-story.html
An instructor at a shooting range in Arizona died Monday after a 9-year-old girl accidentally shot him in the head with an Uzi he was showing her how to use, the Mohave County Sheriffs Office said.
Charles Vacca, 39, of Lake Havasu City was shot Monday morning, airlifted to a medical center in Las Vegas and pronounced dead shortly before 9 p.m., the sheriffs office said.
Vacca was working at the Bullets and Burgers outdoor range in White Hills, about 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, when the accident occurred. The girl and her parents were at the range while on vacation, a sheriffs spokeswoman told the Los Angeles Times.
longship
(40,416 posts)Which one shall I select? A bullet? Or a burger?
Let's see...
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)There are lots of dumb things that are not illegal. At what point do we realize that you can't write a seperate law to cover every conceivable circumstance. And if you bother to write the law would the people who most needed it, actually read it and follow it?
Not sure at what age I might deem a kids hands developed enough to control a 22LR pistol. Not so sure it's something we need to legislate either. If you are smart enough to be allowed to own a hand gun. You should be smart enough to determine when a kid should and should not be allowed to handle one.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Not that guns have anything to do with defense.
It's all about limp dicks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)kids won't be able to carry guns.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)It was a .357 revolver loaded with .38 specials so I could handle the kick. I was under the direct supervision of my father at a range.
Even Connecticut, with the strictest guns laws in the country, allows this:
Sec. 29-34
petronius
(26,602 posts)no minimum age for supervised use (penal code 27505).
Personally I think there is a minimum level of maturity, that varies from kid to kid, but I'd leave it up to the parents to decide...
valerief
(53,235 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Deleted text is in parenthesis, added test is in bold
Please notice the Proposed law also defines "Supervision" as mandating both that the supervisor be both in visual AND verbal contact with the minor with the pistol. Furthermore it makes such supervisor liable for any harm done by the minor (if the minor is under age 14) with the pistol.
Section 1.
Section 724.22, subsection 5,Code 2016, is amended to read as follows:
5. A parent or guardian or spouse who is twenty-one years of age or older, of a person {fourteen years of age but less than} under the age of twenty-one may allow the person to possess a pistol or revolver or the ammunition therefor for any lawful purpose while under the direct supervision of the parent or guardian or spouse who is twenty-one years of age or older,or while the person receives instruction in the proper use thereof from an instructor twenty-one years of age or older, with the consent of such parent,or guardian or spouse.
Sec.2.Section 724.22, Code 2016, is amended by adding the following new subsections:
NEW SUBSECTION. 8. A parent or guardian or spouse who is twenty-one years of age or older,of a minor under the age of fourteen years who allows that minor to possess a pistol or revolver or the ammunition therefor for any lawful purpose while under direct supervision of the parent or guardian or spouse who is twenty-one years of age or older, shall be strictly liable to an injured party for all damages resulting from the possession of the pistol or revolver or ammunition therefor by that minor.
NEW SUBSECTION. 9. As used in this section,direct supervision means supervision provided by another person who maintains visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person.
Sec.3.EFFECTIVE UPON ENACTMENT. This Act, being deemed of immediate importance,takes effect upon enactment.
EXPLANATION The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with the explanations substance by the members of the general assembly.
This bill relates to the possession of a pistol, revolver,or ammunition by persons under the age of 14. Current law prohibits all persons including a parent, guardian, or spouse from allowing a person under 14 years of age to possess a pistol, revolver, or the ammunition therefor. A person who violates current law commits a serious misdemeanor for a first offense and a class D felony for any second or subsequent offense.
Current law does allow a person at least 14 years of age but under 21 years of age to possess a pistol,revolver,or the ammunition therefor, if such person has consent from a parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 years of age or older. Current law also permits a person under 21 years of age but at least 18 years of age,while on military duty, or while acting as a peace officer, security guard, or correctional officer,to possess a pistol,revolver,or the ammunition therefor without consent from a parent, guardian, or spouse.
The bill allows a parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 years 14 of age or older, while under the direct supervision of the parent, guardian, or spouse,or an instructor 21 years of age or older with the consent of the parent, guardian, or spouse, to permit a person under 14 years of age to possess a pistol or revolver or the ammunition therefor, which may then be lawfully used.
The bill provides that a parent or guardian or spouse who is 21 years of age or older,of a minor under 14 years of age, who allows that minor to possess a pistol or revolver or the ammunition therefor for any lawful purpose while under the directs supervision of the parent or guardian or spouse who is 21 years of age or older, shall be strictly liable to an injured party for all damages resulting from the possession of the pistol or revolver or ammunition therefor by that minor. The bill defines direct supervision for purposes of Code 29 section 724.22 to mean supervision provided by another person who maintains visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person. The bill takes effect upon enactment.
Response to jpak (Original post)
trillion This message was self-deleted by its author.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The actual law REQUIRES constant verbal and visual contact between the supervisor and the minor, and if the minor is under age 14, strict liability for any harm caused by the minor using the pistol. I posted the actual proposed law above if you want to read it.
trillion
(1,859 posts)What are you talking about?
I thought the head hit was because they wanted to give guns to children
"One of Iowas legislative bodies has passed a bill to allow children to handle handguns. "
I don't agree with this. It sounds like something the NRA would want.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The actual proposed law, will remove the present restriction that requires a minor to be age 14 before he or she can shoot a pistol but adds TWO clauses:
1. that a parent MUST be within verbal and visual contact with the minor AND
2. If the minor is below age 14 any damage done by the minor, the parent is STRICTLY liable for.
Someone disliked the idea of minors below age 14 handling a pistols. They bring up 1 to 2 years old, but it seems the age people are most concern about are 10 to 14 years olds (with some people mentioning they fired pistols when they were six with their parents supervision and help). Like many laws regarding minors, no one could agree on a bottom age so the legislature just dropped the whole idea and left it up to the parents to decide when a child can fire a pistol.
In the opinion of many people 14 was to high an age, many 10 to 14 year olds wanted to shoot pistols also.
Please note this law only covers PISTOLS, present law permits any minor of any age to operate a rifle or shotgun for the same reason the proposed law has no bottom age, the legislature could not come up with one that everyone would agree to.
trillion
(1,859 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)I'll fix that. My apologies. I didn't read your post.
KT2000
(20,583 posts)off the hook for accidents where one child kills another. I can hear it now - A parent can't know what their kids are doing every minute and it is their right to possess the gun anyway.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The proposed law REQUIRES that whoever is doing the supervision of the minor with a pistol:
1. Must be over age 21
2. Must either be a parent, guardian or spouse of a parent or have permission from a parent, guardian or spouse of parent
3. be in CONSTANT verbal and visual contact with the minor
4. If the minor is under age 14, the supervisor is strictly liable for any harm done by the minor.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)I posted the actual proposed law above, it REQUIRES constant direct supervision of any minor with a pistol and then defines that supervision as being in both visual and verbal contact with the minor. The Supervisor must be a parent, spouse or guardian and must be over age 21. Under those rules, hard for someone to hurt someone else unless it is intentional.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus, your comment can also apply to the present law, if a 12 year old picks up a pistol and starts to shoot it that is illegal under the present law and if no parent is present would remain illegal. If no one sees him do the shooting, how do you bring him in for doing something illegal?
Under the proposed law that 12 year old will be able to legally shoot that pistol ONLY if he has his parent's permission AND they are present when he is shooting the pistol. It is NOT that big a change. Enforcement will be easier for the parent will be near the child, no parent, it is clearly illegal for the minor to even touch a pistol. That is true today AND under the proposed law.
Please note, this law does NOT apply to rifles or shotguns, those can be operated by any minor and their parents need not be any where near them. That is true today even if this law does NOT pass. This law covers only pistols.
To expect people to obey the law is sometimes difficult, but then the US tried to ban alcohol in 1919 and that attempt failed do to massive failure to follow the letter of the law. On the other hand, most shooting of pistols are done at gun ranges and the gun ranges will make sure the law if followed for they do NOT want to be subject to the strict liability portions of the proposed law. Thus I expect this law to be followed, not because of any police enforcement of the law, but the gun ranges will require people to follow the law and if they do not kick them off the ranges.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)My dad had a shotgun. When I was growing up poor in the city we were grateful for the occasional pheasant, grouse, rabbit, or even squirrel - although my mom hated the chore of skinning them. But food was food, and we needed to make do with what could be got. Later on we sometimes got venison, when there was enough money for gas to drive further out into the country, and that was a great thing. But my dad really didn't enjoy killing things with a gun, and eventually confined himself to fishing and put the shotgun away.
I inherited that old shotgun, but I've never bothered to learn how to use it. It sits in a case gathering dust. I have no desire to go out and kill anything. Maybe if I somehow end up really poor and desperate I might consider going out after a deer for food, but I'm not there at this time, so I'm content to let it sit on the shelf unused.
I can't imagine ever wanting a handgun, an instrument specifically designed for killing other human beings. I would never consider owning one. I can't imagine wanting to teach a child how to use one. I can't imagine the sort of paranoia that would lead someone to believe that they needed such a thing in their life.
It's a mindset that will remain completely foreign to me. And no amount of sophist arguments from gun lovers will change my opinion, so you needn't bother replying.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)My father taught me how to shoot and he did not have a sick mind.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)She dislikes the idea of someone teaching their children to shoot a pistol, that is a defensible position, one that we MAY dislike that position, but it is defensible. We can disagree on that subject but it is not "an offensive and bigoted thing to say"
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I carried a 45 colt in the Army, I was the driver for a M113 APC and the driver was to have a pistol in my unit. Never fired it, but I carried it. Then I saw the qualification range for pistols, and ask why bother with one? The distance is within rock throwing range. In fact if faced with a person with a pistol, your best defense is to charge the person with the pistol. If he has any training, he MAY hit you, but if he had almost none, the chances of him hitting you are slim. Do NOT run away from him, that gives the shooter time to aim and with aiming he MAY hit you.
Bows and Arrows have greater range then pistols (contrary to what you see in Movies and on TV). Given all of that, why would anyone want a pistol is beyond me. During WWI, when Germany was running out of Rifles to give its infantrymen, the solution was to give them long handled spades not pistols (and that included their top end "Storm Troopers" of 1918). Pistols have very limited usability, in most cases a club would be the better option (and the billy club was the first choice of Police for Decades for that reason).
Now a well trained person with a pistol can be deadly. Contrary to the 1939 Movie about Sargent York, when he was charged by German Infantrymen, he ended up hitting each of the soldiers with his 45 not his rifle. It should be noted York had lived with pistols all of his life and was a dead shot before he entered the Army. York is the exception to the general rule (and the classic exception, someone who trained on that pistol almost weekly). Most people who carry pistols (and that include MOST police and Army personal) DO not shoot their pistols enough to be any where near as good as Sargent York. This is the reason the Police have long favored the 38 Special and then the 9mm, it is a much light shooting gun that they can qualify on without much shooting. Qualifying is NOT the same as being good, it means acceptable (and hopefully you never have to use it).
I just have more important things to do then to go to a shooting range on my day off work every week to even think about owning a pistol. Rifles and Shotguns you can learn to shoot quickly and well. Bows and Arrows take up almost as much time as a pistol to learn to shoot well. Why you want a pre teen to have a pistol is beyond me, if they want to shoot, give them a rifle or sign them up for an archery class, pistols are just not worth it.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)With all the stories about kids killing kids accidentally with guns...they ACTUALLY WANT to put guns into the hands of kids!!!!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The proposed law REQUIRES a parent, spouse or guardian who is over age 21 to be in constant verbal and visual contact with the minor with a pistol. Furthermore if the child is under 14, the supervisor is strictly liable for any harm done by the minor.
Please note this law does NOT apply to Rifles or shotguns, those weapons any minor can shoot without any supervision, this law only applies to pistols.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)A child is strictly obedient to the parent and NEVER sneaks out his OWN weapon to 'show' his buddies....or his bullies
Even adults who are supposed to be in control of their selves kill people with guns, we now expect 10 year olds to have the same control??????????????????????????????????????????????
This is the absolute dumbest gun shit I have ever seen!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Remember under Strict liability, the fact the parents did not know the child took the weapon without their knowledge is NOT a defense. Also remember this applies to pistols only, present law already permits minors under 14 to own and possess rifles and shotguns (Minors can NOT buy rifles or shotguns, but they can own them if someone gives them one or their inherit one).
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Will holding the parents responsible bring back the life of the other kid killed?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)An opportunity to teach kids not to touch guns unsupervised is a benefit, not a drawback. Firing a gun makes a distinct impression on a kid that 'don't touch' doesn't make.
Certainly worked for me.
The law doesn't let parents give the kid a gun, or let the kid keep the gun, or use the gun at a range with other kids downrange, etc. Same rules, same onus on the parents to be good stewards, that there is now in that state for long guns. Just making the rules for long guns and pistols the same, that's it.
In Washington, that's currently fully legal. In MOST states, that's fully legal.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Good grief, it's law, not magic.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)A child killing a child?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"NEVER sneaks out his OWN weapon to 'show' his buddies....or his bullies"
"we now expect 10 year olds to have the same control?"
At no point does this proposed law allow a child to be in possession without direct parental control. It doesn't authorize the parents to give them a gun, and walk away, or let them keep it in their room, etc. None of that.
The parent must be there, in control, and liable for the kid's actions. Just as it is in that state with rifles and shotguns.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)There is a difference between doing this with handguns - and doing it with hunting rifles. A lot of parents, where I'm from, teach their children how to hunt, and how to operate firearms (typically a rifle or a shotgun) for the sake of hunting. I'm not likely to ever object to such a thing as that.
I don't like the idea of very small children being taught how to operate a handgun though. It's primary intended purpose... isn't really hunting. I can see why someone might want one for self defense, for law enforcement work - and so on... but why on earth would you teach a young child how to operate one? Are we living in a constant state of war in which even our children have to take up arms to defend themselves? Has the zombie apocalypse begun? Do we need to teach even our eight year old kids how to shoot for the head, or something?
I realize there are similar laws in existence in other areas, but frankly, I think they're dangerous and guilty of a lack of forethought. How many of these kids, having been taught how to operate a handgun... will at one point or another, get the idea in their heads to use it to solve their problems? Whether it's some bullies at school, innocent people, bystanders, their own parents or themselves... I suspect that people are more likely to end up dead as a result of such legislation.
Where does it stop? How long have we got before people start pushing legislation for concealed carry permits for kids the same age? Imagine the girl scouts coming to your door packing heat... this whole thing is kind of ridiculous.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)Even in NJ I was shooting a 22lr rifle at Boy Scout camp at 12.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The proposed law only applies to pistols and then require someone over age 21 be present when the minor is using the pistol. Present law says minors over age 14 can shoot a pistol but not minors under age 14.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In the state in question, rifles and shotguns are legal, pistols are not. This law would make pistols legal as well. Essentially, normalizing the law across all types of firearm.
In most states, no distinction is drawn between long and short guns for this purpose, and it is legal.
Still not legal for anyone under 18 to buy, or carry on their own.
Nitram
(22,822 posts)...under the very careful supervision of my father. He gave me a single shot 22 target rifle when I was 10. He taught me good gun safety, and it has stuck with me all my life.
Judi Lynn
(160,545 posts)[center]
Rep. Jake Highfill (R, of course) [/center]
This is his idea of how he should impact the people of his state in their daily lives, helping to enhance the value of life.
vinny9698
(1,016 posts)11 year old kills 8 year old over puppy
Once these kids get used to "handling" weapons they will over react and use those guns.
You seen kids throw temper tantrums, well now they will be able to take to a whole new level
situations