BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

13rin wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky


I don't know which one the "trained" kid was "playing with" while the mom who knew he was "playing" with it stepped outside, but here's the brightly-colored, attractive lineup marketed for children:

Examples -

pew pew pew pew *boom*







wtf america




Anyway, the whole story stinks of bullshit. Either they're lying about the kid being properly trained or the kid is being framed by his own parent.

Ah.. My bad.. I see what you're on about... Nah, this is textbook bad parenting.  Apologies to Uzi as his point was a tad late.  I had a "youth sized" .22 back in the day.  It's like a amped up pellet gun.   They're out there to facilitate proper shooting technique as it's kinda hard to teach a kid to shoot a full size bolt action, so its scaled down.  Again, proper supervision is the fail here.  But still, what's to stop the kid from stabbing the fuck outta his sib cause knives are readily accessible or hitting em with the hammer from the garage?  But back to the marketing...  When was the last time (as you run to google) that you've seen a "chipmunk .22" ad?

i don't understand why a child should be "facilitated to proper shooting technique". seems an odd activity to encourage a child to partake in. to a non-american that is, i humbly submit. to me it makes about as much sense as buying an 11 year old child a small motorized car/motorbike to "get him used to driving". or giving him a shot of vodka with each family dinner to "get his stomach used to drink". or making him sit down with an excel spreadsheet for 45 minutes every evening to "get him used to work". these are adult things.

although i suppose in a country as absurd as america, one can rely on the circuitous reasoning that a child needs a gun to get used to 'exercising self-defense' or suchlike... in a country where the gun-problem sees 8 year olds massacred by guns, it only makes sense to arm them and train them at a young age.

there's pretty much only one other place in the world where you'll see photo-scenes like the above in such a casual manner...

Has more to do with hunting than anything. Would you object if a parent bought their kid a small fishing rod so they could get the feel for fishing? There's no difference.

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

13rin wrote:

Ah.. My bad.. I see what you're on about... Nah, this is textbook bad parenting.  Apologies to Uzi as his point was a tad late.  I had a "youth sized" .22 back in the day.  It's like a amped up pellet gun.   They're out there to facilitate proper shooting technique as it's kinda hard to teach a kid to shoot a full size bolt action, so its scaled down.  Again, proper supervision is the fail here.  But still, what's to stop the kid from stabbing the fuck outta his sib cause knives are readily accessible or hitting em with the hammer from the garage?  But back to the marketing...  When was the last time (as you run to google) that you've seen a "chipmunk .22" ad?

i don't understand why a child should be "facilitated to proper shooting technique". seems an odd activity to encourage a child to partake in. to a non-american that is, i humbly submit. to me it makes about as much sense as buying an 11 year old child a small motorized car/motorbike to "get him used to driving". or giving him a shot of vodka with each family dinner to "get his stomach used to drink". or making him sit down with an excel spreadsheet for 45 minutes every evening to "get him used to work". these are adult things.

although i suppose in a country as absurd as america, one can rely on the circuitous reasoning that a child needs a gun to get used to 'exercising self-defense' or suchlike... in a country where the gun-problem sees 8 year olds massacred by guns, it only makes sense to arm them and train them at a young age.

there's pretty much only one other place in the world where you'll see photo-scenes like the above in such a casual manner...

Has more to do with hunting than anything. Would you object if a parent bought their kid a small fishing rod so they could get the feel for fishing? There's no difference.

yes, i agree, "there's no difference". kids massacre their school-fellows with fishing tackle all the time.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i don't understand why a child should be "facilitated to proper shooting technique". seems an odd activity to encourage a child to partake in. to a non-american that is, i humbly submit. to me it makes about as much sense as buying an 11 year old child a small motorized car/motorbike to "get him used to driving". or giving him a shot of vodka with each family dinner to "get his stomach used to drink". or making him sit down with an excel spreadsheet for 45 minutes every evening to "get him used to work". these are adult things.

although i suppose in a country as absurd as america, one can rely on the circuitous reasoning that a child needs a gun to get used to 'exercising self-defense' or suchlike... in a country where the gun-problem sees 8 year olds massacred by guns, it only makes sense to arm them and train them at a young age.

there's pretty much only one other place in the world where you'll see photo-scenes like the above in such a casual manner...

Has more to do with hunting than anything. Would you object if a parent bought their kid a small fishing rod so they could get the feel for fishing? There's no difference.

yes, i agree, "there's no difference". kids massacre their school-fellows with fishing tackle all the time.

How many massacres have been conducted by school age kids? One? I can't think of any but Columbine and they were adults, or nearly so. You really need to get your head out of your ass and realize that not everyone lives in an urban environment.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

the casual culture of gun-violence in america is very often tied to exposure to guns and violence from a young age. nobody is saying that to prove a point school massacres have to be committed by toddlers. giving a toddler a gun from a young age, though, and instructing them to shoot things/kill things, could quite possibly lead a less well-adjusted sort to ready gun violence. it's the normalization of the weapon in every-day life that sees you dropping one another in voluminous numbers. guns occupy such a central role in your common culture, right from early childhood - you'd be naive to say this doesn't have an obvious effect on how often guns are implicated in violent crime, domestic altercations, fights/rivalries/gang issues etc.

also your memory is pretty shitty if you think colombine is the only school-age shooting. plenty of college massacres, just outside that high-school age bracket, but still way too young to be shooting up public places. still kids, really. you have to be 21 to drink in america, so you are clearly not treating 16-20 year olds as fully responsible adult citizens. also sandy hook was perpetrated by a youngster, was it not? it was inconveniently before the christmas festivities though, so i guess it's easy to forget a trivial event like that. the rest of your country seem to done so.

Your opinion might be more valid if there was a problem with kids in rural schools getting shot up, but there isn't, and that's where guns like the above are marketed, not in suburbia or urban environments.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

I love how its " You find them scary", or "You're afraid of them.". No...

A guns sole purpose is to kill. Giving a gun to a child who cannot possibly understand the repercussions of that, or realizing that kids are careless a lot of the time, is stupid on the part of the parents. Yeah, go ahead, teach the kid to be responsible with them, that doesn't mean they should have access to them or even use them.

The sole purpose of a fishing rod is to kill too.

If you can't see the difference between the two...

Good thing they issued you a fishing rod and not a gun when you went off to war.

I'm just failing to understand the point you are all making. Country kids have been given guns from a young age for centuries at this point. They're not the ones shooting people (except in this unfortunate accident), they're not shooting up schools, they just live a different life than you do. You're all being very intolerant of other peoples lifestyles. It's sad.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

must be so cool to live in a freedom loving liberal democracy where 'suicide by cop' is an easily-grasped phrase with a recognized cultural cachet.

this is what 'suicide by cop' looks like in europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18mxbVPcrzc

lol.. It's estonia.. I thought that's a shithole with no food...

Shahter wrote:

13rin wrote:

A natural disaster is enough to wipe out law and order...

... in america.

Yet another reason for the 2nd Amendment.  Thanks for playing.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

let's explore this stupid idea of yours a little fund made a-okay the idea of giving guns to kids. the scouting movement is nothing short of a militaristic pledge to get our toddlers up to rootin' tootin' sharpshootin' levels of proficiency.

Eagle Scout here... I have a Rifleman merit badge too.

At the end of the day it doesn't change.  Armed law abiding citizens aren't the problem.

I'd not care if you were armed either Uzi... 

Last edited by 13rin (2013-05-05 15:21:36)

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Why? It's the parent making the purchase. The parent has already decided they're going to pick out a gun for their kid, at that point, the bright colors are just a 'pick me' marketing thing. It's not like the kid sees the bright colors and buys himself a gun. It's a really stupid thing to get worked up over.

the point is that the kiddish colours trivialize and 'toy-ify' a gun. they make something that should look functional and scary - designed for the purpose of killing - look more like a water-pistol that will squirt soap bubbles of ticklish joy. it's cynical and manipulative. there is absolutely no need for pink barbie decals for an assault rifle. the only reason these products exist is to get kids interested in guns as a 'fun' or 'desirable' thing at an increasingly young age. of course it doesn't matter when the parent has to buy the gun anyway. that is such a stupid fucking point. there are lots of things that a parent must technically buy for a child, but which are still purposefully aimed at snagging the kid's desires. saying the parent controls the cash/registration is a total moot point. designing a gun to appeal to kids is ethically dubious. especially a gun that is custom-kitted out to look plastic, and blur the lines between life-threatening weapon and toy-object.

But guns ARE fun. Just because you find them scary doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. Yes, there is a danger element to them, but kids out in the sticks shooting squirrels aren't generally seen as anything but kids having harmless fun.

sorry, i missed this. i'm not afraid of guns, jay. i grew up in one of those rural countryside hunting-estate areas you talk of. you talk about me being some sheltered cosmopolitan urban-intellectual, but i spent the first 18 years of my life growing up on an ancient royal hunting ground. my dad keeps hunting dogs. my grandfather got in trouble as a youth for doing a dick cheney and injuring a friend with a hunting rifle. you don't need to lecture me condescendingly on "being afraid of guns". i can guarantee i grew up more rural than you, fella. about the only time i was 'afraid' of guns in my youth was when people spoke about the hallowed "12-bore" shotgun - us being 13 year olds, fearing what it would do to a fragile per-pubescent shoulder-blade. i have used air rifles, hunting rifles, and shotguns for fowl/pheasants. it's not my thing, and i haven't touched a gun since i was about 17. just country-lark and tradition. so you really don't need to pursue this 'sheltered head up own arse liberal' thing.  it's silly. to disagree with children being exposed to guns doesn't mean you're "afraid" of guns. if anything, it means you respect them, and see their proper purpose, rather than irresponsibly trivializing them.

with that said... i could take your hunting example seriously if it wasn't for the fact the 'toy accessory' guns we're discussing are pretty much all assault riflles. see the above photo i posted of a kid holding some serious hardware at the NRA conference. what's the point in that? a hunting rifle is a hunting rifle - ok. i can kind of see how you'd equate that with a fishing rod as a mere 'accessory' or 'tool' of a hobby/outdoor pursuit. but why are AR-15 customization kits being marketed at the barbie doll little kid demographic? is it common to go peg down a deer with a pink-camo AR-15 in america? that's a little mystifying. not really much of a sport.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-05 15:29:27)

Jay wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

I love how its " You find them scary", or "You're afraid of them.". No...

A guns sole purpose is to kill. Giving a gun to a child who cannot possibly understand the repercussions of that, or realizing that kids are careless a lot of the time, is stupid on the part of the parents. Yeah, go ahead, teach the kid to be responsible with them, that doesn't mean they should have access to them or even use them.

The sole purpose of a fishing rod is to kill too.

The is the stupid you have to deal with.

I honestly don't think I have ever killed a fish with a fishing rod either, maybe if you're out jigging all the time or something. But no, the purpose of the fishing rod is to catch the fish.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'm just failing to understand the point you are all making. Country kids have been given guns from a young age for centuries at this point. They're not the ones shooting people (except in this unfortunate accident), they're not shooting up schools, they just live a different life than you do. You're all being very intolerant of other peoples lifestyles. It's sad.

you're not seeing our point. nobody is saying "keep kids away from country traditions". i am asking why guns are marketed so aggressively at children. there's a big difference between a responsible father taking his son hunting as part of a bonding ritual, and a gun company designing gun parts/fascias that quite clearly are only going to interest kids.

As I said above, kids can't buy their own weapons. At the point that color scheme and size matter, the decision has already been made to buy the kid a weapon. It's all marketing from there. I think they're garish and stupid, but I'm not their market, shrug.