http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/us/new-york-backpack-guns/index.html Now this opens a bigger can of worms - at what age should a child be trusted with a gun?
Asked while consciously, perhaps even deliberately, ignoring the fact that possession of a firearm on school grounds under nearly any circumstances constitutes a felony offense.
Why? I mean if it is OK for a young child to use a firearm - why is it illegal on school grounds? Surely we should arm the children in case of mass shooting She asks facetiously
Another extremist at work I see.I don't think anyone in their right mind would do this,and no one has suggested it either that I know of,the key being in their right mind.Then for your other silly question,no one said to let them just have a gun to do want a child wants to do with it.It is for them to shoot at home under extreme supervision by a responsible adult and no child should ever take a gun or any kind of weapon to school.
it was a mistake, she put them there for safe keeping the night before so right to send them with the child to school, no, it was just a mistake what if her husband was on pain meds and she put those in the backpack, would we be sayign was it right or wrong for mom to pack drugs in the child's backpack it was a mistake, nothing more sounds like
I've taught a 5 year old how to shoot so I would say that's a starting point. Really it depends on the child. Some are ready sooner than others. Trust and responsibility are incremental though. It's not an accepted standard to just give a gun to a child unsupervised. You start small and work your way up giving them more and more responsibility. When should someone be trusted with a gun unsupervised? When they are ready not when they reach a certain age.
First of all, the mom didn't "give" her kid a gun. You should apply at Mother Jones they'd have a spot for you. What you've shown above reinforces the fact that parental neglect and abuse account for 80% of child fatalities. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatality.pdf Not to mention that school transportation kills 8 TIMES more kids than active shooters. http://www.maine.gov/doe/security/resources/Relative_Risks_of_Death_in_US_K-12_Schools.pdf Less than 100 children aged 1-12 died to a gun in all of 2010, out of 300+ million guns in circulation. The older "children" statistics are so high because of gang membership. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls Keep trying the emotional angle, I'll keep correcting you with facts.
So it would have been OK to shoot the 17 year old with a BB gun, WTF? Wait, what, how old id the boyfriend of this 14 year old girl?
Really? Despite reams and reams of research showing that children have underdeveloped brains and impaired judgement that impulsivity is greater - you would be happy with a child being in charge of a gun?
Surely, the United States of America hasn't gotten that bad that children need to be armed to go to school. I mean really, (*)(*)(*)(*) is bad in syria/iraq and I still don't believe arming children is right in those circumstances. I fail to see how giving a kid a gun and ammunition to go to school is ok. But then I am not there maybe going to school in the USA is that bad?
"In charge". The usual practice isn't to just hand them a loaded gun and say "Have fun, Johnny". That is idiocy. We can both agree on that. That's not how it normally goes. When my niece was 5 I taught her how to shoot because she proved she could handle some responsibility. I held the gun and let her pull the trigger. At age 7 I took her shooting again letting her hold the gun while I held her. At 8 the most recent time I took her shooting I let her hold the rifle and I stood right behind her. I didn't hold her but I was ready to grab her just in case. As she gets more responsible I will give her more control.
you keep picking all the stupid people in the world you can find to try and prove some kind of point,but the only point you are making is there is stupid people in the world and we already know that,and never said there weren't.Know what does that have to do with the rest of us that are not that stupid,or are you trying to say you have to be stupid to own a gun.If this is the case you must be a little short on something.
Probably 14 years old - boyfriend can also mean a friend who is male and can encompass a platonic relationship And I thought I had a..................never mind But anything from the gun crowd to try and diminish tragedy
Strawman Never said that child fatalities were the only caused by guns - but this is a sly substitution because some of the total numbers for neglect and abuse are actually gun related so it is the equivalent of saying "Yellow dresses account for 20% of all dresses" it is meaningless I saw that card being palmed - sorry The trick here is in the words "active shooter" in other words they are only counting mass shootings NOT all school shootings That is like saying "There are 80 times more people killed by cars than are shot by pets" Lies Damned Lies and statistics Note - no link Meanwhile A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available. As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns. Click here for the news story from The New York Times http://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/news/children-and-guns-hidden-toll-new-york-times And children and youths are more likely to be recruited to gangs if they have access to a gun
Did you read the article? The mother had borrowed the kids' backpack to use over the weekend. She left her guns in it. The other thing you neglected to mention is: My guess is she was using the kids' backpack when she was dropping off merchandise for her drug clients. - - - Updated - - - This was not about a mom intentionally arming her kid. This was about a druggie mom that had borrowed her son's backpack to use on the weekend. - - - Updated - - - Read the article. The case was about a druggie mom borrowing her son's backpack for work on the weekend. She was probably dealing pot, and forgot to take out her (illegally owned) protection gun.
That's because the majority of us being smart don't fit the narrative of why guns are bad and we shouldn't be trusted with them. Also I find it (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hilarious that someone that is so strongly in support of abortion pushes the safety if children as a reason for gun control.
Depends entirely on the child, the specific setting, and his level of maturity and training. See below for age-appropriate interactions between guns and children.
I'm glad to see this mom being charged,as she is clearly not a responsible gun owner. This type of gun owners is what gives all of us responsible gun owners a bad rap. She made a mistake, and is going to face the consequences of her actions. As for your question as too what age is a child to be trusted with a gun? There are to many different variables that come into play. I think it depends on the kid,and as to how much training they have had. I started my son shooting at 5 yrs old. With a single shot 22,and very strict supervision. As he got more training and became more confidence with his training we moved on to other type guns. All this under the watchful eye of me,his teacher. By time he was 14 he was a very safe shooter, and I had enough confidence, too let him go out by himself. My daughter took longer, but by time she turned 16 she had the skills and the safety training , that I would let her go out by herself. There is no magical age that says when a kid can be trusted alone with a gun.
No, what you did was lie and claim a mother intentionally armed her child, and used that as a premise to ask at what age they should be armed. Your question has nothing to do with what the article actually says. Saying that a mother that puts weapons and drugs into her childs backpack and walks around with it, then forgets to take those items out of the backpack, is anything other than a negligent parent is no where near being a strawman argument. Saying that 80% of child fatalities are linked to parental neglect is a fact, and everything she did is what led up to the kid taking the gun to school. ANY child that gains access to a gun unsupervised, and has no knowledge of what to do when they see a gun, is the DEFINITION of parental neglect. Your story has nothing to do with children being intentionally armed and everything to do with an irresponsible parent. The data comes from the FBI, which I've linked for you at least 4 or 5 times, as you've made this ridiculous claim at least that many times. There is no "unreported gun deaths". When someone dies and they have bullet holes in them how hard is that to classify as a death by gun? It might not be classified as an accident, which would mean it would be classified as something else like manslaughter or murder. I've explained this to you at least a few times and you keep coming up with the same old tired, easily refuted nonsense talking points.
The issue here isn't guns but school backpacks. Back in the day before there were sissy school backpacks there were no gun free zone schools. Younger grade students would bring their fathers war souvenirs to school for "show and tell." Usually P-08 Lugers, P-38 Walther's and 8 MM Kar-98 Mauser rifles. Nobody got their panties all wadded up, there were no shootings and the liberals back during the day were to wired on coffee while reciting poetry at the beatnik coffee houses with Maynard G Krebs.
There are a lot of assumptions there not the least of which is that she was a "druggie" - you have no proof of that. Even if she were does this diminish the central point I am trying to make Is it acceptable for a child to have that level of access to firearms? I note one response on the vote says 'yes'
