I'm all in favor of letting kids get exposure to guns in a safe and controlled environment. However, having experienced muzzle climb myself, it seems like a pretty serious lapse of judgement to allow anyone who weighs less than, say, 100 pounds fire a fully automatic weapon.
The direct connection? Not much. The laxity of gun laws in this country provided the environment in which this tragedy could occur. That's the only connection to my mind. My main intent, however, was the sad irony of the juxtaposition.
There's an obvious lack of judgement involved with the death of this kid - a negligence that borders on the criminal - that is entirely separate from the debate of whether it is acceptable to permit civilians to use automatic weapons.
Whoa! "...the laxity of gun laws in this country..."
I guess you have no idea just how many guns laws are in effect in this nation, plus the number of laws in the states.
Guess what? Neither do the elected officials who continue to load on bills and propaganda campaigns to sour the population on the concept that the Second Amendment provides guarantees to the People -- that then is to each individual -- to the right to keep and bear arms, which necessarily includes the right of the indivdual to defend self, family, and any person under assault from rabid aggression that might result in his/their death.
Apparently you have bought into this charade and the pretty language that confounds the minds of citizens who are not gun owners and have NO idea about either those guarantees or how to care for a gun, much less shoot one.
That aside for the moment, I will agree with you that the parent in this case falls into the "no clue" category, and that the person who allowed that child the opportunity on the presumption that the parent did know something fouls both the concept of logic and the atmosphere in which one might have a sensible discussion about firearms (that those who hate them and want you to hate them too will - every time -- call "weapons," often KNOWING that the definitions for weapon and for firearm are distinct: one is meant for assault on persons, the other is a tool meant for the lawful use of the citizen; but don't try to make any headway with the rabid antigun person on that score: it is too neat a summary for them to use honestly and so they will use it any way they are able.
5 comments:
Tell me, M..., what do you imagine are the direct connections between the two? Then maybe you'll know that answer to your title-question.~TGD
I'm all in favor of letting kids get exposure to guns in a safe and controlled environment. However, having experienced muzzle climb myself, it seems like a pretty serious lapse of judgement to allow anyone who weighs less than, say, 100 pounds fire a fully automatic weapon.
The direct connection? Not much. The laxity of gun laws in this country provided the environment in which this tragedy could occur. That's the only connection to my mind. My main intent, however, was the sad irony of the juxtaposition.
There's an obvious lack of judgement involved with the death of this kid - a negligence that borders on the criminal - that is entirely separate from the debate of whether it is acceptable to permit civilians to use automatic weapons.
@fully: Also - awesome new nickname.
Whoa! "...the laxity of gun laws in this country..."
I guess you have no idea just how many guns laws are in effect in this nation, plus the number of laws in the states.
Guess what? Neither do the elected officials who continue to load on bills and propaganda campaigns to sour the population on the concept that the Second Amendment provides guarantees to the People -- that then is to each individual -- to the right to keep and bear arms, which necessarily includes the right of the indivdual to defend self, family, and any person under assault from rabid aggression that might result in his/their death.
Apparently you have bought into this charade and the pretty language that confounds the minds of citizens who are not gun owners and have NO idea about either those guarantees or how to care for a gun, much less shoot one.
That aside for the moment, I will agree with you that the parent in this case falls into the "no clue" category, and that the person who allowed that child the opportunity on the presumption that the parent did know something fouls both the concept of logic and the atmosphere in which one might have a sensible discussion about firearms (that those who hate them and want you to hate them too will - every time -- call "weapons," often KNOWING that the definitions for weapon and for firearm are distinct: one is meant for assault on persons, the other is a tool meant for the lawful use of the citizen; but don't try to make any headway with the rabid antigun person on that score: it is too neat a summary for them to use honestly and so they will use it any way they are able.
Post a Comment