2013-05-03, 10:51 AM
Well, here's my thoughts after reading the article:
I don't deny that responsible gun training can begin at a young age, nor would I say gun companies have no right to advertise at all. But to argue that gun companies should be able to market rifles to kids at a young age just because cigarettes and fast food do is not a valid argument seeing that one accident with a gun is all it takes to get someone killed while the other two can usually be moderated. The major problem with companies advertising to children in this way is that the parents are the one buying the goods and if they're not ready or capable of taking care of these things, the kids surely aren't either.
Like I said before:
If you have a firearm you can show your child how to shoot and how to clean a gun, but that doesn't mean you give your child a gun as a graduation gift. At most, let them handle the gun while you watch for a few sessions at a time until they're grown up, then they can make their own decisions about owning a firearm since a gun is not a toy and it should never be marketed as such.
Then there's this:
Yes, exactly. Parents and not the government need to have the final say in their household about whether it's safe for them to keep a gun in the house and I'm mostly saying this since the US has an absurd trend of slapping unnecessary laws in an attempt to regulate how people think. Except you can't predict a child's behaviour nor can you underestimate their cunning: Bottom line, if you can't keep your gun perfectly safe, keep it out of your house and if you can put up with your kids whining when you refuse to buy chocolate just because they saw it in an ad, you can choose to not give your kid a first rifle until they're well and ready.
I don't deny that responsible gun training can begin at a young age, nor would I say gun companies have no right to advertise at all. But to argue that gun companies should be able to market rifles to kids at a young age just because cigarettes and fast food do is not a valid argument seeing that one accident with a gun is all it takes to get someone killed while the other two can usually be moderated. The major problem with companies advertising to children in this way is that the parents are the one buying the goods and if they're not ready or capable of taking care of these things, the kids surely aren't either.
Like I said before:
Quote:"Many people who have firearms familiarize their kids with firearms early on, because they want them to know that this is not something to be trifled with," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a gun rights advocacy group.
If you have a firearm you can show your child how to shoot and how to clean a gun, but that doesn't mean you give your child a gun as a graduation gift. At most, let them handle the gun while you watch for a few sessions at a time until they're grown up, then they can make their own decisions about owning a firearm since a gun is not a toy and it should never be marketed as such.
Then there's this:
Quote:"Decisions around guns should be looked at as an issue of parental responsibility," Gross says. "We think it's up to parents to make sure they're fully educated about the risks of guns around the home."
Yes, exactly. Parents and not the government need to have the final say in their household about whether it's safe for them to keep a gun in the house and I'm mostly saying this since the US has an absurd trend of slapping unnecessary laws in an attempt to regulate how people think. Except you can't predict a child's behaviour nor can you underestimate their cunning: Bottom line, if you can't keep your gun perfectly safe, keep it out of your house and if you can put up with your kids whining when you refuse to buy chocolate just because they saw it in an ad, you can choose to not give your kid a first rifle until they're well and ready.