[PassedOut]

5-Year-Old Kentucky Boy Shoots 2-Year-Old Sister to Death With ‘Youth’ Rifle

Quote

The victim of the shooting, Caroline Starks, was in her home in Burkesville, KY with her older brother when their mother stepped outside of their home at about 1:00pm on Tuesday. In that short time, Caroline's 5-year-old brother managed to discharge one fatal shot from a rifle he received for his birthday.

And I thought I had started young at ten, under the careful supervision of my dad.

However, the NRA has identified the real problem here: The 2-year-old had no firearm of her own for defense.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2013-May-01, 14:55, said:

5-Year-Old Kentucky Boy Shoots 2-Year-Old Sister to Death With ‘Youth’ Rifle


And I thought I had started young at ten, under the careful supervision of my dad.

However, the NRA has identified the real problem here: The 2-year-old had no firearm of her own for defense.

Let's see the NRA try to spin this one.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-01, 15:12, said:

Let's see the NRA try to spin this one.

This is a horrible tragedy and it is tempting (and maybe appropriate) to avoid taking shots (no pun intended) at the NRA or the US gun culture that promotes the idea that giving a real rifle(!!!) to a 5 year old is a good thing. However, when cultural attitudes directly lead to this sort of avoidable tragedy, almost any linguistic or semantic device should be used.

Thus my suggestion is that the NRA, to be consistent with its recent proposals, should lobby for the provision of armed guards in all homes, and/or the provision of bullet-proof teddy bears to young children whose 5 year brothers have been given not only a rifle but live ammunition!

On a more real level, this sort of tragedy destroys the family. If only one spouse chose the present, how will the marriage survive and what sort of life will the 5 year old ever have? Part of me cries out for the parents to be criminally prosecuted, and maybe they will be, but what will that do to the shooter?

[ggwhiz]

Sad beyond belief.

How do you do a background check on a 5 year old? I guess that's not the answer either and even that has no traction.

[kenberg]

As the story makes clear, the child received the rifle as a birthday present.


Further down;

Quote

The rifle used in this tragic event was a single shot .22 caliber "youth rifle" designed by a company called Crickett and sold under the catch phrase "My First Rifle." Crickett markets the majority of its firearms to young children and offers them in a variety of colors from pink to rainbow. "The little Crickett rifle is a single shot rifle and it has a child safety," White said. "This was just a tragic accident."

Tragic accident? The tragic accident is that the children were in the care of total morons and that our national attitude toward guns is totally nuts.


Anyone who buys a rifle for a five year old loses any right to speak of a tragic accident. Tragic yes, accident no. The explanation for the parents is simple. They are idiots. What is the excuse for the rest of us. allowing such practices?

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-May-01, 19:28, said:

Tragic accident? The tragic accident is that the children were in the care of total morons and that our national attitude toward guns is totally nuts.


Anyone who buys a rifle for a five year old loses any right to speak of a tragic accident. Tragic yes, accident no. The explanation for the parents is simple. They are idiots. What is the excuse for the rest of us. allowing such practices?

I agree with the first part of that sentence: the parents were morons. I disagree with the second. First off, we don't have a "national attitude", we have complete disagreement about guns. I don't think it's an "either/or" issue, either, I think there's a wide spectrum, both ends of which, at least, are nuts.

I do think, as someone else suggested, that five is too young, but… not my kid, not my call. Not anyone's other than the parents'.

Anyone who buys a rifle for a child and then does not make damn sure the weapon is not loaded when it's not actually in use is, as you say, an idiot. The first rule of gun control is "the gun is always loaded, until you physically verify that it is not".

From the article cited upthread: "It's been reported that the children's parents were unaware that the weapon was loaded and believe that a bullet had been unintentionally left in the gun from the last time it was used."

So you're right. Morons. Idiots. At the very least careless beyond belief. But not because they bought a gun for a child, and not because "our national attitude towards guns is totally nuts".

[Trinidad]

IMO (let me stress: opinion, not objective fact) it is beyond idiotic to buy a four year old a gun. (He got the gun when he was four, he shot his sister when he was five.) And IMO anybody who thinks that whoever buys a four year old a gun is not idiotic, is beyond idiotic too.

That doesn't have anything to do with my opinion on gun control. It has to do with my opinion on parenting or how to deal with kids.

You see guns as something positive: In your opinion they provide safety, are nice for hobbies (target practice, hunting) and politically important ("well organized militia", etc.). Maybe there are more reasons. You must also recognize that there is a dangerous side to guns.

I am a chemist. I see chemistry as something positive that helps creating a better world: from solar cells to car bumpers, from clothing to food, from agriculture to medicine, etc... I recognize that chemistry has a dangerous side too. Chemicals can be toxic, flammable or harmful in many other ways.

I think that anybody who buys a chemistry set for a four year old is beyond idiotic. And those who think that this is not idiotic are beyond idiotic too.

I can recognize the dangerous side of chemistry and it will stop me from buying a chemistry set for four year olds, no matter how much I like chemistry and no matter how useful I think it is if children learn about chemistry. But it seems that the debate about guns is so polarized that reason and common sense went out of the window: Proponents of guns have a drive to teach their four year olds all the good things that you can do with a gun. This makes them blind for the fact that a four year old cannot handle the safety issues that come with guns.

Tragic accident... My foot! This is criminal brain failure. (And I would say the same if the headline had been "Five year old poisons sister with chemistry set".)

Rik

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2013-May-01, 19:28, said:

Anyone who buys a rifle for a five year old loses any right to speak of a tragic accident.

Anyone who markets a rifle for a five year old loses any right to speak of a tragic accident.

Rik

[Fluffy]

I rented an airsoft store for a couple of years, there were 'guns' for kids, but neither could possible kill a baby unless he managed to swallow a piece of it. Losing an eye was possible though.

Somebody has losed his marbles when .22 caliber rifle is avaible for a kid. And its not a lonely case!, how much of those rifles are out there?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-01, 23:39, said:

So you're right. Morons. Idiots. At the very least careless beyond belief. But not because they bought a gun for a child...

I don't believe that you can teach a five year old child the difference between a toy and a deadly weapon.
Nor do I believe that you can teach a child to handle a gun safely.

Rather, I suggest that introducing a child to guns is going to increase the chance that he "plays" with guns.

And, if you are stupid enough to leave his toy lying around with a chambered round...

Please note: I am not opposed to providing gun safety education to older children, however, buying a 22 for a five year old is just pathetic...

[blackshoe]

Well, based on what I see on these forums, I'm sure a lot of people believe that there are six of them in every American home.

I've seen no evidence that the company that made this gun markets it for four year olds, or five year olds. For "children", yes, relying on parents to exercise reasonable discretion as to appropriate age or maturity. I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, there are some who believe that parents are invariably too stupid to properly raise their children, and that therefore all children "belong to the community" and should be raised thereby. Pfui.

That this kid was four when the gun was given to him was not in evidence when I posted previously. In fact, the article I saw said it was a present for his fifth birthday. However, I don't think that the fact he was four when he originally got the gun makes giving it to him any more stupid than if he was five. So bringing up the younger age is either pedantry or an appeal to emotion. Either way, it brings nothing to the discussion.

Whether giving a kid this young a chemistry set is a bad idea depends on what's in the set, doesn't it? And, I suppose, on whether you expect him to stick everything he gets his hands on in his mouth. Which I suppose he might, at that age.

There may be a four year old, or five year old, somewhere, who can handle guns safely, but in general I agree that's unlikely, at best.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-02, 08:22, said:

There may be a four year old, or five year old, somewhere, who can handle guns safely, but in general I agree that's unlikely, at best.

I guess that makes you a "moderate" in the gun debate...

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-02, 08:22, said:

I've seen no evidence that the company that made this gun markets it for four year olds, or five year olds.

Conveniently, Mother Jones has a article describing the marketing program that the company is using.

The pictures are taken from the company's "Kid's Corner"

http://www.motherjon...-marketing-kids

[PassedOut]

I noticed some other links pointing out modern marketing opportunities.

After Newtown, Sales Boom for Kids' Body Armor

Bulletproof Clothing for America's Schoolkids

We don't plan to move into this market. WTF!

[jjbrr]

What a disgusting article. The parents absolutely should be held responsible for the murder of their 2 year old daughter.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-02, 08:22, said:

I've seen no evidence that the company that made this gun markets it for four year olds, or five year olds.

LOL. If any kid over 8 genuinely likes these colors, the parents have done something wrong too.

Rik

[jjbrr]

I also sort of wish we lived in a society where it was acceptable to shame the parents into realizing they're unfit to raise children and have them sterilize themselves immediately.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-02, 10:22, said:

LOL. If any kid over 8 genuinely likes these colors, the parents have done something wrong too.

I imagine that the bright pink ones would be attractive to little girls. So you can't accuse the company of being sexist and only marketing to little boys.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-02, 08:22, said:

For "children", yes, relying on parents to exercise reasonable discretion as to appropriate age or maturity.

You are kidding right?

Or do you seriously think that "reasonable discretion" is sufficient to decide whether a child is ready to handle a deadly weapon? Should we also rely on a parent's "reasonable discretion" to decide whether to give that child the car keys? Or might it be a good idea to wait till he is 16 and has passed the road test, so that we (his potential victims) are pretty sure that he is able to drive?

The point is that I am sure that there are many 4 year olds who can be taught the mechanics of firing a gun or driving a car. But there are no 4 year olds who you can teach the judgement on when to use the gun or when to accelerate the car or brake, in such a way that you can rely on them.

I think the guy who came up with the idea of marketing these guns for kids should be locked up in a cage surrounded by four year olds with guns. If he has so much confidence in these kids, he will be eager to get into the cage to prove he is right.

Rik

[mikeh]

barmar, on 2013-May-02, 10:39, said:

I imagine that the bright pink ones would be attractive to little girls. So you can't accuse the company of being sexist and only marketing to little boys.

Maybe I am out to lunch on this but isn't the very idea of using pink to market to girls a form of sexism?

Yes, it's very common. It's a less odious but still integral part of a culture that has 3 and 4 year old girls entering pageants in which they are wearing makeup, heels and so on.

Anyway, the company is not marketing to little children: it is marketing to the parents of little children, and it is no better, morally, than marketing cigarettes or whisky for consumption by infants.