Children under 10 issued shotguns

Originally Posted by Hugh

No need to shout......

One size doesn't fit all - if the access / control is sufficient, this should not be an issue; the kids don't get the licence, and are then given unsupervised access and use of the shotgun. It will be locked up when not in use, and when in use, supervised.

If we followed the same rules you are putting forward for driving, we wouldn't have Grand Prix champions like Lewis Hamilton et al, who started driving Karts in controlled and supervised competitions.

There is only one purpose for a gun ,and that is to kill ,that is what they are designed for ,not so for cars .Putting something designed to kill in the hands of a child is wrong and horribly irresponsible of the parents who allow it

Before you mention sport shooting as a second purpose for a gun ,that is just a sport proving how good your aim is to prove it would be possible to kill people/animals more efficiently

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

There is only one purpose for a gun ,and that is to kill ,that is what they are designed for ,not so for cars .Putting something designed to kill in the hands of a child is wrong and horribly irresponsible of the parents who allow it

Before you mention sport shooting as a second purpose for a gun ,that is just a sport proving how good your aim is to prove it would be possible to kill people/animals more efficiently

So your contention is that people who take part in Olympic shooting contests and the like really only do so because they want to be even better at killing things? I always thought they just wanted to be the best at their particular sport...

What would be irresponsible would be for a parent/guardian to leave a child in sole charge of a gun but I see no harm in, for example, a farmer teaching his child to shoot with proper supervision. That's what licensing is supposed to ensure. I really am far more worried about the huge number of youths wandering around with knives than a handful of kids who've been licenced.

Originally Posted by Osem

So your contention is that people who take part in Olympic shooting contests only do so because they want to be even better at killing things? I always thought they just wanted to be the best at their particular sport...

of course not ,and they aren't ten either .Guns have a purpose which i said earlier but only for adults .

We don't allow 10 yr olds to drive on the public road even when supervised ,why would we let them use something who's only purpose is to kill

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

of course not ,and they aren't ten either .Guns have a purpose which i said earlier but only for adults .

We don't allow 10 yr olds to drive on the public road even when supervised ,why would we let them use something who's only purpose is to kill

But you just claimed this:

"Before you mention sport shooting as a second purpose for a gun ,that is just a sport proving how good your aim is to prove it would be possible to kill people/animals more efficiently"



So we're now clear that the sole purpose of some guns isn't for killing at all - it's for sport. Sport which is undertaken by people of all ages and under strictly controlled conditions.

If I want to teach my child to drive I can do so at any age on private property - nobody's suggesting shooting guns in public places is a good idea are they?

I'm surprised you appear to be more disturbed about a tiny number of children having supervised access to guns than the fact that knives kill/injure far more people and are carried/used far more routinely. Is that because knives weren't solely designed to kill? I'm not sure the victims care....

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Osem

...I'm surprised you appear to be more disturbed about a tiny number of children having supervised access to guns than the fact that knives kill/injure far more people and are carried/used far more routinely.....

It isn't (or needn''t be) an "either/or" situation. Weapons that can kill or maim should be restricted, particularly where children are involved.

I can see the point of allowing children in rural South Africa or the USA learning how to use a gun for hunting at an early age; but in Britain? It seems a bit bizarre that the police don't (mostly) carry guns, but a 10 year old is legally allowed to.

[Welshchris]

whats worrying is how do we know that the Adult with the child is suitable? on the licences does it stipulate what adults? are any checks done? if none of these theoretically anything can happen.

---------- Post added at 14:33 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

But you just claimed this:

"Before you mention sport shooting as a second purpose for a gun ,that is just a sport proving how good your aim is to prove it would be possible to kill people/animals more efficiently"



So we're now clear that the sole purpose of some guns isn't for killing at all - it's for sport. Sport which is undertaken by people of all ages and under strictly controlled conditions.

If I want to teach my child to drive I can do so at any age on private property - nobody's suggesting shooting guns in public places is a good idea are they?

I'm surprised you appear to be more disturbed about a tiny number of children having supervised access to guns than the fact that knives kill/injure far more people and are carried/used far more routinely. Is that because knives weren't solely designed to kill? I'm not sure the victims care....

but can kids distiguish between sport and violance? take football, most footballers have the mentality of children and look how they behave!

Originally Posted by martyh

of course not ,and they aren't ten either .Guns have a purpose which i said earlier but only for adults .

We don't allow 10 yr olds to drive on the public road even when supervised ,why would we let them use something who's only purpose is to kill

Well, when my son joined the ATC at 13, he was taught to shoot a rifle under controlled and supervised circumstances.

A weapon has two purposes - being a deterrent, and to kill.

btw, why shouldn't a farmer's child be taught how to kill vermin?

Originally Posted by Osem

But you just claimed this:

"Before you mention sport shooting as a second purpose for a gun ,that is just a sport proving how good your aim is to prove it would be possible to kill people/animals more efficiently"



So we're now clear that the sole purpose of some guns isn't for killing at all - it's for sport. Sport which is undertaken by people of all ages and under strictly controlled conditions.

If I want to teach my child to drive I can do so at any age on private property - nobody's suggesting shooting guns in public places is a good idea are they?

I'm surprised you appear to be more disturbed about a tiny number of children having supervised access to guns than the fact that knives kill/injure far more people and are carried/used far more routinely. Is that because knives weren't solely designed to kill? I'm not sure the victims care....

not some guns ,all guns ,they are designed to kill/injure
All i am saying is that to have no age restriction on handling guns is ridiculous .Comparing knives to guns is not good either as knives have multiple purposes ,also as has been proved countless times anything can be a weapon and kill ,but guns are solely designed for that purpose

my only point about using guns for sport shooting as in the Olympics is that they also are designed only for killing/injuring the only difference is the target and should not be used as a reason to allow young children to handle guns

There should in my opinion be a no exception age restriction on handling guns set at 16-18yrs

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, when my son joined the ATC at 13, he was taught to shoot a rifle under controlled and supervised circumstances.

A weapon has two purposes - being a deterrent, and to kill.

btw, why shouldn't a farmer's child be taught how to kill vermin?

As was i ,(in the atc) and yes i shot guns at 13-14 learning the mechanics of killing people with guns ,doesn't make it right though does it ?

yes a farmers son can be taught how to kill vermin at any age ,doesn't need a gun though does it ? ,the same skills can be taught better at a older age

It would be a bit inefficient running about after the rats with a stick....

Originally Posted by Hugh

It would be a bit inefficient running about after the rats with a stick....

then use a big one

not sure you would use a gun to kill a rat anyway

no -one can convince me that having no age restrictions on handling guns is a good idea

[Osem]

Many children can still distinguish between right and wrong thankfully and I think some people are still reacting to this as if these children are simply handed guns and allowed to do what they want. Yes, guns were originally designed to kill but many sports weapons aren't designed for that purpose at all and would in fact make pretty inefficient killing weapons. To say that, because the first gun ever made was designed as a weapon, all guns since have been designed solely for that purpose and that the sole use to which they're actually put is totally irrelevant is nonsense. For me the main issue is controls and it seems to me that over the years the licensing system has done a pretty good job of ensuring guns don't get into the wrong hands and the exceptions to that haven't been 10 years olds, they've been adults.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No need to shout......

Im sorry Hugh,i guess i dont consider caps as shouting,i didnt mean to offend ya...

I think Guns are serious tools and should not be in young hands or left somewhere where they can get them.....

I have seen MANY un-needed gun accidents and its mainly because people are not responsible with them.. (Leaving them where kids can get them,etc)

[Sparkle]

I think part of the reason why so many adults in our society can't handle responsibility is because they never had it in their youth. Once we reach a certain age, our habits and personalities are pretty much set.

I learned to handle a shotgun when I was 11, and since that time shooting has benefited me in different ways. For instance, it takes responsibility and time to get into the habit of never inadvertently pointing a gun at someone when out hunting.
Time and time again, even intelligent people have to be told to watch where they point the gun, the proverbial "But it isn't loaded" is a common response that used to really bug me. In time learning to properly handle the gun becomes second nature. In my opinion, shooting has made me somewhat more careful and responsible due to my exposure at a tender age.

At university, I recall looking on in disbelief as students would walk quite casually across a lab with a beaker of sulfuric acid as though it were water, whereas I would treat the beaker of sulfuric acid (or any other chemical) as though I were holding a gun, with tremendous due care in a manner that was second nature. Not so different to when I get behind the wheel of a car.

Also, rifle shooting requires a great deal of concentration (steady aim & breath control) to achieve a proficient degree of accuracy.
In my view - a good skill to have, especially at a younger age.

---------- Post added at 10:55 ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

not some guns ,all guns ,they are designed to kill/injure

Martyh, I can see your point but I disagree with the terminology.
Guns are designed to put holes in things, rather than to kill.

By extension one could of course argue that putting holes in and killing is the same thing. However, if guns were designed to kill they would fire poisoned bullets for instance. Hollow point/dum dum rounds are controlled because they do more than put holes in people, they are designed to inflict maximum damage on humans. Guns could be designed specifically to kill, but I don't think they are thus far.

Originally Posted by Dude111

Im sorry Hugh,i guess i dont consider caps as shouting,i didnt mean to offend ya...

I think Guns are serious tools and should not be in young hands or left somewhere where they can get them.....

I have seen MANY un-needed gun accidents and its mainly because people are not responsible with them.. (Leaving them where kids can get them,etc)

But that is not what we are discussing (licencing and supervised access).

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Welshchris

from someone who has been shot by an airgun by some pillock that was bad enough.

I was shot with an airgun by some pillock too. Me !
Just a ricochet though.

Nearly got hit in the face (a few times, can you believe it) on another occasion. This was back in 1996 when I was 19, I was out shooting with my .22 cal Webley Tracker and in the middle of a plowed field, I decided it was time to check the accuracy of the sights.
I gazed the field looking for a tempting target and I eyeballed a black rock (about 4" in diamater) about a hundred feet away. I laid down on the ground, took careful aim through the scope, fired and apparently missed. No dust or anything visible to indicate a hit on target. Lined up the sights again, fired and heard what sounded like a bee, but quite close. Lined up the sights again, and heard the same noise again. Repeated, only this time the "bee" flew past me, missing my cheek by inches. What the heck? So I walked over to the black "rock", it turned out to be a concave bottom of a very old fashioned dark green glass wine bottle, the glass was over an inch thick. The concave section was pointed directly at me. I could see about five little lead streaks on the glass (a good grouping, all within 1.5"), where the pellet struck one side, ricocheted off the next sending the pellet back in my direction ! A pellet reflector !
The sights were fine afterall.