5 year old boy shoots his sister with his own rifle

Have to say I'm in shock that a five year old is even allowed to use a real fire arm, let alone own one.

Am I the only one who thinks the whole idea of allowing a child this young to have access to a real weapon is retarded on so many different levels.

How can anyone justify giving a child a real weapon. the poor child is gonna suffer with issues his entire life knowing he shot his sister

There's no doubt it's the fault of the parents for leaving the child unsupervised around a firearm.

The child was too young to be left alone with the gun.

I fired my first shots out of a rifle at 6 or 7. That doesn't mean that I was responsible enough to be left alone with the gun at that age. It just means that I was taught how to safely shoot a gun at that age, under strict strict strict strict supervision.

My Dad picked the shot, making sure that there was a backstop should I miss or the bullet go through the target. He also held the gun, I looked through the sight at the target, and got to pull the trigger.

He also taught me that the devil loads the gun once a year so never assume that the gun is empty. And he was never stupid enough to leave me alone with the gun. The only time I could go near it was with him.

hearny wrote: »

Absolutely terrible for the poor child, and the 5 year old who shot her.

Surely the parents should be charged over this.

And as for the type of gun have a look at this http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php

Only in America would you get away with this **** you have to be 21 to drink but apparently you can own a rifle well before then.

Theres nothing wrong with any of them pictures or with the company selling guns.. Kids in america can shoot and use guns from a young age so theres nothing wrong with the company making a gun smaller to suit them.
The kids can be taught to use guns and have no issues if supervised..

Its the fact a parent would be stupid enough to leave them unsupervised and not be after checking the gun if it was unloaded in the first place..

Its common sense to open the bolt on a rifle when you take it out to show to yourself and other around that its not loaded, same with breaking a shotgun when taking it out of a case. Obviously wasnt done here though..m

Derpington95 wrote: »

MURICA .

/Thread

Sparks wrote: »

It's perfectly legal to let kids younger than this shoot rifles in Ireland; I shot my first rifle at age four. The difference is, we allow it on a range or at a funfair, with adult supervision; we don't leave kids unattended with loaded firearms. I think the phrase "negligent homicide" ought to made an appearance by now...

...the same way it would have if the kid had drunk bleach left lying in the corner of the room, or grabbed a fork the parents had left plugged into a wall socket, or choked on the food the parents hadn't cut up small enough (that kills thousands of children every year in the US by the way).


TL;DR :
Bad parents.
/thread

Ah FFS, you're trying to equate drinking bleach with a rifle.

Yep, bleach is dangerous, so we've child safety catches, I find it hard enough at times to open them.

Are you seriously trying to equate not cutting up a piece of food with giving a 4 year old a rifle?

K-9 wrote: »

Ah FFS, you're trying to equate drinking bleach with a rifle.

No, I'm equating leaving a kid alone with a loaded firearm with leaving a kid alone with a brightly-coloured bottle of bleach, or a fork and a mains socket, or not watching them eat when they're not old enough to chew properly.

In other words, I'm saying that **** parenting is **** parenting. The "MURICA!" melodramatics are pointing at the wrong thing.

Sparks wrote: »

No, I'm equating leaving a kid alone with a loaded firearm with leaving a kid alone with a brightly-coloured bottle of bleach, or a fork and a mains socket, or not watching them eat when they're not old enough to chew properly.

So a rifle is a common everyday household occurrence like bleach, a fork and a mains socket, chewing beef or fish.

Grand so.

Funnily enough I managed to rear a 14 year old without ever coming across a rifle, the others where everyday dangers, albeit very unlikely.

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

And why does a kid need guns?

Going by your logic, toddlers who can be taught how to use a nuclear missile properly should be allowed to if we supervise it properly.

What an absolute idiotic comparison..

Guns dont kill people, 5 year olds do

K-9 wrote: »

So a rifle is a common everyday household occurrence like bleach, a fork and a mains socket, chewing beef or fish.

Grand so.

Funnily enough I managed to rear a 14 year old without ever coming across a rifle, the others where everyday dangers, albeit very unlikely.

You managed to rear a 14 year old without ever coming across a rifle. Well, that's your house and there's nothing wrong with that. We were reared here in Ireland with guns being a normal part of life. In fact, there are over 260,000 licenced firearms in the state so having a gun in the household is pretty normal for a significant percentage of the population.


As a side note, plenty of houses around the world will have a gun in the household but probably not have a bottle of bleach. Different cultures do things differently.

This wouldn't have happened if the girl had her own rifle to defend herself with.

true-or-false wrote: »

People keep arguing that guns are safe if you know how to use them, or that they had guns around their whole lives and never had any accidents. But no one has given any reason at all as to what necessitates household guns in the first place?

This isn't me trying to make a point - I'm just honestly baffled as to what people want them for?

Because a lot of people like hunting/target shooting as a hobby? and in america they can have them for self defence..

true-or-false wrote: »

I can't see the sense in that to be honest.

Hunting/target shooting should be done in designated clubs/areas where the guns should be confined to, and even at that it seems pretty stupid to me to have a hobby that involves killing or the use of a deadly weapon. Keeping a gun in a home for the sake of that hobby seems even more strange.

As for self defence, that's just condoning people shooting people. So if someone breaks into your house, rather than phoning the police they just want to shoot them? At least in countries where guns aren't the norm, that burglar is far less likely to have a gun himself.

I just don't see what people get out of having guns that make them defend them to the point that they think having a gun is worth accepting things like children shooting children, people going on mass murdering sprees in schools and cinemas, and every Tom, Dick and druggie being able to get their hands on one. The American gun laws didn't kill the child - bad parenting did, but that by no means that those laws aren't completely insane. I just don't understand why they're worth so much, to normal people that don't intend on robbing/killing anyone?

You should hunt in a designated area? Care to explain how that would work.. do you round up all the animals into an enclosure or something ?
And confine the gun to that area... So a farmer is having a problem with a fox livestock but he cant do anything about it because he cant take his gun out of his confined area..
Just because you think its stupid doesn´t mean everyone else does.. People do like other meat than the stuff thats sold in shops you know.
And in Ireland there are more than 220,000 licensed guns which most are kept in homes..

true-or-false wrote: »

Yeah, I only mentioned household guns because I can see how they might be acceptable, the same way I'd understand people wanting to use them for target practice if it was in a club where the guns didn't leave the club. It's domestic guns I don't understand.

And what if a target shooter wants to compete seriously? that involves practicing at home too and cleaning the kit at home ensuring everything works.
Target shooters can spend hours practicing their technique at home with an unloaded gun.

true-or-false wrote: »

Hunting/target shooting should be done in designated clubs/areas where the guns should be confined to

Not a great idea; the Gardai stepped on the suggestion last time it was seriously made here. Something about how ranges are usually outside of town, in fairly remote areas, and how sticking dozens of firearms in a single remote place made for a very tempting target for criminals.

it seems pretty stupid to me to have a hobby that involves killing or the use of a deadly weapon

(a) target shooting doesn't involve killing or the use of a deadly weapon;
(b) hunting isn't a hobby, it's how they put food on the table.

As for self defence, that's just condoning people shooting people.

Yes, that's how their law is structured there.

So if someone breaks into your house, rather than phoning the police they just want to shoot them?

Yes, because they figure waiting 30 minutes for the police to arrive in a country where home invasions are a thing isn't a good idea.
Honestly, if I was living there, I'd agree.
Happily I'm not, so I just need to worry about tiger kidnappings, drug shootings, pipe bombs... hmmm. Maybe this is a high horse for us to be on d'ya think?

I just don't see what people get out of having guns that make them defend them to the point that they think having a gun is worth accepting things like children shooting children, people going on mass murdering sprees in schools and cinemas, and every Tom, Dick and druggie being able to get their hands on one.

Possibly because you just described three serious social problems (poor parenting, poor mental healthcare, and insufficient enforcement of gun laws) which wouldn't be fixed by banning firearms -- and because history both here and everywhere else (including the US) shows that whenever people do that, they pick the easy-but-incorrect option and ban something and call the problem solved and then the next time the inevitable happens, they pick something else to ban and do the same cycle again.

How about instead of doing that, we look at the actual problem and fix that?
How about better child services systems so that dangerously inept parents get better training and education? How about they get that education before having kids? How about we have better mental healthcare and enforce the existing body of firearms legislation so we see far fewer shootings?

Why not? Because that would be hard to do, political suicide for any politician to push for, and would be resented by everyone.

I just don't understand why they're worth so much, to normal people

Can't speak for the other normals, but to me, olympic target shooting was my sport the way that football is a county player's sport. I've shot for 20 years, I've trained people to shoot for ten years, I've owned firearms for nearly fifteen years, I've won national titles, I've won a medal for my country in a (small) international event in an olympic sport, and that sport has the single best safety record of any sport in the country. So when someone says "gun bad, shooters just want to kill kids", well, that's somewhat insulting both in its content and in its ignorance of the details of what people are talking about. And when, as in this case, some mouth-breathing cretin I wouldn't trust with a dog decides that it's fine to leave a five-year-old alone with a loaded rifle while they nip outside for a quick smoke and the inevitable happens, I don't think that the problem is the gun. I think the problem is the parent who decided that parenting is a hobby you can stop doing when you want a quick break.

true-or-false wrote: »

Sorry guys/ladies, I still don't see a good reason for keeping a household gun.

You might not; the law does (both here and in the US and in most of the rest of the world as well).

What you might not be aware of is that we're an exception - we're not the norm, as countries go. Go somewhere on the continent and you'll realise fairly fast that once you step outside of Ireland, the UK or Japan, views on private ownership of firearms are (a) quite different; and (b) about as controversial as opinions on the private ownership of bicycles.

true-or-false wrote: »

Sorry guys/ladies, I still don't see a good reason for keeping a household gun.

I'll spell it out for you.

Sport - I use my guns for target shooting. Believe it or not, but you can practice shooting without shooting. It's called dry firing and it involves practicing how you hold the gun, trigger control etc and this can be done safely at home. So if I want to practice dry firing, then I can do so because my gun is kept in a safe in my own house. There's no olympic shooter that doesn't practice dry firing pretty much every day in their own home.

Hunting - Often hunting involves going shooting very early in the moring. Where do I store my gun so that I can get access to it at 5am or maybe 10pm? You need easy access to your guns if you want to hunt.

Vermin control - If you use your gun for vermin control, then you need easy access to your gun if, for example, a fox enters your yard where you have chickens, lambs etc. No point asking the fox to wait until you drive maybe 10 miles to the nearest lock up facility for guns to get your gun.


Can you not see why you need access to firearms when you want them?



Also, the Gardai don't want you to store your gun at a club/range. This makes a club or range a very attractive target for criminals. Gardai can't police ranges easily as, for obvious reasons, they tend to be in remote locations.

Hopefully that helps.