150 replies to this topic

[freetoroam]

is this topic still up for a debate, or is this the but were we all say, " I will ask no questions, and think the multi million dollar company are right to manipulate the situation over the recent gun murders. SORRY, no, they are not  manipulating people at all, just advertising their wares like all the other companies do.
carry on.

Edited by freetoroam, 28 January 2013 - 08:19 PM.

[F3SS]

freetoroam, on 28 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

is this topic still up for a debate, or is this the but were we all say, " I will ask no questions, and think the multi million dollar company are right to manipulate the situation over the recent gun murders. SORRY, no, they are not  manipulating people at all, just advertising their wares like all the other companies do.
carry on.

Whatever their reasoning for doing this in the first place I can assure you there is no mal-intent aside from pushing their POV as hard as the anti-gun POV pushed theirs. They aren't advocating violence or dissent or indoctrination of children. They are doing what big companies always do with SAFETY and respect for the arm at the top of their list. Yes of course $$$ too.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 28 January 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[F3SS]

Incase you pull the technicality card I would add that indoctrination is what those who don't like our rights do. Those who do like our rights instill them instead.

[sslama]

AsteroidX, on 28 January 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

Purchase not own. With the new laws ownership will be included. That means no more taking your son hunting a father son bonding ritual for some for generations extending back to the origin of this country. If you need a connection to the relevancy of the Constitution to todays world theres one.

Are you serious?  You can't find something else to do to bond with your son...
They are going to change the culture....it will be a lot of hard work.  People don't like to change...even if it's for the best.  They are changing the cultures in the Middle East....it's not pretty and it's not easy.  You can't change the US culture regarding guns all at once...baby steps.

[AsteroidX]

No thank You. The majority of gun owners plan on keeping their guns even if that means armed resistence. Yes when you say painfully slow change I DO hope you know what your talking about.

[freetoroam]

-Mr_Fess-, on 28 January 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Whatever their reasoning for doing this in the first place I can assure you there is no mal-intent aside from pushing their POV as hard as the anti-gun POV pushed theirs. They aren't advocating violence or dissent or indoctrination of children. They are doing what big companies always do with SAFETY and respect for the arm at the top of their list. Yes of course $$$ too.

I have been told and have read enough posts on here to say that it is down to the parents to show their child  safety and respect for the guns which generally it is the parents who own them.
BUT.......................................i will admit when  you have situations like this:
" Education about guns (all kinds) is preferred to the 8 year old who has no idea how to handle one and gets his hands on one and accidentally shoots another child.
Unsupervised children hurting each other by accident is a problem period."
Then it seems that someone else needs to take the reins, but these companies as i have pointed out before, are NOT training the children. But if they can train other people to show the child how to use the guns correctly (I can`t believe i am putting this) then maybe its the only option to take if the parents are not around to do it. But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage.
But, it is not my say on this, if you are happy with the youth workers teaching your children how to handle guns, then fine.....personally, my child would be out of that club before they could deliver their first shipment of ammo, but thats just me.
Carry on.

[HerNibs]

freetoroam, on 28 January 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

I have been told and have read enough posts on here to say that it is down to the parents to show their child  safety and respect for the guns which generally it is the parents who own them.
BUT.......................................i will admit when  you have situations like this:
" Education about guns (all kinds) is preferred to the 8 year old who has no idea how to handle one and gets his hands on one and accidentally shoots another child.
Unsupervised children hurting each other by accident is a problem period."
Then it seems that someone else needs to take the reins, but these companies as i have pointed out before, are NOT training the children. But if they can train other people to show the child how to use the guns correctly (I can`t believe i am putting this) then maybe its the only option to take if the parents are not around to do it. But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage.
But, it is not my say on this, if you are happy with the youth workers teaching your children how to handle guns, then fine.....personally, my child would be out of that club before they could deliver their first shipment of ammo, but thats just me.
Carry on.

Please show me where in the article it says that these children are NOT being taught proper weapon safety?  The article clearly states that the companies are providing funds for training.

Quote under first picture in article -

Quote

A junior shooter receiving tips on a military rifle last fall from an Army marksmanship instructor at a clinic at Fort Benning, Ga. Youth shooting clinics and competitions often receive financial support or supplies from firearms-related businesses.

I'm happy with a trained professional teaching my child to use a gun, just as I was when they were taught to drive a car.

Please stop twisting my statements and using them out of context.

Quote

But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage.

I'm sorry, are you saying that unsupervised children hurting each other is NOT a problem?  Are you saying that there are no accidental shootings in the UK?

Most gun owners are responsible, caring individuals.  Most gun owners that are also parents are responsible, caring individuals that teach their kids properly.

You haven't answered my question below -


You assumed that in the US it's ok to hand guns to kids unsupervised with no permission even though it's been explained many times to you that it's against the law and most people aren't that irresponsible.  Is it legal in England to hand porn or alcohol to a child under 18?

Nibs

[freetoroam]

Please show me where in the article it says that these children are NOT being taught proper weapon safety?  The article clearly states that the companies are providing funds for training.

There is your answer. The company are not training them.


I'm sorry, are you saying that unsupervised children hurting each other is NOT a problem?

Thats a joke right? where the heck did I say that? You highlighted something I did not know about, I  said "But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage." and you take that as me saying  it is not a problem?????

End of debate for me, that is the most stupid thing anyone has ever asked me. Do not reply because i will not be replying back if you twist things like that, thats sick!

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Please show me where in the article it says that these children are NOT being taught proper weapon safety?  The article clearly states that the companies are providing funds for training.

The artricle says the NRA has provided grants to these groups for years....please

[HerNibs]

freetoroam, on 28 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Please show me where in the article it says that these children are NOT being taught proper weapon safety?  The article clearly states that the companies are providing funds for training.

There is your answer. The company are not training them.

No, the funding for training is being provided for by the company.  They are being responsible.

Quote

I'm sorry, are you saying that unsupervised children hurting each other is NOT a problem?

Thats a joke right? where the heck did I say that? You highlighted something I did not know about, I  said "But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage." and you take that as me saying  it is not a problem?????

No, it wasn't a joke.  It was an actual question.  Your statement implied that you haven't heard of child on child violence before.  My statement was that ANY child violence is a problem.  PERIOD.  One incident is a problem.  

Quote

End of debate for me, that is the most stupid thing anyone has ever asked me. Do not reply because i will not be replying back if you twist things like that, thats sick!

Well, I guess that is one way to get out of answering my question.

Nibs

AsteroidX, on 28 January 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

The artricle says the NRA has provided grants to these groups for years....please

Right.  That was my point.

Nibs

[freetoroam]

HerNibs, on 28 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:


3.  Education about guns (all kinds) is preferred to the 8 year old who has no idea how to handle one and gets his hands on one and accidentally shoots another child.



I then said :Quote:

N0 3. Wow, now thats a problem!!!
But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage.


You then said: Quote:
Unsupervised children hurting each other by accident is a problem period.

---------------------------------------------------
so why???  I'm sorry, are you saying that unsupervised children hurting each other is NOT a problem?

[Corp]

AsteroidX, on 28 January 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

No thank You. The majority of gun owners plan on keeping their guns even if that means armed resistence. Yes when you say painfully slow change I DO hope you know what your talking about.

I don't believe he mentioned taking away any guns, but rather changing a culture. Having guns is fine, it's how guns are viewed and treated is quite another. And American culture seems very gun obsessed. Perhaps is more focus was placed on proper training and shortage instead of worrying about government tyrany and having loaded weapons always within reach would help make the general situation better.

[freetoroam]

AsteroidX, on 28 January 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

The artricle says the NRA has provided grants to these groups for years....please


hernibs:
Right.  That was my point.

========================================================================================
Last question, you do not have to answer it. The NRA and the multi million dollar companies, are they the same people?

[F3SS]

sslama, on 28 January 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Are you serious?  You can't find something else to do to bond with your son...
They are going to change the culture....it will be a lot of hard work.  People don't like to change...even if it's for the best.  They are changing the cultures in the Middle East....it's not pretty and it's not easy.  You can't change the US culture regarding guns all at once...baby steps.

So what if that's what people like to do? Big Deal. People have been hunting since the beginning of mans time. Who is they? The Washington elites? What about what the people want? huh? The last I remember America was about being in charge of your own life. You and all who think like you are exactly who WE are against. You want to tell me what to do or have some suit, who actually works for me, tell me what to do. I on the other hand could care less how you live your life and personally I want to be left alone to my own devices and free will. So long as I don't break the law, what's it to you? You know better?

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 28 January 2013 - 09:53 PM.

[HerNibs]

freetoroam, on 28 January 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

HerNibs, on 28 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:


3.  Education about guns (all kinds) is preferred to the 8 year old who has no idea how to handle one and gets his hands on one and accidentally shoots another child.



I then said :Quote:

N0 3. Wow, now thats a problem!!!
But boy have you got problems over there if you have 8 year olds shooting other kids and it is at a problem "period" stage.


You then said: Quote:
Unsupervised children hurting each other by accident is a problem period.

---------------------------------------------------
so why???  I'm sorry, are you saying that unsupervised children hurting each other is NOT a problem?

I asked this because I don't understand why you used my quote in a manner implying the following -

1 - "YOU" (meaning the US I assume) is the only place that child on child violence is a problem.  
2 - That the use of the "PERIOD" statement means anything other than any child violence is a problem.

I asked valid questions.  You seem more intent on emotionally twisting my meanings to elicit a reaction you want than actually replying to my statements or questions.

Nibs