# Little Cricket



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Kids. The law says they can't drink booze, they can't smoke, they can't vote and the most certainly can't f*ck....

But they can have one of these....










I'm sure you can all guess what came next....

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html

I actually can't get my head around this story...

But then, I suppose the only thing that stops a five year old with a gun is a six year old with a gun....


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I cant help but wonder if the child had somehow started the car and run over his sister would you blame the car it self or the manufacturer?

Me ? Oh I'd blame the parents.

But it will never be possible to know how many kids learned basic gun safety, because responsible parents used the Crickett as intended, and thus accidents were prevented.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Right after graduating, I worked at a gun shop for a few months. We sold a crap-ton of those suckers. It is a bit disconcerting, but then again, when I was about 7, my dad bought me a Ruger 10/22 and a box of bullets at WalMart after I begged him, on the condition that I "take care of the groundhog situation."


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I remember being a 4 or 5 year old. Dad took me out and taught me how to shoot. He explained that sometimes, it's important to put meat on the table. My great grandfather was around during the depression. He was a schoolteacher, but couldn't make any money (and couldn't feed his family) on that. He became a trapper and made 4,000 dollars in a year hunting and trapping.

I've been shooting with my dad since that day. I don't keep our guns in my closet or under my bed, but I enjoy responsible shooting. I do have airsoft "guns" but don't really use them and I understand the difference between a toy and a rifle. 

By and large in my family, the men and ladies learn how to shoot. It's for food, for defense against wild animals and to a degree to kill pests like gophers, coyotes and the like.

Tom


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Kids. The law says they can't drink booze, they can't smoke, they can't vote and the most certainly can't f*ck....
> 
> But they can have one of these....
> 
> ...


It's another world isn't it, not merely another country. And the response is so predictable.......


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Jeez Louise, I do wish you guys would get some new material.. Your regurgitated blarney is getting old. Just so you know, if you really don't like The USA/Americans, we can live with that reality...we really can!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Canadian: I know exactly where you're coming from. Owning a fair number of sheep, horses, and llamas, getting rid of coyotes, deer, and groundhogs were a serious matter. Crop damage aside, it is easy enough for a horse to break his leg in a groundhog hole, but the total destruction of an animal's brain due to a meningeal worm (found in deer droppings) is horrifying and very sad. Needless to say, there was lots of opportunity to improve my marksmanship.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> I cant help but wonder if the child had somehow started the car and run over his sister would you blame the car it self or the manufacturer?


Your logic is flawed somewhat because - amongst the other items mentioned at the top of my first post - it's also illegal for a child old to drive a car. Hence the negligent parent will have some case to answer.

I appreciate that this recent incident took place in India, but I'd imagine the prosecution would happen anywhere.

But that's neither here nor there as the problem is one of purpose.

The topic of firearms in American society has been discussed ad-nauseum here and everywhere else for that matter. My post is not intended to dig up and restart that discussion. The reason for my post was one of shock - perhaps due to my own naievity on this matter - as I never thought it conceivable that there was a company out there who proudly make fully functional rifles for young children, let alone parents who buy them for their children. Of course the parents are to blame! The put a rifle into the hands of a child just turned five.

But there is obviously a larger issue that can't be ignored. A society, culture and legislative body that think it's acceptable that young children can own a firearm have a lot to answer for.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Victor: where you have pointed out that Hitch's logic is flawed is not really the flaw. A minor can legally drive a vehicle on private property if his parents are so inclined to let him. Similarly, a minor cannot legally possess a firearm (in, I think, 46 states) in public - that firearm is in the posession of the supervising adult. This incident took place on private property, so there is a solid comparison to driving a car. And, technically, that child could buy a car if he wanted to whereas he could not purchase a firearm. 

That said, I grew up around guns and all of my friends grew up around guns. I cannot recall a single one of any of us who had carte blanche access to a firearm before we were of a responsible age. No matter what sort of gun safety you teach kids, some kids will simply not be responsible with a gun and only that child's parents will (should) recognize that fact.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Jeez Louise, I do wish you guys would get some new material.. Your regurgitated blarney is getting old. Just so you know, if you really don't like The USA/Americans, we can live with that reality...we really can!


I like Americans _and_ I like guns.

It's still a bit daft to give a gun to a toddler, though.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

11'000 child deaths from drowning each year.
19'000 child choking incidents resulting in hospitalization
78'000 child poisoning cases each year (110 fatalities)
1'570 child deaths from abuse and neglect
Car accidents ????
Burns ????
2.3 million children treated for falls (80 fatalities)

153 child firearm deaths (9 and under)

176 child deaths in Pakistan from U.S. drone strikes.

Seems as if we should just ban parenthood.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> 11'000 child deaths from drowning each year. 19'000 child choking incidents resulting in hospitalization 78'000 child poisoning cases each year (110 fatalities) 1'570 child deaths from abuse and neglect Car accidents ???? Burns ???? 2.3 million children treated for falls (80 fatalities) 153 child firearm deaths (9 and under) *Seems as if we should just ban parenthood*.....


Now there's an idea I'd vote for.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> It's another world isn't it, not merely another country. And the response is so predictable.......


Always predictable!

If the kid didn't have a BB gun in the first place he wouldn't have been able to accidentally kill his sister.

I always say that it is the presence of guns that makes the use of guns unavoidable and thus incorrect usage is not always the fault of the user (mentally ill, child or inexperienced person fannying around with a loaded weapon).

I don't agree with Churchill's old saying, in that I don't think we are separated by a common language, I think we're separated from the Americans by alien mindsets. So much of American culture, ideas, thinking, ideology, legislation is totally alien to the way I think and feel.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I do wonder how many of those concerned with gun storage saftey and children, just toss their kitchen knives in an easily reachable drawer or in a loose block on the counter.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Always predictable!
> 
> If the kid didn't have a BB gun in the first place he wouldn't have been able to accidentally kill his sister.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, this was absolutely not a BB gun. A Cricket is a single shot rifle chambered for .22LR rounds.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Kids. The law says they can't drink booze, they can't smoke, they can't vote and the most certainly can't f*ck....
> 
> ...


Yes, yes...The law says.....I have happy enough memories of doing 3 out of the 4 you mentioned long before I was "allowed" to do so.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> ... Of course the parents are to blame! The put a rifle into the hands of a child just turned five.
> 
> But there is obviously a larger issue that can't be ignored. A society, culture and legislative body that think it's acceptable that young children can own a firearm have a lot to answer for.


You are trying but you still contradict yourself. A child is incapable of owning a car, gun or any real property unless emancipated.

Had the unfortunate child accidently drowned in the family's pool, would this be a story??

If not, why not??


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Once again, plenty of Texan Sharpshooters* out this evening... y'know... pick holes in minor superfluous detail, skim past the fact that a toddler killed another with a rifle and hope the discussion goes away. Until the next time. Then repeat. 

The two year old was not killed by a car, or a swimming pool or a drawer full of kitchen utensils or a toaster or the rapier wit of the Internet's best. None of these, are designed and build with the single purpose of propelling a bullet into something. Usually something alive. Then not, usually. 

His sister was killed by a rifle expressly designed and manufactured for children.

Oh, one small detail from the article - the Grandmother goes onto blame God and his will!

Let the grown-ups have their guns and whatnot. 

But to give a toddler a rifle - birthday present or otherwise - is perverse.

*pun intended


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Once again, plenty of Texan Sharpshooters out this evening... y'know... pick holes in minor superfluous detail, skim past the fact that a toddler killed another with a rifle and hope the discussion goes away. Until the next time. Then repeat.
> 
> The two year old was not killed by a car, or a swimming pool or a drawer full of kitchen utensils or a toaster or the rapier wit of the Internet's best. None of these, are designed and build with the single purpose of propelling a bullet into something. Usually something alive. Then not, usually.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't give my child a motorcycle yet there is enough of a market that they are indeed manufactured and sold. Do the few accidents, hospitalizations and deaths which occur from child motorcycle use agitate me to deny everyone their right to raise their child as they see fit? No.

A 5 year old is not a toddler by a long shot. Either you're not a parent or you're using words to play off of people's emotions.

I'm not sure why you get to decide the "minor details". In a debate, all facts relating to the topic are valid. You want to discuss household accidents with firearms as a reason for banning firearms, I simply showed you that there are much more lethal problems existing which come down to the same human error, carelessness, etc. If you have 70 times the poisonings as you have gun incidents it would show me that a concentration on educational programs and government interference should lie in this direction (unless your stated goal is to save the lives of less children for political reasons).


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I wouldn't give my child a motorcycle


Would you give your child - say your five year old - a rifle?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Would you give your child - say your five year old - a rifle?


The term "give" is a bit funny. I give my daughters $1,000 for each birthday but I certainly don't give them control over the money. I give them them boxes of chocolates too but alas I keep these under guard as well versus giving control to someone 18 months or 5 years. In my circumstances as a city dweller with 2 young daughters would I give a rifle as a birthday present? No. As a farmer who's capable of plinking cans with his son before dinner. Absolutely and I would treat it the same as the chocolates and the money (and you better believe my children get lessons on economics and nutrition). I let my 5 year old handle my set of professional knives supervised while we're in the kitchen together and I take the opportunity to teach her saftey. I also would let my 5 year old use my rifle, at the range, supervised by me all the while being taught lessons in handling and saftey. When we're done in the kitchen, the knives go back in their box and locked with a key and when we're done at the range the firearms go back in their cases, into the safe and locked in a key/dial safe.

Knives, guns, cars, food, money...These are all tools and not toys. I teach my child(ren) the difference but I don't trust them to remember the difference.

My 18 month daughter is a toddler (the stage when they start walking), certainly not the 5 year old. I would give my 5 year old a lesson in gun safety, not the 18 month old.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> The term "give" is a bit funny. I give my daughters $1,000 for each birthday but I certainly don't give them control over the money. I give them them boxes of chocolates too but alas, I keep these under guard as well versus giving control to someone 18 months or 5 years. In my circumstances as a city dweller with 2 young daughters would I give a rifle as a birthday present? No. As a farmer who's capable of plinking cans with his son before dinner. Absolutely and I would treat it the same as the chocolates and the money (and you better believe my children get lessons on economics and nutrition). I let my 5 year old handle my set of professional knives supervised while we're in the kitchen together and I take the opportunity to teach her saftey. I also would let my 5 year old use my rifle, at the range, supervised by me all the while being taught lessons in handling and saftey. When we're done in the kitchen, the knives go back in their box and locked with a key and when we're done at the range the firearms go back in their cases, into the safe and locked in a key/dial safe.
> 
> Knives, guns, cars, food, money...These are all tools and not toys. I teach my child(ren) the difference but I don't trust them to remember the difference.
> 
> My 18 month daughter is a toddler (The stage when they start walking), certainly not the 5 year old. I would give my 5 year old a lesson in gun safety, not the 18 month old.


While I'm not averse to youngsters being allowed the use of a firearm under responsible supervision (in the UK this is permitted, and for instance younger teenagers are not necessarily out of place on a shoot), I seriously doubt whether many 5-year-olds can have the necessary strength and control to handle a rifle, even one that has been adapted.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

oh. I do find it a bit disturbing that violence in movies is deemed acceptable while sex scenes are considered obscene. Of course sex is one of those things that should just be buried and never taught/talked about, something done only by married couples, under the sheets and with the lights out. 


Drinking: It's slightly odd that with so many alcoholics in the world (and you seem to want to save as many people as possible correct?) that you'd state the U.S. drinking age as something almost negative. Just what I love about Europe. Let your 16 year olds go out drinikng til 0500 when the bars close. 

Smoking: Smoking is banned about worlwide now but it still doesn't stop kids under 18 from getting them (at least not in any country I've been to).

Own a firearm? 18 as well in most states I believe. Same here in Switzerland. 

Everything you mentioned is age restrted for full usage rights. It doesn't mean they aren't experienced before the "age of consent". Some people give their kids sips of wine don't they? Women from age 15 & above can now get the "morning after pill & many parents support birth control pill usage. We could go on & on as to what's good for children from a societal point of view but the reality is that accidents happen and your one example of an accidental shooting supported by the mentioning of 3 vices (smoking, drinking, sex), doesn't really support your view that it's an A1A priority to take away the rights of 300 million people.

I suppose I could be criticial as to what I see as draconian abortion laws in Ireland. Didn't the hospital system there just kill an expectant mother by refusing an abortion in an emergency situation? This is horrible. Please change your laws and constitution to suit my viewpoint.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> While I'm not averse to youngsters being allowed the use of a firearm under responsible supervision (in the UK this is permitted, and for instance younger teenagers are not necessarily out of place on a shoot), I seriously doubt whether many 5-year-olds can have the necessary strength and control to handle a rifle, even one that has been adapted.


A 5 year old can accompany her father to the range after being given a verbal lesson on range safety and expected behavior. She can watch her father handle a weapon and listen while he's explaining all the procedures he is going through. She can observe the rifle being placed on a stand, sighted, etc. She can then go to the stand, sight the rifle, and practice her breathing, squeeze the trigger, etc. She can see the effects that a round has on a target and the differences in firearms (the .22 she was allowed to use is quite different from the .45 acp I might use next). She can experience the sound and smell. She can help with the cleaning and maintenance afterwards. She can learn to be respectful of the tool and the environment in which it is used.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> If you have 70 times the poisonings as you have gun incidents it would show me that a concentration on educational programs and government interference should lie in this direction (unless your stated goal is to save the lives of less children for political reasons).


I think people generally like to point fingers and snicker at persons less worthy and "sophisticated" than we are.

So while we are at it;

Two Arabs are sitting in a Gaza Strip bar chatting over a pint of fermented goats milk. One pulls his wallet out and starts flipping through pictures and they start reminiscing.

"This is my oldest son, he is a martyr."

"You must be so proud," says the other.

"This is my second son. He is a martyr also."

"A fine looking young man," replies his friend.

After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Arab says wistfully, "They blow up so fast, dont they?"​


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Langham said:


> While I'm not averse to youngsters being allowed the use of a firearm under responsible supervision (in the UK this is permitted, and for instance younger teenagers are not necessarily out of place on a shoot), I seriously doubt whether many 5-year-olds can have the necessary strength and control to handle a rifle, even one that has been adapted.


You've never shot a .22LR, have you? A Crickett weighs about 2.5-3.5 lbs depending on the package (they had a wood stock model that was a bit heavier). The reoil on a .22LR is around 0.2ft-lbs and the recoil velocity is immeasurably small.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

VictorRomeo said:


> Would you give your child - say your five year old - a rifle?


As has been proven tragically apparent, in the present instance, the five year old in question was to young. Any five year old would be too young for unsupervised access and again, tragically in this case proper storage was not provided for the "Cricket" rifle and the five year old was not being supervised at the time. However, I'm not sure it's fair to conclude that these specific circumstances are appropriate justification for jumping to conclusions about societal standards or about the depth of love the affected family held for all of their children. When I was 12 years old I was given my first center fire rifle and taught how to shoot that rifle and how to hunt. That same year I took my first buck and subsequently, I've enjoyed hunting all of my life. My grandsons are 8 and 10 years old, respectively, and I have had both of them on a range learning the fundamentals of shooting .177 caliber pellet rifles and pistols. They were well supervised by a well qualified instructor (specifically, me!) and closely supervised every moment they had hands on those firearms. When they turn 12 years of age it will be their turn to learn how to hunt! The family involved in the article which inspired this thread are all victims in a horrific tragedy...and now the focus of this Cyber-torment.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> Once again, plenty of Texan Sharpshooters* out this evening... y'know... pick holes in minor superfluous detail, skim past the fact that a toddler killed another with a rifle and hope the discussion goes away. Until the next time. Then repeat.
> 
> The two year old was not killed by a car, or a swimming pool or a drawer full of kitchen utensils or a toaster or the rapier wit of the Internet's best. None of these, are designed and build with the single purpose of propelling a bullet into something. Usually something alive.


 Last Time I went out to the range well over 100,000 rounds were fired and not one at any thing living.


> Then not, usually.
> 
> His sister was killed by a rifle expressly designed and manufactured for children.


 You mentioned flawed logic...


> Oh, one small detail from the article - the Grandmother goes onto blame God and his will!
> 
> Let the grown-ups have their guns and whatnot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Tilton said:


> You've never shot a .22LR, have you? A Crickett weighs about 2.5-3.5 lbs depending on the package (they had a wood stock model that was a bit heavier). The reoil on a .22LR is around 0.2ft-lbs and the recoil velocity is immeasurably small.


Actually I learned to shoot (when I was 13 - army cadet) with a .22, but it was a full-size rifle with a wooden stock. I was not thinking of the recoil, which I appreciate is negligible at that calibre, just the size and weight of a rifle needing to be held very still. Of course, I'm not familiar with the Crickett but I do find the idea of a 'child's rifle' quite odd.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

Langham,

When I was an army Cadet, we fired '22s in garrison and 303's whenever there was a proper occasion. Since being a Cadet, my father made sure I was familiar with multiple types of small arms. Once a year, the regiment would bring out all their "Stuff" and we got to practice with it.

It's one thing to fire prone and another thing to keep it around and play with it. Clearly here there was a parent who didn't recognize the fundamentals of safety.

Tom


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

I wonder; I just wonder if the boy; thinking he was just playing around; pointed the gun at his sister and pulled the trigger? This is why there should always be an adult around when a youngster has a firearm in his hands. Who left the gun loaded and no one knew about it? Why wasn't the gun locked up in a gun cabinet - since this was a household with children? I'm astonished that there exists a company whose purpose is to sell guns to kids as young as 4 or 5. I didn't have a .22 rifle until I was ten or eleven. I think that possession of a firearm by anyone younger than ten years of age should be banned. Yes I know it was just an accident, but if the boy didn't have the gun the accident wouldn't have happened.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I disagree. Unsupervised use by a child under ten should result in a charge of negligent use of a firearm on the parents. I have no objection to an 8 year old using a '22 rifle, provided they are supervised and the gun doesn't end up as just another toy. I never had a rifle in my possession, in my room, ever. Up here, the guns go in the gun locker and they come out when I'm going hunting or shooting. I have no objection to a gun being designed for a 5-year old. In my dad's gun safe, he has a rifle for his wife, my mother. A rifle is not dangerous when used with proper safety and that includes not leaving it around for a child to misuse. 

It's a sad deal and people will push it one way or another. I'm very much pro-gun, but I am also very much pro-safety. Up here, kids grow up around guns, but they're not to be considered a toy.

​Tom


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Just yesterday I read a yahoo.com news article that talked about this incident and included a picture of the family home, on the porch of which this tragedy occurred. It appeared to be a 40 to 50 year old, badly rusted and sagging 'single-wide' trailer, perched precariously on the side of a lightly forested mountain. The rusting hulk of an ancient vehicle of some sort, sat rusting away in the side yard of the family home. Say hello to Appalachia, gentlemen. Assuming this article was genuine and not some (intended) humorous spoof of this tragedy, this is not a valid sample on which to base conclusions as to parenting standards of an average American family or of firearms policies embraced by this or any other nation. Rather, perhaps this incident serves witness to the sadly insufficient best efforts of a family beaten up and downtrodden by the harsh realities of life, trying to get through a really tough life the best way they know how?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Any five year old would be too young for unsupervised access and again, tragically in this case proper storage was not provided for the "Cricket" rifle and the five year old was not being supervised at the time.


That about sums it up. My daughter is 5. As much as I love to shoot, and as determined as I am that she will learn to shoot, I am not about to give her a gun to do with as she will, nor afford her ready access to a loaded gun. I don't even give her toy guns - not because I think toy guns are evil (goodness knows I loved them as a boy), but because I don't want her to have any confusion on the point that she is NOT TO TOUCH A GUN at this point.

In a year or two (or longer or shorter, depending on judgment), she will go (likely with me and my father) to a field far from others; there will be a safe direction to point and fire a gun (into a large hillside). A rifle with a single bullet will be held for her while she aligns the sights and pulls the trigger. One of my hands will be on the gun. One will be on her. If she enjoys it, we may repeat it. At the end of the learning experience, the unloaded gun will go back into a case, and she will not touch it again (even learning to clean a gun, which almost necessarily involves handling a gun in a home, rather than a range, IMO requires judgment beyond what a 6 or 7 yo can manage) until the next time we go out to shoot.

In short, there are entirely responsible and safe ways to introduce youngsters to guns, and recklessly unsafe ways.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> It's another world isn't it, not merely another country. And the response is so predictable.......


As are the complaints.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Pentheos said:


> As are the complaints.


Come now Pentheos...putting aside the obvious cherry picking of an extreme example to support a conclusion (gun control, poor parenting, or just plain American barbarism), they always know what's best for us. Look how well they did over the centuries up to the present time.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

And America, since it's inception, has done _*so*_ well, hasn't it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> And America, since it's inception, has done _*so*_ well, hasn't it.


Well they certainly seem to have a rather big influence on the U.K. It must really be saying something if Blair was considered the lap dog of the honorable Bush admin. After all its history, does your little island have much more to show for it than the U.S.?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Regillus said:


> I wonder; I just wonder if the boy; thinking he was just playing around; pointed the gun at his sister and pulled the trigger? This is why there should always be an adult around when a youngster has a firearm in his hands. Who left the gun loaded and no one knew about it? Why wasn't the gun locked up in a gun cabinet - since this was a household with children? I'm astonished that there exists a company whose purpose is to sell guns to kids as young as 4 or 5. I didn't have a .22 rifle until I was ten or eleven. I think that possession of a firearm by anyone younger than ten years of age should be banned. Yes I know it was just an accident, but if the boy didn't have the gun the accident wouldn't have happened.


Do you know of a company that sells guns to five year olds?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Hitch said:


> Do you know of a company that sells guns to five year olds?


Yes; the company is named Crickett. Of course an adult must buy the gun for the kid. However, what the company does is make a lightweight version of the .22 rifle specifically so that kids as young as 4 or 5 can easily hold the gun up and fire it. Which I don't think they should do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Well they certainly seem to have a rather big influence on the U.K. It must really be saying something if Blair was considered the lap dog of the honorable Bush admin.


Yes, I suppose it must, but I'm not sure what. Can you enlighten us please?



justonemore said:


> After all its history, does your little island have much more to show for it than the U.S.?


 Apart from creating the US you mean?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Regillus said:


> Yes; the company is named Crickett. Of course an adult must buy the gun for the kid. However, what the company does is make a lightweight version of the .22 rifle specifically so that kids as young as 4 or 5 can easily hold the gun up and fire it. Which I don't think they should do.[/QUOTE_]
> 
> _ Originally Posted by *Hitch* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1395847#post1395847
> _Do you know of a company that sells guns to five year olds?_
> ...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Yes, I suppose it must, but I'm not sure what. Can you enlighten us please?
> 
> Apart from creating the US you mean?


 LOL By losing two wars that should have been Falkland style walk overs.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Yes, I suppose it must, but I'm not sure what. Can you enlighten us please?
> 
> Apart from creating the US you mean?


Again please state the point you are trying to make: poor parenting, the flood of weapons in the US, American barbarism, or what not. Your ultimate point is not an issue for me, but speak it rather than putting up an extreme example and leaving it ambiguous.

Instead you take credit for the creation of the US? The word which comes to mind is hubris. If the US was created by you, what was that little dispute about in 1776? Or are you suggesting that we owe you credit for creating the circumstances leading to the Revolution? Either way, Sir, although I genuinely like your taste in fashion, the obtuse game of ping-pong can serve no further purpose. We can agree that we are poor debate partners.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Yes, I suppose it must, but I'm not sure what. Can you enlighten us please?


Well it's not every country that can admit to commiting international war crimes at the urgence of the Bush Admin. and walk away without any prosecutions. Torture, extraordinary renditon,overthrowing the govering party of a foreign state, complicity. Any of this ringing a bell? Surely 5-10 minutes of research on your own will turn up some of the basics.

I would hope that a prohibitionist, restrictionist, pro-government interference gent, such as yourself, wouldn't advocate breaking the law...OI... let me guess..It's o.k. if you and those who hold your viewpoints do it, but others should follow the letter of the law and fall in line with what you believe?

Didn't Blair lie to your parliment several times in order to get permission to join (and continue) the fun in Iraq? Is deceiving parliment and your constituants legally acceptable in the U.K.?

Other than perhaps your clothing, I'm not sure what advantages you feel the U.K. holds. Your economy is trash, you have a 20% poverty rate, you have higher rates of violent crime, housing is rare/expensive, your government is just as corrupt and plays off that tabloid/hollywood trash so familiar to Americans, etc. etc. etc. I suppose your education system in and of itself might be 2-3 places ahead of the U.S. but your students test lower in the basics. Health care? It appears you have problems of your own over there as well.

I've always found the U.K a lovely place with a lovely populace but you're being a bit nationalistic if you really believe that a smaller version of the U.S. is much better than the U.S. itself.



Chouan said:


> Apart from creating the US you mean?


what a poetically optimistic viewpoint on Britain's role. I hope you chaps rested on the 7th day.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Hitch said:


> LOL By losing two wars that should have been Falkland style walk overs.


I am trying hard to think which two wars you mean. I think Suez - a classic debacle - may have been the last military encounter that we failed to 'win'. But compared to the Falklands, even Suez would never have been a walk-over, had we chosen to persist. Perhaps you are referring to our much earlier failure to impose authority on the fledgling USA?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

"In 1814 we took a little trip..."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Earlier today the wife and I were attending Sunday services and prior to the start of the service I was scanning the bulletin I was handed as we walked into the sanctuary. Noting the title of the sermon had been changed to "What's Wrong With This Country of Ours" and reflecting on the content of several of these recent Interchange threads, I thought for a moment that Chouan might have volunteered to come in for the morning as a guest speaker, intending to set we poor colonials straight! Thank heavens I was mistaken.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Hitch said:


> Regillus said:
> 
> 
> > Yes; the company is named Crickett. Of course an adult must buy the gun for the kid. However, what the company does is make a lightweight version of the .22 rifle specifically so that kids as young as 4 or 5 can easily hold the gun up and fire it. Which I don't think they should do.[/QUOTE_]
> ...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Your logic has is yet to improve.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> "In 1814 we took a little trip..."


Oh, you mean Madison's War, when the US repeatedly invaded Canada but were defeated repeatedly.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Well it's not every country that can admit to commiting international war crimes at the urgence of the Bush Admin. and walk away without any prosecutions. Torture, extraordinary renditon,overthrowing the govering party of a foreign state, complicity. Any of this ringing a bell? Surely 5-10 minutes of research on your own will turn up some of the basics.
> 
> I would hope that a prohibitionist, restrictionist, pro-government interference gent, such as yourself, wouldn't advocate breaking the law...OI... let me guess..It's o.k. if you and those who hold your viewpoints do it, but others should follow the letter of the law and fall in line with what you believe?
> 
> ...


You people are dreadfully sensitive, and defensive, aren't you. What an enormous chip you must have on your shoulder to launch into such an attack on the UK because a few Europeans on this site have suggested that US gun obsession is viewed as different! How would you react if we actually did criticise the culture of the US! Or actually were as anti-American as you people seem to be anti-British.



justonemore said:


> what a poetically optimistic viewpoint on Britain's role. I hope you chaps rested on the 7th day.


If you look at the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Bill of Rights, and the theorists behind them, such as Tom Paine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine you'll see that they, and their views, are English, mostly. I would suggest, therefore, that Englishmen living in America founded the US, based on English, or British, views of the enlightenment. Thus, when a country settled largely by the British, using the English language, and with a largely British culture, with local variants of English Law, based on English legal and political concepts, even if these had moved on in the home country, became independent, I would suggest that the newly independent country is a product of the UK. Even if the newly established country has lost it's way, culturally, politically and socially since independence, it is still a construct of the parent country.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Earlier today the wife and I were attending Sunday services and prior to the start of the service I was scanning the bulletin I was handed as we walked into the sanctuary. Noting the title of the sermon had been changed to "What's Wrong With This Country of Ours" and reflecting on the content of several of these recent Interchange threads, I thought for a moment that Chouan might have volunteered to come in for the morning as a guest speaker, intending to set we poor colonials straight! Thank heavens I was mistaken.


Well, you might have gained some enlightenment if that had been the case. Still, any suggestion by a European that an aspect of US culture is worthy of criticism seems to create a storm of defensiveness, accusations of anti-Americanism, or criticisms of Europe or the UK. Surely you are secure enough in your National Identities to feel quietly confident about yourselves, rather than constantly feeling the need to assert yourselves in such childish ways. Especially when the examples given are so often mythology rather than history.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> LOL By losing two wars that should have been Falkland style walk overs.


Can you enlighten us further please? We have your suggestion that one is America's war of aggression against Canada, which ended in the USA's defeat, despite the UK being at war with Napoleon's France at the time. So your suggestion there is incorrect. 
You have yet to explain the other, and I wait with interest to see what it might be.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

LMAO That was Chouan's suggestion Swettie, maybe your glasses need cleaning


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> You people are dreadfully sensitive, and defensive, aren't you. What an enormous chip you must have on your shoulder to launch into such an attack on the UK because a few Europeans on this site have suggested that US gun obsession is viewed as different! How would you react if we actually did criticise the culture of the US! Or actually were as anti-American as you people seem to be anti-British.
> 
> .


Odd. Was it not you that asked for further "enlightenment" as to my previous posting in this thread? I simply pointed out that your observation that the U.S. has come "SO far" was much like the kettle calling the pot black. It appears that the U.K. and the U.S. are suffering much the same ills (be it violence, poverty or two faced politics).

I'm not sure who you mean by "you people", but I doubt many members on this board are in the same circumstances as I am. As I moved out of the U.S. almost 10 years ago in political protest, I wonder what type of chip I must have on my shoulder. I do hope you aren't suggesting that I would be defending a policy only because it comes from the U.S. That being said, I would more than welcome your critical input on anything out of the U.S. (or the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, etc. They probably all have a few policies you disagree with) but you appear to be stuck on gun control

Defensive? Ater your inital "attack", I countered. This is hardly defensive. It's an online debate my friend and quoting facts is hardly "Anti-British" versus the hard truth. Despite all its history and its smaller size, all its anti-gun policies & cameras in the street (and although you seem to suggest otherwise), the U.K. is in no better position at this current point in history than the U.S. Odd you quickly went for the "Anti-British" route, are you trying to play off of emotions again? If you need to resort to name calling when faced with facts it would seem you're the one being "sensitive" and "defensive".


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I am pretty sure that Hitch was referring to the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812, where the British probably should have trampled the US but failed to do so. The major influence the British had on America was the oppression that lead to Americans seeking and achieving indepdendence. I am not sure how you can see that as GB "creating" America, without some significant nationalistic delusions.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Odd. Was it not you that asked for further "enlightenment" as to my previous posting in this thread? I simply pointed out that your observation that the U.S. has come "SO far" was much like the kettle calling the pot black. It appears that the U.K. and the U.S. are suffering much the same ills (be it violence, poverty or two faced politics).
> 
> I'm not sure who you mean by "you people", but I doubt many members on this board are in the same circumstances as I am. As I moved out of the U.S. almost 10 years ago in political protest, I wonder what type of chip I must have on my shoulder. I do hope you aren't suggesting that I would be defending a policy only because it comes from the U.S. That being said, I would more than welcome your critical input on anything out of the U.S. (or the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, etc. They probably all have a few policies you disagree with) but you appear to be stuck on gun control
> 
> Defensive? Ater your inital "attack", I countered. This is hardly defensive. It's an online debate my friend and quoting facts is hardly "Anti-British" versus the hard truth. Despite all its history and its smaller size, all its anti-gun policies & cameras in the street (and although you seem to suggest otherwise), the U.K. is in no better position at this current point in history than the U.S. Odd you quickly went for the "Anti-British" route, are you trying to play off of emotions again? If you need to resort to name calling when faced with facts it would seem you're the one being "sensitive" and "defensive".


Well, in terms of "attack", my post, that is described as an attack read:

_*"*__*It's another world isn't it, not merely another country. And the response is so predictable......."*_

Not much of an attack, in all honesty, I wouldn't have thought. It was "countered" with:

*"**Come now Pentheos...putting aside the obvious cherry picking of an extreme example to support a conclusion (gun control, poor parenting, or just plain American barbarism), they always know what's best for us. Look how well they did over the centuries up to the present time."*

Which strikes me as a suggestion of "how dare you criticise us when Europe isn't perfect". If you have a different interpretation on the above, please let me know what it is!
My response "And America, since it's inception, has done *so* well, hasn't it." Is, I think about as measured as it could be, in the circumstances.

Well, in terms of "attack", my post, that is described as an attack read:

*"It's another world isn't it, not merely another country. And the response is so predictable......."*

Not much of an attack, in all honesty, I wouldn't have thought. It was "countered" with:

*"*_*Come now Pentheos...putting aside the obvious cherry picking of an extreme example to support a conclusion (gun control, poor parenting, or just plain American barbarism), they always know what's best for us. Look how well they did over the centuries up to the present time."*_

Which strikes me as a suggestion of "how dare you criticise us when Europe isn't perfect". If you have a different interpretation on the above, please let me know what it is!

My response _*"And America, since it's inception, has done so well, hasn't it."*_ Is, I think about as measured as it could be, in the circumstances.

Your reaction to my request for enlightenment over your comments about Blair turned into, well, an attack on the UK, without actually clarifying your point at all.

Hitch made his rather opaque remark about losing two wars* "LOL By losing two wars that should have been Falkland style walk overs."* I'm still uncertain as to what he was referring to&#8230;.. Was that a barb aimed at the UK? I rather thought so, wouldn't you?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I am pretty sure that Hitch was referring to the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812, where the British probably should have trampled the US but failed to do so.


Look at the History of both. In the War of American Independence, Britain was fighting the US on it's home soil, at the end of a very long logistical tail, across the Atlantic, whilst also fighting Spain and France. France, at that time, had the most powerful Navy in the world (unsustainably, leading directly to their Revolution) and effectively controlled the Atlantic, as well as sending troops, equipment and leaders to help the Continental forces. How the UK was supposed to have "trampled" the US in those circumstances is difficult to grasp, especially as a significant part of Britain was opposed to the war, believing it to be an unjust war. The war of aggression started by the US in 1812 was a very minor conflict to the UK, when the UK's main enemy was Bonaparte's France. The RN was exhausting itself with a blockade of France, the army was in the Peninsular, or at home, the forces available to defend Canada against US invasion were very small, with very little chance of substantive reinforcement. Even so, the RN was able to effectively blockade the US and bring the US economy close to collapse, leading to the end of the war, without the territorial gains sought by the invasions. Not a Falklands style defeat of the invaders, but a successful resistance to invasion whilst fully engaged in a war in Europe.



Tilton said:


> The major influence the British had on America was the oppression that lead to Americans seeking and achieving indepdendence. I am not sure how you can see that as GB "creating" America, without some significant nationalistic delusions.


Can't you? Try reading the second part of post number 52 for guidance, then explain how the US wasn't created by Britain. Perhaps, whilst you're at it, you could think about your statement "The major influence the British had on America was the oppression that lead to Americans seeking and achieving indepdendence." and amend it to the more realistic and accurate statement "Perhaps an influence the British had on America was the perceived oppression that lead to some Americans seeking and achieving independence, with the aid of France and Spain." Many Americans did not share the view of the wealthy who saw independence as beneficial to the 13 Colonies, most Black Americans certainly didn't share their view, rightly, I think you'll agree, given American and British views of slavery at the time, neither did many native peoples share their view either. Again rightly. But perhaps you only think of white anglo-saxons as being Americans?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Well, in terms of "attack", my post, that is described as an attack read:
> 
> _*"*__*It's another world isn't it, not merely another country. And the response is so predictable......."*_
> 
> ...


Your post #37 is not addressed as a response to Pentheos and appears to be a general comment. As a general comment it could indeed be considered as snide and I chose to counter by comparing the 2 countries current situations (again, it was you who requested that I try to further my arguement) without basing my comments on posts by other members. If my intent wasn't clear to you, then I apologize, but after all is said and done, the facts remain the facts; You're all in the same sinking boat and strict gun control laws (or none at all) haven't solved the underlying problems of violence and household accidents.

You see problems with U.S. gun policy yet seem to have no opinion on the higher numbers of violent crime that occurs in the U.K....... Using the U.K. as an example we can see that gun control has not solved the problem of violence. The particular case in discussion was a household accident. Unfortunate? Yes, but no more so than the baby down the street who drank a bottle of cleanser and died. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, firearms count for very little in the way of household accidents and for the most part this is nothing more than a political play on emotions.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Your post #37 is not addressed as a response to Pentheos and appears to be a general comment.


It was a direct response to that made by Joseph Peter in the previous post, who quoted Pentheos.



justonemore said:


> As a general comment it could indeed be considered as snide and I chose to counter by comparing the 2 countries current situations (again, it was you who requested that I try to further my arguement) without basing my comments on posts by other members. If my intent wasn't clear to you, then I apologize, but after all is said and done, the facts remain the facts; You're all in the same sinking boat


I wasn't sure what you were trying to say re Blair, that's why I asked you to clarify, especially as neither I nor a significant number of people in the UK voted for his Party. None voted for him, as such, as PM's aren't elected leaders, not elected by the people anyway. 
My initial post, that seems to have caused offence, was a statement in agreement with the person who started the thread.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think it's interesting that threads about guns tend to turn into threads about how great or terrible America is overall (and, by extension/comparisson, how great or terrible other countries are). Makes you wonder if people in the rest of the world imagine the US to be a blood-soaked place with suppressing fire needed to get out one's front door in the morning.

FWIW, I think it fairly obvious that the UK had a profound influence on the thinking and structure of America. If you go to law school (except in Louisianna), you learn a good deal about the English common law and how it provided - and still provides, to some extent - the "default" setting for most procedural and substantive law in America. But we also have some very fundamental differences about the role of the state vis-a-vis the individual. If it's not taboo to use French in this conversation, then I say _vive la difference_! You may now return to trash-talking about conflicts 2+ centuries in the past.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

As the 6th largest arms exporter in the world, I would wonder why U.K. residents opposed to firearm violence wouldn't perhaps be more interested in stopping the export of such problematic tools. I would imagine the arms you're selling do more damage than most of the firearms in U.S. domestic households. You also have the fourth largest defense budget globally. It seems that Americans aren't the only ones obsessed with the arms industry.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> I think it's interesting that threads about guns tend to turn into threads about how great or terrible America is overall (and, by extension/comparisson, how great or terrible other countries are). Makes you wonder if people in the rest of the world imagine the US to be a blood-soaked place with suppressing fire needed to get out one's front door in the morning.
> 
> FWIW, I think it fairly obvious that the UK had a profound influence on the thinking and structure of America. If you go to law school (except in Louisianna), you learn a good deal about the English common law and how it provided - and still provides, to some extent - the "default" setting for most procedural and substantive law in America. But we also have some very fundamental differences about the role of the state vis-a-vis the individual. If it's not taboo to use French in this conversation, then I say _vive la difference_! You may now return to trash-talking about conflicts 2+ centuries in the past.


Do you not think this has to do with the "Holywood" style politics played in the U.S.? Gun control isn't a major debate in most countries or if it is, it's not highly publicized. This seems to go towards many "issues" in the U.S. You have very volatile public debates on issues that are played off emotionally versus logically. They appear to be major issues when seen as "an American thing". Just about everyone knows U.S. issues, who knows much of anything about about other nation's policies and problems? For every 100 articles on the U.S. in Swiss papers, there's problably one mention of Switzerland in U.S. newspapers. It's probably easiest to compare yourself to what is known and be critical of what you might see as injustices. Most people probably don't know Switzerland banned minerets by popular vote (nor do they care) so they aren't likely to discuss the socialand political implications of a Swiss policy. Could you imagine if the U.S. did the same? You could probably hear the outcry from the moon. After the initial problem has been seen, we then tend to look at the other parts of the society both good and bad. It's easy to say that American's have an afinity for firearms yet one has to look at many issues in order to understand why this is (Consitutuional rights, defensive/crime issues, historic, working, sporting, etc. etc.) . Society afterall is connected in many ways.

For my part, I was indeed curious as to how someone who has no influence on U.S. politics would be advocating a change of law in the U.S. when he could be gathering support to stop injustices in a country where he has direct influence (If voters actually have any influence in politics for either country is another story altogether).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Very interesting points, justonemore. America certainly sees itself as the center of the world. Most people here just don't know or care about other countries unless they vacation there or we're involved in a prolonged military conflict there. And you are certainly correct that our political discourse amplifies various subjects all out of proportion to their significance, and downplays others by ignoring them. Guns are a great example of this... gun deaths are on the decline in America, even as the number of guns increases; that said, while gun deaths are rare here, there are less rare than in some other countries. Yet we oscilate between treating gun violence as a total non-issue and an extistential crisis. And that's typical. Budget deficiets are of no concern to anyone for years, then suddenly they are the only thing that matters. We're all Keynsians now, except for when there's a surge to do away with all central banking functions entirely. The quality of discourse just sucks.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> I think it's interesting that threads about guns tend to turn into threads about how great or terrible America is overall (and, by extension/comparisson, how great or terrible other countries are). Makes you wonder if people in the rest of the world imagine the US to be a blood-soaked place with suppressing fire needed to get out one's front door in the morning.


 Sometimes when American members explain the need for firearms for personal defence, it does seem like that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> For my part, I was indeed curious as to how someone who has no influence on U.S. politics would be advocating a change of law in the U.S. when he could be gathering support to stop injustices in a country where he has direct influence (If voters actually have any influence in politics for either country is another story altogether).


If I'm not being overly presumptive here, if indeed you are referring to me and my views, you'd be hard pressed to find a post from me anywhere on this site that advocates anything at all about US politics or law. I've expressed views, as we all have, and can, but I've made no suggestions as to what could or couldn't be done about anything. It's not my place.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> If I'm not being overly presumptive here, if indeed you are referring to me and my views, you'd be hard pressed to find a post from me anywhere on this site that advocates anything at all about US politics or law. I've expressed views, as we all have, and can, but I've made no suggestions as to what could or couldn't be done about anything. It's not my place.


Comment made in reference to cuffdaddys post as to how other people see the U.S. and not directed towards you or anyone in particular. I do admit that my example as to Weapon Exportation did concentrate on the British critisms of U.S. gun policies. I could of course be against British arms sales and say so, but doesn't it seem just a tad hypocritical when it comes from someone that comes from a country produces and sells much more? Especially when it's not put it into a proper context? All countries have their faults & when I look at the world today, I really have to wonder if there are any functioning governments/societies at all. Perhaps some of our northern neighbors come close? They usually rank quite high in quality/satsifaction of life and are usually better with education and health.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Sometimes when American members explain the need for firearms for personal defence, it does seem like that.


Well, when people are talking about why they want fire extinguishers, a listener might conclude that house fires are common.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Hitch said:


> Your logic has is yet to improve.


Have you heard that old saying in the law?: "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Regillus said:


> Have you heard that old saying in the law?: "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


see #49


----------

