I'm a gun owner and I fully believe girls should know how to hunt and defend themselves with firearms just like boys... BUT this is irresponsible parenting and gun ownership in my book. A single shot .22 is one thing, but there is no practical reason for a child that age knowing how to fire (much less actually firing) an AR-15.
I can't help but think of the child soldiers in Africa when I look at that.
6 comments:
Every picture tells a story, don't it? - R. Wood & R. Stewart
With apologies to the Rons, my initial reaction to the photo pairing is that there may be less here than meets the eye.
Not knowing the context of the first photograph, I simply see a girl sighting an AR (the certified instructor part of me says that, relative to the photographer, she should not have her finger on the trigger, but possibly this is a staged photo). I don't know if the eyepatch is therapeutic, or an aid for cross-eye dominance.
If she were wearing a swastika armband, or had a white hood draped on the bench, I would be concerned, but her 'Peanuts' shirt with peace signs doesn't, for me, send up any yellow flags.
As a matter of disclosure, I don't own an AR, and am neither a fan nor critic of the 'black rifle'.
For the second photograph, I should, in all truth, have the same dispassionate objectivity. Yet, I would confess that I find myself inclined to believe, based on news reporting, that the youngster is a trained warrior. However, unlike someone like ComKev, I have no empirical evidence on which to draw to reach a conclusion. A small part of me says it may also be staged, in the same sense as 1979 Tehran student protests (when the cameras weren't rolling, they went back to sipping tea and smoking their hookahs) - probably not, but I simply don't know.
Going with the probabilistic (I checked - it's really a word) premise that the second youth is a combatant, carrying an AK nearly as tall as he is, my gut reaction is, as a Westerner, American, and father, that this is a terrible thing. And it is, BUT, I am forced to examine how I view this - through the filter of a Westerner, American, and father.
I'm not for a moment saying that it's a good idea for kids to be trained as killers simply because they had the poor fortune to be born in a backward or corrupt regime, or that his life on the other side of the globe is less valuable than that of a 'tween in Highland Park or Ridglea, but we have to at least recognize that, his life is governed by different cultural norms than our own.
So, in short, I'm not necessarily troubled by the first image - I would liken the couplet to a Venn diagram in which the sole common element is that both children are holding firearms.
BTW, my children have been taught to shoot, in target and hunting contexts. When they were young, I intentionally did not buy them toy guns, as I didn't want them to model the behavior of pointing them at people. In a similar vein, my club doesn't allow [human] silhouette targets, except for actual CHL qualification.
I probably went over my word limit...
The only thing I see disturbing is no visible hearing protection.
Wow, Donald. That is a dead-on (pardon the pun) post.
I just took the African warrior child as an equivalent(weapon/child).
My whole point is a child that age should not be firing that weapon. I'm sure she is the most responsible shooter on the range, but that weapon is outside her skill range.
A gun is a gun- one is not more inherently evil than the other since it is an inanimate object.
However, the M16/M4/AR class of firearms happen to be among the safest firearms I'm aware of due to among other factors: the intuitive placement of the safety, charging handle and magazine catch (it just 'feels right'). Also, as the last round is fired from a magazine the bolt remains in the rearward position- it can be visually cleared as safe or determined as hot with literally a glance by the shooter or observer/safety.
I would much rather teach a child with that type of firearm as opposed to the Marlin model 60 so many of us learned with.
It is also very forgiving recoil wise preventing flinching and generally promoting the novice shooter keeping their head in the game, being safe and not worrying about getting their head kicked in by say a, 30.06- as I actually learned to shoot with.
All of the black guns are more/less little and the carbines especially so and have collapsible stocks allowing good cheek welds/body posture- promoting more positive control.
There goes my last two cents.
But Chup, is there a legit reason to teach that skill to a child that age?
Take WWII for example. What percentage of boots do you think fired a semi-automatic (much less semi-auto assault) weapon before indoctrination?
We can agree to disagree, but I'd hate to think I needed to train my child to operate/maintain that weapon at that age.
I know they'd really think it's cool, but no.
YMMV.
Firstly, that weapon is a .22 caliber rifle.
Secondly, if that child lives in a household with that rifle, it's only responsible parenting that she should be familiar with it (for her own safety) before she's 7 years old. You want to take the mystery and fantasy out of guns, and you want your children to know exactly what they do (recoil, damage and all).
Gun safety is gun safety, and it does not matter whether a firearm is semi automatic or not - what matters is the bullet leaving the barrel.
IF you have kids in the house and own firearms, it's grossly irresponsible to not teach them how to handle them.
Post a Comment