Facebook Picture Of Baby With Hands On Rifle Causes Stir

SonoftheSun
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Ok then. Please tell us, what could have happened here?

For that little moment the baby had it in front of him while everyone watching...what could have happened?

I can see my point going right over some heads here.

It isnt whether or not it was a danger at this particular moment. It is about RESPONSIBLE HANDLING OF WEAPONS. This is irresponsible, whether or not it is dangerous.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Simply stating it is so is not an explanation.

thisguyrighthere
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Simply stating it is so is not an explanation.

Have you ever taken any weapons training? If you had, youd know that the very first rule you learn is to treat every weapon as though its loaded.

But, hey, I get it. Anything to do with guns, good. Anything that calls into question the responsibility of the handler....bad.

...and we wonder why this conversation can never move forward.

captaintyinknots

kx12x
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Im not going to explain it again, and it is quite worrisome that so many of you defending this dont know the basics of responsible handling of weapons.

Please, I'm very informed on firearms saftey and responsibilty.

The barrel is not pointed at anyone (as far as I can tell)
The rifle is not loaded
Fingers off the trigger.

Care to explain to me how is it irresponsible?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

I can see my point going right over some heads here.

I won't apologize but yeah. It does.

It isnt whether or not it was a danger at this particular moment.

Oh. Okay..so??

It is about RESPONSIBLE HANDLING OF WEAPONS. This is irresponsible, whether or not it is dangerous.

According to your opinion, which I respect, but strongly disagree.

reply to post by kx12x

Please, I'm very informed on firearms saftey and responsibilty. The barrel is not pointed at anyone (as far as I can tell) The rifle is not loaded Fingers off the trigger. Care to explain to me how is it irresponsible?

Good lord, this is just silly.

If you are informed on firearm safety, then you know it is never ok to treat a weapon as though it isnt loaded.

On top of that, your statement that "it isnt pointed at anyone (as far as I can tell)" is downright foolish.

captaintyinknots

kx12x
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly responsible to leave a weapon, loaded or not, in reach of an infant?

He didn't "leave it", he is standing right there taking the picture. What, do you think the baby took a selfie?

So its not within arms reach of an infant?

Its funny, so far, the only counters to my statement are semantic based, at best.

Am I the only moron who realizes this was a GUN STORE? There were many weapons within reach of a child.

I own a gun store and children pose all the time with exotic weapons. What kid doesn't want to hold a belt-fed ar-15 ect?

Children aren't banned from my location. They are welcome.

reply to post by SonoftheSun


Not my opinion. The opinion of every firearm trainer in america. But hey, its all good.

reply to post by kx12x




Are you not listening to what the poster is saying?
If the golden rule, the fundamental thing, gun ownership 101 states that you treat every weapon as if it's loaded and handle with care.... then giving it to a baby, whether it's loaded or not, is irresponsible.
You may not agree and your own subjective opinion may differ.... BUT... the rule states that you should treat every firearm as if it's loaded.

If you don't understand that point, then repeating it another 5 times wont help.

TiedDestructor

captaintyinknots

kx12x
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

So, in your opinion, it is perfectly responsible to leave a weapon, loaded or not, in reach of an infant?

He didn't "leave it", he is standing right there taking the picture. What, do you think the baby took a selfie?

So its not within arms reach of an infant?

Its funny, so far, the only counters to my statement are semantic based, at best.

Am I the only moron who realizes this was a GUN STORE? There were many weapons within reach of a child.

I own a gun store and children pose all the time with exotic weapons. What kid doesn't want to hold a belt-fed ar-15 ect?

Children aren't banned from my location. They are welcome.

You regularly allow infants to handle weapons in your store?

Bottom line, celebrating irresponsible use of weapons is a BAD thing for the pro gun crowd.

It is not funny. It is not cute.

I never got the point behind parents taking these kinds of pictures. What point are they trying to make? That they're irresponsible jackasses?

They deserve all the flack they're receiving for sure. These are the kind of people that usually leave fire arms easily accessible to young children which usually end up with them accidentally shooting themselves.

Someone took what they thought was a cute pic. What's the huge deal?

Tomorrow they'll be all upset over something else.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Good lord, this is just silly.

If you are informed on firearm safety, then you know it is never ok to treat a weapon as though it isnt loaded.

If you 100% verified and know it's unloaded and safe, there is no harm in this picture. like I said: The barrel is not pointed at anyone (as far as I can tell). The rifle is not loaded. Fingers off the trigger. Also, the father is standing right there next to the baby.

On top of that, your statement that "it isnt pointed at anyone (as far as I can tell)" is downright foolish.

Any arugment as to why it's "downright foolish?"

reply to post by HomerinNC


It's funny to me that everyone is soooo concerned about the US, states, and conn, etc and make such a huge deal but you don't hear about in Africa nations where children as young as 6 shooting and killing, even having AK-47s and deaths everyday. Quick picking on us and worry about the worldly problem.

Bunch of asses and short sighted numbnuts if you ask me. I think we're not as much as a threat as most other nations right now.

Just to piss off some of you... I'm going to buy a new gun today. Eat it or bite me

reply to post by kx12x

If you 100% verified and know it's unloaded and safe, there is no harm in this picture. like I said: The barrel is not pointed at anyone (as far as I can tell). The rifle is not loaded. Fingers off the trigger. Also, the father is standing right there next to the baby.

General gun safety. Its that simple. Ever see a marine say "sure, point that gun at people. Ive verified that its empty"? This is the the most basic and simple rule of firearms. There is not such thing as "100% verified that its empty" in responsible handling of guns.

And again, adding "as far as I can tell" to your statement about where its pointed is silly. If you have to add that caveat to the statement, then you might as well not make the statement, because you simply dont know (not that its relevant anyway).

reply to post by blupblup

Are you not listening to what the poster is saying?
If the golden rule, the fundamental thing, gun ownership 101 states that you treat every weapon as if it's loaded and handle with care.... then giving it to a baby, whether it's loaded or not, is irresponsible.
You may not agree and your own subjective opinion may differ.... BUT... the rule states that you should treat every firearm as if it's loaded.

If you don't understand that point, then repeating it another 5 times wont help.

He didn't "give" it to the baby, he set it there, unloaded, safe and pointed at no one, just long enough to take a picture. Your argument is moot.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


So what you're saying is basically "its a gun!" So its evil and irresponsible for the father to set it safely on the BABY'S seat an snap a photo. Placing a firearm in a babys presence sounds bad when you take it out of context. But he did it for a picture. Didn't lay a loaded weapon down. In this pretence it seems safe. Kind of pointess, but under safe conditions.

reply to post by kx12x

He didn't "give" it to the baby, he set it there, unloaded, safe and pointed at no one, just long enough to take a picture. Your argument is moot.

Funny. First it was "he didnt leave it". Now its "he didnt give it". The baby has its hands on it. It has to be one or the other.

You argument contradicts itself.

ImpossibilityOfReason
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

So what you're saying is basically "its a gun!" So its evil and irresponsible for the father to set it safely on the BABY'S seat an snap a photo. Placing a firearm in a babys presence sounds bad when you take it out of context. But he did it for a picture. Didn't lay a loaded weapon down. In this pretence it seems safe. Kind of pointess, but under safe condotions.

Evil? You guys are so full of it. I never said evil, just like I never said dangerous. Why do you all feel the need to lie?

Ill continue to say it: Basic firearm responsibility. If you dont know it, you shouldnt be handling guns.