Facebook Picture Of Baby With Hands On Rifle Causes Stir

Well for what it is worth

I've been a Military and Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor for well over 27 years having taught on the Federal, State, County and Local level and I see nothing wrong with this picture

Just my 2 cents

reply to post by captaintyinknots

People are reacting like the gun was left lying around for the baby to find and shoot. It is a posed photo. there is no way that the child pictured could operate the bolt, much less lift the rifle.

I have seen photos of babies in automobiles.

It's not like anyone let them drive the cars though.... or that anyone expects the baby to scoot behind the wheel and go speeding away.

PLUS, the 'car' in the OP didn't have any gas in the tank OR keys in the ignition.

semperfortis
Well for what it is worth

I've been a Military and Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor for well over 27 years having taught on the Federal, State, County and Local level and I see nothing wrong with this picture

Just my 2 cents

So, as someone I respect and someone with intimate knowledge of weapons training: Have you ever taught someone that it is ok to treat a weapon as though it isnt loaded?

captaintyinknots
reply to post by kx12x

 

General gun safety. Its that simple. Ever see a marine say "sure, point that gun at people. Ive verified that its empty"?

What person is the gun pointed at in the photo? Do you see a different version of photo?

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.

Actually, there is. It doesn't run on magic and mystery. If you know what you are doing, you can 100% verfy that it is unloaded and safe.

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).

And so you just assume that it is pointed at someone? Again, are you seeing a different version of the photo than I'm seeing?

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.

There are plenty things more dangerous in "arms reach" of an infant at any given time, than an unloaded rifle. The bolt is open, so I presume the kid will have trouble putting a shell in and closing it. (He'd have to find a shell first too.)

A kid sitting next to an electrical socket is actually depicting something more dangerous.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The parents discretion in whether to allow their children to hold one is just that. Theirs.

Most infants are incapable of holding a 12 lb rifle. So imagine I laid that rifle across the two arms of a chair. And a parent asked "can i slide my child into the chair so I can take a picture"? Would that rifle suddenly become more dangerous with a child posing behind it? Is the infant who is incapable of even holding the rifle detach the box magazine, load said magazine, feed belt through receiver and activate the bolt release and disengage the safety?

Why did ABC use real guns in the children's school experiment? I will say they stated the guns were deactivated but very real. Now if the gentleman had completely removed the bolt deactivating the gun would that have been ok? Or removed the magazine so the mag safety wouldn't allow the weapon to fire?

Talk about semantics. Practical logic is the key.

reply to post by kx12x

What person is the gun pointed at in the photo? Do you see a different version of photo?

Ugh. This is going way over your head, and Im kinda done. If you dont understand that the point isnt whether or not there was a danger here, but rather that it shows irresponsibility on the adults side, I cant help you.

Actually, there is. It doesn't run on magic and mystery. If you know what you are doing, you can 100% verfy that it is unloaded and safe.

No, there really isnt. Every gun is to be treated as loaded. First thing they teach. How is this so hard to understand?

And so you just assume that it is pointed at someone? Again, are you seeing a different version of the photo than I'm seeing?

The only assumption is the one that you made that since you cant see anyone else in the pic, it isnt pointed at anyone.

But again, that is moot.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Have you ever taught someone that it is ok to treat a weapon as though it isnt loaded?

Got to clean it sometime

Never.. EVER.. clean a loaded weapon

So

Yes

Sorry but this is a posed picture just for fun and there is just far to much "Reading into it" to make any common sense at all..

boncho

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.

There are plenty things more dangerous in "arms reach" of an infant at any given time, than an unloaded rifle. The bolt is open, so I presume the kid will have trouble putting a shell in and closing it. (He'd have to find a shell first too.)

A kid sitting next to an electrical socket is actually depicting something more dangerous.

And? How does this change anything about the conversation at hand?

This thread has both the pro gun and the gun nuts, that people talk about.

Folks this thread is an example of people who use fun properly and people who would defend it by throwing semantics and crap around.


Gun responsibility down the drain.




What are these people gonna say next? Give an infant a bottle of cyanide?

ITS OKAY GUYS! Cyanide is actually inside the bottle and the bottle is sealed properly.

gawd!!

At least this thread will serve a purpose in the future during gun debates! bookmarked!

reply to post by semperfortis


Yep. But watch this come back to bite us in oh say 16 years when there's another school shooting and the future generation of ATS pulls out this thread and says SEE!?

reply to post by HomerinNC


I found this horrifying picture of a baby in direct contact with blood thirsty hounds who are inarguably far more capable of harming that poor child than any firearm which is not in a state of readiness to discharge.



How many more babies will be sacrificed? HOW MANY MORE?!?!?!?!

reply to post by greencmp


Hahahahahahahah!

(And awwwwwwwww....)

captaintyinknots
reply to post by kx12x

 

, then you know it is never ok to treat a weapon as though it isnt loaded.

Really?

Would you disassemble a loaded weapon? Guns are meant to be disassembled

Would you pull the trigger on a loaded gun to decock it? You have to pull the trigger on some firearms in order to service.

Would a store owner hand a loaded weapon to a customer? Store owners hand guns over too look at all the time.

Would you clean a loaded weapon? Everyone (should be) cleaning their weapons.

Would you ship a loaded gun through the mail? Shipping guns is legal as long as they are unloaded, and no other laws are being broken.

The answer to all those is no, you would not do those things with a loaded weapon. So the very idea that you always treat a gun as loaded is a simple minded rule for simple minded people, a gun is loaded until you personally have proven otherwise (usually by working the action and possibly finger banging the chamber)

In order to render a firearm safe to strip, safe to clean, safe to ship, safe to hand to a customer, etc a person must be knowledgeable of firearms to know how a particular one operates. Clearing a tube-fed shotgun you'll want to make sure the magazine is empty, sometimes you can visibly see the plunger while looking through the gate, sometimes you can't. A autoloading pistol will obviously need the magazine removed and chamber cleared before being safe.

We are assuming the father went through the normal process of rendering a gun safe before, and this assumption is backed up by the phsyical signs of a check (open bolt)

It's also backed up by the fact this is in a gun shop, and the counter guy would have done all those checks himself before even handing the gun over, although the father should still check the gun himself.

Once those things are done, the gun is at absolutely no risk to anybody. They aren't made of magic materials. Once rendered safe they are, and no amount of paranoia will give them any actual danger past the danger of upsetting emotionally controlled people.

reply to post by luciddream

ITS OKAY GUYS! Cyanide is actually inside the bottle and the bottle is sealed properly.

The gun isn't filled with poison and it isn't made of glass.

The biggest danger the rifle poses as it is shown in the photo... is as a club. A very expensive club that the baby could not pick up, much less swing.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

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.

Yes there is. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to clean there guns. "Treat every firearm like it's loaded" is a general statement which applies every time you pick up a gun. If you remove the clip, work the action and leave the bolt open, you can verify a rifle is empty up until you plan to set that rifle down.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

I was taught to treat every firearm as if it were loaded , until I could visually and physically be sure it was not loaded and rendered safe. These persons who took the photo made sure the weapon was safe, and any one with any training and common sense can tell in the photo the weapon is safe. It does not seem that the intention was to give the child a weapon, and a trained adult was present at arms reach just in case, besides, is it any of our business what this man does as long as no one was in danger?

captaintyinknots

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.

No, I get you and I agree 100%.

I'm not anti-gun whatsoever, but I also find it irresponsible. The article said he rested the gun in a holder or some kind of frame. Why the hell is the baby sitting right underneath?

I was taught that any gun is loaded, even if I just unloaded it. I was also taught never to place a gun where a child could touch it. I don't care if he's standing right there, covering the trigger with his hand -- you just don't flippantly plop guns down around kids.

I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here -- I wouldn't crucify him. I'd just note that it's in poor taste and makes other gun owners look less responsible and move on.

The dog pic is classic, and raises a perfectly good comparison.

There are probably millions of picture online of babies sleeping or sitting on big dangerous dogs, cats, or any other animal out there. Where is the outrage?

Where as an unloaded firearm sitting in front of a baby literally has no possible way of hurting it (aside from it falling on the baby, a danger every single object on earth has) a baby who is sitting with a dog or cat is in actual, real, serious danger. However tame a dog or cat is, they are ALL capable of moments of extremely violent outburst, which could tear a poor baby to shreds before their irresponsible parents have a chance to help.

Did that sound a little ridiculous? Good, because it was supposed to. People take baby pictures with pets all the time, we all know it's possible the pet will claw the hell out of the baby, why do we all forget about that and think it's so cute? Yet an unloaded firearm, which actually poses far LESS real danger than a dog or cat, gets so much outrage?

The answer is hypocrites and the easily controlled.

I don't really see anything wrong with this pic it's not loaded probably a lil heavy .

Not really different than putting my lil girl when she was old enough to sit up on a pose on my motorbike or with one of my guitars People take pride in their hobbies and want to show off their kids in them .

I really see no difference than my guitar on that kid and at that point that firearm would only be good at clubbing some one .

Now if the infant was firing it that might be a lil different story