posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: Riffrafter
There is nothing wrong with a child learning to use a low powered weapon, designed for low recoil, slow rate of fire, and all that malarkey. Simply
put, if you have a right to bear arms written into the core values laid down by your nations constitution(you lucky buggers!!!) then it is necessary
to become familiar with all aspects of being a part of the society which came up around that constitution, as early as possible. However, since there
are ADULTS who cannot handle some automatic weapons, it is not reasonable to assume that someone who weighs in at around the "damp towel" mark,
ought to be able to begin training on one of the most ornery bastard guns ever created.
However, that is not to say that she should not have been handling weapons at all. I believe that it is a good idea to teach children about firearms
and knives and all manner of dangerous things, as early as possible because if done with some sense, that training will promote greater respect for
the equipment concerned, and a greater understanding of the use and safe treatment of such things. So yes, an UZI was a bad choice, and no, a
comparative pea shooter would not have been.