(no subject)

[kokosbolla.livejournal.com]

Comments

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

The ad's emphasis on training and safety are admirable. OTOH, the greater access to firearms for rural youngsters inevitably means more firearms injuries and fatalities (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1775929/Gun-violence-and-children-factors.html), alongside any benefits. According to the ad, the wife's concern is the boy's young age, not guns or hunting. She probably wouldn't want junior taking flying lessons just yet, either. :-)

(There's something slightly creepy about the idea that "he might not have the chance later", by which I assume the ad means sonny might be down the mine or away at school or something, but suggests that ol' dad may not be long for this world. :-)

P.S. Thank you for engaging civilly.

[bolddeciever.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, if you assume that the ad is advocating giving the kid a gun that he can get out and play with any time he wants. But I don't think that's what the ad is saying. First, it specifically contains language about kids growing up thinking of guns as toys. Second, I did grow up in a household that had guns for hunting, and in that culture (and this comes both of my own experience and from other hunting families I knew), you're a lot less likely to habe guns lying around where kids are getting into them than in the suburban "I have a pistol by the bed to protect my house" crap. Yes, we were taught to use guns from a pretty young age, but we sure as hell didn't get to have them out when Dad wasn't immediately supervising. And assuming, as this ad implies, that there is already a hunter in the house, there are other guns in the house, presumably also stored safely and seperate from ammunition, so getting another one, and treating it as a firearm should properly be treated, isn't adding to that danger, and, arguably, the opportunity to train the kid in proper firearm safety and procedures is going to make the kid less likely to find Dad's gun and play cowboys and indians with it.