Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Guns for kiddies

Did you know that there are guns that are made for children? Not toy guns. (That’s already a problem right there.) But real guns. The kind that shoot real bullets. The kind that kill.

I didn’t.

I didn’t know this until I read a short article last week deep inside the Los Angeles Times about a 5-year-old boy in Kentucky shooting and killing his 2-year-old sister. It was an accident.

But this wasn’t another story about a child finding a parent’s gun, with tragic results. The gun - a rifle - was given to the boy. It was a gift. A birthday gift last year.

Apparently, there are guns made for little kids. According to the article, “The rifle is a Cricket designed for children and sold under the slogan ‘My First Rifle,’ according to the company’s website. It is a smaller weapon that comes in child-like colors, including pink, red and swirls.”

Sure, “this was just a tragic accident” and “very, very rare,” as the county coroner says, but, on top of wondering how the parents now feel about this gift, I am left with this question: When guns are made for children, “in child-like colors,” when guns are given to five-year-olds, how can we argue, logically, sensibly, for gun restrictions using a schoolyard massacre as a reason for doing so?


  1. disgusting! and to think the NRA gun-toting maniacs are planning a July 4th march and "protest" in Wash DC w/LOADED RIFLES AND GUN! Help us all Jesus!

  2. The N.R.A. is and will buy our representatives, given an aurgument on the 2nd ammendment right. You're right on the point when you say sensibly and the gun toting conservatives are to blame, to the fact there are too many guns and not a leg to stand on, and the debate rages on the Constitutionality? All I want to sensibly argue is, if we are to control guns in America, we need to first get the N.R.A. and all the flag wavers a "second" look at the constitution, and propose, if there is not a valid definition of bearing arms, much less age wise, we need to rethink the constitution. When was the last time the first ammendment was ever implimented in the literal sense. I never can get published, much less heard, so where is the freedom in free speech and press, and if there is a difference then there should be a broad interpretation on the 2nd ammendment as well. I need to remind readers the interpretation is the scrutiny and the idealogic is the issue.