Wannabewoodsman
Custom
Not disagreeing but if you read what gun control advocates are saying it's "REEEEE"
gun maker under fire (no pun intended)
- Thread starter Old_Me
- Start date
Keystone19250
SAINT
I have to admit you both have made valid good points, I believe we are walking on egg shells after the latest with Remington so I will just say I hope this doesn’t go sideways as fast as it could.
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Toy guns made to resemble real guns have been around and marketed to kids for years and years, although I'll admit I've seen fewer and fewer of them over those same years. Most all of us had at least one set of cowboy double holster rigs or Thompson SMG in our younger days. I can't say for certain about anybody else, but none of mine, and I had several of each, never turned me into a mass shooter.
And we've all seen many manufacturers of well known firearms make 'youth' models of those firearms. They're generally a little smaller, a little lighter, a little shorter length of pull, etc. Most of them too small for full grown adults, but never intended for them anyway. The fact they are/were designed for young folks was to have a firearm available that those same young folks could handle safely and with ease under proper instruction.
I remember many, many youth firearm's safety programs. 4H, Boy/Girl Scouts, FF of A, High School shooting teams, etc, etc. At least some of these would likely not have been possible/practical without these purpose made and low cost firearms. And this doesn't even take into account all the many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of kids who were able to follow along with dad, or grandpa, or some other responsible adult into the field or woods while learning safe and responsible gun handling with a real firearm that actually fit them.
While it is likely the manufacturer is certainly marketing these JR15's to kids, it must be recognized they can only be purchased by mom and/or dad. Kids cannot buy them. The article that brought this to light as I understand is a hard left leaning rag that carefully chose all the right words to make the whole story sound as irresponsible and as evil as possible in describing this new item. And as several here have said, it's just more fodder for the anti gun crowd. But "'fodder' is as 'fodder' does" according to ol' Forest. On the other hand, we the pro gun crowd cannot and must not continue to concede more and more to them. I don't know what the whole answer is but I do know this ............
Many years ago while teaching the state hunter safety program, our instructor training included a series called "Words Mean Things". What that meant was that we should continue to talk about our hunting experiences, but we should also be aware of the words we chose to describe them. If we talked about how we "shot the hell" out that ol' buck, or we "blew through both lungs" and "all the way through" him, it conveys a really bad picture of what we all know is real hunting. We could convey the very same things by choosing different words like we "took him with one quick, humane shot". It's in no way conceding anything, it's simply being smart in the words we choose.
Or as someone mentioned earlier about throwing a big gutted, buck on the hood or fender of our trucks and parading them through town. We all know he's dead and that it had to be, but we can also be respectful of the deer and those who have differing ideas about hunting than we do, and put him in the bed of the truck where he's not so 'in your face'. Again we're not conceding anything to anyone in these cases, we're simply being respectful of other's opinions while still pursuing our sports and/or hobbies. And in any gun conversations with the other side, we can choose our words better to describe our activities without giving them ammunition to make us sound like a bunch of killers/butchers. We're not likely to ever sway very many anti-gunners/hunters, but we can often sway some non-gunners/hunters.
The same holds true when talking about guns in general. I agree we don't need to concede anything to them, but when the opportunity arises we can explain how even though marketed 'for' kids rather than 'to' kids, this particular gun is designed for the parents/adults to teach kids real gun safety and that's the reason it's smaller (kid's size), small caliber (22LR for kids), a single shot capacity unless the adults change it (the mag), and a kid proof mechanical safety requiring adults to operate. Much the same as when we explain the difference between semi-auto vs full-auto actions, and/or the differences between the AR15 and a true 'assault' rifle.
I don't know ............ maybe jus' me !!!
And we've all seen many manufacturers of well known firearms make 'youth' models of those firearms. They're generally a little smaller, a little lighter, a little shorter length of pull, etc. Most of them too small for full grown adults, but never intended for them anyway. The fact they are/were designed for young folks was to have a firearm available that those same young folks could handle safely and with ease under proper instruction.
I remember many, many youth firearm's safety programs. 4H, Boy/Girl Scouts, FF of A, High School shooting teams, etc, etc. At least some of these would likely not have been possible/practical without these purpose made and low cost firearms. And this doesn't even take into account all the many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of kids who were able to follow along with dad, or grandpa, or some other responsible adult into the field or woods while learning safe and responsible gun handling with a real firearm that actually fit them.
While it is likely the manufacturer is certainly marketing these JR15's to kids, it must be recognized they can only be purchased by mom and/or dad. Kids cannot buy them. The article that brought this to light as I understand is a hard left leaning rag that carefully chose all the right words to make the whole story sound as irresponsible and as evil as possible in describing this new item. And as several here have said, it's just more fodder for the anti gun crowd. But "'fodder' is as 'fodder' does" according to ol' Forest. On the other hand, we the pro gun crowd cannot and must not continue to concede more and more to them. I don't know what the whole answer is but I do know this ............
Many years ago while teaching the state hunter safety program, our instructor training included a series called "Words Mean Things". What that meant was that we should continue to talk about our hunting experiences, but we should also be aware of the words we chose to describe them. If we talked about how we "shot the hell" out that ol' buck, or we "blew through both lungs" and "all the way through" him, it conveys a really bad picture of what we all know is real hunting. We could convey the very same things by choosing different words like we "took him with one quick, humane shot". It's in no way conceding anything, it's simply being smart in the words we choose.
Or as someone mentioned earlier about throwing a big gutted, buck on the hood or fender of our trucks and parading them through town. We all know he's dead and that it had to be, but we can also be respectful of the deer and those who have differing ideas about hunting than we do, and put him in the bed of the truck where he's not so 'in your face'. Again we're not conceding anything to anyone in these cases, we're simply being respectful of other's opinions while still pursuing our sports and/or hobbies. And in any gun conversations with the other side, we can choose our words better to describe our activities without giving them ammunition to make us sound like a bunch of killers/butchers. We're not likely to ever sway very many anti-gunners/hunters, but we can often sway some non-gunners/hunters.
The same holds true when talking about guns in general. I agree we don't need to concede anything to them, but when the opportunity arises we can explain how even though marketed 'for' kids rather than 'to' kids, this particular gun is designed for the parents/adults to teach kids real gun safety and that's the reason it's smaller (kid's size), small caliber (22LR for kids), a single shot capacity unless the adults change it (the mag), and a kid proof mechanical safety requiring adults to operate. Much the same as when we explain the difference between semi-auto vs full-auto actions, and/or the differences between the AR15 and a true 'assault' rifle.
I don't know ............ maybe jus' me !!!
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
As an aside I just remembered ............. a week or so ago the wife and I were in "Bass Pro" just looking around and we went down an aisle we hadn't seen before. Well, low and behold we walked right up on a big rack of nothing but toy guns. I mean toy guns that really resembled real guns. Old 'Peacemakers', Mod 94's, double bbl'd shotguns, etc, etc, and to my total surprise a replica "Thompson Center Contender".
And all of these were pretty true to the originals, not some science fiction weirdo type of thing. Oh yeh, and there was rack upon rack of spring loaded 45 Colt cartridges, pretend shotgun shells, and rolls n rolls of caps. You remember those little red coils of little popper things we could load into the cowboy six shooters and shoot all day long !!!
And all of these were pretty true to the originals, not some science fiction weirdo type of thing. Oh yeh, and there was rack upon rack of spring loaded 45 Colt cartridges, pretend shotgun shells, and rolls n rolls of caps. You remember those little red coils of little popper things we could load into the cowboy six shooters and shoot all day long !!!
PhantomVOZ
Elite
I guess this has been discussed in the gun control thread dedicated to CA.
Newsom is using that company from another state, as a red herring for the fact that he really doesn't have a solution for guns being stolen from train robberies and almost every DA in the major cities of California are letting criminals caught with illegally obtained firearms off the hook or giving them very light sentences.
Plus many Californian liberals in general since the Trump era see themselves as the rulers of the nation at this point and want to influence other states in many ways to be like California. Newsom already is blackmailing SCOTUS over that Texas abortion law and banned state funded travel to many states that don't believe in "San Francisco" values.
Newsom is using that company from another state, as a red herring for the fact that he really doesn't have a solution for guns being stolen from train robberies and almost every DA in the major cities of California are letting criminals caught with illegally obtained firearms off the hook or giving them very light sentences.
Plus many Californian liberals in general since the Trump era see themselves as the rulers of the nation at this point and want to influence other states in many ways to be like California. Newsom already is blackmailing SCOTUS over that Texas abortion law and banned state funded travel to many states that don't believe in "San Francisco" values.