10 month old baby gets gun license
 

Yep it is true. Now not to get in to the total gun control arguement, but this is ludicrous. There has to be at least some limits on who can get a gun.

Article

Does anyone ever read these articles? I was thinking to myself, "he probably got the license because it's required to own a gun and a gun was given to him as a gift." What do you know, at the end of the article: News and news reporting is so retardedly out of control that reporters and agencies will do ANYTHING to get people to read their articles. Look at Digg and you'll see the same shit happening. Make up some crazy headline and people get interested in it before reading the article when in actuality the topic is boring and mundane. The baby has a license so he could get his present. I'm sure people won't read the article and then come and say that America is out of control with guns and that the baby will grow up a serial killer a la Digg.

I think even deeper then that is why do we think we need a minimum age, it's the parents decision, if the parent thinks they are mature enough, why the hell not, it’s up to the parent. We don’t need the government telling us when we can do something.

well, I think this set of parents mistaken thought there 10 MONTH OLD was mature enough.

I'm not sure which is stupider - grandparent giving 10 month old a gun as a gift or the parents thinking "that's ok, but we better get him a gun license".

I'm calling crazy all round on this one. :eek:

well except that even the copied part of the article mentioned that the son isn't getting a chance to use the shotgun (aside- is a shotgun known collectively under the umbrella of "rifles" or is it a "gun"?) until he is 14 years of age, which sounds reasonable to me if he is taught proper safety practices.


Human being gets gun, is allowed to license it. The system works. More news at 11.

It's not crazy. We don't hunt in my house, but most of my friends do. Being given your first gun is a big deal for families of hunters. Grandpa wanted the honor of giving his grandson his first and it will make for a nice story for the 10 month old's grandkids someday. It's not like they're taking him to the firing range at 10 months, it even said in the article they were going to wait till he was 14 until they let him have it.

Illinois requires you to have a permit to own a firearm, junior owns a firearm, so he needs a permit. Nothing crazy about obeying the law.

Exactly. I know a lot of hunters, though I don't hunt myself, and most of them have given their children firearms. These firearms might be given when they are young, and then kept in a gun safe until the child is old enough to take the firearm on their first hunt. This child obviously won't be handling this firearm until that first hunt at 14, which is an appropriate age for such a rite of passage.

I say kudos to this family for following the law.

All that and I am sure the grandpa is not senile. I doubt that he expected the boy to recieve the gun any time soon. Prehaps he is just afraid that he wont live long enough to give it to him at the proper age and trusts his own son to have the judgement of when to give the child his gift?

Remember, guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

I think the point of the article is the fact that the parent didn't even expect it to go through, but it did. It's funny. If you seriously think this parent had any intentions of arming his baby, you gotta check to make sure your sense of humor isn't broken.

It's kind of strange that the permit was granted to (and ownership granted to) a person who was obviously not going to be responsible for the weapon. Is there some other part of the process that indicates that the parents have possession and control of the weapon?

Maggie Simpson?

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w...f/00-20-29.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w...f/00-20-31.jpg

And, yes, what better way to welcome a new life into the world than with a gift that is designed to kill things? I think it would have been more suitable for the grandfather to have given something generative instead—like pornography.

Rifles have rifling in the barrel. Shotguns are their own category.

The earlier kids learn about guns and gun safety, the less likely they are to hurt someone through negligence later in life.

aren't they both filed under 'long gun?'

in many cultures the giving of a first weapon by the patriarch of the family is a longstanding tradition- it was such in the highland clans, and among many tribes of native americans- and a beretta shotgun is a high quality, expensive gun- a nice gift really.......

I learned that tigers are dangerous wild animals without anyone givng me one!

I guess this is the fundemental division between the US view and the UK view (in very vry broad terms - I'm not talking for all Americans or all Brits); the view that the way to reduce danger from guns is to make as many people as possible to have and know how to use firearms.

I'm not anti learning about weapons - I know how to load and shoot rifles and pistols, and I learned at a very early age (about 12) on a fireing range with the Scouts.

But I personally think that weapons that can kill many people very quickly at a distance should not be in public hands.

Before people remind me of the constitutional right to bear arms, I never see much discussion about the first half of the clause that talks about the importance of a well regulated militia.

Take not of that: "Well Regulated".

If we only pay atention to the second half of the rules "the right to bear arms" then the ten comandments tell us: "Kill, Bear False Witness, Covet The Neighbours Ass, Commit Adultery" and so on... :eek:

Something to keep in mind: in Illinois, pretty much all a FOID card does for you is give you the right to buy ammo, and even then you must be 18. Having the card alone is pretty useless.

A 10 month old doesn't even need one.

There are at least half a dozen threads in this forum alone about what 'well-regulated' meant then and means now. Being a brit, you should know this well.

Well observed.

:thumbsup:

Back to the OP, I guess that the thing that freaks me out is cultural rather than legal, and that's that anyone thinks a tool designed purely to kill is a good thing for a child.

Forget the 10 month old, the fact that someone wants to give it to a 14 year old down the line bemuses me.

Would it not be better to have put the cash on deposit for 14 years? If as has been said earlier it is a valuable gun (and if someone can name a $$ value I'd be interested) would the kid not maybe get some valuable use from the investment as seed capital for his majority?

I guess if we all had guns we'd be less likely to use them against each other?

I grew up in the Northern Illinois area, completely rural with a hometown population of 3,000, and had my first shotgun at 13, first .22 rifle at 14. It is not an uncommon thing in most rural areas of Illinois to gift young kids their first hunting weapon. We're all taught the safety rules at a very young age and are pretty competent in handling them. It's something that should be taught to all kids.

Aren't the majority of gun homicides in the poorer, urban areas? It's an entirely different culture within a culture.

"I fucking told you I didn't like strained peas... Next time I'm gonna blow your fucking head off... bitch."