For all those who think thay can not handle a .45

[hvj1]

Just an after thought,

Reading up the on background on Mass Murderers, serial killers, hardened criminals etc, most of them have a sordid childhood (though even here there are exceptions to the rule), which includes some of the following common aspects;
1. Broken homes accompanied with violence.
2. Cruelty by foster parents.
3. Dangerous neighbourhoods, (read street gang environment).

Probably TC refers to this group.

[TC]

Mack here is another kid, Yassin, also six year old according to the link on happyvideoclip.com shooting targets.

http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=h ... CE0QrQMwEg

Mack, from my first post on this thread till this one I have expressed only one opinion and have done so with NO ambiguity. Please don't indulge in impressions that I dug too deep and can't get out. I am not a six year old
That IPSC type matches can affect a child mentally is MY opinion. You may agree. Or, you may not. This is an open forum and not a secret society.
What I find intriguing is your drive to silence an opinion that goes against yours. And you say

Just don't expect a contentious post to go unchallenged and/or corrected

. You have also taken it upon yourself to "correct" others.
Well, I don't stand corrected my friend and I also do not wish to keep "my ignorance" to myself. If I take your advice I will have to stop publishing those news pages on gun rights, gun owners, hunting, poaching, wildlife etc.... That would be wrong. Can't give up a cause just to abide by your command.
If you do not believe that violence on TV or on the streets affect children or, playing cops and robbers is the same as firing .45 autos at six you are free to do so. Its a free country.



XL
I have always appreciated your daughter's skills and the role you have played as a father, and we will always do so. But I am not talking of you, mack or timmy here. Personally I cannot accept that video - a six year old holding a 45 in his little hands and emptying a magazine. I have checked every video made on this kid - on youtube and every other site available. For me, a few things are just not right. This is one of them. As I said, for ME. I never asked you to agree.

Regards
TC

[Mack The Knife]

What I find intriguing is your drive to silence an opinion that goes against yours. And you say

Just don't expect a contentious post to go unchallenged and/or corrected

. You have also taken it upon yourself to "correct" others.

TC, I am opposing, not silencing, your opinion. And if that means challenging or correcting your opinion, I will.

If I had wanted to silence you, I would have zapped the post a long time back.

Violence on the screen, of whatever size, does affect some children. I haven't said it doesn't but that is not what I am posting about on this thread.

I haven't read your articles, barring one probably. If you are helping the cause that is good but please don't expect me to keep silent when I think you are wrong.

[TC]

Mack, let me start from the last. I am not "helping the cause". I look at it as MY CAUSE. That's precisely how I connect to it. And I have been doing it since 1988, long before the fight for gun rights crystallised into a movement on the internet and in courtrooms in India. My very first article as a budding journalist was on STAR SHOT - a unique night game skeet shooters in the US designed in the mid 80s. That was the centre-spread story in Eastern india's most popular vernacular children's magazine published by the Adanda Bazar Patrika group - publishers of The Telegraph. So you see, even when I was in my 20s I did not discourage children from taking interest in shooting sports. A few editions later, I wrote about terrorists, commandos and operations like Entebbe. So, I was also not keeping children from knowing about Uzis, M16s and stun grenades.

I did not refer to my news reports in my last post to put up a point of leverage in my favour in this debate. It was just a reference. There are dozens of serious articles this forum has not seen. And I don't think that's necessary.

If I had wanted to silence you, I would have zapped the post a long time back.

I am sure you could. Thanks for giving me the freedom to speak.

Coming back to the debate. Good to know that you don't deny the effects of on-screen violence on children. Well, off-screen violence has similar effects - only in greater proportion because you cannot switch it off or lock the channels. The first things that came to my mind when I saw the video is that domestic violence, crimes, violence erupting on the streets because of politics, military coups, pro-democratic movements et all affect adults as well as children. This is especially true for people living in developing nations and Asian countries.Philippines is no exception. Nor is India. Or Afghanistan, where little kids with the AKs can leave you speechless.
So, a six year old playing with a 45 (being compelled to use the word word play because at six he cannot possibly be taking IPSC as anything else other than a game grown ups play too) is not a very pleasant sight if one takes into account the direct and indirect effects of family, peer groups, society, politics and economics on his tender mind.

Having stretched a topic as far as my rationality can endure, lets call it quits by saying I am old fashioned and orthodox. Probably, not as enlightened as I should be to share your views.

Since I prefer to save my writing hours for the newspaper I will end it here.

Cheers
TC

[Mack The Knife]

TC,

Many, not all, of the AK47 toting children in parts of Africa, Afghanistan and other strife ridden areas are children only in age due to the circumstances surrounding them. The mentality of these 'children' is going to be poles apart from those children who use a gun for target sports, hunting or crop protection. Big difference.

[timmy]

TC, I must say this because I am dissatisfied with your responses.

You have made the statement:

"XL I have always appreciated your daughter's skills and the role you have played as a father, and we will always do so. But I am not talking of you, mack or timmy here."

and:

"Having stretched a topic as far as my rationality can endure, lets call it quits by saying I am old fashioned and orthodox. Probably, not as enlightened as I should be to share your views.

Since I prefer to save my writing hours for the newspaper I will end it here."

Personally, after all that's been said in this thread, I am somewhat bewildered and, yes, put off by your attitude.

First, I do not have a problem with you or anyone else stating an opinion, belief, or idea of the way things should be done or should be. As I have said in the past, such postings should serve to cause all of us to test our ideas, rather than think of clever ways of responding argumentatively. I will state that it is clear what the feeling of many on the board is on these kinds of subjects, and one cannot feel too wounded if one espouses a different viewpoint and does not win over the rest, especially if logical reasons are insufficient to carry one's point. Amongst reasonable folks, this sort of exchange is called a discussion and it has a lot of value for all who truly participate.

This has not been the case with my exchange with you in this thread.

You may recall, I challenged your assertion regarding what was right from a society's perspective, and questioned your qualifications to make such pronouncements.

You responded not with an answer, but by challenging my rights as a parent personally, not only on the matter of teaching children to shoot, but also on my qualifications to impart morality to my children, specifically on drugs, pornography, sex, and then guns.

Ordinarily, I would not consider it anyone's prerogative to question me on such matters.

Ordinarily, I would have insisted that you answer my question first, before I answered yours.

But, under the impression that we were having a serious discussion in this thread, I went along with your challenging my personal right as a parent to teach my children my beliefs, and then restated my original question to you. Believe it or not, I was actually interested in you providing rationale for the positions you had taken here.

But, as I say, I was disappointed. You never responded to me, although you did carry on with responses to others. Am I to interpret this as meaning that my response to you, a very personal one, was beneath your dignity to respond to?

And now, at the end, I am puzzled that you say you are not speaking of me -- how am I to know that, since you never responded to me? Are you saying that there was no disagreement with me? No, this cannot be: you had most strenuously disagreed with me, challenged me, and then our exchange went dead.

Frankly, this reminds me of the man who takes a seat by the door of a pub and then throws a bottle in the midst of the crowd. When a fight ensues, he dashes out the door and avoids the fury resulting from his actions.

The discussion may end here because you choose to quit speaking, but for me, while there may be an end, there is certainly no closure.

[TC]

And this is what Timmy says:

Sure, there is a proper age for every activity. And that proper age differs for every individual. Some can handle a gun at 4, others, never. My question is, why do you feel qualified to set yourself up as an authority on what that age should be for all? Is it because you base your sagacious judgment based on your belief, what you think, or common sense? Sorry, I cannot buy what you are peddling.



If there is proper age for every activity and if that proper age differs for every individual then how come we try keep ALL children away from alcohol, pornography, marijuana and sex. Who says we are qualified to set ourselves up as authorities on what that age should be when they can have sex, watch pornography and smoke joints? Are we supposed to understand that pornography affects a child's mental development and a fast firing 45 auto does not? Has there been any global survey on this ? A survey you and some members seem to be privy to while lesser mortals such as me have been left out. I am dying to be enlightened because this can be a global news.

Timmy, PLEASE READ the ABOVE quotes and if you find necessary, go back and read every post.

I hold you in high esteem. But I cannot accept this

:

You responded not with an answer, but by challenging my rights as a parent personally, not only on the matter of teaching children to shoot, but also on my qualifications to impart morality to my children, specifically on drugs, pornography, sex, and then guns.

Please read again. I never used the word "YOU" and I never challenged any of YOUR rights "AS A PARENT PERSONALLY".

I wrote "WE" and in a forum like this "WE" obviously implies to everyone (including myself) who owns or uses firearms and/or talks of gun rights. There is a gulf of difference between "You" and "We" and my reference to alcohol etc was a general statement because these are things on which restrictions come into force.
But I was surprised by the responses. When I was referring to "ALL" children and asking if members were aware of any global survey or scientific study, a number of members, including you, started narrating personal experience - of how you brought up your children or taught them to shoot or, taught by your parents when you were kids. Haven't we shared stories and anecdotes on these so many times and continue to do so everyday on this forum? These were surely never under question, nor the topic of the thread.
Suddenly the focus shifted from a six year old Philippino child shooting 45 autos in a IPSC match to what some of us did at home. Suddenly there was an attempt to draw a co-relation. And, not surprisingly, none of us could refer to a kid at home who had taken part in a IPSC match when he/she was six. So, was it a crime on my part to express MY opinion about this kid and his father?

Timmy, I may possibly never satisfy you with answers and explanations but a handful of people cannot sit in judgment and conclude beyond all reasonable doubts that if their experiment with life worked wonders then it should be the model for all parents and children on this planet ? If you say yes, I will surely peddle this theory. But my friend I will be pathetically outnumbered and undoubtedly torn into bits by those billions who are ready to bury all kinds of guns for good. I do not want to live to see that day. Nor do you, I guess.

This is my last post on this thread. Lets call it a day and shake hands.

Good night

TC

[winnie_the_pooh]

So far,I have not seen any one of those who reacted with shock at the video, give any logic for their reaction.

TC,

Conservative and orthodox reaction would be to train kids in the use of arms.Your reaction is not very different from this fellows,irrational fear devoid of reason.
[youtube][/youtube]

All the hindu deities carry arms.Have you wondered why? Because evil can only be defeated with arms.Almost all the national heroes are shown armed.Proficiency in arms requires years of practice to be proficient.No wonder people started as kids,learning these skills. I learnt to shoot at a fairly early age with a rifle with a metal butt plate.No disfigurement,no crooked shoulder and certainly no desire to go on a mass shooting spree.You obviously have been scarred by your experience of firing a pistol when you were young.I have heard that counseling helps.

[Mack The Knife]

No disfigurement,no crooked shoulder and certainly no desire to go on a mass shooting spree.You obviously have been scarred by your experience of firing a pistol when you were young.I have heard that counseling helps.

But it did affect your sense of humour. Loving it!

[timmy]

This is my last post on this thread. Lets call it a day and shake hands.

"All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them." - Admiral Jackie Fisher

TC, you did indeed say "we." Surely, your experience as a wordsmith will admit to the interpretation of the word "we" as not being a vague, generic blob, but as a collection of individuals. Surely you recognize that, without additional definition, "we" can apply to the people you were addressing in the thread. An surely, as a person who makes their living by words, you know the pitfalls of imprecision in their use and could reasonably be expected to avoid ambiguity.

Given that my views may not be congruent with others, I responded for myself and let others do as they wish, in response to your challenge.

Then you say:

Timmy, I may possibly never satisfy you with answers and explanations but a handful of people cannot sit in judgment and conclude beyond all reasonable doubts that if their experiment with life worked wonders then it should be the model for all parents and children on this planet ? If you say yes, I will surely peddle this theory.

Surely this statement indicates your unwillingness to own up to your own remarks, particularly when they are under siege.

You know very well that my stated position in my post made clear that all parents should take responsibility for their own children, and that this is what I had done. This is an expectation, as I said, that is as old as time in human experience: that parents are responsible for the education of their children. I feel that this approach is superior to that of having someone like yourself promulgate an edict that is an extension of your tastes, preferences, and beliefs -- you have been the one who has substantiated your points with belief and feeling alone, so I find it interesting that you are now hauling a demand for scientific data into the conversation.

Frankly, I view this as another example of your tactic of obfuscation, similar to the dust you attempted to throw in my eyes by bringing the largely irrelevant, but sensational topics of drugs, pornography, and sex into the discussion. You asked for my qualifications, and when I gave them, you turned it around into my attempting to impose "my way" on everyone else, when it was made completely plain that I was not. You know very well, having told me to review the thread in depth, that you were taking my comments out of context. You are simply trying to use your clever word skills to avoid coming to grips with the fact that you have been called out and found wanting. It could have been an interesting discussion. Too bad.

[tirpassion]

Dear Mack,

I am just catching up with ifg after a week...

Unlike India, .22lr rimfire rifles and pistols are cheaper than airguns in many countries, thus making it economically viable for the parent/s to start their children off on rimfires, where the law permits. 'Flinching' due to the report of the gun, is addressed by proper shooting methods and ear protection.

It is perhaps true in many countries but I tend to believe that in no country the .22LR ammo is cheaper than the airgun pellets. Does that really make rimfire weapons economically viable compared to an airgun ???
As far as I know, for sports shooting, match grade rimfire weapons are equally expensive if not more in comparison to the match grade air weapons.

Secondly,

If I had wanted to silence you, I would have zapped the post a long time back.

I think all of us knew it and know it still. Was it necessary to remind it ?

my best regards
tirpassion

[Mack The Knife]

It is perhaps true in many countries but I tend to believe that in no country the .22LR ammo is cheaper than the airgun pellets. Does that really make rimfire weapons economically viable compared to an airgun ???

I am refering to the initial outlay for a basic but good rimfire rifle or pistol.

As far as I know, for sports shooting, match grade rimfire weapons are equally expensive if not more in comparison to the match grade air weapons.

The sport of shooting does not begin and end with target shooting.

I think all of us knew it and know it still. Was it necessary to remind it ?

I wasn't reminding him. Read his post and keep my reply in context.

[tirpassion]

I am refering to the initial outlay for a basic but good rimfire rifle or pistol.

The sport of shooting does not begin and end with target shooting.

You are very right Sir! On the very first day of my course of shooting instructor, I learnt that 'Shooting is a sport for leisure' before anything.

However, I absolutely do not agree that rimfire shooting is economically more viable than airgun shooting. A basic air gun is cheap (if not cheaper than basic rimfire weapons) in many countries, so are airgun pellets (definitely cheaper than rimfire ammo anywhere in the world). After all we are talking of leisure shooting. As a matter of fact, a basic air weapon is the best option for initiation to shooting if economic reason only, is the prime concern. So the argument of parents not being able to afford airguns and opting for rimfire guns instead for their children for economic reasons is not justified.

best regards
tirpassion

[Mack The Knife]

We are talking two airguns. One when the child is very young and another when he/she is older and possibly a third when they are in their late teens. Whilst the same applies to rimfires, a basic rimfire costs less than a good airgun. Basic airguns are best avoided if possible, unless it's a Daisy Red Ryder or something along those lines for 3 and 4 year old children.

Then there is the weight factor between the two types of guns. Would you start a small child on a lighter or heavier gun, if the recoil is the same, viz. negligible?

Below is the paragrapgh that you should quoted.

"I disagree. Many parents cannot afford an additional airgun, viz. a junior or sub-junior sized airgun. Airguns usually weigh more than .22lr sporting rimfires. Airguns recoil more or the same as a .22lr. Some countries permit sound moderators and where these are restricted or prohibited, ear protection can and should be worn. Unlike India, .22lr rimfire rifles and pistols are cheaper than airguns in many countries, thus making it economically viable for the parent/s to start their children off on rimfires, where the law permits. 'Flinching' due to the report of the gun, is addressed by proper shooting methods and ear protection."

BTW, I am paying GBP 10.95 (U.S. $16.90) for a tin of 500 pellets. A Federal bulk pack of 550 .22lr rounds goes for U.S. $11.97 and that's not the cheapest round around. If I was in the U.S., my boys would definitely be shooting basic multi-shot rimfires rather than a quality single-shot spring-piston air-rifle.

Regards,

Mack The Knife

[tirpassion]

Dear Mack The Knifeji,

Then there is the weight factor between the two types of guns. Would you start a small child on a lighter or heavier gun, if the recoil is the same, viz. negligible?

I have started, start and will start with a normal gun for any child which he or she would use later when he or she will grow up. But we (all FFTir certified instructors including me) always use a support for the gun so that they need not lift and carry the weight of the weapons till the age of 13. For the very small ones (less than 9 years and from very close family/friend circle only under my personal liability) I put a bench rest kind of support on the shooting table. A point is to be noted here. We do not accept official membership of any children who are less than 9 years old. For above 10 years we use a modular support. They are fitted with counter weights on a pulley system which make the children learn the proper hold of the weapon but they lift actually a very light weight.
My 3 yr 9 mths old daughter's hand does not even wrap entirely the grip of any of the weapons I have (including a 2.5kg only basic grade rimfire rifle), forget about reaching the trigger. How can she be taught shooting at the age of 4? Whosoever does it, I wonder how? My son who shoots AR only for the time being, is 7&1/2 yrs old and I consider him to be too small to handle an AP (his index finger does not reach the trigger properly in a FAS 604) although he is relatively tall (1.30m / 4 feet 3 inches). So I wonder and admire how the boy in the video in question masters his gun!!! However, this wonder and admiration is limited to the duration of the video clip only, the rest being the responsibility of his parents.

I am talking of one airgun only and of leisure shooting only since you pointed out to me that

The sport of shooting does not begin and end with target shooting.

And for leisure, fun shooting and gun safety basics, keeping an eye on economy all through, a medium quality airgun is just fine for a very long period. For me the question of an additional weapon or better weapon in exchange, particularly for an economically deprived person, comes when one wants to go beyond. Even for a rimfire weapon in that case, one would need an additional weapon to go beyond.

BTW, I am paying GBP 10.95 (U.S. $16.90) for a tin of 500 pellets. A Federal bulk pack of 550 .22lr rounds goes for U.S. $11.97 and that's not the cheapest round around. If I was in the U.S., my boys would definitely be shooting basic multi-shot rimfires rather than a quality single-shot spring-piston air-rifle.

I pay 2.30 Euros for a box of 50 rimfire cartridges of CCI Standard or Geco Pistol/Rifle (RWS), which are the cheapest available in France. The cheapest air gun pellets available here are of 2.40 Euros for a tin of 500 (RWS basic/ H&N special club) which we use for our minor and junior shooters. I myself shoot the RWS Club which is 3.50 Euros a tin of 500 and they are just excellent for my level. I am wondering what brand of airgun pellets are you buying which costs 10.95 GBP a tin!!! It can certainly not be of a basic grade and hence, either a sheer wastage of money or surely not destined for a leisure shooter equipped with a basic quality weapon .
I also gather from your statement that you personally prefer rimfire shooting to airgun shooting. It is absolutely fine. There is nothing wrong in it. Then the economical viability as the general reason for the choice of rimfire weapons over air weapons in many countries in the world can not be justified with your personal viewpoint based on the US as example cited above. I believe even in the US, airgun pellets are cheaper than rimfire ammo if ammunitions of similar grade/quality in each category are compared i.e Basic pellet vs Basic .22LR, standard pellet vs standard .22LR and so on.
For me, shooting airgun or rimfire gun is a question of preference; I understand very well and I find nothing abnormal in anybody opting for the one or the other.

Even in France, you and your boys are welcome to shoot for peanuts (I will be happy to provide with the weapons) both with air weapons and rimfire weapons. Air weapon shooting will definitely be more economical than rimfire. While rimfire shooting will be a bit more expensive than in US, you would economise on the travel .

best regards
tirpassion