Wednesday, May 1, 2013

My First Rifle

Years ago, I read The Adventures of Bobby Orde by Stuart Edward White.  I suppose that few young people have heard of him these days, but his stories about late 19th and early 20th century America were part of my youth and have something to do with my love of the outdoors and what they used, somewhat euphemistically, to call the Pioneer Spirit: woodcraft, love of nature, the urge to preserve and enjoy it and ability to get along away from civilization and its expensive comforts. 

Bobby Orde grew up near a logging camp in Michigan and winning a shooting contest brought him a Flobert Rifle; an inexpensive single shot .22 rifle made for boys as a "first rifle."  Of course, this being a story and being a story from an era when that Pioneer Spirit was very much alive in a rapidly urbanizing America, Bobby learns, through owning it to be a man, to take responsibility for his actions regardless of the consequences.  Indeed, learning to use a firearm responsibly is still a rite of passage in some parts.  Yes, those parts still exist even if invisible to the Urban majority for whom making a fire in the rain isn't a vital skill.

People still collect the Flobert, cheap thing though it was when new and they still spruce up and restore the Ithaca 49; First Rifle to a subsequent generation. I bought one in 1963 for 18 bucks at a Hamilton, New York hardware store. Those manufacturers are gone and too many kids are too absorbed in iPods and X boxes and cellular phones today to venture out into the real world of planet Earth -- but not all of them.  Some still have nostalgic parents, some families live to hunt and fish and enjoy the wilderness and still try to instill that outdoorsman's "Pioneer Spirit" in their kids. A good part of our largest state feed their families with a rifle. Watch Swamp People and see where your alligator Guccis come from.
 
So anyway, let me introduce you to Crickett rifles -- they're meant for kids, but smaller adults buy them. They even come in pink, for the girls.  "My First Rifle" reads the website.  For people in the vast empty spaces of America and yes they still exist, that first rifle is still an experience, just like the first bicycle, the first fishing pole, the first car and to each of those there is a time and a place.  Cumberland County may be the place, but the time is hardly appropriate for a 4 year old. A year after being given a Crickett rifle, he shot his two year old sister with it.  She died soon afterward.

The family didn't know the gun was loaded, said the Lexington Herald-Leader  Perhaps you've heard that said before. They were used to leaving it in the corner.

“Just one of those crazy accidents,” said the Cumberland County Coroner.  I call it reckless endangerment. I call it involuntary manslaughter.  I call it the end of a family, the beginning of a lifetime of shame and anguish. This isn't the story of someone learning to take responsibility, it's the story of  stupidity, irresponsibility and criminal negligence.  The shooting will be treated as "an accident" but it wasn't.  Leaving a loaded, unlocked gun where a toddler can get it is criminal in many states and so it should be. Having guns in a house where there are children is questionable, even when they are locked up. Not teaching your kid never to aim a gun at anyone, is unforgivable -- teaching them to never assume it's unloaded, never to pick it up and hold it anywhere but at a shooting range with adult supervision. . .  Well I don't have to continue, and how much can you rely on a 4 or 5 year old to understand the danger anyway?

Background checks aren't going to prevent things like this, nor waiting periods nor registration nor magazine restrictions. Kids getting at legally owned family guns have been the cause of  recent acts of mayhem at Columbine and Sandy Hook and elsewhere.  The only way these artifacts, these manifestations of stupidity can be addressed is through education or elimination.  There is no way to eliminate guns and there is no responsible agency to promote education, now that the NRA has become an anti-government militia.

So perhaps the people who talk about individual responsibility Vs. Government regulation can come up with an answer since teaching such things is what My First Rifle is all about?

27 comments:

  1. Appropriate gifts for a four or five-year old toddler.

    Boys or Girls:
    First Bicycle, or Scooter
    Watercolors and Art Supplies
    Children's Literature
    Toy Farm or Stables
    Puzzles and Games
    Soccer Balls and Sports Equipment
    Clothing
    Puppies, Kittens, Rabbits, Guinea Pigs, Hamsters, Fish

    Boys:
    Toy Cars and Trucks
    Toy Garage
    Trains
    Skylanders
    Transformers

    Girls:
    Barbies
    Toy Ponies and Horses
    Jacks

    (Help me out here, I don't have grand-daughters.)

    Basically anything in the toy store that costs tons of money that only kids could possibly appreciate. One gets the general idea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tinker Toys, Lego, Lincoln Logs...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I posted on this horrid tragedy as well. What more can be said? The parents were negligent/stupid/irresponsible and their 2-year old is dead. Guns are not toys; and guns are not for babies. But what happened is the natural progression of the "Don't Tread On Me" mentality of the 2nd Amendment fanatics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. And you're quite right, but I also blame plain old garden variety irresponsibility. In Florida we lose kids to swimming pools all the time. We lose youngsters and small children from the negligence, ignorance and stubborn contempt for basic boating safety -- to ATV accidents, to parents who leave toddlers strapped in closed cars in the Summer while they shop. There was the Florida couple a few ears ago who saw nothing wrong with keeping a 12 foot python and an 8 month old baby in the same house. They back over their kids with their damned SUVs, put kids in the back of pickup trucks while mom sends text messages at 80 mph. They leave all kinds of toxic things lying around the house -- there's no end to it.

      As I said elsewhere, we miss the point when we make it all about guns and the demon NRA. It's about us, all of us. It's about the smug ignorance and beer-soaked irresponsibility of people who shouldn't be trusted with a hamster much less a family.

      Delete
  4. And while we are on the subject, how about the "Christian" parents who just let their second child die of easily curable problems, because it was much better to just pray over them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see your comments on AOW from time to time, and this time, after defending your latest from a snipe by Sam, I figured it was time to see what your blogs have to say.

    I'm not a liberal or raging conservative and I do hate Barack Muslim Obama with a passion, just to establish my credentials a tad, but I mostly agree with you on letting that little kid have a real rifle and then walking away from him. It's hard to fathom stupidity that deep and murky. This is a cold thought, but what that little boy just did was to possibly eliminate a potential moron from our gene pool, though it would be a far happier thing if the parents were simply neutered and the boy placed in a home where the grownups had functional brains.

    Likewise on background checks, that may slow down some folks from getting a gun they shouldn't have but it will never stop them. Look at all the 15 yer old gangbangers who have machine guns. I'm pretty sure none of them had background checks.

    By the way, I really like that cat and the fish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't seem to remember what AOW stands for, but thanks. I don't know why a passionate hate of Obama is a credential unless it's important to be unreasonable and I don't think it is unless one is trying to impress Ted Nugent. Of course you may not be addressing me, but Green Eagle, in which case, never mind. But still, I think passionate hate is pretty strong all things considered. He's not Sarah Palin.

      I do agree about background checks being only somewhat effective, but off the top of my head I can think of several berserkers who were not legally qualified to buy weapons but somehow passed a background check anyway. That's why I keep telling people not to be so intent on judging a bill by its cover. We have to do other, less passionately advocated things, like making the databases worth checking -- like taking away the gangs' income by legalizing and taxing weed. We still haven't learned the lesson of Prohibition.

      Hey, the kid might have killed a budding genius too. You never know, but yes, of course, that level of irresponsibility defies understanding, but who knows. Stupidity has a strong ally in booze, dope and daytime TV.

      Delete
    2. Captain,
      Notwithstanding self-pronouncements of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome), I find it hard to carry on a conversation with persons who speak in A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S. Is A.O.W. a synonym for S.N.O.T. (Social Network Of Twits), S.W.A.G. (Special Windbag Advisory Group), or Y.A.W.N. (Young Adults With Narcolepsy)?

      Personally, I prefer the redundancy of mixed metaphors: It’s as American as killing two birds with one apple pie.

      Delete
  6. You can say that again -- and again and dundancy is always worth doing over until you get it right. Dundancy is as dundancy does and you can say that again too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OIC! AOW is Always On Watch, a poster on Shaw's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I'm not a liberal or raging conservative and I do hate Barack Muslim Obama with a passion,"

    So you're a fan of Drs. Paul, a libertardlican racist? Thanks for making reading the rest of your screed unnecessary.

    Giving a five yo a gun is NOTHING like being inattentive about closing the gate in the pool area (assuming your state is enlightened enough to require them) or a being less than monomaniacal about your children's safety. BTW, there's considerable overlap between those other types of parents you mentioned and the idiots that I don't want to see carrying guns (or not see them if they hide them) in public. Any five yo living in an environment where there is television sees thousands of images of people shooting each other annually. A large percentage of the people watching such shows (the default would be "most" of them) approve of, if not the original crimes, the "gettin' even shootin'" that follows. Giving a child who gets a dose of such programming on a regular basis, a working firearm is, imo, deranged indifference and should be prosecuted as such.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're right. There is a large element of negligence in both cases however. It's one thing to allow the kid to shoot, which I think he's far and away too young to be doing, and another to leave the damn rifle loaded and available, which is illegal, immoral and stupid. I don't approve of giving the kid a gun even if it was kept locked up, but it was the latter act, the negligence that was the immediate cause of the "accident." If it had been locked up, a trigger lock installed and the ammunition locked in a different place -- as sanity and the law require, it wouldn't have happened.

    I've raised two children and a five year old is an accident waiting to happen anyway - no impulse control, no sense of consequences and as you say, years of watching aggression and revenge with guns. I really don't approve of keeping anything related to gunpowder in a home with children.

    I'm aware of what one has to go through to adopt a child and it's ironic that people who wouldn't be allowed to adopt a dog at the pound can make and raise all the children they want.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know who Black Sheep is a fan of, BTW, but you'll notice these backwoods throwbacks aren't getting support from the 'gun people'

    I'm not Obama's biggest fan either, but I'm aware of how much a president can and can't do and he's a damn sight less dangerous than anyone the Republican thugs have offered in a very long time. He's not responsible for the unrealistic hopes of his supporters and of course his term isn't nearly over. You never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waiting, watching, and thinking... maybe Capt. Still 3 1/2 (a little more) to go. I'm also thinking it is possible we're already to far gone. Loonies seem to be a multiplying. Democommie, anything to add?

      Delete
    2. I think It's hard to be sure the world is becoming more extremist because we're immersed in it, but damn if it doesn't look like it.

      It it because now every nut-job has a voice that can reach billions? maybe it is. You used to have to wear a sandwich board or carry a sign and parade up and down the street declaring that the end is nigh, but now we have the web and twitter and facebook. . .

      You can't give power to the people without giving it to the crazy people too.

      Delete
  11. NRA extremist Rob Pincus advises parents to: “Store guns in the kids’ bedrooms. WTF!*%?!!!

    According to the same report, “guns kill twice as many children and young adults than cancer, five times as many than heart disease and 15 times more than infection” (New England Journal of Medicine).

    Since the Sandy Hook massacre, 70 children have been killed by gun violence.

    The NRA should be prosecuted and shut down for conspiracy to commit criminal negligence on children. ASSHOLES!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "NRA extremist" has become a tautology, hasn't it? I'm sure somewhere at some time they've suggested guns in the delivery room and the nursery as well. Sadder is that much of the public has been whipped into such a frenzy of fear that they will listen to such nonsense. That doesn't mean that the frenzy is all on one side.

    I think perhaps the host of reports sweeping across the country like a storm front can be a bit misleading and are designed to be. Really, the percentage of children dying of heart disease and infection is tiny. Cancer happens to kids, but again percentage wise it's pretty small.

    So how many of those 70 kids are killed by parental negligence, by being caught in crossfire or are deliberately murdered? how many 'children' are two and how any are 17? How many are shot by adults? I think it's important to know, but my experience is that attempting to identify problems gets me accused of being on the other side and that it isn't just the NRA who wants to stifle real study and analysis of the facts.

    One of the things I worry about is that by condemning rather than refuting the NRA we're arguing against free speech even if there's some justification. We're definitely stereotyping many different opinions and motivations just as they are. To the 'other side' the NRA created Liberal bogeyman seems real and too many of us arguing for objectivity can't be heard above the din. Are we arguing that trigger locks or some equivalent be made a legal requirement, or are we arguing against gun ownership? Are we bothering to look at reports about how those states and localities with those very requirements compare with those without? Do such laws work? Are we bothering to look at reports looking at frequencies of school shootings over a period of years rather than weeks to see if there is a trend? For the most part, the loudest voices seem not to acknowledge or even to be aware of what laws there are and how they correlate to accidental and deliberate shootings. Are we looking for root causes or rushing about with band-aids?

    Bill Maher, who owns a pistol for 'personal protection' yet makes fun of others who do, told us Friday night that these Crickett people were selling mail order guns to kids. Do anti-gun liberals bother to find out if that's true? I'm not sure, because you haven't been able to buy guns through the mail since 1967 as a reaction to the assassination of Kennedy. If you want to buy a Crickett, it has to be through a Federally licensed dealer with the background checks and waiting periods that entails.

    Certainly I'm all for keeping minors and guns at arms length, pun intended. I'm for any legislation that will succeed at forcing parents like the idiots in question to lock the damned things up or think twice about even thinking about leaving one near the kids even for a microsecond. That's no infringement of the Constitution, in my opinion, but if we really have an objective other than to declare martial law and confiscate everything that goes bang, and obviously most of us do, an essential part of attaining that objective is salesmanship. We're doing a miserable job of preaching to the people we want to convince and a great job of playing into the NRA stereotype.

    It's obvious that we have more than one kind of gun violence problem. It's wrong to lump figures together to disguise that fact because it cannot lead to an effective solution and suggests to others that we're not trying to, but rather that we're out to confiscate, subjugate and create a police state -- even if that isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In today's news (May 6, 2013), a 13-year-old boy shoots 6-year-old sister in the chest:

      According to the Children's Defense Fund, one-third of all households with children younger than 18 have a gun, and more than 40 percent of gun-owning households with children store their guns unlocked … The fund also reported that 22 percent of children with gun-owning parents handled guns in their homes without their parents' knowledge.”

      Delete
  13. I'm quite aware of the irresponsibility of a great many American parents; from violent and abusive to incompetent, negligent, passed out drunk and stoned all day, but I'm also aware that statistics provided by political action groups without an account of the methods used are suspect.

    It's not that the CDF doesn't have my support and admiration - it does, but I've challenged figures provided by other organizations and shown them to be false. But I'd truly like to know by what means they got that 22 percent figure before I put any confidence in it. These aren't things one can determine with certainty. People don't answer such questions honestly in surveys. Would you admit to a crime, to child endangerment if asked by a survey taker? Are they assuming some percentage of lying and inflating the data because of it? Is it anecdotal? Are they asking children? Which children, in what kind of households, where? Do these figures apply in all states? I'd certainly expect them not to. I'd certainly doubt they would apply equally in in Manhattan and Wasilla; Beverly Hills and Pahokee. How does it differ in states that have trigger lock laws? That would be very important to know before we get into improving child safety by legislation or law enforcement.

    But let's say that's true. It was certainly true for the Sandy Hook incident where this woman kept serious weaponry in a house with a child who had mental problems. It's illegal to sell a gun to someone with many kinds of psychiatric problems and I think also to allow them access to one, which makes her an accessory. Why did she ignore the law? It certainly does happen. What do we do? How do we prevent that? How do we enforce laws about what people do or don't do privately in their homes before something horrible happens? Mandatory home inspections? Would the public ever stand for that and could law enforcement manage it? No.

    Or do we make it illegal to own a gun if you have minor children in your home? How would we enforce that without facing the same problems unless it's after someone gets shot and it's too late?

    I'm beginning to question the usefulness of such numbers. Why is it that so many Swiss homes have fully automatic weapons as well as sporting guns without the Swiss kids shooting up schools and siblings - or do they, and we just don't know? Are they just much better parents or are the kids smarter and is any of this getting us closer to a higher level of safety compatible with a free country?

    All I'm interested in are workable solutions. Relating how bad it is gets us nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I cannot comment on CDF research methods since I have not delved deeply enough to offer an opinion; nevertheless these back-to-back news accounts offer enough anecdotal evidence to raise concerns.

    When I was a kid growing up in the 1950s, I received publications of the NRA. In those days, its mission and purpose was to promote marksmanship, gun safety, and conservation. A different organization than the NRA of today, it supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 (whose purpose was to regulate concealable “gangster weapons”) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which regulated the interstate commerce of firearms, prohibited mail-order sales, mandated the licensing of dealers, and barred imports of military-style rifles).

    Today’s NRA is not your fathers’ or grandfathers’ NRA. In 1977, the so-called “Cincinnati Revolution” changed the emphasis from gun safety and skill to partisan politics - specifically ultra right-wing politics. In essence, the NRA was hijacked by gun manufacturers and turned into a lobbying group, which now operates more like a politburo than a nonprofit organization. Its board directors and executive officers keep a grip on power in which ordinary grassroots members appear to have little say.

    Consider current levels of public support for increased background checks: 87% to 90% of the general public, and 80% of rank-and-file NRA members; yet, its extremist gun-slaphappy politburo turns up the rhetoric on fear- and hate-mongering far beyond acceptable standards of civilized behavior and employs bullying tactics by no means limited to threats of armed insurrection – all against overwhelming public support for the Toomey-Manchin initiative.

    At the NRA Convention this week, witness the ugly rhetoric: A newly installed president who regarded the Civil War as a war against “Northern Aggression,” an anti-Obama image representing him as a green zombie, an anti-Bloomberg poster (presented by Glenn Beck) that depicts the mayor with arm raised in a Heil Hitler salute. The NRA has turned itself into the First Circle of every dangerous lunatic and fringe group in America – racists, anti-Semites, militias, white supremacists, and more …

    Only in America do anarchists, insurrectionists, neo-fascists, bullies, and demagogues enjoy constitutional protection.

    The Swiss would never tolerate this shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parenthetically, I should note, I was one of those “22 percent of children [who] handled guns in their homes without their parents' knowledge.

      It was a 22- caliber rifle given to me by my father who insisted on keeping it in his clothes closet. Parental supervision was implied but never enforced; I had unfettered access when my parents were away. There were times when I showed it friends after school. It was an accident waiting to happen, but thankfully, never did.

      When my father passed away in 1995, the rifle was still there - in my father's clothes closet. I had no more interest in keeping the gun, so I gave it to a next-door neighbor - then in his 70s - the one who used to take me hunting after school, a token of thanks and appreciation for a surrogate father when mine was unavailable.

      Delete
  15. My dad only had some revolutionary war era antiques which I did sometimes play with, but other than as a cudgel they weren't all that dangerous. That's still the kind of weapon I like. I did play pirate in the back yard with his Navy sword. Same thanks on my part that I never impaled anyone.

    But I'm well aware of how evil the NRA is. I lost any chance of ever joining after they basically expressed approval of the terrorist attack on the OK City Federal Building. I consider them a terrorist organization because they are all about making people afraid for fun and profit. Mostly profit. But I'm tired of talking about them. They're only part of the problem.

    What concerns me about the statistics is that the CDF lobbied - filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing for continuing the outright ban on handguns in DC. Since I can't find a shred of evidence that DC was ever even slightly safer because of that ban, I suspect they're a group invested in the same old song or in doing the same thing forever hoping that it will eventually work.

    I agreed with the court that they simply didn't have the legal right to ban handguns on private property. The constitution didn't allow the feds to ban alcohol either, hence the 18th amendment and it doesn't allow them to ban machine guns so what they do is tax them and make you go through a long process and spend a lot of money which is usually not worth it. Maybe there's an answer in that story and that's what I'm looking for -- answers, consensus, pragmatic solutions. We already have enough angst and every time we ramp up the fear, people go and buy more guns.

    Nobody, nobody honest, that is will argue that we don't have a violence problem. Things go on here that upset me as much and more as the high profile stuff - live in boyfriend beats moms little boy to death while she's drunk and too afraid to say anything. Boyfriend molests mom's daughter in local trailer park and she's afraid he'll leave if she turns him in. Guy drags 10 year old girl from playground into bushes and rapes her - it just goes on and on and this is a low crime area. the burglary wave continues and people are nervous and they go out and buy more guns while the Republicans cut back on law enforcement. 20% for the Boston FBI now while they complain that the feds are incompetent.

    We have big problems and we need cool heads. We need to know what's getting better, and what's getting worse and what has helped and what hasn't, but too many groups and agencies have their own specific goals and don't want to listen or acknowledge any other factors but what they're selling.

    For what it's worth, I may be unloading (not literally) some surplus hardware. Already sold a WW I antique and a 100 year old 22. Haven't used most of it since my parents sold the farm in the 1980's. I really don't want the liability and the grandkids will be here in July.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 3-year old shoots himself with uncle's gun. At the current rate of infanticide, non-humanoids will have a chance to take back their planet without firing a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do we know that it's higher today than ten years ago? twenty? According to Safe Kids Worldwide, from 1987 to 2002, firearm injury death rates in absolute numbers are down for minors by 80% while the population has been growing. Other accident rates are down to a similar degree. At what rate does it have to decline before we cease to treat each incident as prophetic of impending doom? Or is it all just grist for the anger mill? Recruiting material for the anti-gun lobby and hence recruitment material for their opposition? Is there too much invested in the idea that everything is going to hell in an ammo can on both sides of this argument? Seems to me that's true as we all get more and more polarized, fanatical and outraged. Sure the NRA are bums, but so are bad parents and reckless stupidity is an American problem as anyone who drives a car knows. Boat captains know it more.

    I'm not in any way trying to dismiss the tragedy here, but our perception that something is tragic or stupid or rare or common; getting better or getting worse is the result of things and circumstances external to the act and in the media theater of the vampires we call it the News.

    Are we as willing to believe our own hype as the other side? Are we in a bubble too? I try hard to be objective because I'm trying hard not to be so damned angry all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I'm trying hard not to be so damned angry all the time."

    Guns don't kill people; only people kill people.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Time kills people -- all of them.

    But really, we laugh at Tea Partyists for refusing to recognize that taxes aren't at an all time high and getting higher, but in fact are at an all time low.

    And all the while we maintain, no matter how the facts deny it, that gun violence is increasing and at an all time high.


    First comes the opinion, the fear, the anxiety, the phobia and then come the fallacies, the certainties, the flags and placards and slogans. . .

    We scoff when conservatives seem to insist that any basic constitutional or innate right is overcome by the need for safety, real or imagined. And then we do the same damned thing. Democrats signed on to the Patriot Act unanimously as I seem to remember. We acted smug when the Republicans told us the Constitution was a quaint and antique inconvenience, and now listen to us.

    And still, we're a much safer country for adults and children than we used to be.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.