Should a 7 year old be issued with a shotgun license? (UK)

1. 0

   wilbury4posted 13 years ago

   It has been revealed that some children under 10 years old in the UK now possess shotgun licenses, in my opinion some 10 year olds aren't safe with a pencil!
   Although the UK has one of the toughest gun laws, there is no minimum age requirement to possess a shotgun license.
   I personally have a very strong opinion that this is ridiculous.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      IzzyMposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You forgot the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12840557

      replyreport
   2. 66

      superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that kids shouldn't be allowed shotgun licences at that age, and should be subject to extremely strict control from say, 16.
      
      But the BBC reported that it was only 13 kids under the age of 10. I'm not sure this constitutes "many" from a population of 61 million!

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ridiculous isn't even a word used to describe a 10 year old with a shotgun license.
      
      Absurd is the closest word I could assign to it.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I don't know if i would feel too safe knowing a freaking 7 yr old is holding a gun.  if anything, that makes me very nervous to quite honest.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah but your cat has a gun......

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            what are you talking about woman? I am that cat in the picture. 

            replyreport
            1. 78

               kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               
               want some nip?

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You might wind up like this tho
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     umm...no thanks then.  can i sit on your lap and you can scratch behind my ears. would that be okay?

                     replyreport
   5. 70

      tritrainposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No. 
      
      A 12 year old, maybe.
      
      A 7 year old maybe could shoot a 22 or pellet gun, after completing a gun safety class.

      replyreport
2. 68

   simeonvisserposted 13 years ago

   Totally ridiculous and absurd of course.

   replyreport
3. 66

   NateSeanposted 13 years ago

   Now, the following response is based on the radically dangerous assumption that this scenario is unlikely.
   
   Cute British kid with an adorable Cockney Accent: May I have a shot gun license, sir?
   
   Lisence official: Awwww, what a sweet little bugger. 'Ere you go. (Hands license over)
   
   I know this is not the case, since only Americans fall for adorable cockeny accents. (Seriously, a British kid soundlike Daphne Moon could get away with murder in this country)
   
   So, going with that assumption, I can say this. In order to get the license, one probably has to go through a very similar testing process that we go through here in the US. That means that the people holding the licenses are probably legally responsible people and would not just go shooting someone.
   
   Since this is a case of a ten year-old boy holding a shotgun lisence and not actually holding the shotgun that would necessitate it, I say go ahead. Because now I can feel safer knowing that this ten year-old boy has responsibly studied hard and taken the tests that are required to obtain this lisence.
   
   Considering how many unlisenced kids get ahold of guns and blow their own brains out, I have to say that I would sleep a little better knowing that they had lisences as well. Because typically kids take responsibility for partaking in, what to them must seem like such an adult privielge, very seriously.

   replyreport
4. 68

   simeonvisserposted 13 years ago

   Yes, of course they have to undergo tests but for all other things we have minimum ages. For driving in cars, for drinking, for cigarettes but a gun does not have a minimum age?
   
   Furthermore, if a kid does use a gun to kill someone, he'll be out of prison in a few years / months due to being a minor. Carrying a gun is a big responsibility and I'm not sure the average 10 year old, even after tests and exams, should be given that responsibility.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      NateSeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Again. We're talking about a gun license. So unless there's a big bowl of guns with a sign that says, "Please take one" at the testing facility where one goes to apply for the license, I still don't see the issue.
      
      Presumably, once the government grants the ten year-old the lisence, it will still be up to the parents to decide if their kids can hold a shotgun or not.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So if the parents decide their kid can have a gun then you have no problem with a 10 year old + license + gun walking around in the streets?

         replyreport
         1. 66

            NateSeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'd like to go with Logical Extremes for $500 Alex. OOOh, I got the Daily Double.
            
            The license in question is for a shotgun not a concealed weapon. These are rather heavy weapons and very hard to carry around. Oh and for a ten year-old, that'd be virtually impossible to conceal.
            
            Odds are, if a ten year-old were caught carrying a shotgun in public, not only would he lose the lisence, but his parents would be brought up on some kind of charges relating to negligence.
            
            The point is, there are laws protecting us from the illegal usage of a gun. Your "example" would most likely be going against those laws. And as we in the US are well aware of, banning guns does not prevent the illegal use of guns.
            
            Nine times out of ten, the idea behind this license, is to instill a sense of responsibilty and safety in the child. It does not guarantee that the child will ever have access to a gun in the near future. But if the child does get access to a shotgun, then he is less likely to have an accident with it as he understands the responsibility and the safety required for handling it. (Oh, and unless this ten year-old is the son of Clark Kent, he'll likely have a hard as hell time of carrying it too)
            
            Now, refusing to lisence the kid does not prevent any kind of danger. That example you gave could just as easily happen to a kid who is not licensed. And, as the media has shown us for the last twenty years, if a kid is going to get into any kind of gun related trouble, he sure as hell doesn't need a lisence to do it.

            replyreport
5. 0

   wilbury4posted 13 years ago

   The top and bottom of it is that a 7 - 10 year old is a child. During childhood, children want to play, they should learn life at a normal rate, it's a part of growing up. Working guns of any kind (excluding water pistols and similar toys) should not be a part of childhood.
   So, in a way, should we blame the parents for pushing the child into wanting to shoot guns?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      NateSeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unless those children are raised in a nunnery in the middle of the barren lands of Northern Canada, you can't keep children from knowing about guns and weapons.
      
      My parents were on the fence. I wasn't allowed to build guns out of duplos and legos. So where did I learn of toy guns mostly? Because half of the kids I went to school with played with them.
      
      Oh and on TV, people shot guns at other people. Star Trek, Godzilla, Lazertag and a host of other shows and movies that we watch over the years involve guns of some kind. So unless you're going to up and move your family to Amish country, you can't stop your kids from being exposed to the reality of guns.
      
      It's like parents who oppose having condoms available to teenagers in school. Well, the kids are going to have sex with or without your consent, so would you rather they do it safely or do it without any idea of the potential consequences?
      
      At least if a kid gets a gun license, he will likely be made very aware of the consequences of irresponsibly carrying and using a gun. As opposed to a kid who does not have a license, gets a hold of a gun and plays with it like it's a toy. The license reinforces the idea that a gun is not a toy and should therefore not be wielded as such.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         wilbury4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So do you believe that exposure to an item/product means that you should possess that item/ product. TV, as you say, is the main media where exposure arises, TV also shows drug addiction, violence, and many other crimes, gun crime included; exposure to such should not meant that one should participate in the viewed action.
         My opinion is that over here in the UK, guns of any kind are not necessary under normal circumstances, and there is no reason that a 7 year old should need to ever be in contact with one. Over in the USA, may be different, I can't comment on the rules over there.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            NateSeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Oh for the love of God. Again, we are talking about a license. That's piece of laminated paper with a signature on it. Not a gun itself. Having the license for something does not guarantee you will get a gun.
            
            My parents had a driver's license for ten years before they could even afford to rent a car, much less had access to one to drive. In some states in the US you can get your learners permit at the age of 14, but it doesn't mean the kid is automatically going to have access to a car.
            
            And yes, TV shows violence, drug addiction and many other crimes. You know what, welearn about those things in school. I don't know how they do it in the UK, but in the US, police hold special events at school that teach students about drug recognition. They bring samples of the drug and the paraphanalia so that kids can learn to recognize the names and the drugs that are on the street, with the hope that they can learn to avoid such things.
            
            Sure, some of those kids will probably go onto use drugs either way. But that's the power of free will. And at least they can't say that no one tried to educate them.
            
            A gun license, which is issued by the government and with the parent's consent, at least shows me that the parents were responsible enough to teach their child about responsibility and safety.
            
            The idea that the gun license=getting a gun, is the same logical fallacy that lead hundreds of Vermonters to believing that "Civil Unions= Gay People flocking to Vermont by the Thousands". There's just no logical reason to believe it will happen.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               wilbury4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Likewise "Oh for the love of God" (Temper temper).
               A 7 year old is not responsible enough to possess a gun license (why have a license if your not going to use it),  a 7 year old is a child, guns are not a part of childhood, they are weapons, they can kill.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  NateSeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Then it's up to the parent to make the call. Bottomline. Not up to someone else's parents mind you. But to the parent of the individual child.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     wilbury4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Agree... and the parent should be fully responsible.
                     However, some parents have encountered dissaster through children using a gun, a small mistake, a lapse of concentration.... why take the chance? As I have previously mentioned, the USA is different to the UK in many ways, so I don't expect you to fully agree with me, nor I to fully agree with you. Cheers.

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        NateSeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Well as the US doesn't allow anyone to apply for a hunting license until they're 16, nationality doesn't really play into it here.
                        
                        I just happen to agree with the UK government's decision here.
                        
                        Aside from the fact, as I pointed out, a kid can have an accident with a gun whether he's licensed or not. But at least if he's licensed, the accident is far less likely because the parents are now even more liable in the eyes of the government.
                        
                        It's not taking responsibility from the parents. It's reminding them of it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           wilbury4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I think the Government are planning to look deeper into the law and make changes to the minimum age rule, I would vote for that!
                           We're not hunters, I think "clay pigeon shooting" is the sport in question.
                           We all have differences of opinion... it would be a boring world if we all thought alike, would be like "Stepford wives".
                           Have a good weekend....

                           replyreport
6. 63

   CARIBQUEENposted 13 years ago

   As long as they don't shoot themselves in the foot or anywhere else for that matter. It is crazy though and parents need to be more attentive to their own thought processes.

   replyreport