Opposing Views: OPINION:GOP Politician Buys Pistol for 4-Year-Old Daughter

GOP Politician Buys Pistol for 4-Year-Old Daughter

By The Brady Campaign , To Prevent Gun Violence - October 28, 2009

Comments(13) | (0)

Not a headline from The Onion. Or a plotline from The Simpsons.

No, apparently Georgia State Rep. Sean Jerguson — a real live elected official soaked in the gun lobby’s Kool-Aid — actually boasted of purchasing a pink .22-caliber pistol for his 4-year old daughter, according to reports.

But what about his son, you ask? Not to worry. On reaching the ripe old age of 4, he too will apparently receive a pistol of his very own. A blue one, of course.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

…The politics of packing heat in public places is difficult for Georgia Republicans. While the base is often gung-ho, many strategists worry that the idea of hidden pistols at PTA meetings and prayer services is a middle-class turn-off.

Last week, [gun lobby group] Georgiacarry kindly provided the audio from [a] summer panel discussion.

One of the participants was state Rep. Sean Jerguson (R-Holly Springs), a Georgiacarry member, who said he believes so strongly in gun ownership that, when his daughter turned 4 years old, he gave her a “pink .22.” His son was about to turn the same age, and would get a blue one, the lawmaker said…. [more]

In response, this comment from Strollerderby, a parenting blog:

…If you want to convince the rest of us that gun ownership is a good thing, how about showing people how a gun is useful to your family rather than flaunting your taste for flirting with danger at your kids’ expense? [more]

Stories like this make even the world-weary cynic realize they haven’t seen it all. And they leave the average parent incredulous.

One would think that when gun advocates act out their own Stephen Colbert scripts, they would begin to understand how jaw-droppingly bizarre they’ve become.

Right?

Regarding Article

OPINION:GOP Politician Buys Pistol for 4-Year-Old Daughter

Lots of kids..

get firearms young (although 6 is mostly what I hear). Usually they are rifles in states were they are tools and not weapons, but really- how can it hurt to have a child trained in the safe use and avoidance of guns ? Would I teach a 7 year old to drive, you ask? Yes. Have. Would again. NOT on city streets, but in safe and private places- just like this little girl will learn to fire a gun properly. Lifetime NRA obama liberal here, BTW.

- Mathematicaster October 28, 2009 11:35AM

Reply to this Recommend (5)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Education, Not Taboo.

While four is too young to hand children a loaded weapon (in my own opinion), teaching the principles of gun safety at an early age can do the child a great deal of good. The problem with inner city youths is that they are more likely to be exposed to guns through violence and first have firearms introduced to them through phallic means, not responsible ones.

Two of my cousins went through NRA safety training at ages five and seven and grew up around rifles and handguns. Now one is in college and the other is finishing his last year of high school . They turned out just fine.

If you make firearms taboo, you do your children a disservice as when they do pick one up they will have the potential to be far more dangerous than an adolescent who's been given the proper knowledge to safely own and operate one.

- m46607 October 28, 2009 1:24PM

Reply to this Recommend (4)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well

Tell me which is more dangerous.

1) Little Jimmy is at a friend's house and comes across a loaded pistol left on a table by a negligent parent. Jimmy's parent's don't believe in owning a gun for protection and have always taught him that guns themselves were bad and only used for good when in the hands of the police or military . They also told him never to touch a gun if he finds one. But little Jimmy is curious. The gun holds a certain mystique. Guns are forbidden to him. He's never seen one fired in real life, nor has he ever touched one. So he decides that while no one is looking he'll pick up the gun and check it out. He holds it, looks at the various parts, pretends to shoot it, looks down the barrel to see if he can see the shiny metal bullet, and then he puts his finger on the trigger to see what it would feel. I'll stop there.

or,

2) Little Tommy is at a friend's house and comes across a loaded pistol left on a table by a negligent parent. Tommy's parents have many guns, and involved Tommy in shooting since he was 4-years-old. They him how to safely handle weapons and also instilled in him a healthy dose a respect for guns as a tool that when used wrong can be deadly. They also taught him that they, a responsible parents, will never leave guns out unless they are carrying them, and to always tell an adult ANYTIME there is a gun out that's not attached to someone's hip. Tommy goes into the backyard where Mr. and Mrs. Potential Negligent-Homicide are arguing about the amount of chlorine to throw in the old pool and informs them that there is a gun out in the open. They go in and put the gun up.

Which is more dangerous?

- mhphoto October 28, 2009 1:30PM

Reply to this Recommend (6)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Scenario #2 is more dangerous...
  
  According to the Brady Campaign.
  
  More dangerous to their message, that is.
  
  - SolarSanitizer October 30, 2009 11:41AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Making of Gun Paranoia

The Brady Bunch only see a 4 year-old blasting away with a semi-automatic weapon wreaking havoc upon all things living or inanimate. The best they can do to support their position is to quote a "Blog", what a laugh. They don't have the capacity to envision the slow and careful process of properly training a youth to use and respect a firearm and learning a sport. The Brady Campaign just can't accept the fact that many people and families own and enjoy firearms as a sport and hobby, and have done so without incident long before they existed. To them "any" gun is bad and will promote damnation upon all. The goal of such nearsighted organizations is to eliminate the firearm. That is what is "jaw-dropping", is the close-minded idiocy of the Brady Nuts. So, now is the time to purchase for the youth, as the difficulties of obtaining a firearm will only increase, as it has here in California.

- VonS October 28, 2009 2:15PM

Reply to this Recommend (6)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are the summer interns still unsupervised and still volunteering?

This kind of fearmongering drivel has no place in any sort of avocational organization that wishes to promote successfully.

The fundamentals for successful early childhood education are well known; they do not include any of the implied goals of this post.

- jfh October 28, 2009 9:52PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mine.

My 4 and 6 year old girls know the Eddie the Eagle rules about guns . Never touch, leave the area and find an adult. They also know that Daddy wears a gun every day and nothing about that is odd. They know they can touch Daddy's gun if they want to, just ask. Guns are not foreign to them. They are as familiar as TV and books. Right now, they show some interest in learning to shoot. But more importantly, they know guns are serious and that as long as they follow the rules, nothing can go wrong.

My 6 year old has even taught her 8 year old neighbor the rules so she knows what to do if she comes over to our house . How cool is that?

- moby clarke October 29, 2009 7:46PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Damn cool.
  
  My kids are older, 11 and 15, but they also know about my guns , and both have shot with my wife and me. As a result, I don't have to worry about them around guns, mine or others. They are not curious enough to start playing around with them, because they know the deal. When they grow up, both will likely get their own guns and teach their kids about them. Therefore, I will have less worry about their safety - not zero, because I am a parent - but at least they will have a chance.
  
  - LagerHead October 30, 2009 8:35AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (3)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
idiot

Maybe she will take the little pink gun and shoot the idiot who gave it to her..

- cbooh October 30, 2009 11:30PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Well
  
  Your comment is pointless. Why did you even try? If you're going to disagree at least bring up some points to support your opposition.
  
  - mhphoto November 1, 2009 5:15PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - i still say anyone that would buy a
    
    child a gun is an idiot ...so if that is pointless so be it...who cares most people who are for guns just dont see any other point..
    
    - cbooh November 5, 2009 9:22PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - No
      
      I do see the other side of the argument, but let me put my example here again to reiterate why I think the other side is wrong this time.
      
      1) Little Jimmy is at a friend's house and comes across a loaded pistol left on a table by a negligent parent. Jimmy's parent's don't believe in owning a gun for protection and have always taught him that guns themselves were bad, only on the earth to kill, and can only be used for good when in the hands of the police or military . They also told him never, ever to touch a gun if he finds one. But little Jimmy is curious. The gun holds a certain mystique because they are forbidden to him. He's never seen one fired in real life, nor has he ever touched one. So he decides that while no one is looking he'll pick up the gun and check it out. He holds it, looks at the various parts, fiddles with the slide release, pretends to shoot it, makes "pew" sounds, looks down the barrel to see if he can see the shiny metal bullet inside, and then puts his finger on the trigger to see what it feels like. I'll stop there.
      
      or,
      
      2) Little Tommy is at a friend's house and comes across a loaded pistol left on a table by a negligent parent. Tommy's parents have many guns, and have involved Tommy in shooting from a young age. They taught him how to safely handle weapons and also instilled in him a healthy dose a respect for guns as a tool that, when used wrong, can be deadly. They also taught him that they, as responsible parents, will never keep guns out of locked storage unless they are carrying or cleaning them. They also told him to always tell an adult ANYTIME there is a gun out that's not attached to someone's hip or being cleaned. The gun holds no mystique for Tommy, and he goes into the backyard where Mr. and Mrs. Potential Negligent-Homicide are arguing about the amount of chlorine to throw in the crappy above-ground pool and informs them that there is a gun out in the open and that they should put it up. They go in and put the gun up.
      
      Tell me which is more dangerous?
      
      - mhphoto November 5, 2009 10:22PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (2)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Got to desensitize these people

I would only let a 4 year-old shoot a pistol if my hands were helping her hold the gun on target. If she were careful and obedient, I might let her shoot a single-shot .22 rifle unaided -- but I'd sure be standing right behind her ready to grab her if she started to do anything wrong.

As for hidden pistols at PTA meetings and prayer services, we already have that when off-duty cops attend. It cannot be any more of a turn-off than pistols carried openly -- which is our Constitutional Right.

- fsilber November 4, 2009 12:18PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.