Mashable’s gun safety questions to three [I’m sure randomly selected] kids are straightforward enough. But the question about reporting a stolen gun within one year depends entirely on where they live. I wouldn’t expect a child to know that answer. Nor would I be concerned if they didn’t. It’s not their responsibility. Question 7 on transportation is couched in legalese; I wouldn’t expect a child to understand. Question 8 is a trick question. And so on. How would your children answered have these questions at a similar age?
The end clip of the girl struggling to pull the slide back with finger on trigger, and then pointing it at her face, WTF!
We’ve done this play test with kids who don’t know about guns, with their parents watching, to prove a point. The kids that don’t know about guns, almost instantly pick it up, point it at themselves or someone else, and pull the trigger. Kids that do know about guns tell their parents there is a gun.
I watched a gun store employee struggle to clear my loaded CZ compact. I had it in my range bag, and was not planning on having it out, but I figured it would be OK if i had him clear it, he was a range offices for goodness sake!
I think a better question would be, why was it loaded if it was in your range bag?
Which is the whole point of the Eddie Eagle program, but because it’s from the NRA, anti-gun people freak out. It really should be taught in pre-schools and elementary schools. That would have a real effect on accidents.
“It really should be taught in pre-schools and elementary schools.”
If we are fortunate enough to get the right president, that is something we need to push HARD for.
Actual ‘gun safety’. For the children. Play the emotion card on the Left -“What? you WANT dead and injured kids?”…
Sorry, Geoff, but it doesn’t look like we will get the right president this time around, but if it’s Trump we can certainly try your approach. If it’s Hillary we’re screwed no matter what.
It’s funny, people will argue that we should provide sex ed, driver’s ed, and drug & alcohol awareness to minors because having that information will equip them to make better, smarter, safer decisions about whether or how they engage in those related activities.
My goodness, though, many of those same people will recoil in horror, be shocked and appalled, and strike down upon thee with great vengeance and fuuuurious anger those who would attempt to guide and safeguard children with a little firearms safety instruction.
And why? Because guns. Because the NRA. Because Chuck Heston or something. Good grief.
Kids are too expensive, too much work, too dangerous, and too much liability. I don’t have any.
+1
My kids would have passed at 4. Not bragging. Okay I am.
This test should have been given in Chicago and not Arizona. Lol
Children of that age in Chicago would’ve brought their own heaters to the video shoot. The Mashable folks would’ve left with no shoes, phone, or purse.
This test is not suitable for children, if you are trying to test their knowledge of gun safety. Since none of them can legally own a pistol, many of the questions are irrelevant.
What was the purpose of this test, anyway?
The purpose was to make a video that would frighten parents, especially those with little or no firearms knowledge.
The reason to teach kids gun safety is so that when they are adults they still obey the rules of gun safety. There are too many adults in this world who have no knowledge of guns yet they own one for protection or whatever and think they’ll be proficient in using it when they’re in danger which they won’t be. If you don’t practice the gun safety rules you end up being that story in the news about the guy who shoots his neighbor when cleaning his gun because he didn’t clear it beforehand.
This test shows how simple basic firearm safety and responsible firearm ownership is. I am quite glad to see that the 10 year old boy passed with flying colors.
He didn’t pass. When handed the gun, he immediately pulled the trigger while pointing it at the ceiling without checking chamber. He answers the questions right, but did not properly employ them in practice.
Are we sure there was no editing a la Katie Couric?
Katie Couric update:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Katie Couric has reversed course and taken responsibility for an edit that misrepresents the response of gun rights activists to a question she poses in a new documentary.
The segment in “Under the Gun” shows nearly 10 seconds of silence after Couric asks the activists how felons or terrorists could be prevented from purchasing a gun without background checks.
Audio of the exchange leaked last week reveals an almost immediate response to the question.
Couric writes in a message on the film’s website that she regrets not raising her initial concerns about the segment “more vigorously.”
Director Stephanie Soechtig told The Washington Post last week that the pause was so viewers could consider the question.
Couric said then that she supported Soechtig’s statement and was “very proud of the film.””
http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/3f5007a8fd6a4d1693f02ad13dde1e19/katie-couric-takes-blame-misleading-gun-documentary
This is an honest question, forget reporting within 1year, who the fvck doesn’t report a stolen gun within seconds of realizing it was stolen? I guess I could buy the excuse that you overlooked it or something because you are one of those people who has guns stashed all over the house in different books and crannies or something like that. I had a handgun and a rifle stolen a few years ago and when the officer arrived I had tracked down the serials and that was the first thing we went over before anything else. I fail to see why, assuming you knew it was gone, you would waste any time making a report? It’s not like you can’t have it back if it is ever recovered.
Am I missing something here? Just seems like common sense, if nothing else because insurance won’t pay out without a police report.
It’s common sense, yes.
Requiring common sense under criminal penalty is pushing the envelope.
If someone fails to or doesn’t want to report a stolen gun, and they are not a licensed dealer, then that’s not something they should be able to be prosecuted for. There’s no other legal personal property that carries such criminal liability.
What if the gun was $200, is it worth reporting to the insurance company?
I’m sure they’re trying to imply that the test is too easy and needs to be made more difficult. All I see is proof that the test is pointless and should be done away with.
Mine would likely fail. They are younger than the oldest, older than the youngest.
They would pass the four rule questions, but probably have mixed results on the others. of course, if handed a firearm at the end they would likely have put it down and walked away unless they were told they we’re toys.
Kids learn what they are told to learn. Young children can pick up foreign languages even more easily than adults can.
Regardless of whether or not a child can handle a gun, it’s always a good idea to explain what crime is so that youngsters can resist peer pressure.
If the system insists on telling 10 year olds about trannys, condom usage, drug education, masturbation and abortion; explaining that all guns should be treated as loaded etc should not be considered unreasonable.
Since far more people have, in fact, died from AIDS than gunfire, there are compelling reasons to educate kids about any high risk behavior.
The 2 easiest things you can teach kids are how to swim and how to do CPR. More youngsters drown to death than are shot and killed.
There is no such exam in Michigan and there hasn’t been for years. There are numerous other inaccuracies in the video too.
It’s been a few years since I needed a pistol purchase permit from the sherrif but this quiz was almost word for word from sherrif dept quiz when applying for the permit.
I would have also cautioned these youngsters to not illegally carry concealed handguns. Especially in California. Getting caught in this manner could cause themselves a lot of trouble. Unless they let you off. Oh well. Maybe next time.
So the 10 year old boy answers questions about how you should always treat a gun as if it’s loaded and keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
He goes on and on during the test about how stupid easy the questions are, and indeed, they are.
Then the first thing he does when handed a gun is put his finger on the trigger and wave it around.
Good going, kid.
One little paragraph, yet our requests for proofreading before posting “answered have” not been…
@ 0:26 the girl says it is true that a gun must always be pointed in a safe direction. @ 0:35 the girl says it is true to never put your finger on the trigger until ready to fire at a target. Then at the end of the video points the gun at her face while having her finger on the trigger. 10 year old boy is handed gun at the end of the video points it at the ceiling and pulls the trigger. Epic fail for everyone.
Also – nobody likes a potty mouth boy.
Didn’t Michigan do away with the “safety inspection” and the “permit to purchase” for FFL transactions?
No safety inspection for more than 10 years, and a ffl can do the NICS check instead of getting the purchase permit. I have a tragic story about the local chief of police doing a safety inspection. He took the pistol to his office to do the inspection. It was on a gorgeous stainless sig pistol, the officer didn’t know how the take the pistol down and pried on it with a small flat head(2 scratches), once he realized what he was doing wrong did the “inspection” and assembled the pistol he put the padlock back into the mag well, with the lock in the breach instead of hanging out the bottom of the mag well, another big scratch. The owner was pissed off! I heard the story and seen the damage, but did not see this happen.
Maybe she pointed the gun at her face because it was a safe direction? Nothing in there to damage?
Better question: Would any gun control advocate pass?
My guess is that they told the kids that the gun they were about to hand them was a toy. Off camera of course.
Seems like the point of the video is that this supposed test is too easy and therefore should be made harder. This falls in line with the gun control arguments that we need to mandate training before someone should be allowed to buy a gun.
I just laugh at the gun-controllers most of the time because they know nothing about the topic they’re talking about. They’ll argue that guns are dangerous and complicated and training should be required but then they turn around and say guns make murder easy. Those two statements can’t both be true.
Yes, everyone should get basic gun safety instruction before handling firearms, but they’re not complicated. My car has (goes to check…) 43 controls that govern operation of the car, plus seat controls and the controls for the CB. I can teach a kid to operate the car in about half an hour and most of that time will be getting them used to operating a manual transmission without stalling the car or taking off like a rocket.
By comparison my EDC pistol for this time of year has four controls, five if you count the slide.
I call BS on the alcohol thing. You can totally drink and carry in PA, carry your gun in a bar, whatever.
I’m pretty sure the ‘gun lock thing when handing a pistol to police for inspection’ is BS too.
Outdated but not BS. Michigan is not PA. No possession of firearms while intoxicated.
Fourteen is true for all modern designs. If you’re including some old designs it’s not, but that’s a pretty technical, weapon-specific question. For most shooters using a modern gun, I’d tell them it’s much safer to let it fall than to try to catch it.
Back in 2011 and maybe 2012, I had to answer the true-false test in Michigan. I think they allowed me 2 wrong answers out of 15 questions. The law changed probably around the beginning of 2013–I should remember–and I remember always filling out the NICS form at the FFL, Cabela’s, for example. Pistol inspections were gone before 2011. The blood alcohol limit for CPL usage in Michigan is .02%.
Comments are closed.