Help Me Out With A "problem"...

[Chriss Grube]

ok the kid has a new .22 and the gear. Give him a safety test which should be standard for all new shooters.....if he fails problem solved for the time being....if he passes let him shoot. I've RO'ed lots of shooters that scary the living S&^t out of me on the line. They passed the safety check and don't do anything to DQ them for....so they get to shoot. The attention span shouldn't be much of an issue. 60 seconds for a stage under the CLOSE SUPERVISION of a trained RO.

[sci]

I've shot hundreds of times in flip flops. It's really not a big deal.

OK i will take the bait

Ummmmm Jake is kinda known for for some ummmm strange shooting attire

Steve

[spook]

+1 and 2 on Jake's comments.

If KC was a master at 8, I would contact him to ask how he was guided by his folks. Apparently they did something right

About shooting on flip flops, I do it a lot. I wear Land Sharks or similar during matches, but that's only because I want all the advantages I can get.

[smokshwn]

If Jake had worn shoes with the green thong it just would not have looked right

[Buzzmeister]

Well, this doesn't help. I went to the range this afternoon with my son, and guess who is there practicing for next weekend's match, with a new gun...

OK, you had them last week, I'll take them this week.

[mpolans]

***SNIP***

When they left, my 21 year old son said that he sure didn't like being out there with that little kid shooting. He doesn't even know about this controversy being discussed here. This was the first time he had seen the kid.

Without more information, the comment above is absolutely useless. What *exactly* did your son see the kid do that was unsafe?

Without more info, all you have is a prejudiced statement...just substitute a race/gender/religion for the word "kid" and think about how the above statement looks.

[North]

***SNIP***

When they left, my 21 year old son said that he sure didn't like being out there with that little kid shooting. He doesn't even know about this controversy being discussed here. This was the first time he had seen the kid.

Without more information, the comment above is absolutely useless. What *exactly* did your son see the kid do that was unsafe?

Without more info, all you have is a prejudiced statement...just substitute a race/gender/religion for the word "kid" and think about how the above statement looks.

That is just crap. On this forum, and this thread I think we can safely assume that the kids gun handling made the 21 year old uneasy. not saying that it was "unsafe" but just made him uneasy. I think anyone that has been around guns for a little while has been around someone that made you uneasy.

Alluding to Racism or Bigotry is simply uncalled for! It seems to be a large leap from the intent of this thread. I think an apology is in order.

The kid holds the pistol in one hand, and pulls the trigger with the other, Shoots a sub minor pistol, and by every indication is planning to shoot a .22 and the next match. I mean hell, just throw out the rule book. How does the kid shoot STO or WHO?

I personally would not shoot with this family, or at a club that allowed this.

Is starting one shooter the wrong way, worth loosing several experienced shooters?

[Calamity Jane]

Without more info, all you have is a prejudiced statement...just substitute a race/gender/religion for the word "kid" and think about how the above statement looks.

Is this age discrimination?

Not allowing a 6 year old to drive a car.

Not allowing a 6 year old to buy a pack of cigs.

Not allowing a 6 year old to buy alcohol.

I think not. A 6 year old is not physically or mentally ready for these things. We place age restrictions on some things in life to protect people from themselves. It seems to me more and more of our freedom is being eaten away by others who are irresponsible with their behavior.

If you say "NO"....people scream age discrimination, intolerance etc....

But if you don't say no you risk an accident. An accident with a kid and a gun in our sport would be so detrimental I don't even want to think about the consequences.

The kid is not physically capable of holding a weapon that meets USPSA qualifications. He can shoot all he wants with his family under their supervision and own time, but in my opinion is he should NOT BE IN AN IPSC MATCH. If we don't regulate ourselves and act in the best interest of our sport, then we will be regulated by others. I wouldn't be surprised if the USPSA BOD doesn't eventually come out with a minimum age requirement for this very reason.

As a mother I can promise you the 6 year old will get over it. There will be no need for therapy later in life just because he was told NO. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the most loving thing we can do for our kids is to say NO! Sorry...thread drift.

[DJPoLo]

Well, this doesn't help. I went to the range this afternoon with my son, and guess who is there practicing for next weekend's match, with a new gun...

Yep, junior and dad were there, he had a new Walther 22 with extra mags and 4 mag pouches on his belt. They had a course set up and was running the kid on it. When they left, the kid said that he'd see me at the match next weekend, he had gotten a new pistol for the match. Dayum, this isn't what I was wanting to see...

Does your club allow .22s to shoot IPSC? I know from your original post that the youngest was "allowed" to compete with a .380.

Our local club plays in strict accordance with USPSA rules and will not deviate from the 9mm minimum rule. Our Steel Challenge matches allow for .22 but not USPSA/IPSC.

-Chet

[Flexmoney]

Our Steel Challenge mactch also allowes 22's.

Little to no movement. Only 5 targets max (no reloads required). Reactive targets for immediate feedback. No holster/draw required.

On and on...it's a great place to start new and young shooters...and it's still challenging to the best shooters in the world.

[mpolans]

***SNIP***

When they left, my 21 year old son said that he sure didn't like being out there with that little kid shooting. He doesn't even know about this controversy being discussed here. This was the first time he had seen the kid.

Without more information, the comment above is absolutely useless. What *exactly* did your son see the kid do that was unsafe?

Without more info, all you have is a prejudiced statement...just substitute a race/gender/religion for the word "kid" and think about how the above statement looks.

That is just crap. On this forum, and this thread I think we can safely assume that the kids gun handling made the 21 year old uneasy. not saying that it was "unsafe" but just made him uneasy. I think anyone that has been around guns for a little while has been around someone that made you uneasy.

Why should we assume such a thing? The poster did not indicate an unsafe act and many others have chimed in have already expressed concern based solely on the shooter's age without regard to whether or not the kid commits an unsafe act.

Alluding to Racism or Bigotry is simply uncalled for! It seems to be a large leap from the intent of this thread. I think an apology is in order.

As it is written, the statement is prejudicial. It appears the post is calling into question the ability of the shooter to shoot safely without regard to any observation of an unsafe act. I'm just calling them as I see them. Now that I've explained it, I will readily accept your apology when you're ready.

The kid holds the pistol in one hand, and pulls the trigger with the other, Shoots a sub minor pistol, and by every indication is planning to shoot a .22 and the next match. I mean hell, just throw out the rule book. How does the kid shoot STO or WHO?

None of the actions mentioned is necessarily unsafe. If you want to kick him out for shooting a sub-minor caliber, go for it; it's in the rule book. But making up rules and applying them on a whim doesn't seem right. If it's really that big an issue, get your Area Director to propose a minimum age rule like IDPA has or have it put to the membership as a referendum.

I personally would not shoot with this family, or at a club that allowed this.

Is starting one shooter the wrong way, worth loosing several experienced shooters?

That's your choice. Personally, if the kid is safe, I would have no problem shooting with him. I'm assuming you, or someone you know has been DQ'd for a safety violation. If so, based on the info I've seen thus far in this thread, any one who has been DQ'd for a safety violation has more objective evidence proving they are unsafe than the six year old in question. Are you not going to a match because of them either?

My comments above in bold.

[mpolans]

Without more info, all you have is a prejudiced statement...just substitute a race/gender/religion for the word "kid" and think about how the above statement looks.

Is this age discrimination?

Not allowing a 6 year old to drive a car.

Not allowing a 6 year old to buy a pack of cigs.

Not allowing a 6 year old to buy alcohol.

I think not. A 6 year old is not physically or mentally ready for these things. We place age restrictions on some things in life to protect people from themselves. It seems to me more and more of our freedom is being eaten away by others who are irresponsible with their behavior.

The government places age restrictions on these things for the purpose of expediency because a judgment call has been made that the overwhelming majority of 6 year olds do not have the capacity to do those things. No argument there. However:

1. The government is not infallible (want to cite DC laws as an example of government rationality? Are you really a true believer in zero-tolerance policies? )

2. These laws are voted on, not arbitrarily applied on a whim.

3. Given the very low number of young shooters competing in IPSC, the necessity of expediency is non-existent. There are few enough that judgment calls can be made; no need to resort to an absolute zero-tolerance policy based on age.

If you say "NO"....people scream age discrimination, intolerance etc....

But if you don't say no you risk an accident. An accident with a kid and a gun in our sport would be so detrimental I don't even want to think about the consequences.

The same could be said of any accident within our sport, particularly of minor, regardless of whether they are six or sixteen (anyone arguing that we need to kick sixteen year olds out too?)

The kid is not physically capable of holding a weapon that meets USPSA qualifications. He can shoot all he wants with his family under their supervision and own time, but in my opinion is he should NOT BE IN AN IPSC MATCH.

Then kick him out for not shooting a gun that meets minor, but hold everyone else to the same standard...old folks too.

If we don't regulate ourselves and act in the best interest of our sport, then we will be regulated by others. I wouldn't be surprised if the USPSA BOD doesn't eventually come out with a minimum age requirement for this very reason.

Sorry, I'm not a big fan of appeasement policies that only serve to limit us while not satisfying those that don't like us. If the BOD comes out with a rule, so be it. If the kid acts unsafe, kick him out as you would any other unsafe shooter.

As a mother I can promise you the 6 year old will get over it. There will be no need for therapy later in life just because he was told NO. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the most loving thing we can do for our kids is to say NO! Sorry...thread drift.

[Mr. Chitlin]

Wow!! Great discussion on both sides of the argument. Our RO's are going to have a meeting and decide how to handle this situation.

Thanks one and all for the helpful and insightful comments. It gives us more venues for discussion.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Mr. Chitlin

[Mousekiller]

I've shot hundreds of times in flip flops. It's really not a big deal.

Personally i don't think it's the safest thing to do but as long as your safe and dont' break whatever local club rules are in place have at it.

6 is a little young..

My perspective is, What's the club's BOD or operating committe or property owners think about this ? Insurance coverages ? Personal liability as the RO ? I don't think i'd RO him even if his dad was there, i would not feel comfortable with a child that age(i've raised two boys now 20 & 24) and would not want to place myself in that position if something went wrong.. In this day and age i could see the lawsuits flying... no thanks..

Tough situation now compounded by your most recent turn of events with them getting the new gun for him... would not want to turn off a "new shooter" but i think for evryones piece of mind and safety 6 is just to young.

Jeff .

[Mr. Chitlin]

Well, here is how it played out. The RO's (4 of us) pulled the dad aside before the match and explained to him that we just felt that the boy was too young to be doing this at this time. Once he gets a little older, and can handle the gun with one hand, we will look at it again. It might be a couple of years, but we'll see what happens. The dad understood, there was no problems at all. I really think the little one was disappointed, but after the match they left a couple of stages up for him to shoot. He was blasting away when I left.

I really appreciated all the comments, both pro and con. It gave us more info to make an informed decision.

All is well for now.

[SA Friday]

If Jake had worn shoes with the green thong it just would not have looked right

No, no, no. It was a lime green thong, and a Viking Helmet

Besides, Jake is pretty much super-human. I say he wears 2 inchs of lead under the flip-flops and lead sap gloves just to make it even for the rest of us....

Edited August 15, 2006 by SA Friday