Guns guns guns.

So in a jarring switch, I'm going to talk about something morbidly depressing today, though looking back I think I'd rather discuss the merits of choking down another Skittles milkshake. Sure, it made my stomach church and suffer stabbing pains, but physical pain is always easier to deal over emotional tragedy, which I'm going to mull over today.

You see, earlier this month in Kentucky, a little boy accidentally shot his sister in the chest with his rifle, brought as a birthday gift, killing her. It is as awful and tragic as it sounds, and my thoughts are with the family.

Now what I am not going to discuss here is how all guns need to be banned, as that's a very complicated subject to get into and I'm just a idiot with a blog. Namely, two things here are of further interest; the uncle, describing that this incident as something you can't prepare for, and the type of rifle used and how it's marketed.

Now unfortunately, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with the uncle here, on the eve of such tragedy, because yes, this is something you can prepare for. (Er, to clarify, not the dealing with a loss of a child, but the prevention of such a godawful event happening.) It's basic gun safety.

The saddest thing is that I know basic gun safety, in a country where most types of gun are impossible to legally get hold off. We make it as ridiculously convoluted as possible to get hold of a gun, to the point it's illegal for our own British Olympic handgun shooting team to train in Britain. Of the gun safety I know, I can rattle off three points from the top of my head: All guns are considered loaded until physically ascertained otherwise, never point your gun at something you don't intend to destroy, and only put your finger on the trigger when you intend to fire. One quick online check confirms this save the addition to know what is behind your target as well. So know I now that as well.

Film and pop culture admittedly doesn't assist in such matters, posing with guns because it's 'cool'. Look at these chumps:

Ah, back before the sequels which never happened.

Fingers on the triggers like idiots, causally pointed muzzles anywhere. One startle and the best case scenario involves a change of underwear and shattered pavement slabs, worst case scenario a trip to the hospital with multiple calf wounds and the remains of someone's toe in a ice bag.

In a rare comparison, in one of my favourite movies of all time, Tremors, with one of my favourite characters of all time, we have Burt Gummer, in one of my favourite little scenes of all time.

Earlier, he hands a gun to another character, Melvin, because whilst he said he'd never give Melvin a gun, hey, there's some monsters. As they end up running from the monsters, Melvin hammers away at the trigger... to discover that Burt was serious about never lending him a gun, as it's not loaded. When Melvin angrily hands it back to him later, Burt flicks open the gun to check that it's loaded, and then puts it away. That's right; he knowingly and deliberately handed someone an unloaded gun, and when the gun was handed back to him because it was stated to be unloaded, he still checked to see if it was loaded. Because guns are always loaded. The end. Burt Gummer does gun safety so right.

So right he gets slash fiction, which I'm not going to read for my own sanity.

In this tragic case, we can clearly see how gun safety was not followed and / or taught. It was the child's first rifle; if it wasn't, I'd be very surprised that these basics of gun safety wasn't drilled into him. Assuming it was his first rifle, why wasn't it secured until its use, under adult supervision? The article mentions it being 'left in a corner'. Over here, part of getting a gun licence is proving you have sufficient ability to store it safety, in metal lockable gun cases / safes, whereas I'm always hearing stories of Americans leaving guns under their pillows 'just in case'. Regular pillows, not the kevlar kind.

Now let's consider the gun purchased.

I bet if you licked the gun second from the bottom, it would taste like tangerines.

Now, in all fairness, I have nothing against children owning or using guns with appropriate adult supervision and training. I'm of the opinion that there's a great divide mentally between rural and urban populations regarding guns. Whilst urbanites see guns as no more than murder machines, people who live in more rural areas understand the tool aspect of guns much more. You not only have vermin, but America has plenty untamed wilderness and wild animals that would necessitate gun ownership to protect yourself from, a scenario that is completely alien to any urbanite. I also understand that bright colours would appeal to children more, especially young girls, who can be turned off by the overt masculine design of guns. And quite frankly, it's hard to be disapproving on something that might encourage girls and women to take up shooting. Perhaps they'd be a little more respect aimed towards women if there was a reasonable chance they were carrying. However. How-ever... do you know what those guns look like to me? They look like toys. And the scary thing is that strictly speaking, it is a toy.

Not a toy gun, but a toy – it's a device designed for recreational amusement by minors. Depending on the type of gun, guns straddle the line of tool and weapon – a bolt action rifle for example, while just as capable of putting a bullet through a man's head, is often a hunting tool and weapon, whereas a handgun has no real tool purpose, it's just a compact weapon. Whilst the gun used in question was more toy than tool, the things with guns is that they are always, no matter what their stated purpose is, 100% weapon. And I could see this gun being left in a corner. I'm not saying I'd do it, but from where I sit, it's not something utterly inconceivable. It's bright, it's colourful, it's small in scale and practically friendly looking – these things which might attract a child towards it, will similarly psychologically lessen the sense of danger that it gives off. For both children, and adults. Which is definitely the problem, because I can't see a family with children leaving a 9mm pistol casually in the corner, because those handguns look like sleek metal death.

So yeah, whilst I don't have big problem with firearms being advertised towards children – parents have the final say as they are minors, and I have little doubt there are many pre-teens who understand and respect the nature of guns who handle them properly, or I'm sure I'd see many more tragic accident stories – but those colours? Ah, no. Please. Way too toy like. They look like Nerf guns. And Nerf guns are coloured the way they are so no one panics over people carrying them: even at a distance, it's clear a Nerf gun is not a real firearm. That way no kids get shot at by a cop for playing with Nerf guns and the company doesn't get sued. Keep guns, looking like... guns, for fuck's sake.

It's difficult to talk about such a case without talking about gun control in America, so I'll try to add my opinion with the caveat that I'm not American, their culture is different to mine and I don't understand and can miss things that they'd put more / less importance on, I haven't looked deeply into the research here so please, this is just an opinion. If you believe I'm wrong, don't shriek at me, because I'll deem you a prick and ignore everything you say, even if it's of value. Gun control in America is always a complicated thing. As mentioned, there's a great difference of opinion between groups of people that see them as tools (and in all honesty, toys) versus people who sees them as only instruments of death. Could, or should America, ban all guns? I'm not of the opinion that is an achievable option. There's far too many guns out there, and you live in a country with grizzly-fucking-bears. Actual grizzly bears. You clearly have some need of them. Without going into too much detail about gun control, I can't see much of a problem restricting instant access of guns to people; waiting periods are good things. For one, it adds an obstacle to suicide attempts. The more difficult you can make suicide available, the lower the rates of suicide. And preventing people from access to assault weaponry? Hmm. America's history argues that they need those guns in case they need to overthrow their government. After all, you need to have equivalent to the military, right? Well, no.

You see, banning assault weapons would mean that while you would still have horrific mass shootings (that's a problem America can't quick fix overnight, because that seems more of a mental healthcare issue) it would lower casualties if the gun used in question went from firing 500 rounds a minute to 60. Could people still illegally get them? Sure. But the more obstacles you throw up, the harder the opportunity. Secondly, if you did need to overthrow the government, here's the brilliant thing: you get to break the law. It's kinda a requirement of being an outlaw. If you've got to the position where you believe that your government is so corrupt it needs to be violently overthrown, then you are in a position where you are not following the government's tyrannical laws, so guess what? You get to go illegally source a minigun. Have fun with that.

Let's summarize before I turn this into a page advocating the violent overthrow of America – which I am not doing, by the way, you shouldn't try to violently overthrow America, I was making a facetious point – that gun safety is paramount. So paramount. Guns are dangerous when operated in a certain way, if they're dangerous when not operated in a certain way then that's the gun being bloody defective and is a whole different kettle of fish. And the gun used in question makes me seriously wary with it's gosh-darn friendliness. It's a gun. It shouldn't be cheery. That's creepy as fuck and disassociates itself from what it actually is: a weapon. And while you can never prepare yourself for losing a child, or losing your sister by your own hands, decent preparation could have prevented such a terrible case.