FYI: June 15 is National Take Your Daughter to the Range Day.

Just a reminder that June 15 is National Take Your Daughter to the Range Day. Most of us need no excuse, but it’s still nice to have a day or an excuse to go shooting. As always, be safe and have fun.

Share what you love with your loved ones.

http://nationaltakeyourdaughtertotherangeday.com/

Related

GD

GD Crocker is a proud Southerner who has been shooting for decades. He is a competitive shooter, armorer, instructor and collector. He recently passed the bar exam and deals primarily with securities law. GD’s proudest moments are seeing his kids shoot and get excited about their 2nd Amendment rights. He’s no Rick Taylor, but then again, who is?


Advertisement

  • zardinuk

    My girls birthday is on the 15th, but she’s only turning 3… bummer! Maybe when she’s older.

    • David Sharpe

      Tori Nonaka learned to shoot when she was 3.

      Now she shoots for Team Glock.

      Never too early man.

  • Dane

    I’ve gotten to the point that my daughter shoots better groups than me on our AR-15. Luckily she’s not as fast as I am, as a father I feel I have to maintain some form of bragging right.

  • MrApple

    I can’t wait till my little “stinkbug” is old enough to go shooting with me. Maybe by then I can actually find a decent sized box of 22LR that don’t cost as much as a full meal at a fancy restaurant.

  • TZH .

    my daughter is 4 years old, but she sometimes puts on my IPSC holster rig. :-)

  • Jerry

    My little girl can out shoot me with my carry gun, but, she will get more attention from me.

  • ekimp252

    I try to take my daughters and granddaughter shooting as much as I can.

  • Clodboy

    The girl in the pic is like, what, 6 years old?
    Maybe that’s just my European sensibilities talking, but based on my experiences with six-year-olds, I’m not sure if I’d trust them with comprehending that something can be both a “toy” and a deadly weapon – especially seeing as how even for adults, the basic tenets of gun safety essentially force you to make overcautiousness your second nature, no matter how many rounds you’ve put put downrange in your life.

    Of course if your daughter is in her teenage years, then by all means, take her to the range and introduce her to an entertaining sport, a useful skill, and generally an important lesson in firearm safety. Just teach her some self-respect and don’t get her a pink gun ;)

    • phamnuwen

      I couldn’t agree more. The girl in the picture actually has her hand on the rifle while looking in the other direction. That’s a clear violation of safety rule 2: Never let the muzzle cover anything you aren’t willing to destroy.

      Of course that’s not her fault. She cannot help that her parents are reckless. They should be held fully liable for any ND’s that occur.

      Children (or adults for that matter) should never be given access to firearms without first demonstrating a full comprehension and respect for Cooper’s four safety rules.

      Making sure of this is the responsibility of all firearm users. If you see unsafe practices, don’t be afraid to speak up. Responsible people will thank you for your concern for their safety. An idiot might get offended, but there is no purpose in pleasing idiots.

      And yes, pink guns are stupid.

      • Grutch

        You’re just jealous because she can put one in your eye while you’re still fumbling with the safety.

        • phamnuwen

          You’re just jealous because she can put one in your eye while you’re still fumbling with the safety.

          Your suggestion that children be taught to shoot people over an argument clearly doesn’t prove my point about reckless behavior.

          • pitbu1l

            Then you need to protest the sale of violent shooting video games! Part of my early life was learning to hunt for food… dove, deer, pheasant, rabbit… and I started when I was about 6. No one is teaching this girl to shoot people, but learning to control a gun and how to do it accurately. Video Games are the ones having you shoot people… go after them instead of guns. My daughter is 12 and can shoot her pistol making a very tight group… plus she is always safety minded.

          • gunslinger

            see the studies of the links between violence and violent video games. they show that…wait. wait a minute. there isn’t a link between the two. at least not in any of the studies that have been done.

            i will agree that people need to be taught the respect of firearms.

          • phamnuwen

            Then you need to protest the sale of violent shooting video games!

            Not really. Obviously some games might be unsuitable for kids, but I would leave that decision up to parents.

            In any case, a video game however objectionable is likely to be a lot less harmful than teaching your kids poor firearm handling in real life.

            As long as people really teach their kids proper gun safety, then I’m fine with it.

      • David Sharpe

        Really?

        “Never let the muzzle cover anything you aren’t willing to destroy.”

        It’s pointed downrange, dumbass.

        Pink guns aren’t stupid to those who want them, if buying a kid a pink gun is what helps them get into shooting, I’ll buy as many pink guns as they want.

        • phamnuwen

          It’s pointed downrange, dumbass.

          Please try to comprehend the rules before commenting on them.

          I’ll buy as many pink guns as they want.

          By all means do so. I didn’t say I would try to stop you. I just said it was stupid.

          • gunslinger

            4 rules…

            1) gun is always loaded

            2) never put muzzle on target you don’t intend to destroy

            3) keep finger off trigger until ready to shoot

            4) be sure of target and beyond.

            let’s see.

            1)…can’t tell but that’s more of a mental note

            2)… hummm she may not be looking down the sights. but how many shotgunners, hunters, etc have held their rifle at an angle up/down w/e and not been looking down the sights.

            3)… can’t tell where her index finger is. it doesn’t look like it’s on the trigger, but we can’t be sure from the angle and resolution of the picture

            4)… well considering the gun is pointed downrange of a gun range, i’m pretty confident that downrange is safe.

            problem is that given the picture, were are making ASSumptions about what else is going on.

            and as for pink guns, i think it’s stupid to think it’s stupid to have a pink gun. not all guns are your pappy’s single shot 20ga break action wood stock with duck carvings. it’s just as asinine to think all cars should come in black or white. we have paint…we have plastics…we can personalize.

          • phamnuwen

            Rule 2 is violated. By definition you need to observe the area covered by the muzzle at all times in order to keep it away from things you don’t want to destroy. There is no rule 2.5 stating that “Rule 2 doesn’t apply when pointing down range.”.

            Having said that I will grant it’s difficult to tell exactly the whole story from just a picture. So for example maybe this was a momentary lapse during training, and the student was corrected immediately thereafter. Or maybe she just looked back for a split second, which one might argue would be permissible within the rules.

          • gunslinger

            I’ll still disagree with you on rule 2.

            Check out these two articles… they must be bad people because they don’t know where their gun is pointed. or where their bullet would fall should a round be fired…

            http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/13/enjoyable-gun-show-ages/

            and

            http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/04/28/rip-tom-knapp-legendary-shot/

          • phamnuwen

            Well, there are two way to look at pointing at the sky.

            1. You can consider the likelihood of muzzling an airplane/bird/flying chipmunk or some potential person on the other end of the ballistic trajectory of the bullet to be so small as to be negligible.

            2. You can consider it a violation and require people to keep the muzzle pointed at the ground (which of course could bring other problems like ricochets).

            The bottom line is that while absolute perfection in gun safety is probably difficult, if not impossible to achieve, that shouldn’t stop us from trying. I would consider handling a firearm pointing down range while looking the other way to be much more of an unnecessary and serious violation than the practically unavoidable but quite limited risk of muzzling an aircraft or having a ricochet from accidentally or negligently shooting the ground.

          • gunslinger

            1) by your previous post “There is no rule 2.5 stating that “Rule 2 doesn’t apply when pointing down range.” but you then say “you could consider that (rifle to the air) likelihood negligible.” well which is it?

            2) by your previous logic, a pistol in a holster violates rule 2 in that unless you are looking down the sights, you don’t know where it’s pointed. and as you said above, there are other problems like ricochets.

            perfect gun safety is impossible (by your definition) to achieve. but i don’t see any difference between the picture of young girl above, than in the two previous articles i listed. i don’t find any of the images an unnecessary or serious violation of rule 2.

          • phamnuwen

            1. well which is it?
            Both. They’re not mutually exclusive. One rises above the level of reasonable, unavoidable risk, the other one probably does not (in my estimation).

            But personally I would probably prefer muzzle down as the safest alternative. Obviously this could depend on the circumstances.

            If “downrange” is an exception to rule 2, then why not add some more exceptions, like “That general direction was free of objects we don’t want to destroy for the last 10 minutes, so therefore it’s cool to point your muzzle there while looking the other way”?

            If you really consider for example a person or an animal walking on to the range at the wrong time to be as negligible as a falling bullet hitting someone, then you might have a point. But I disagree with those premises. People walking onto the range when they shouldn’t does happen from time to time.

            2. A holstered pistol isn’t being handled. The rules are about handling firearms rather than carrying or storing them. For example, if the girl in the picture didn’t have her hand on the rifle she wouldn’t be handling it, and the rules wouldn’t apply.
            Besides, unless you have a really crappy holster you should be able to tell with some degree of accuracy where the muzzle is pointed at all times. Furthermore the holster protects the trigger.

            To reiterate, I don’t have a problem with people looking away from the target area (regardless if on a shooting range or not) for just a split second. Any longer than that though and you should probably put the gun down, holster it or lower the muzzle.

          • David Sharpe

            “Bright colors increases the likelihood of confusing them with toys.”

            No gun should ever be considered a toy. Be it real or fake.

          • phamnuwen

            If something is downrange that shouldn’t be shot, a cease fire needs to be called

            Indeed. But how would you know something is downrange if you aren’t looking?

            by your logic someone should not look at an instructor because they would look away from the sights.

            If your attention is needed elsewhere you can lower your weapon, holster it, or put it down.

            No gun should ever be considered a toy. Be it real or fake.

            This is unrealistic. People aren’t going to stop pointing water pistols, cap guns or movie props at each other any time soon.

          • David Sharpe

            Looking away for a second is not going to do anything if you’re following all the other rules.

            This is unrealistic, if an instructor is showing you a technique or trying to correct grip, you can’t lower it.

            If it fires a projectile, it should never be considered a toy, be it airsoft, BB, pellet or real, if kids are taught that anything brightly coloured is a toy, that will get someone killed if they pick up a gun that may be owned by someone else and they think it’s a toy, since personalized guns are “stupid” to you.

          • phamnuwen

            Looking away for just a split second is probably acceptable. But longer than that and you start to get into trouble.

            I don’t agree that its fine to violate one rule as long as you follow the others though. I would rather consider very quick glances in other directions to be in accordance with rule 2.

            If you are being instructed on grip technique etc you can still observe the target area with peripheral vision. There’s no need to look away completely.

            Soft air guns, paintball guns and so on are used all the time in while not observing firearm safety rules, because they aren’t firearms.

            The issue is keeping firearms identifiable as such. So how do we accomplish that? I would say that not coloring them in what cannot be considered traditional “firearm colors” is a good start.

            Expecting all children to be taught proper firearms safety and apply those rules to everything that fires a projectile is unrealistic. It would be lovely if it happened, but I won’t be holding my breath until it does.

          • David Sharpe

            Again, “if kids are taught that anything brightly coloured is a toy, that will get someone killed if they pick up a gun that may be owned by someone else and they think it’s a toy, since personalized guns are “stupid” to you.”

          • phamnuwen

            I’m not suggesting kids be taught that.

          • David Sharpe

            Seems like you are, you think that keeping colours “traditional” will keep them identifiable as firearms. In your reply to gunslinger two days ago you said:

            “Because of their inherent potential for destruction, firearms should be clearly identifiable as such. Bright colors increases the likelihood of confusing them with toys.”

            Well some people like to personalize their firearms, so lets say that we each have a kid and they just happen to be friends, your kid is taught that all firearms are either blue or stainless, with wood or black stocks, and my kid is taught that anything that looks like a gun, is a gun until you can verify for sure that is it/isn’t. They are walking down the street and they see a pink Glock, my kid would know to check it, yours would think that it’s a toy because it’s not traditionally coloured.

          • phamnuwen

            No. None of that follows from anything I’ve stated.

            You are imagining some fantasy land where all children are experts on gun safety.

            I’m concerned with the real world.

          • David Sharpe

            The point of that is to only point the rifle in a safe direction, that rifle is pointed downrange, therefore the muzzle is not covering anything that can’t be destroyed.

          • phamnuwen

            If you aren’t looking, you don’t know what the muzzle is covering.

          • David Sharpe

            You still know if your muzzle is clear even if you look away for a second when your firearm is pointed downrange.

            Unless your situational awareness is non existent…..

          • phamnuwen

            Very quick glances in other directions isn’t the issue.
            Blinking is also allowed…

          • David Sharpe

            Exactly, this girl is still in control of her firearm, her parent wanted a picture of her with the rifle and this was safer then moving in front of the rifle and taking a picture…

          • phamnuwen

            Like I’ve stated elsewhere, it’s impossible to know the exact situation from just a single picture.

          • David Sharpe

            We should be able to use deductive reasoning to know that the parent just wanted a picture of her with her rifle. And this is safer than walking forward of the firing line to get a picture of her looking downrange.

          • phamnuwen

            Well, If the picture indeed tells the truth, then I would consider it a violation since taking a picture typically takes at least a few seconds, and I don’t think that is an acceptable time to lose attention of your target area.

          • David Sharpe

            Her finger is off the trigger and the rifle is pointed downrange. It’s fine…….

          • phamnuwen

            Finger off the trigger is rule 3. I haven’t mentioned rule 3.

            We’ve been over the “downrange is exempt from gun safety rules” argument. I’m not going to bother repeating everything I’ve already written.

    • Grutch

      My 5 year old Son is the often referred to by the rangemaster as the example of the responsible marksman on the rifle range. When others are reprimanded the rangemaster will point to my boy and claim that he’s more aware of safety than the adult’s are. He’s responsible with all the range rules, and also cleans the rifle when we get home after our outing. I would never let him control a weapon unsupervised because I agree I don’t believe he has full understanding of life and death and the consequences of shooting someone. I do know that he has no curiosity in regards to firearms and that is much more healthy than a child coming across a gun, knowing its wrong to touch it but wanting to because he’s curious about it. To top it off, my Dutch immigrant father taught me how to shoot when I was 8 years old.