As someone who has lived overseas a lot, this kid with a gun thing is hurting my brain.
Sure every culture reckons risk and danger versus fun and excitement differently. Ziplining, scuba diving, rock climbing, ice fishing, riding dirt bikes are all risky. Martial arts training, riding horses, camping, rugby and wrestling are risky. Using power tools is risky. Kids in some countries learn to handle knives and machetes as tools well before age ten-- sometimes losing fingers in accidents.
But I can't think of a single country other than the US where children of that age are handed firearms by their parents, not to hunt for food, but to shoot for fun, or to shoot at people for self defense. I know several US families, some highly Christian, usually military background, where the children have been handling guns since they were 7 or 8.
Most of us would agree that kids under 10 are not mature enough to comprehend what taking a life means. That is why the child soldier phenomenon is such a profound tragedy. But where there is no war or disaster, why does normal urban middle class family life involve children shooting guns?
Why is there not some kind of mandatory insurance rider along with the purchase of a firearm, or use at a gun range? Do gun ranges have waivers of liability that people sign?
Can any legal eagles here explain why toys and games
can get taken off the market if a kid gets hurt or almost gets hurt, and someone sues, but people can hand an automatic pistol
to a child to fire? And there is no possibility of a lawsuit or removal of the item from the market, even if a child dies or kills someone else? Is it that an adult has to obtain the weapon first? Is it that the guns are not marketed directly to children?
I imagine it is only a matter of time before someone does just that. Babies have their own computers now. The Little Shooter, Baby's First Firearm.