Should Buy Your Child a Firearm?

I've seen people argue about this often. A father (or mother) takes their son (or daughter) of 9 years to a gun shop and buys them their first .22 LR rifle. Afterwards, other parents hear of this purchase and protest that no child should ever be given a gun as a present.

This is an issue where I can see both sides of the argument rather clearly. Yes - a child is inexperienced, and from the outsider's point of view, it's the equivalent of giving a child a knife and telling him to go play with it. While on the other side of the argument, if a parent purchases a rifle for a child and takes the time to teach the kid how to maintain, use, and store their rifle properly, an accident is far less likely to happen. I agree with the latter. You hear stories about kids that accidentally shoot their parents or friends. If you look into it, most of these accidents occur because their parents were being irresponsible and left a firearm where their inexperienced child could get their hands on it.

This is my stance: If you want to teach your child about guns and gun safety, do so. But know that you, as the parent or guardian, have the responsibility to practice the same level of gun safety that you teach. You may be more experienced, but that doesn't make you immune to firearm accidents.

Bothersome MHS Dilemma

As you may or may not know, the Modular Handgun System (MHS) is the process of researching and testing an of-the-shelf, commercial pistol to replace the current sidearm of the United States military. The Beretta M9 has been the primary sidearm since 1985 and is due to be replaced within the next year or so. The trials have commenced and some of the media has decided to interview some of our soldiers and ask their opinion as to what should be the next military sidearm.

Now, before I go any further, I need to clear the air about one thing: I am not a soldier. I have not served in the U.S. armed forces. My hat goes off to all of those who've made sacrifices for our country. However, most of the people that I know personally in the military don't know much about guns. I know what you're thinking; "The guys and girls in the military must know everything there is to know about guns." They know how to operate their own tools very well, outside of that, they all seem to come out of the military knowing only a couple things about guns, and they are:

• The Beretta M9 sucks
• We should've kept the Colt 1911 .45
• I want a Glock

If asked why.....

• Why does the M9 suck?
• "The slide is known to break and injure the operator."
• "The parts feel cheap and can cause jamming."
• Why keep the 1911?
• "It's a legend. It also shoots a .45 which is more effective than a 9mm. Just one shot can kill 5 terrorists."
• Why a Glock?
• "Because it's the best weapon in the world and never jams. Everyone knows that."

Sounds a little funny doesn't it? Let's start by looking at the claims against the M9. In the 1980's, an early model M9 did indeed brake and the slide came off and hurt a Marine. There was only one instance of this happening.... almost 30 years ago. Yet many soldiers believe that this could happen to their sidearm today. The model used today has many improvements over the one used back then. As for the jamming, you can thank the U.S. Government. To cut military costs, the U.S. Government decided not to buy M9 magazines from Beretta, and buy them from a third party instead. Surprise, surprise! The magazine caused all kinds of failures in the gun - which made our soldiers blame the gun itself. We've since switched back to Beretta magazines, but those off-brand ones are still floating around.

Why keep the Colt 1911? I mean, I will not argue the weapon's history. It's a beautiful piece that shot the almighty .45 ACP cartridge. But I seriously doubt that a soldier would rather give up their 16 -round 9mm magazine for an 8-shot .45 ACP. The FBI recently decided to switch back to 9mm after using .40 S&W for years, this is because new expanding 9x19 ammo is so good, it's proven to be just as effective as the .40 with the right loads, they value the greater capacity, and it causes less wear and tear on service weapons. There has been talk of the military using expanding ammo, and if this happens, you can forget any talk of a larger caliber. 

Why do Marines want a Glock? EXCELLENT QUESTION!!! I don't know if I can answer this, but I'll try. Let me go back to my original story. The media has decided to interview some of our soldiers and ask their opinion as to what should be the next military sidearm.  Their response was somewhat comical to me. 

One (newly enlisted) soldier stated "The Beretta just felt cheap and poorly made" and then he goes on to say, "I prefer a Glock 17 or 19. Those or the .45 variant."

Really guy? You think the all-metal, Italian-made weapon feels cheap and your comeback gun is a Glock?!? The Glock doesn't even have a fully-supported chamber! I bet he doesn't even know what this is or what one looks like! Nor does he know the model number for the .45 variant. All he knows is that he "wants a Glock 'cause it's the best." So many people that come out of the military feel this way. And I CANNOT for the life of me figure out why they believe this. If you're wondering where all this frustration is coming from, just check out my first-ever blog post. 

But I do agree that it's time for a weapon that is a little more modern to take the reigns. Sig Sauer has an entry, Beretta has a new gun, FN has a new gun, and Ruger might enter their new gun in the trials as well. And I suppose if Glock wants to enter...I can't stop them. I guess we'll just sit back and see what happens.