Controversy over Facebook photo of baby holding rifle
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226229[/ATTACH]
WOODBRIDGE, Conn. (WTNH)– A report it photo from a viewer is sending shock waves across social media and the state Tuesday. The photo was snapped at a local gun store and it shows a Bolt Action Rifle, resting on a baby’s lap.
That picture of the sixth-month-old baby girl with the rifle in front of her was taken by her father at Woodbridge Firearms Trading Post. He and the store owner say it’s just a picture, others say it’s just wrong.
The baby girl is becoming very popular on social media. The picture of the baby with a rifle resting on her lap was sent in to News 8 through our Report It feature and many are reacting.
“She can’t even speak yet and she has a gun in her hand and it’s bizarre,” said Alexa Grose, Seymour.
Baby Genevieve without the gun, with her bottle and her dad, Christopher Duffy, met News 8′s Erin Logan at Woodbridge Firearms where Duffy bought the gun.
“The little one actually latched onto it when I first picked it up to see how heavy it was. It’s actually very light, to test the weight, so I just decided to take the picture,” said Duffy.
That picture, then posted by Duffy on Facebook, which then ended up on Woodbridge Firearms page putting a lot of people in a frenzy.
“Other people being upset about it? I don’t force their kids to do anything. I don’t force them to do anything,” said Duffy. “My hand was on it, the bolt was open, it was safety checked. I’m not sure how wide the picture is. She’s clearly in her seat just sitting up, one hand on the scope, one hand on the barrel.”
“It’s too much. It’s a very bold statement,” said Bryanna Wingate, New Haven.
Many viewers have sent their comments in saying pictures with kids and guns is just wrong.
“After everything that happened in Connecticut with Sandy Hook and everything that’s going on with the gun laws, why would you have your baby holding a gun…a big gun?” said Wingate.
Others say it’s just a picture.
“It’s nothing, I don’t know why that would bother people to be honest with you,” said Tom Wayland, Woodbridge.
The store’s owner says he too doesn’t have an issue with it.
“If someone wants to share something with the rest of the community, I have no problem posting it on the page,” said Mike Majewski, Co-owner.
News 8 went on the store’s facebook page and noticed that picture and another one we saw earlier with a child holding a gun have since been taken down.
http://wtnh.com/2014/02/25/controversy-facebook-photo-baby-holding-rifle/
Some people are thick. I mean fick, just so fiiiick.
The baby is not holding the gun. It is just resting its hands on it like babies do.
The father, on the other hand, displays maybe a little stupidity or lack of foresight, but certainly fails to comprehend how relatives and next of kin would take it…
And the picture is rubbish.
By: spitfireman - 11th March 2014 at 23:24
Perhaps she will follow in the footsteps of Melissa Bachman………..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKiKlPkWk0s
Baz
By: TonyT - 11th March 2014 at 12:35
What is freaky in that shot is someone has got a statuete of Uncle Albert
By: snafu - 10th March 2014 at 19:54
Firearms are never part of the debate
Unless firearms are the debate…
Heard a man on a radio phone in the other week making a claim that those trying to justify gun ownership came across as sounding like junkies trying to legalise their drug of choice – ‘sure it can kill, but think of the benefits!’ Debate was about sports and shooting was mentioned…
By: RpR - 10th March 2014 at 17:50
I’m the historian on a US-based forum about vintage Harley-Davidsons, and over the years I’ve learned not to judge the US members by European standards.
For example, on a thread discussing the causes and effects of Global Warming, we Europeans mainly spoke of buying smaller, more efficient cars, insulating our homes, recycling our waste, etc, but the general US reaction was to stockpile tinned food and literally tons of ammunition…
That sounds like bogus rhetoric as the U.S. , is divided between those who follow the liberal Chcken-Little preachers and those who realize it is political bs.
Firearms are never part of the debate — except possibly when inserted by those trying to make a bogus point.
By: Lincoln 7 - 10th March 2014 at 17:21
They are for target practice Baz………………:D
Lincoln .7
By: spitfireman - 10th March 2014 at 14:50
So…..the gun trader also sells garden gnomes…..
By: Al - 10th March 2014 at 14:47
Can’t eat ammunition…
The ammunition is to stop people stealing your tinned food…
By: snafu - 10th March 2014 at 14:26
Ithe general US reaction was to stockpile tinned food and literally tons of ammunition…
Can’t eat ammunition…
By: Creaking Door - 10th March 2014 at 12:52
A firearm is just like any other machine designed for a specific purpose; carelessness or stupidity born of familiarity will lead to accidents. A firearm is especially dangerous in these circumstances as it is specifically designed to kill.
I do not believe there is anything dangerous about the baby and rifle situation in the photograph; unless somebody dropped the rifle on the baby or trapped a finger in the action…
…but it is also a well-known fact that those that find themselves responsible for babies (or even feel responsible for other people’s babies) are not best disposed to accurately judge risk!
By: Al - 10th March 2014 at 11:25
I’m the historian on a US-based forum about vintage Harley-Davidsons, and over the years I’ve learned not to judge the US members by European standards.
For example, on a thread discussing the causes and effects of Global Warming, we Europeans mainly spoke of buying smaller, more efficient cars, insulating our homes, recycling our waste, etc, but the general US reaction was to stockpile tinned food and literally tons of ammunition…
By: Creaking Door - 10th March 2014 at 10:54
Textbook example of how to get millions of dollars worth of free advertising! :rolleyes:
By: snafu - 9th March 2014 at 23:08
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26501460
More silliness with guns…
By: Lincoln 7 - 9th March 2014 at 21:49
For all we know, that child could possibly be the legal owner, if one takes the 2nd literally.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Creaking Door - 9th March 2014 at 19:58
But not if the baby was safely restrained in an appropriate car-seat whilst being driven below the legal speed limit by a responsible parent in a perfectly serviceable car…
…a set of circumstances that have led to the deaths of hundreds of babies over the years!
By: snafu - 9th March 2014 at 19:03
Maybe if the baby was in control of the car at 60+mph…yes.
By: Creaking Door - 9th March 2014 at 18:48
Would anybody have been freaked if the baby was in something nice and safe…..like a car?
By: snafu - 9th March 2014 at 18:41
…WHAT WERE THE PARENTS THINKING??!!?
I got the feeling that you have introduced a little sarcasm into the thread… Well done. Now for some irony and, if you think you can do it, a bit of concern too.
By: trumper - 9th March 2014 at 18:38
Yes – a fairly typical example of overreaction!
Yes — with a but ,what is the thinking behind it,baby with a cuddly toy,baby being fed yes BUT baby and a gun– weird.Does it get to the age of 5 and they allow it to be loaded.
By: charliehunt - 9th March 2014 at 18:37
But NOT if the dog remembered to put the safety catch on.
By: Creaking Door - 9th March 2014 at 18:33
OMG!!! Don’t people realise how dangerous guns are?!?? Even the bolt is open!!! If the baby dropped the rifle and a passing cat knocked a box of the right calibre of ammunition onto the floor the box could break open and one of the lethal bullets could fall into the gun, then it would only take a passing dog to kick the bolt closed and the gun would be loaded!!! In the ensuing confusion a possum, that nobody knew was hiding near by, could get startled and trip over the trigger while trying to escape and…
…BANG!!!
Then the very dangerous high-velocity bullet cartridge could ricochet off a car engine-block laying on the floor and that could send it spinning (because musket bullets spin very fast) up into the air where it would be easy for it to bounce off a ceiling fan and that could quite easily send the exploding fragmentation bullet round down again so that it would hit the innocent cute baby right between the eyes…..and that would probably kill it to death!!!
WHAT WERE THE PARENTS THINKING??!!?
Sign In
March 9, 2014 at 6:09 pm