US boy, 9, 'kills sister, 13, over controller'

a reply to: vonclod

You said one can say America is addicted to guns. I'm assuming you mean North America, United States.

a reply to: badw0lf

when I never once said guns were the problem?

Forgot your own words quickly?

Is it easy access to guns, parents being slack with their weapons and not securing them? Just what is the deal over there?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: SailorJerry

Nowhere in the OP or the link is there talk of "pushing gun measures"

But you knew that, right?

The OP brought up 3 dif times the gun, not just the mention that he used a gun, but supposing "Is it a gun problem"

Hence my reply, but , you knew that right?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: badw0lf

when I never once said guns were the problem?

Forgot your own words quickly?

Is it easy access to guns, parents being slack with their weapons and not securing them? Just what is the deal over there?

......you just psted to me saying that the OP never brought up guns as the problem and then immediately cited his quote as evidence he did in your next post.

Having a moment?

a reply to: badw0lf
Ya you dont just leave a gun laying around with anybody in the house much less with a 9 yr old and 13 yr old. And I would bet dollars to donuts it was loaded as well. This is just stupidity.

Sure there might be some mature enough to know different at 9, and I say some, but that number may be one out of a million if not more, with those odds you could win the lottery. But the majority of 9 yr olds are are just plain dumb asses with little knowledge of consequences and no wisdom.

There like a stupider more moody version of the grown up versions, and well we all know how moody grownups can get, this site and daily live is a testament to that every day, now multiply that by several fold and you get a child.

It was a bad idea to leave a gun and loaded I assume, just about and around, were anybody can just grab it. Nope not a good idea, this case is a testament to that.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Stop speaking hyperbolically then.

How about you mind your own business.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes it's about the tragic death of a 9 year old that had access to a loaded weapon.

Speaking of hyperbole first you argued that you had loaded weapons in your house at that age that you had access and it was no issue because you were a responsible child .

Then you argues that Kids in Afghanistan have machine guns and don't kill each other with them over remote controls.

You make no sense at all then you jump in on a conversation which you completely misunderstood and have continued to harass me since.

a reply to: Deluxe

Yes I did, it's a general observation, I never said "all" americans are addicted to guns..it's part of your culture..don't be so offended.
It's just another piece in a complex puzzle of ..why does this happen.

originally posted by: JameSimon

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
How ironic (tragic, but still ironic)...

9 year old gets pissed because his 13 year old sister won't let him play the latest version of Murder Slaughter Bloodbath Death Gore Porn - ver. 37.3...so he grabs a real gun and blows her brains out for real!

Nah, couldn't have been violent video games that inspired this kid to pick up a gun (which is absolutely incapable of firing by itself, btw) and murder someone, now could it??? Nawwwwww!

THEN...BBC picks it up and runs with the story. Nary a mention of the whole violent video game piece.

Guns are NOT the problem, the problem IS the person who pulls the trigger!

How long is it going to take for people to get this?????????

OMG, I played GTA as a kid, should I be concerned that I may become a killer and shoot one of my sisters?

Oh wait, guns are not easy to get in my country.

But the heart of the matter is: would you do it if you COULD get a gun? NO.

Some children have a developmental issue where they are psychologically incapable of feeling the normal compassion that prevents a person from doing such things. Usually it is the result of extreme abuse at the hands of the parents, generally sexual abuse.

I suspect that is what is at the root of this case. A detailed analysis of this family would indicate these children are likely profoundly abused.

a reply to: badw0lf

Really? You're talking about a 9 year old here. They're not rational and definitely don't understand the permanence of death. Yes, young children stab and beat other kids to death all of the time.

Here's a story of an 8 year old who beat a 1 year old to death with his bare hands.
www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

If there had been no gun in that home, there would be no dead child.

You have absolutely ZERO basis to make this claim, none! You don't "know" what would have happened.

Good God, at the idiocy.

Right back at ya!

I see your point about negligent parents. Trust me, the woods are full of them, which doesn't fare well for children.

It doesn't however, negate the fact that whether they were the most attentive parents in the world, who had a temporary lapse of judgment, or the most horrid meth heads who barely realize they have a child, had there been no gun there would have been no death. Does somebody seriously need to explain that to you? and instead of recognizing it as a fact you just get pissed off and defensive? Lick your wounds and try to think in a rational way.

Unless, as you say "I don't know what would have happened". Want to play that game?
Lets see. He could have poisoned her, drown her in the swimming pool, snakebite, strangled her. Threw her in front of a train? Do you think he would have? Because common sense will tell you no.

She would be alive if there hadn't been a gun in the house. Do I know that? Yes, I do. Because I have good sense.

Arguementum Ad Absurdium. That's what you have there. A snakebite, really? Your attempt at a rebuttal Is laughable at best.

And an Appeal to Common Sense fallacy. Wow. Two for two.
You don't have a fact in your nonsensical rambling. You have an opinion, perhaps a belief. Not a fact. The boy could easily have found a knife, and a great many knife attacks are lethal. You don't know what would have happened had there not been a gun. Stop acting like youre some amazing intellect that can predict people's actions without knowing them. You're not.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: face23785

Never said they were the only two methods of killing... not sure where you got that from. Though given the choice, I would rather face someone with any other weapon than a gun, since guns are literally the most efficient and easily obtainable killing objects we have in society.

How is pointing out stupid comments from gun nuts like "guns don't kill people", a barrier to progress?

Almost every other inanimate object that gun proponents like to say "... see that can kill too!", was designed for another purpose. Guns are an object designed purely to kill, no other use other than to kill.

Guess what?... guns kill people. Sorry to break it you.

That's doubtful. So you're telling us you'd rather face a gunman than say.... A bomber?

Killing is an act of intent. Inanimate objects don't have intent. Fail. Try again.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Guns are an object designed purely to kill, no other use other than to kill.

Tranquilizer dart firing guns to subdue animals so they can be medically treated.

Or bean bag bullets to take down criminals. Or salt Peter to get hoodlums off your property. A flaregun is a type of gun. Starting races.

And killing isn't the problem. Not all cases of a person being killed are murder. Simple. Logic.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your point is mute if blunt wepons where and easy to use to kill people then armed forces all over the world would be arming themselves with such. They are not. I wonder why.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: purplemer

Oh, that post is definitely a framer!!!

You win the interwebz for that one!

...except for the fact that you neglected to read the text in that same avatar. Oops!

I did read the text. Didn't understand the context it was meant in. :-)

Sure people can kill in many ways. But guns are often the most instant, most indefensible way of getting it done for the average joe.

Many who shoot others would think twice if they had to strangle the person or stab them with their own hands.

Once you pull that trigger though, more often than not there is no going back from that decision for all involved.

I won't argue the whole "ban guns" vs "but mah rights" debate. You just end up going around in circles having such discussions with those indoctrinated on both sides and get no where.
Nobody is seriously going to change their minds from a discussion on an interwebz forums. If anything it just makes them get all defensive/aggressive and dig their heels in.

So what I will bring up is what is so wrong with tightening gun laws?
What seems wrong for me is how easy it is in many countries, or their states to just walk into a shop and buy a gun.

People, okay Americans, are always telling me we let "THEM" take our guns away. That we have a total ban on guns here in Australia.
(And don't bother false facting this one as many do. Clearly and factually we have had zero mass shootings since 1996 and never had a school shooting. If we had not toughened our stances on this I am sure we'd have had a school shooting here by now ourselves. I live here so I tend to know better than some dodgy website made by someone who has never stepped foot in this country. Used to be a firearm owner myself.)

This is incorrect. We have extremely tight laws and requirements to own a gun.
You want a gun you have to have a clean criminal record. Specifically any record of violence and no gun for you.
You have to do safety courses, pass a test, MUST have a license that kind of thing.
Where's the harm in that?

We also have restrictions on the types of guns we can own. I mean who really needs a 40 round magazine semi-auto assault rifle for home defense or to shoot a large animal like a deer? SERIOUSLY?
If you need a guns like that to 'shoot a burglar' (or your kid sneaking in at night lol) I suggest you maybe give up on guns altogether, or perhaps learn how to shoot.

Yet I see videos of gun stores in the U.S where they have RPG's on display........ that's right #$%^ing RPG's!!!!
Let me guess? Home defense?
How is owning 20 bump stocked AR's and 10,000 rounds of ammo home defense?
Who's breaking into your home the North Korean Army? You gonna fire all those guns at once?

How many rounds and how automatic does your shotgun need to be to hit a person 5 meters in front of you?

Maybe that is what people, especially those with a pro-gun stance need to consider.
Maybe not that you should not have guns, but maybe you should have better rules on the who what where and when people should own them.

Something like:
Must do a safety course showing competency for everything gun related, from use to storage.

Must be background checked and must be licensed to own. Police record for violent crime = No guns.

Guns must always be secured. Never in a drawer or under a pillow. Caught doing such, banned from owning them.

No gun show type deals that we're all aware of. Have gun shows so you can see the latest and greatest kills sticks on the market. But to buy you need to go to a licensed store and go through the hoops. Display models at shows only.
Gun SHOW, not Gun MARKET.

Put an age restriction on firearms. Honestly this 9 year old it could of easily been his own gun. Live Leak and other places are full of videos of 4 year olds with hunting rifles and such. There are idiotic parents out there.
Kids gotta be 15+ to 18+ to play some video games and 18+ watch porn, but can own and use guns as a toddler? Just WTF?
Sometimes government needs to do a parents job. just a sad reality.

Restrict guns that can be owned, the amount of guns that can be owned and the also amount of ammo you can carry/own.
E.g no 30 round semi-auto Assault Rifles. No assault rifles period. You want to hunt use a bolt action rifle with a 5 round clip if you're that bad a shot. (How many shots should it take to take down a deer at the worst shot end of things?)
Does one really need to own 100's let alone 1000's of rounds if they are only ever gonna fire their gun at a range or if someone breaks into their house and nowhere else?
Again how many AR's can you carry and fire if someone breaks into your house.

You can still have your guns. Even if so many other less lethal options are available to Americans. Like tasers, capsicum sprays baseball bats etc.
But it's high time the country got smarter when it comes to them.
Maybe it's time to stop thinking of them as a 'right' and more of them being a 'responsibility'. A privilage you should prove you have earned.

Cannot legally drive a car until you prove you can do so safely. Does it eliminate all bad drivers and road fatalities? No, but imagine how worse they'd be if any one could drive just because they felt like it or it was their god given right.
In a society where everyone is not as equally smart, responsible or sane as each other, you gotta have rules for the sake of all.

Why should guns be any different?
Because a piece of paper written for a different time and way of life says so?
Some seem to forget the context of when amendments were written and why, let alone amendments are made to be amended. Nothing, not written words at least are set in stone.
Remember it's 2018, not the 1790's wild west. The U.S constitution is a product of its time.

Seems simple enough. Keep your guns. But it's time to get real and change how you go about it.
If you're of sound mind and body, then surely you would have no one taking your guns away, maybe just you have to downscale your collection a bit.

But it comes down to obviously something is wrong and not working and it is getting worse in the U.S.
We're no longer shocked and horrified anymore let alone surprised when another week goes by and and another mass shooting take place in the U.S

And as that saying goes. Insanity is doing the same S##T over and over expecting different results.
Definitely time to try something different than just saying the same "Guns don't kill people people kill people" or "it's a matter of mental illness" and "but mah rights" and other cliches.
Might be time to look at actual solutions to the problem instead of making excuses.
Because I see the same old same old ever time and very little else.

Anyways, I guess this topic will come up again this or next week when another mass shooting or equally avoidable one like this kid and his sister happens. And the week after that, and after that, and after that, and forever until you decide to change your mentality on the subject and actually fix the problem.
See ya on the next shooting thread.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's not hyperbole.

When I was 9, I had a pretty good idea of what a gun would do, but then my dad took us fishing and I watched him clean the fish. I knew what death was. Maybe I'd never watched a gun itself kill, but being told that something would kill was enough because I knew what life and death meant.

And kids in Afghanistan don't kill each other over things like game controls because they don't live with first world problems. They live with real survival. Again, they are familiar with life and death in ways our children never are, so they almost certainly see life and death and have a pretty good idea what that gun will do even if they've never directly witnessed it in action.

Perhaps we should stop sheltering our children as much as we do.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

They do not have RPGs for sale.

And a semi-automatic is the default action for almost all types of modern weapons, right on down through your hand guns, ban them, and you might as well ban pretty all your guns.

"Assault rifle" is merely a catchy title for a hunting rifle dressed up in black to look like a military weapon. It makes it look "scary" or "cool" depending on your perspective, but it has a functionally identical hunting cousin dressed in wood look that no one cares about because it doesn't look "bad."

As for the large capacity magazine ... most of the serious enthusiasts on here will tell you that having to change out your magazines does not slow you down that much.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ketsuko

Your point is mute if blunt wepons where and easy to use to kill people then armed forces all over the world would be arming themselves with such. They are not. I wonder why.

Armed forces all over the world will always use the best weapons of war they can get. You know that and your point is disingenuous. At one time, those weapons were the best available and were what the armed forces of any group did use to arm themselves.

Why? Because they are effective and do the job.

Have you ever seen the Maori war clubs, for example? Highly vicious and lethal, but today, they'd be outclassed by the group with the bullets.

However, in this case, we're talking about one kid tackling his unarmed and unaware sister. Anything lethal would do the trick.