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

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: SailorJerry

So much for responsible gun owners, in cases like this.

Free tip for you, if a gun was laying around and a 9 year old was able to grab it and use it, the gun was not secured very well and that pretty much identifies the parents as not responsible gun owners.

I am 45, I have had at least 1 gun since I was 8, none of my guns have ever shot a person.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: SailorJerry

So much for responsible gun owners, in cases like this.

Free tip for you, if a gun was laying around and a 9 year old was able to grab it and use it, the gun was not secured very well and that pretty much identifies the parents as not responsible gun owners.

I am 45, I have had at least 1 gun since I was 8, none of my guns have ever shot a person.

Thanks for the tip.

Didn't work out so well for this family, it appears. How does an irresponsible person obtain a gun?

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Agreed. I think we are kind of on the same page. It is parenting.

The parents in this case were negligent. So we are left wondering, how does it become such a thing where parents of multiple kids, leave an unsecured weapon within reach.

I don't think this 9 year old really understood the results of his actions. No one obviously taught him the dangers of firearms, when used against another person.

In general I agree with your theme. What follows are really just some comments on finer points, not a rebuttal...

No one taught the child the dangers...agreed. Parenting. No one taught the parents responsible firearms ownership...agreed. Again, parenting.

A child has a brain and is capable of taking action, both good and bad. In this respect a child is actually more dangerous than a firearm. As noted previously, a firearm is incapable of taking action on its own. This, unlike a child with a firearm, an axe or a baseball bat.

Some rights should bare certain responsibilities. safety being the first and foremost. In this situation, that wasn't the case.

Agreed.

I know people in monroe. guns are bought and sold all the time. and I don't know anyone there with any real training. Be it in use, or in security, just what is taught at the local gun shooting area.

Agreed, but again to parenting.

originally posted by: badw0lf
No one obviously taught him the dangers of firearms, when used against another person.

The computer games teach children that when they get shot nothing happens - you get to play again.
It is known that watching others influences your actions.
If the stf people will be killing others rather than helping others.

originally posted by: badw0lf
You don't hear about a 9 yr old fatally running his sister over..

Sorry, I had to...

Something tells me this kid didn't go and unlock his parents gun safe, grab some ammo, load a clip, and chamber a bullet before pulling the trigger. Nor does it sound like he understood the consequences of his actions.

Irresponsible parenting.

I remember when I was a kid, I'd get in trouble just for aiming a toy gun at someone. "It's the unloaded guns that kill people" my father would always say. He also taught me about firearms and trained me how to use them in grade school...

a reply to: SailorJerry

Yeah.

Umm how did that bullet get into her brain? Her brother throw it at her?

a reply to: Sillyolme

A better question is how was someone so dumb,to leave a gun laying around,for a child to pick up and use?
The child should have NEVER had access to a gun.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Doesn't matter whether he threw it, spit it or fired it out of a gun!

What matters is HE caused it to happen, not the gun. The gun couldn't make it happen by itself.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I totally agree with you. My Dad placed a gun in my hands for the first time when I was eight years old. My first lesson was in gun safety and it was made clear you never point a gun at anyone. My Dad had a gun closet. No lock. Almost every house in the area had at least one gun and in most cases many more. No locks.

The problem is not guns and everyone knows it. To blame the guns is an easy diversion. To place the blame where it really belongs leaves too many with dirty hands.

Almost all homes had guns. Not all homes had a two parent home, but there was community, church, and extended family. I was lucky. I grew up in the country and near the water, but even if I couldn't catch my dinner, it was impossible for any of us to starve, because someone in the community would feed you, and you ate it, whether you liked it or not.

Anyone that caught you doing something you had no business doing could discipline you, and you prayed they didn't tell your parents. I lived in the country so there were plenty of chores and if the chores became few at home, you were sent to help a neighbor.

There are less homes with guns today than before. There are also less parents parenting, and fewer communities looking out for the welfare of its residents. I think it is obvious where they real problems lies.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: Sillyolme

A better question is how was someone so dumb,to leave a gun laying around,for a child to pick up and use?
The child should have NEVER had access to a gun.

The child should have NEVER wanted to use a gun to accomplish something in the first place. The firearm being left unsecured is a secondary wrong. It's still irresponsible, and tragic, but the gun was secondary to the motivation.

Not disagreeing on the securing of firearms in a home, but let's be clear on what happened here. The child likely knew firearms inflict grave damage, why else would he have chosen the gun over the TV remote? Second, the child had a motivation (to play the video game). And, the child used the firearm to stop his sister from preventing him from playing the game. Motive, means and opportunity; the child had a 'motive', the parents afforded him the 'means' and with no parents around he seized upon the 'opportunity' to murder his sister.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: badw0lf
No one obviously taught him the dangers of firearms, when used against another person.

The computer games teach children that when they get shot nothing happens - you get to play again.
It is known that watching others influences your actions.
If the stf people will be killing others rather than helping others.

Hundreds of millions of people play video games. If they teach people that killing has no consequences, why don’t we have hundreds of millions of murderers?

a reply to: badw0lf


The parents of this kid, should be JAILED. This kid will realize what he did, and have to live with it his entire life. Sad. LOCK YOUR GUNS UP WHEN CHILDREN ARE IN YOUR HOME IDIOTS

I don't care how many times you have talked to your children about the weapons in your home KIDS ARE KIDS! YOU ARE THE ADULTS.

I had a gun sitting in my closet since I was about 7 years old (two of them in fact). My older sisters used to torture me with all sorts of cruel tricks, keep-away with my favorite stuff, etc. ...

Not once did I EVER think about going to my closet and getting my .22 rifle to shoot one of my sisters to death...NOT ONCE!

Why? Because I knew what would happen, they would be killed.

I was two years younger than this kid, and not once did I ever consider such an act! Not once!

a reply to: badw0lf

We're not teaching our children how to resolve conflict any more.


Society is through social media.


This is what it looks like when "It takes a village to raise a child".

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Look, that is you. That gun should not have been in reach of you. Kids should not even have the OPTION to get a loaded gun. Its families that leave guns in reach of children that have accidents. You cant tell me you haven't heard stories of kids playing with guns and getting killed, or killing someone else. That never should have happened.

Parent's should have secured the gun.

The kid wanted to kill his sister and accomplished that. If the gun wasn't there I'm thinking he would have attacked her with a knife or some other weapon or object.

It could be the parents fault that their kid is royally screwed up in the head.
But he could have been just born that way. Some people are just screwed up in the head and there is no one to blame.

If he didn't have video games he'd probably be out in the yard torturing and killing animals.

a reply to: kurthall

Well, even though I tend to agree about jailing the parents, I'm not sure how much good it would do, or what it would really accomplish. They have already paid a price far greater than any jail time would accomplish. And, they got a life sentence too...a lifetime to think about what they could have done differently. They also have a lifetime to answer questions from their son about why his sister can't come back (like in the video games) (assuming he truly didn't fully understand the consequences of his actions, giving the benefit of the doubt). They also have a lifetime to answer questions from any future children they may have wondering where the person in the pictures is, their sister they'll never get to meet.

And, the parents will have a lifetime to wonder what could have been with their daughter. Would she have been President, an astronaut, a beauty queen...or maybe a great scientist who discovered a world cure. All what could have been...not what will be.

Remember though guns don’t kill people people kill people..... or kids who do not know what they’re doing

a reply to: SailorJerry

I've said it before.

We are a violent nation. This is reflected by what we watch on television and film.

We are ok with people being shot on television graphically. Yet show a boob on tv and people start losing their minds.

Maybe it's time we stop showing blood and gore to kids.

a reply to: kurthall

See my other posts above. I am not disagreeing with securing firearms in the home. I'm only saying this is secondary to motivation.

ETA...Injury or death from "accidental discharges" is a far better argument for securing firearms in the home. I noted this on the previous page. This was not an "accidental", or even "negligent" discharge. This was a willful act.