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

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: SlapMonkey

We don't want the ability. You want the ability. Not me.
Now we need our teachers to be navy seals too?

More guns means more chances for things to go bad. My opinion of course. I know I am the minority though. Most here really seem to want those guns in as many hands as possible

My serious question to you is this:

There, at this moment, a thread where a Democrat (of all things) is calling for armed resistance against Donald Trump.

How do you do that if we don't have the means to be armed and resist? That is what the 2nd Amendment is for, and that need will never go away as long as there are governments with armies and armed police.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: SlapMonkey

We don't want the ability. You want the ability. Not me.
Now we need our teachers to be navy seals too?

Oh, please don't misunderstand, when I say "we," I certainly don't include you. But I promise that I'm not the only one

More guns means more chances for things to go bad. My opinion of course. I know I am the minority though. Most here really seem to want those guns in as many hands as possible

Yes, that is an opinion, but in many instances, it's correct. That's why we (not you) who advocate for such things generally want said ability to be in conjunction with a LOT of training. I have yet to see a training schedule that impresses me, but I also believe that adults should have the right to carry on school campuses, as long as they are able to legally carry concealed in public in their state.

It's just a right in which I believe, but like you said, opinions and such.

This is NOT the Street Corner!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!
Community Announcement re: Decorum

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: SailorJerry


That is where I am left wondering. So much for responsible gun owners, in cases like this.

Wasn't but a few years ago someone here said they went to a party with their gun, and got drunk, and lost it.

I dunno... something is going arse about face though...

With rights comes responsibility too. My kids who are now 18 and 15 still do not know the combo to my safe. It's my safe, my guns and I'm with them when we go shooting. What if I left my car in the street with the engine running and kids played all around it, would I be at fault when one of them gets in for a test drive?

I think many are being blindsided because the child was only 9 years old and that video games and a gun was involved. It is very easy to be drawn into the pro and con arguments that these subjects are frequently used to fuel, but we miss the point, and the real problems go completely ignored. A problem that has been ongoing for over 35 years.

I have watched children change over the years in a slow and insidious manner. I have watched parents turn blind eyes and death ears to problems that are living in their own homes, then become brutally angry with everyone around them, blaming everything and everyone, except themselves, when the situation turns criminal or deadly.

Our changing societal norms have left a scar on what we once considered "normal" and acceptable. We all realize that things have changed. We accept these changes without close inspection and the scars have developed keloids. Wounds that have not properly healed, that are ugly to look at and painful.

I saw the trending when my children were young. I developed a personal motto, "You either have to pay to keep them out of trouble, or you are going to have to pay to get them out of trouble". It cost me plenty to keep my two girls constantly involved in enjoyable, positive, and safe activities.

It is much harder now for parents because everything cost more, there are more dangers, and what is considered normal and acceptable have leaned so far from the middle that even the parents are confused.

The most alarming statistics among these increases are the growth in homicides and weapons violations among younger juveniles. Id. Between 1992 and 1993, homicide arrests of adolescents under age fifteen increased twenty-four percent, while arrests of youth in this age group for weapons violations increased twelve percent. Id. It is interesting to note that between 1988 and 1992, juvenile arrests for murder increased by fifty-one percent compared to a nine percent increase for those over the age of eighteen. Janet Reno, United States Attorney General, Speech at the Birmingham - Jefferson Civic Center (February 25, 1994).

Juvenile Crime Facts

This article was written in 1983.
Children Who Kill

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

No death? How do you know that? How do you know this kid wouldn't have simply gone to kitchen, gotten a knife and stabbed her several times killing her that way?

This kid was made enough, and I am repeating this now for the third time, that he left the room, went to another room, got the gun, went back to the room she was in, and shot her. That was not a snap lashing out. It took enough time for him to consider what he was doing.

He could just as easily have gone for a knife had there not been a gun ... or a baseball bat ... or daddy's crowbar. Any of those things are also lethal when employed on the head/neck.

The only way you are 100% correct is that she would not have been shot.

If he had done it with a knife or a bat it wouldn't be a story. Dead kids = barely covered, if covered at all, unless a gun was involved.

ETA: Don't believe me, see this thread that's barely gotten any attention. It was put up 2 days ago, and already this thread had double the pages because a gun was involved. It's not about the kids lives.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

This.

Kids do need unstructured time, but they also need to chance to get involved in things, stretch their legs and find out what they can do and achieve on their own. The best way to do that is to let them take activities.

a reply to: face23785

No, it's not. At least so far as the govt. is concerned. It's about control. What they can't control, they fear.

It's always been so.

The kids are useful tools, alive, or dead. Makes no difference.

a reply to: face23785

If he had done it with a knife or a bat it wouldn't be a story. Dead kids = barely covered, if covered at all, unless a gun was involved.

Most cases never see the light of day. Children are protected and in some circumstances their cases and records are sealed. I agree that can all change if a gun is involved. Dead is dead, whether it is was caused by a hammer, a glass bottle, being pushed off a roof or smothered by a pillow, it just doesn't get the same amount of outrage.

In most cases the courts protect the anonymity of the young killers in order to allow them to rebuild their lives once they have served their sentences.

What happens when children kill?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: badw0lf

When I was a kid there were firearms all over our house...UNSECURED. I never felt the need to use a firearm to end someone's life...NEVER! No matter how bad things got, no matter what kind of a fight I got into, I never considered using a firearm to shoot someone!

Where does the blame lay again???

The Parents. Plain and simple. Nothing else.

I'm going to quote Bill Hicks

and keep in mind this is sarcasm

"There is no correlation to owning a gun and shooting someone and not owning a gun and not shooting someone"

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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.

I see you are a hardcore gun advocate and take it very personal. Doesn't matter if HE caused it to happen, HE had a GUN in his hands and if it wasn't a GUN she wouldn't be shot.

Now I'm not against guns at all but your love for your freedom to have guns is blinding your judgement and you are taking it way too personal as if they are going to come and take your guns.

It takes 2 to tango, him + no gun = no death. Gun without him = no death. Guess what? it took both to make it happen. Accept it and move on.

And in all honesty, nothing should happen to the kid BUT the parents should be held 100% liable for leaving the gun out/easily accessible. They purchased the gun which comes with huge responsibility. Parents, again, are 100% at fault Lack of education, lack of securing the gun and lack of supervision.

originally posted by: SailorJerry
again its a head and heart problem, not a gun problem.

These people tryin so hard to push gun measures, including the gov, dont really want to fix the issue.

its like trying to cure diabetes by banning silverwear

Wow first response, it may not be worth reading the rest of this thread, "not a gun problem".

Amazing seriuosly, you do realise there are many children in other nations who argue and bicker over controllers and other such things, but generally firearms are not part of the family.

Of course you may respond that this particular family had poor gun control, yet the item that always needs controling is not the problem.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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.

I see you are a hardcore gun advocate and take it very personal. Doesn't matter if HE caused it to happen, HE had a GUN in his hands and if it wasn't a GUN she wouldn't be shot.

Now I'm not against guns at all but your love for your freedom to have guns is blinding your judgement and you are taking it way too personal as if they are going to come and take your guns.

It takes 2 to tango, him + no gun = no death. Gun without him = no death. Guess what? it took both to make it happen. Accept it and move on.

And in all honesty, nothing should happen to the kid BUT the parents should be held 100% liable for leaving the gun out/easily accessible. They purchased the gun which comes with huge responsibility. Parents, again, are 100% at fault Lack of education, lack of securing the gun and lack of supervision.

Everything else you say here I pretty much agree with except the him + no gun = no death part. There's no way to know that. He could've killed her with something else. I do agree the parents should be held accountable, just as they would if they left their car running and he got in it and killed somebody.

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

He couldn't have gotten the gun if it was responsibly secured, could he.

Where does the blame lay, again?

The blame lies squarely with the adults in the home for not having their weapons secured. Unless I’m using, cleaning or making adjustments to one of mine, they are locked in a safe. If I were to neglect that basic piece of responsibility and one of my kids used one to harm another person, that would be my fault for not properly securing my weapons.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

If somebody is provoked into a murderous rage, it got way beyond "arguing and bickering."

originally posted by: Eshel
I'm going to quote Bill Hicks

and keep in mind this is sarcasm

"There is no correlation to owning a gun and shooting someone and not owning a gun and not shooting someone"

That's a gross simplification.

What about not legally owning a gun and shooting someone? What about not owning a gun and killing someone? What about owning a gun being shot by someone?

So many variations of that statement ...

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Eshel
I'm going to quote Bill Hicks

and keep in mind this is sarcasm

"There is no correlation to owning a gun and shooting someone and not owning a gun and not shooting someone"

That's a gross simplification.

What about not legally owning a gun and shooting someone? What about not owning a gun and killing someone? What about owning a gun being shot by someone?

So many variations of that statement ...

Correct. Those kind of purposefully dishonest statements sound clever to some people, but they are meaningless in a reality where there are other ways to kill someone besides shooting them. If you never enter a house you probably don't have very good odds of dying in a house fire. Is this some brilliant existential revelation to some people?

I always find it interesting there was rarely in any of the reports a mention of color, only that a 9 year old kills his sister no mention of anything else really...

originally posted by: abeverage
I always find it interesting there was rarely in any of the reports a mention of color, only that a 9 year old kills his sister no mention of anything else really...

Should colour really make a difference to the fact that a girl was shot in the head by her younger brother?