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

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
Just wanna point out for the older generation,we grew up on loony toons,with Wily Coyote buying acme bombs and anvils ...

I am forced to stay on the straight and narrow...

Have bird seed need anvils

Anyway

Father learns the difficult way that firearms can't be left unsecured around children. He had to have known this but didn't believe.

a reply to: face23785

My nieces and nephews grew up in rural Iowa. They learned gun safety in school at age 11. Lots of hunters out there.
My father taught me gun safety at a young age with a BB gun. I used to shoot cans in the backyard. Jesus if i did that now in my neighborhood i'd probably be arrested.
He also had shotguns and rifles in his closet but I knew better than to ever touch those. The bullets were locked away but I still had a healthy respect and fear of what guns could do. They were not to be played with aside from the BB gun

I agree with you that firearm training is important and the person who owned that gun should be charged.

Oh look another blamefest thread where the intellectually stunted can hurl political insults at each other over something that has NOTHING to do with politics.

It's the gun! no wait...It was the video game...No wait...It was the parent's fault for not spanking the kid enough, or too much.

Maybe the kid was on drugs..Yea, let's blame those too.

While we are engaged in definitely getting this right(sarcasm for the stunted), let's come up with policies that pretend to address the issue, but doesn't really have anything to do with it. Like GUN CONTROL...Yea let's do that because a 9 yo kid shot his sister over a game controller.

Oohhh Let's ban video games. God knows we're all one round of Street Fighter away from a school shooting. I wonder if the hadouken is semi-automatic?

We all know this won't affect what is deeply wrong in our society, and all of us will continue to pretend we have the answers, but not one of us will dare ask, "What if there's nothing we can do"?

Indeed.

a reply to: projectvxn

But it makes the pundits feel important.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

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

You don't know that. He attacked his sister from behind with intent to kill. It could have been a knife or a bat to the head. Do you truly not recognize the real problem.

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
Just wanna point out for the older generation,we grew up on loony toons,with Wily Coyote buying acme bombs and anvils and Elmer Fudd blowing Daffy Duck's bill clean off his head.

Then we'd go outside and play, "War", "Cowboy and Indians", "Pirate", where we would "shoot" each other with our guns and bows and arrows and try to stab each other with our swords and knives.

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.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

He could have stabbed her in the neck and if he hit an artery should would have died quickly.

Yeah let's blame everything but parents.

originally posted by: AntiDoppleganger
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

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

You don't know that. He attacked his sister from behind with intent to kill. It could have been a knife or a bat to the head. Do you truly not recognize the real problem.

If this nine year old child is diagnosed with psychopathy and is a cold blood killer, maybe, but I doubt it. Study up on your child development. A nine year old doesn't even fully grasp the concept of death as a finality.

You make your case poorly.

a reply to: badw0lf

all my kids are grown up and out of the house.
i still have my firearms locked up in a cabinet.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

He could have stabbed her in the neck and if he hit an artery should would have died quickly.

Yes, he could have. I can think of all kinds of ways he could have offed his evil greedy sister. See my post above.

But he didn't, did he. He shot her with a gun. Did he, or did he not shoot her with a gun?

Why don't you make a thread about all the ways he could have killed her? Everybody can join in and "prove" he would have killed her no matter what! Gun or not! It's not the gun! It's not the gun! I'm sure she'd be dead anyway even if there was no gun! Because he's a psycho-killer and has negligent parents!

I have enough fun on this thread for now.

cya

a reply to: DBCowboy

Then we'd go outside and play, "War", "Cowboy and Indians", "Pirate", where we would "shoot" each other with our guns and bows and arrows and try to stab each other with our swords and knives.

Touche!!


See...we didn't need to shoot anyone in real life and knew the difference.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

Once a gun is introduced into any environment things get dangerous.

No, this is a falsehood.

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

No, this is improvable.

Good God, at the idiocy.

Agreed, but probably in a different way.

Look, this was a tragedy, and I place 75% of the blame at the feet of the parents, and 25% on the child (whose brain isn't mature enough to totally understand the ramifications of killing his sister), but to make the claims that you do adds very little to this discussion.

Oh, I see that Flyingclaydisk already made the rebuttals to your comment--that's okay, they're worth repeating.

This is the fault of who ever is raising this child.

First off, for having a firearm where a child has access to it.

Second off, for not educating the child about the dangers of the firearm they had in the house.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Yes, let the sever minority of people in America dictate which rights should and should not exist.

That's some deep thinking right there.

Reminds me.of the story a while.back about the kid that killed his.mom because she took away his Xbox. God kids are so #ed today.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: badw0lf

all my kids are grown up and out of the house.
i still have my firearms locked up in a cabinet.

And? so?

What does this contribute to either the questions or the discussion?