[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Sad. I'm even more convinced that Michael Moore is right: don't keep guns in your home. A huge slice of firearm-procured injuries and deaths are caused in circumstances basically identical to this one.Skylock00Well, personally I'd ask to see numbers, but that's sort of beside the point. From my understanding, firearms related injuries/deaths that are unintentional are far and beyond the minority of actual injuries and deaths that really I think the issue here is less of a firearms in the home issue and more of a family dynamic/personal sanity issue, which is typically much more complicated than making the issue focused on an inanimate object that doesn't decide when it does and does not shoot at someone. This does not disprove the thesis that firearms end up being used more for shooting relatives during rage bursts than for legitimate defense against aggressors. If you want stats, I can't provide them, but I'm reasonably sure this is a fact of public domain. Sure, from what I just read about the Petric boy's case, the murder was premeditated and executed in cold blood like an execution. If he hadn't got a gun he'd have used a kitchen knife, but I still think that guns are more of a danger for a family instead of an effective security measure. What got me thinking is: whenever I hear news of family murders, it's always guns they use, they very rarely use knives or blunt objects. I wonder if, not having a gun at hand, some murders could have been avoided. Thankfully, guns are still uncommon in people's homes where I live.
Kid kills mom and severely injures dad because they took away Halo 3
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Furthermore, a larger portion of the problem is the fact that these accidents/incidents get more rapidly and nationally publicized whenever they occur, artificially inflating the 'importance' of aspects of the issue that are not only less important, but dramatically more isolated than the media implies them to be, from my vantage point.
In response to your last statement, the bigger question shouldn't be what should happen if guns were removed, but why would someone be driven to want to inflict such pain onto loved ones, or at least people they've lived around for extended periods of time, since that's the actual problem, as it is in this case.
Kid like that... should've been diciplined more during childhood. enough to fear eye contact from his father. It looks like his daddy was too much of a nice guy.TriangleHard
That may have just gotten the same end result considering the recent news story about the 8 year old who shot his dad and roommate six times with a rifle because he got spanked too much.
The point that I'm making is that guns aren't the underlying problem, which even stats would probably prove to be the case, given how few overall deaths occur as a result of them compared to the grand scheme of things.
Furthermore, a larger portion of the problem is the fact that these accidents/incidents get more rapidly and nationally publicized whenever they occur, artificially inflating the 'importance' of aspects of the issue that are not only less important, but dramatically more isolated than the media implies them to be, from my vantage point.
In response to your last statement, the bigger question shouldn't be what should happen if guns were removed, but why would someone be driven to want to inflict such pain onto loved ones, or at least people they've lived around for extended periods of time, since that's the actual problem, as it is in this case.Skylock00
I agree, and I forgot to reply to that in my previous post. Yes, the number of household murders is definitely low compared to other man-caused deaths such as wars and terrorism, still the number of these murders is rising (regardless of how the media scum inflate news). As you say, it's an alarm bell for an underlying problem: people have always resorted to violence (verbal, moral and physical) to solve their problems with other people on the job, in business, even when driving, and recently this trend has infiltrated families too, leading some unstable minds to think that the intimidation or elimination of a father/mother/brother/son they have problems with will solve such problems. This is concerning to say the least. I'm obviously not blaming this on weapons (otherwise I'd sound like one of those morons on the talk shows), I personally identify this as a symptom of the progressive downfall of our civilization. My point is: let's avoid keeping guns at hand in our homes, so that we won't have a quicker way to harm those close to us should a violence burst happen.
If this gets mandated on a large enough scale, hypothetically, then criminals that /do/ have guns can make easy work of people who are unarmed regarding controlling the situation. I'd rather have a criminal think that I might have a gun in my home (despite the fact that I don't, and probably never will own one personally), then /know/ that I don't have a gun in the home.My point is: let's avoid keeping guns at hand in our homes, so that we won't have a quicker way to harm those close to us should a violence burst happen.
Black_Knight_00
Furthermore, even if a gun isn't stored at home, someone could go get one, bring it to a home, and inflict pain, so simply not having them in the house is highly unlikely to be a deterrent in extreme cases of anger/instability such as this one, given how I'm pretty sure we've had guns in homes for centuries as of now. People who are that driven to such an extreme will almost certainly find a way to make it happen, regardless of circumstances.
Lastly, while I don't want to sound too dis-concerned about a topic like murder, I will not accept a claim that murders are on the rise without actual substantiated evidence, because as of a few years ago, numbers were basically saying that, in general, murders were at a low.
At any rate, this has sidetracked the thread for quite a bit, and I'm sorry for that.
This does not disprove the thesis that firearms end up being used more for shooting relatives during rage bursts than for legitimate defense against aggressors. If you want stats, I can't provide them, but I'm reasonably sure this is a fact of public domain. Sure, from what I just read about the Petric boy's case, the murder was premeditated and executed in cold blood like an execution. If he hadn't got a gun he'd have used a kitchen knife, but I still think that guns are more of a danger for a family instead of an effective security measure. What got me thinking is: whenever I hear news of family murders, it's always guns they use, they very rarely use knives or blunt objects. I wonder if, not having a gun at hand, some murders could have been avoided. Thankfully, guns are still uncommon in people's homes where I live.Black_Knight_00
Actually, deaths that don't involve the use of firearms are a lot more common than you think. Watch the Cold Case Files And Forensics Science on A&E and you'll see what I mean.
Many household items have the potential to be just as lethal as guns if you think about it, from pesticides to carpentry tools. These things also have the capacity to kill if fallen into the wrong hands. Why should guns be any different?
The weapon itself isn't the root of the problem. Its the boy's mentality and the parent's lack of responsiblity that needs to be addressed. Simply removing the firearm from one's hand would only be simplifying the issue, as there are other types of scenarios that need to be taken into consideration. Let's say if multiple attackers were to intrude into the home of a weak and defenseless young woman, what are her chances of preventing the threat if she were not to have a firearm in her possession? If there's one thing criminals fear, its of having to face against a armed civilian.
I'll have to split the post or I'll forget some point.
I'd rather have a criminal think that I might have a gun in my home (despite the fact that I don't, and probably never will own one personally), then /know/ that I don't have a gun in the home.Skylock00
The fact that people are scared and feel like they have to take measures to defend themselves is because police forces have always failed to fight crime adequately and provide an acceptable security standard and assistance, prior to, during and after the crime. Should police be more effective and constitute a serious deterrent for criminals, we wouldn't have no need to arm ourselves.
Furthermore, even if a gun isn't stored at home, someone could go get one, bring it to a home, and inflict pain, so simply not having them in the house is highly unlikely to be a deterrent in extreme cases of anger/instability such as this one, given how I'm pretty sure we've had guns in homes for centuries as of now. People who are that driven to such an extreme will almost certainly find a way to make it happen, regardless of circumstances.Skylock00
Well, in the case of someone who determines to kill a relative (like the one weare discussing in this thread), I agree: they will procure themselves a weapon or just use something in the house, but in the case of a moment of blind rage, I think having a weapon ready and not having one makes a big difference.
Lastly, while I don't want to sound too dis-concerned about a topic like murder, I will not accept a claim that murders are on the rise without actual substantiated evidence, because as of a few years ago, numbers were basically saying that, in general, murders were at a low.Skylock00
I think we could find contradictory data, some pointing out that murders are rising and others saying that they are dropping (for instance this chart says murders are stable, as opposed to generic crime rate, which is dropping). That's why I don't take stats as absolute truth. I base my statement on the fact I noticed more and more reports of domestic violence, at least way over the standards of my country. We've even had a few murders in the area I currently live in (which, I'm told, never happened before), notably, my friends' neighbor killed his wife in concert with his daughter. I think the apartment is still cordoned off.
[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Kid like that... should've been diciplined more during childhood. enough to fear eye contact from his father. It looks like his daddy was too much of a nice guy.ReddestSkies
No, just no. The idea is to have your kids trust you, not fear you.
If anything, his parents were probably way too strict, in a stupid manner. His father was a minister, and from what I'm seeing, he was probably banning all sorts of content from his house. The type of guy who would burn books. The kid is 17, his entertainment shouldn't be monitored. And that's just what we know about what seems to be some really idiotic parenting. Kids are sheep and they build a ton of frustration when they can't be "normal", especially when they are not provided actual reasons to avoid certain things (let's face it: there's no reasoning behind forbidding a 17 year old to play "violent" games).
I agree with your first sentence, but I strong disagree with the rest.
I worked with troubled kids for three years and many of the kids I saw were those with permissive parents. A well grounded 17 year old would be able to handle Halo 3, but a well grounded 17 year old wouldn't murder his mother if she said he couldn't play Halo 3. With all due respect to the ESRB and the MPAA the ones best positioned to judge what is appropriate for individuals kids are their parents. I've known people whose parents didn't allow them to play videogames or watch violent movies (some of them really went wild in college but a few of them internalized their parent's values and led less colorful lives).
Also, I don't go by the 'everyone else is doing it' thing. 'You want to go out the door dressed like a hooker to go to a party where they are serving alcohol? You say all your friends are doing it? Well, who am I to argue? Enjoy!' should not be a conversation that a parent ever has with their child
Of course, its quite likely mistakes were made when raising the kid but I've seen really messed up people with normal siblings so I don't think its fair to say that behind every messed up kid is an incompetent parent.
Last but not least, someone living under their parent's roof should expect complete freedom no matter how old they are. When I was in college I did less binge drinking and random hooking up than I did while I was at university. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect the same is true of most students.
Actually, deaths that don't involve the use of firearms are a lot more common than you think. Watch the Cold Case Files And Forensics Science on A&E and you'll see what I mean.Many household items have the potential to be just as lethal as guns if you think about it, from pesticides to carpentry tools. These things also have the capacity to kill if fallen into the wrong hands. Why should guns be any different?Yes, there's no denying you can use pretty much anything as a harming tool, but I still wouldn't compare makeshift weapons like a baseball bat or a heavy ornamental object to a gun, whose only purpose is to quickly wound or kill of a person, regardless of this being a threat or not. Also, your example of the young woman reminds me of something that happened here a few years ago: some burglars entered a woman's flat, she had a gun and managed to kill one, then the others subdued her, beat her up and stole evrything from her home. She also was prosecuted for murder, although fortunately the jury certified the self defense circumstances. So having a gun and reacting with it cost her a beating (and she was lucky to get out of it with her skin), a prosecution and she couldn't avoid being robbed. A similar thing happened to a neighbor of mine over 10 years ago, he caught some burglars in his house and as they ran away he chased them and emptied two 9mm clips on them, killing one. He was convicted for murder and spent 5 years in jail.The weapon itself isn't the root of the problem. Its the boy's mentality and the parent's lack of responsiblity that needs to be addressed. Simply removing the firearm from one's hand would only be simplifying the issue, as there are other types of scenarios that need to be taken into consideration. Let's say if multiple attackers were to intrude into the home of a weak and defenseless young woman, what are her chances of preventing the threat if she were not to have a firearm in her possession? If there's one thing criminals fear, its of having to face against a armed civilian.BladesOfAthena
Mom, Dad close your eyes.Stabs one, they scream, the other opens his/her eyes, tries to stop him.... does. One person injured, the other calls the ambulance, both survive.
Guns kill on the spot, with a Knife, you still have a chance.
There are a lot of sickos out there, we gotta make sure we keep the guns away from them ....
and not in their parent's house.
S0lidSnake
Guns are only a tool of murder, not the cause. Prohibiting the tool does not counter the cause.
People can kill others with their bare hands... so should we cut everyone's hands off because of that?
[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Kid like that... should've been diciplined more during childhood. enough to fear eye contact from his father. It looks like his daddy was too much of a nice guy.ReddestSkies
No, just no. The idea is to have your kids trust you, not fear you.
If anything, his parents were probably way too strict, in a stupid manner. His father was a minister, and from what I'm seeing, he was probably banning all sorts of content from his house. The type of guy who would burn books. The kid is 17, his entertainment shouldn't be monitored. And that's just what we know about what seems to be some really idiotic parenting. Kids are sheep and they build a ton of frustration when they can't be "normal", especially when they are not provided actual reasons to avoid certain things (let's face it: there's no reasoning behind forbidding a 17 year old to play "violent" games).
Wrong! parents house parents rules, don't like it? move out then :|...
[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Kid like that... should've been diciplined more during childhood. enough to fear eye contact from his father. It looks like his daddy was too much of a nice guy.CarnageHeart
No, just no. The idea is to have your kids trust you, not fear you.
If anything, his parents were probably way too strict, in a stupid manner. His father was a minister, and from what I'm seeing, he was probably banning all sorts of content from his house. The type of guy who would burn books. The kid is 17, his entertainment shouldn't be monitored. And that's just what we know about what seems to be some really idiotic parenting. Kids are sheep and they build a ton of frustration when they can't be "normal", especially when they are not provided actual reasons to avoid certain things (let's face it: there's no reasoning behind forbidding a 17 year old to play "violent" games).
I agree with your first sentence, but I strong disagree with the rest.
I worked with troubled kids for three years and many of the kids I saw were those with permissive parents. A well grounded 17 year old would be able to handle Halo 3, but a well grounded 17 year old wouldn't murder his mother if she said he couldn't play Halo 3. With all due respect to the ESRB and the MPAA the ones best positioned to judge what is appropriate for individuals kids are their parents. I've known people whose parents didn't allow them to play videogames or watch violent movies (some of them really went wild in college but a few of them internalized their parent's values and led less colorful lives).
Also, I don't go by the 'everyone else is doing it' thing. 'You want to go out the door dressed like a hooker to go to a party where they are serving alcohol? You say all your friends are doing it? Well, who am I to argue? Enjoy!' should not be a conversation that a parent ever has with their child
Of course, its quite likely mistakes were made when raising the kid but I've seen really messed up people with normal siblings so I don't think its fair to say that behind every messed up kid is an incompetent parent.
Last but not least, someone living under their parent's roof should expect complete freedom no matter how old they are. When I was in college I did less binge drinking and random hooking up than I did while I was at university. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect the same is true of most students.
I certainly agree that the kid probably would have ended up sick anyway, but it doesn't seem like his parents helped. Contrarily to what you implied in your first paragraph, I really, really don't think that his parents had the slightest clue about what was right for him. The most likely scenario here is that they frustrated him a lot by being insanely strict and never providing answers when he asked why they were so strict.
There's a huge difference between the party example and smaller things like Halo 3. You can actually explain a thing why you think dressing up like a hooker and getting drunk at a party is bad. Kids are sheep. When everyone else can do something, and they can't, they'll build frustration, and it will be even worse when the ban makes little sense. There's no reasoning behind banning a 17 year old to get violent (but not even gruesome) entertainment. Unless you know that he's sick, that is, but even then, letting him build frustration is really stupid, and you should get help for him instead. Also, parties don't happen all that often. Entertainment is a daily thing. That kid was reminding himself, daily, that his parents controlled every aspect of his life in a seemingly random manner.
And I obviously don't expect the entertainment strictness to be the only thing that they got wrong as parents. How many friends did they ban from his life? Would they let him choose his career?
Drinking leads to unacceptable behavior. Again, limiting its use is not the same as monitoring entertainment (which has no effect on reasonable people after a certain age).
I suggest everyone read the entire article before reaching conclusions. Not the one on kotaku, follow this link below
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html
First of all, Kotaku doesn´t even post the story right. They said prosecutors´ opening statement was that the kid was under a lot of stress because he was home bound for an entire year because of a snowboarding accident, and that´s only partially true. In the full article it says that he was home bound because of a spinal injury which was a result of the snowboarding accident and further injuries could result in him ending paralyzed
In the full article it says that they found the copy of Halo 3 inside the van in which he fled after the shooting. So basically he took time to grab the game after shooting both his parents. I believe that action is one of a mentally ill person
And last, but not least, at the end of the article it says the father took away Halo 3 from him because it was too violent and sexually explicit. Halo 3? Sexually explicit? Really? That only tells me his father didn´t know all that well what the game was all about
Anyway, it´s hard reaching a conclusion based solely on this report. I believe the problem in this situation runs deeper and involves the three of them not just the kid or the father or the mother. So the only thing i can say is that it is a sad situation.
Whatever happend to sneaking to a friend's house to play the game or buy it behind his parents' back? Psycopaths either get life or death sentence.
I was playing with a kid like him in a Left 4 Dead game :lol: Honestly I was being life thretened because I was beating his team so bad. The build in chat was full of laughter from the Danish guys I was playing with and this kid screaming abuse like "I'm going to ****** Kill you, you ******* ****" (Those stars are naughty words). He started to tell me about the gun he keeps in his room haha.
It goes to show that if you take away that barrier between the Internet, you'll get people who just can't take being humiliation and will throw away the rest of their lives for one attempt at revenge.
I wonder if that kid went on a killing spree or shot someone he loved. Probably :P
Yes, there's no denying you can use pretty much anything as a harming tool, but I still wouldn't compare makeshift weapons like a baseball bat or a heavy ornamental object to a gun, whose only purpose is to quickly wound or kill of a person, regardless of this being a threat or not. Also, your example of the young woman reminds me of something that happened here a few years ago: some burglars entered a woman's flat, she had a gun and managed to kill one, then the others subdued her, beat her up and stole evrything from her home. She also was prosecuted for murder, although fortunately the jury certified the self defense circumstances. So having a gun and reacting with it cost her a beating (and she was lucky to get out of it with her skin), a prosecution and she couldn't avoid being robbed. A similar thing happened to a neighbor of mine over 10 years ago, he caught some burglars in his house and as they ran away he chased them and emptied two 9mm clips on them, killing one. He was convicted for murder and spent 5 years in jail.
Black_Knight_00
Why not? The point is that regardless of what is being used, the end result is still the same - that any individual using an item with the intent to harm can be held accountable for homicide.
Can you provide any links to these anecdotes? I can pinpoint you to a couple of articles that contradict your claims. Article 1Article 2
In this day and age, I think the second emendment should be revised. Having all these guns in the hands of people that, let's be honest, in most cases can't even operate them safely... it's like giving a sharp knife to a child: guess what, he'll cut himself.Black_Knight_00
There are millions of gun-owners that live in the US so if that's the case then why aren't there millions of gun-related suicides/homicides reported?
[QUOTE
I suggest everyone read the entire article before reaching conclusions. Not the one on kotaku, follow this link below
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html
First of all, Kotaku doesn´t even post the story right. They said prosecutors´ opening statement was that the kid was under a lot of stress because he was home bound for an entire year because of a snowboarding accident, and that´s only partially true. In the full article it says that he was home bound because of a spinal injury which was a result of the snowboarding accident and further injuries could result in him ending paralyzed
If the first part is true, than I believe his injury may have caused a lot of stress, since he was probably pretty active before the incident. If you remain indoors for long periods a time, especially for an athlete, you'd probably be a bit uneasy. I'm not justifying what he did, but I feel that this issue is much more important than the fact he wanted to play Halo 3.
Sad. I'm even more convinced that Michael Moore is right: don't keep guns in your home. A huge slice of firearm-procured injuries and deaths are caused in circumstances basically identical to this one.Black_Knight_00
The power elite love your and Moore's idea. Hey, while we're at it, let's ban cars and plans, because they kill even more people! But hey, why stop there? While we're at it, let's ban motorcycles, too. Down with these weapons and devices of murder!
Lesson: Tragedies occur. There's no stopping it. This kid could've killed them in many other ways if he was that psychotic.
Just so everyone knows you can live in a country that isnt a "communist police state" that has strict gun control laws, its called Canada. And up here our gun related deaths are less than 300 a year in comparison to the US which is god knows how many. Ill never be able to understand the American fascination and downright arrogant insistance that it is your god given right to own something thats only purpose is to destroy and kill. If you like to hunt then you can hunt.. you can go get rifles or other similar guns after obtaining a firearms license and going through a test and a screening process. But being able to walk into a store and purchase something like an M4 assualt rifle with armor piercing rounds and a sniper scope? Riight. no.GodModeEnabled
Oh, don't worry. We'll all be one soon enough.
Just so everyone knows you can live in a country that isnt a "communist police state" that has strict gun control laws, its called Canada. And up here our gun related deaths are less than 300 a year in comparison to the US which is god knows how many. Ill never be able to understand the American fascination and downright arrogant insistance that it is your god given right to own something thats only purpose is to destroy and kill. If you like to hunt then you can hunt.. you can go get rifles or other similar guns after obtaining a firearms license and going through a test and a screening process. But being able to walk into a store and purchase something like an M4 assualt rifle with armor piercing rounds and a sniper scope? Riight. no.GodModeEnabledLess than 300 sounds nice and neat, but the US is quite a bit bigger than Canada. How many of those 300 were unable to defend themselves against an assailant wielding an illegally obtained firearm? What would these people do should corruption in the government exist? Grab a baseball bat and hope the US steps in?
Just so everyone knows you can live in a country that isnt a "communist police state" that has strict gun control laws, its called Canada. And up here our gun related deaths are less than 300 a year in comparison to the US which is god knows how many. Ill never be able to understand the American fascination and downright arrogant insistance that it is your god given right to own something thats only purpose is to destroy and kill. If you like to hunt then you can hunt.. you can go get rifles or other similar guns after obtaining a firearms license and going through a test and a screening process. But being able to walk into a store and purchase something like an M4 assualt rifle with armor piercing rounds and a sniper scope? Riight. no.GodModeEnabled
Most states in the US don't allow civilians to own anything that isn't semi-automatic with no more than a 5 round magazine (other than handguns, which are strictly monitored in most states). The guns aren't the problem. If a criminal wants to get a gun, they won't walk into a gun store and wait 5-7 days for their background check to run or break into someone's house and try to open the locked cabinet... they go to the black market on the streets and buy an illegal gun that cannot be tracked.
Gun violence (and violence in general) in the US stems from something more than just availability of guns. Other places in the world have much more lax gun laws than the US and there are not nearly as many gun related deaths.
I being Canadian don't agree with the "need" for self-defence... but I also don't agree with taking away someone's right to defend themselves *if* they can be responsible about it. Taking away the tool doesn't stop the violence. If someone has a desperate desire to kill another person, nothing is going to get in their way.
Less than 300 sounds nice and neat, but the US is quite a bit bigger than Canada. How many of those 300 were unable to defend themselves against an assailant wielding an illegally obtained firearm? What would these people do should corruption in the government exist? Grab a baseball bat and hope the US steps in? You do realise there is a hell of a lot of corruption in the US government as well and yet you Americans don't seem to do anything about it. And the reason why there is such a disparancy between the US and Canada in gun deaths is because the proportion of people in Canada living below the poverty line is a hell of a lot lower than in the US as well as that the health system in Canada is a lot better and people in Canada don't seem to be as xenophobic as the US is. The reason why all thes shootings happen in the US isn't because of the second ammendment its because there is so much poverty and injustice for the lower middle and working class people in the US[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Just so everyone knows you can live in a country that isnt a "communist police state" that has strict gun control laws, its called Canada. And up here our gun related deaths are less than 300 a year in comparison to the US which is god knows how many. Ill never be able to understand the American fascination and downright arrogant insistance that it is your god given right to own something thats only purpose is to destroy and kill. If you like to hunt then you can hunt.. you can go get rifles or other similar guns after obtaining a firearms license and going through a test and a screening process. But being able to walk into a store and purchase something like an M4 assualt rifle with armor piercing rounds and a sniper scope? Riight. no.Mash_Affect
[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Blaming the guns for making the kid kill his mom, yet, you won't blame the game for "giving him the idea"? Does anyone else not see the contradiction in that statement? Last I remember, Halo also had an energy sword. Would you be blaming lightsabers if the kid used that on his parents?Guns.
What the *** are they doing in our households? Wasnt it just two weeks ago when the cops caught a high school freshman who planned to go on a killing spree in his school, using the weapons he stole from his dad's locker?
**** the 2nd ammendment!
S0lidSnake
The game didnt give him the idea. People have been killing each other since before the violent video games existed, since before violent movies existed, since before violent novels/plays were first written. People have been killing each other since the dawn of time, video games arent responsible for this horrible tradegy. A ****ed up kid is.
And if he used a lightsaber, then yeah I would ask how the **** did he get a lightsaber in the first place!
You, quite obviously, missed the point.[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]I just dont think grouping these young kids with professional criminals is the right thing to do. These kids did it because it was easy for them to do so. I dont think these kids wouldve sought out gangster for their weapons. Hell, even if they did, do you think they would've had the money to buy it illegally?
S0lidSnake
But you also have to consider other scenarios where posessing a firearm is necessary in the event of, say, theft, or as a means of self-defense. You can't just take one instance and use that as a basis for condemning an ammendment.
I dont want to engage in a pro-gun vs gun control debate so I'll just say that I respect your opinion on this, but I will not have a gun in my house myself. I dont want my own kid to shoot me. :)
What if your child was legally able to purchase the firearm? You'd still ban him from having it "under your roof?" Didn't you just speak out against banning someone from something they can legally obtain?[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]Actually, deaths that don't involve the use of firearms are a lot more common than you think. Watch the Cold Case Files And Forensics Science on A&E and you'll see what I mean.Many household items have the potential to be just as lethal as guns if you think about it, from pesticides to carpentry tools. These things also have the capacity to kill if fallen into the wrong hands. Why should guns be any different?Yes, there's no denying you can use pretty much anything as a harming tool, but I still wouldn't compare makeshift weapons like a baseball bat or a heavy ornamental object to a gun, whose only purpose is to quickly wound or kill of a person, regardless of this being a threat or not. Also, your example of the young woman reminds me of something that happened here a few years ago: some burglars entered a woman's flat, she had a gun and managed to kill one, then the others subdued her, beat her up and stole evrything from her home. She also was prosecuted for murder, although fortunately the jury certified the self defense circumstances. So having a gun and reacting with it cost her a beating (and she was lucky to get out of it with her skin), a prosecution and she couldn't avoid being robbed. A similar thing happened to a neighbor of mine over 10 years ago, he caught some burglars in his house and as they ran away he chased them and emptied two 9mm clips on them, killing one. He was convicted for murder and spent 5 years in jail.The weapon itself isn't the root of the problem. Its the boy's mentality and the parent's lack of responsiblity that needs to be addressed. Simply removing the firearm from one's hand would only be simplifying the issue, as there are other types of scenarios that need to be taken into consideration. Let's say if multiple attackers were to intrude into the home of a weak and defenseless young woman, what are her chances of preventing the threat if she were not to have a firearm in her possession? If there's one thing criminals fear, its of having to face against a armed civilian.Black_Knight_00
Do you have a link?
Guns.
What the *** are they doing in our households? Wasnt it just two weeks ago when the cops caught a high school freshman who planned to go on a killing spree in his school, using the weapons he stole from his dad's locker?
**** the 2nd ammendment!
S0lidSnake
i agree with you 100%.
There are millions of gun-owners that live in the US so if that's the case then why aren't there millions of gun-related suicides/homicides reported?BladesOfAthenaTrue, but we may get there eventually. We don't have to wait until it's too late to prevent it. I'm not a fan of government enforced restrictions, but... well, not so long ago we had serious episodes of mass histeria here in italy, it's been all over the news: some neighborhoods of Milan and other cities were torn to shreds, literally. I wonder what could have happened if people had guns. I can't think of how the situation could have escalated.
It's a cruel world we live in.
Do you have a link?CarnageHeartAs I said, these events happened in my country and area, the first was reported on newspapers, the second was a neighbor of mine. I didn't read about them on the internet, so I'm sorry I can't provide any link.
The said thing is... it was the gun inside their very own house that caused this to happen, yet someone will still try to sue MS.JustPlainLucasWell, it wasn't the gun that caused it, but an insane and probably spoiled kid's mind. The gun helped him, though, and I'm convinced, had the gun not been there, he wouldn't have tried to stab or poison his parents instead.
I agree with Black Knight, while the lack of a gun in the house may not have tempered the boy's homicidal rage its presence definitely facilitated it. Its a lot easier to just shoot someone with a gun than it would be to kill someone with other household items/weapons. A gun is just easy access to murder plain and simple. Its why they exist.HodawgThe gun is never the reason. It's the person, it's the way they think, and it's the way they are. Haven't you ever heard the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.". Yes, It's may all be subjective. Everything varies from household to household. I have friends that have parents who own weapons yet these friends are not violent at all. I personally think it's time to stop blaming weapons, parents, video games, and other inanimate objects. It's time to stop blaming all together. The human mind is not a toy. It is a tool, it is a weapon, and it is a sanctuary. The dull attempts of politicians and strict parents will never fully restrict anyone's natural mind from settling into unkind terms, so in other words, every once in awhile someone's going to do something insanely ****ed up like this. The best thing to do is just educate people!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment