2013-05-04, 04:08 AM
|
5-year-old shoots his 2-year-old sister
|
  
2013-05-04, 04:19 AM
Luxeraph Wrote:http://www.glamguns.com/ Yep, I should have drawn that conclusion after seeing them sell ovens as well since the world would really have to be insane for a company to sell both rifles and exploding ovens to kids. Oh, and in more serious news the Crickett website is currently down and they've also removed their Facebook page. Source 
2013-05-04, 02:05 PM
Another story
The kid is obviously mentally disturbed yeah, but he likely wouldn't have been able to kill his mother if they hadn't given him a rifle at the age of 11.
2013-05-04, 02:08 PM
That's just sick. I hope people aren't just going to focus on Call of Duty even if I agree that video games tend to focus a lot on violence these days; the issue is about the harm your child could do if you give them an item that can be used as a weapon and leave it unattended particularly when the boy in this case already has a history of flareups of aggressive behaviour.
2013-05-04, 02:19 PM
While I disagree whole heartedly with the idea of violent games corrupting kids and stuff like that, those kind of arguments do KINDA have a point.
It's a big issue in America obviously, because the kids there have access to guns. here in England, a deranged person could have sick thoughts about doing Call of Duty stuff all day, but the chances of them getting a firearm lowers the threat considerably. Wheras in America, a kid could be all like "I wonder what shooting someone is really like" and they could do it, because they have guns everywhere.
2013-05-04, 02:32 PM
That's why I say I hope people aren't going to focus on the game since games alone don't lead to death. The issue here is that this kid isn't equipped to deal with a rifle and he got one for a present anyway, even if he had acted violently a person's still more likely to survive nearly any other kind of wound than a gunshot since he wasn't deliberately trying to kill his mother.
It wouldn't even be an issue if a kid had access to a gun and played violent video games if they were mentally stable and knew how to differentiate reality from fantasy but this kid clearly wasn't. I just wonder if he got proper testing before he got his gun but this alone shows a good reason why kids should not have guns of their own since you don't know what's going to happen. 
2013-05-04, 07:49 PM
JoeTang Wrote:If only she had her own gun to defend herself. I'm sorry but... what the heck went on with this post? Not only you're making fun of such a tragic event but half the people in this thread are liking it? I guess the mentality that carried the kid's parents to give him a gun at that age can be found here in southperry aswell... 
2013-05-04, 08:12 PM
byakugan Wrote:I'm sorry but... what the heck went on with this post? Not only you're making fun of such a tragic event but half the people in this thread are liking it? Your post baffles me more. That post should be interpreted as sarcasm. If you get it then the bolded part of your post isn't only unnecessary but insulting. And also, what's the problem with joking about it?
2013-05-04, 08:28 PM
Words Wrote:Your post baffles me more. Sarcasm? That post is a mile closer to a joke than sarcasm. And even if it was sarcasm what would it be trying to point? and whats wrong about joking about this? do I seriously need to respond?. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More on topic: There's something definitely wrong with the regulation of guns if people can buy one for 5 year old kids. I thought you have to go through a whole process before buying one which includes verifiying how many guns you already have and justifiying why you want to buy the gun, I wonder if these checks failed and if I'm wrong and they are not even implemented then that's just plain stupid. Those of you that are against gun regulation, if those 2 points are something you're against too then you people have a problem.
2013-05-04, 08:52 PM
byakugan Wrote:I'm sorry but... what the heck went on with this post? Not only you're making fun of such a tragic event but half the people in this thread are liking it? Spoiler Alert: Jokes are okay. They help make light of a situation. Don't be so uptight.
2013-05-04, 09:12 PM
Other people made jokes out of the elements from this issue... Polarantis, Sardines, just not directly out of the event. Sorry if my considering that making a joke out of a 5 year old kid kiling his 2 year old sister makes me look "uptight".
2013-05-05, 02:21 AM
byakugan Wrote:I'm sorry but... what the heck went on with this post? Not only you're making fun of such a tragic event but half the people in this thread are liking it? The thing about that particular joke is that it hits really close to home: Would you dare to say there isn't someone in America who'd argue that kids should have the right to carry firearms just because someone might hurt them, never mind that it's far more likely that the child would end up hurting someone else first? I don't know, insensitive jokes are one thing but it did actually show how ridiculous the situation was in a way that was easy to understand since the girl was also so young it would have been equally ludicrous if she had her own rifle for self-defence; yes, maybe she wouldn't have died but then we might then be talking about the girl shooting her brother first and how he'd be alive if only he had a safety vest. I don't disagree that maybe people make too much jokes sometimes but that comment about mentality was unwarranted. 
2013-05-06, 02:35 AM
byakugan Wrote:Other people made jokes out of the elements from this issue... Polarantis, Sardines, just not directly out of the event. Sorry if my considering that making a joke out of a 5 year old kid kiling his 2 year old sister makes me look "uptight". If you watch US news, congressmen have gone on air and said that they believe that the only thing stopping a person with a gun is a counter-party with a gun. The hypothetical counter-gun example is a nauseating example repeatedly used by certain Republicans to knock down efforts to put in place 'additional' gun control legislation. The hypothetical is hardly effectual because it is a very confined scenario for an issue that has a broad influence on many socio-political issues outside the scope of isolated shooting incidences. Knowing this, it is hilarious to see it used in this context because it shows how limited the scope of the statement is and how it hardly rebuts the pros to stricter policies on armed weapons, particularly assault weapons.
2013-05-06, 02:54 AM
Sardines Wrote:If you watch US news, congressmen have gone on air and said that they believe that the only thing stopping a person with a gun is a counter-party with a gun. The hypothetical counter-gun example is a nauseating example repeatedly used by certain Republicans to knock down efforts to put in place 'additional' gun control legislation. The hypothetical is hardly effectual because it is a very confined scenario for an issue that has a broad influence on many socio-political issues outside the scope of isolated shooting incidences. Knowing this, it is hilarious to see it used in this context because it shows how limited the scope of the statement is and how it hardly rebuts the pros to stricter policies on armed weapons, particularly assault weapons. The main one I hear is "we need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government". Considering if you think for a moment how big and scary our military is, I don't really need to get into whats wrong with that one. 
2013-05-06, 03:54 AM
Moonlapse Wrote:The main one I hear is "we need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government". Considering if you think for a moment how big and scary our military is, I don't really need to get into whats wrong with that one. That's a different one. The self-defense one goes something like, "Criminals will always be able to obtain guns, regardless of regulations. Therefore, law-abiding people should be allowed to have guns, to defend themselves from criminals." Joe's quip was quite the effective jab at that, and that's why so many people upvoted it. 
2013-05-06, 11:34 AM
byakugan Wrote:Sarcasm? That post is a mile closer to a joke than sarcasm. And even if it was sarcasm what would it be trying to point? While joking about is bad when you only look at the joke. But if you look at from the perspective of how stupid arguments for no gun control are, then the joke has its place. It obviously has more potential for changing things than people who just feel sorry and try to sympathize for the tragedy. 
2013-05-07, 09:52 AM
SaptaZapta Wrote:Joe's quip was quite the effective jab at that Not really; a 2 year old couldn't do anything with a gun; her brother wasn't a criminal, neither of them are even old enough to understand what crime IS. It's more of an accidental jab at how dumb infants are. 
2013-05-07, 10:19 AM
Flonne Wrote:Not really; a 2 year old couldn't do anything with a gun; her brother wasn't a criminal, neither of them are even old enough to understand what crime IS. It's more of an accidental jab at how dumb infants are. Uh...I disagree. Sapta hit the nail right on the head. It was taking the piss out of people that say "Well if person X had a gun, everything would have been alright!" after shootings.
2013-05-07, 10:44 AM
Lozmaster Wrote:Uh...I disagree. Sapta hit the nail right on the head. It was taking the piss out of people that say "Well if person X had a gun, everything would have been alright!" after shootings. But the difference is, person X generally knows how to operate the gun; a 2 year old child doesn't. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)