• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food

Schwartz

Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
282
Reaction score
157
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Florida police said Wednesday that a 13-year-old boy shot and killed his 6-year-old brother and wounded his 16-year-old brother before turning the gun on himself after a heated argument over food.

Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News

Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.
 
Right here in Palm Bay a mother killed her three children by manual strangulation. Just the other day.
I guess we need to ban hands.
 
Right here in Palm Bay a mother killed her three children by manual strangulation. Just the other day.
I guess we need to ban hands.

You are mixing hot and green.
For a 13-year-old kid it is much harder to kill his 6-year-old brother unintentionally with a stick than with a gun. Grown up madmen can be easily found in any society and they have nothing to do with gun control. It is just that mortality rate is higher when guns are flowing freely.
What are you so afraid of anyway? If you have a gun already you have nothing to worry about. If not, why are you advocating guns without being a gun user?
 
Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News

Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.



So how exactly would gun control have prevented this? You say 'nobody wants to deprive you of the right to bear arms' then you say "if there had been no guns in that household".... these are two contradictory statements.

Most of those deaths you cite are suicides btw.
 
You are mixing hot and green.
For a 13-year-old kid it is much harder to kill his 6-year-old brother unintentionally with a stick than with a gun. Grown up madmen can be easily found in any society and they have nothing to do with gun control. It is just that mortality rate is higher when guns are flowing freely.
What are you so afraid of anyway? If you have a gun already you have nothing to worry about. If not, why are you advocating guns without being a gun user?

Because there are plenty of people lined up to work hard to take our guns. That is what I worry about.
 
Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News

Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.

So what would gun control have done to stop this? According to the article, nobody even knows whose gun it was.
 
So what would gun control have done to stop this? According to the article, nobody even knows whose gun it was.

At least there would be no anonymous guns around 13-year-old kids. Could anyone tell me what's so bad about stricter gun legislation? Those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyways. Those who need no gun - and therefore know nothings about safety and proper storage - will face some hurdles that will stop them from obtaining one.
 
At least there would be no anonymous guns around 13-year-old kids. Could anyone tell me what's so bad about stricter gun legislation? Those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyways. Those who need no gun - and therefore know nothings about safety and proper storage - will face some hurdles that will stop them from obtaining one.

You don't know whose gun it was. You don't know how the kid accessed it. There was no mother in trailer with them. No mention of a father or other adult. They were arguing "over food", whatever the hell that means. And you think this is a good segue into a gun legislation debate.
 
So how exactly would gun control have prevented this? You say 'nobody wants to deprive you of the right to bear arms' then you say "if there had been no guns in that household".... these are two contradictory statements.

Most of those deaths you cite are suicides btw.

I don't agree that gun control would have prevented this. However, there is something to be said about a culture where guns and violence are glamorized and defined as the go-to source for problem solving. I fully understand that guns aren't to blame for this. Hell, that's my personal evolution on the subject. However, I refuse to accept that these incidents happen in a vacuum. I don't think anyone or any belief regarding guns is to blame, but I do think there exists a culture where guns are being constantly showcased as the solution to every problem and that should definitely be addressed. Whether it's done by the government or individuals, is irrelevant to me but a national discussion should be held on the matter. I repeat: That's entirely independent from the notion that guns should be banned.
 
Seems to me there are a higher than average number of crazies in Florida.
 
At least there would be no anonymous guns around 13-year-old kids. Could anyone tell me what's so bad about stricter gun legislation? Those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyways. Those who need no gun - and therefore know nothings about safety and proper storage - will face some hurdles that will stop them from obtaining one.



Nonsense. You can't prove that statement.


TMK at present, we have no idea whose gun it was or how he obtained it. He may have bought it illegally on the street.


You haven't even specified what sort of gun control you want to see, that you think might have made a difference here. How can we take your assertions seriously when they are so vague?

You assert "those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyway" two sentences later.... this is actually the more correct statement, as we have no evidence that gun control laws actually reduce violent crime or keep criminals from arming themselves, or keep irresponsible people from being armed. They simply turn to the black market if they can't obtain guns via legal channels.


We've already successfully put to bed the idea that any gun control legislation then under consideration, nor any proposed afterward, would have had any significant likelihood of stopping Sandy Hook. I see nothing in your posts to indicate what would have stopped this shooting.
 
I don't agree that gun control would have prevented this. However, there is something to be said about a culture where guns and violence are glamorized and defined as the go-to source for problem solving. I fully understand that guns aren't to blame for this. Hell, that's my personal evolution on the subject. However, I refuse to accept that these incidents happen in a vacuum. I don't think anyone or any belief regarding guns is to blame, but I do think there exists a culture where guns are being constantly showcased as the solution to every problem and that should definitely be addressed. Whether it's done by the government or individuals, is irrelevant to me but a national discussion should be held on the matter. I repeat: That's entirely independent from the notion that guns should be banned.



I agree we have a cultural problem with the glorification of violence. It does permeate our culture, our history, our movies and video games, it appears in music and in notions of masculinity and more.


Not sure exactly what we can do about it, though, other than try to raise our children right, and teach them that violence should never be more than a unavoidable last resort, and never a first response to problems.
 
Nonsense. You can't prove that statement.


TMK at present, we have no idea whose gun it was or how he obtained it. He may have bought it illegally on the street.


You haven't even specified what sort of gun control you want to see, that you think might have made a difference here. How can we take your assertions seriously when they are so vague?

You assert "those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyway" two sentences later.... this is actually the more correct statement, as we have no evidence that gun control laws actually reduce violent crime or keep criminals from arming themselves, or keep irresponsible people from being armed. They simply turn to the black market if they can't obtain guns via legal channels.


We've already successfully put to bed the idea that any gun control legislation then under consideration, nor any proposed afterward, would have had any significant likelihood of stopping Sandy Hook. I see nothing in your posts to indicate what would have stopped this shooting.

We are on 13th place in firearm-related death rate ranking. Do you think it has something to do with guns possession laws? I believe yes.
 
I agree we have a cultural problem with the glorification of violence. It does permeate our culture, our history, our movies and video games, it appears in music and in notions of masculinity and more.


Not sure exactly what we can do about it, though, other than try to raise our children right, and teach them that violence should never be more than a unavoidable last resort, and never a first response to problems.

I agree it is not only about gun controls. It is even more about bringing up you children right. But with 16% of the population living in poverty it is easier said than done. Everything is interconnected. If only we could shape the nation so easily I think this would have been done already.
 
I agree we have a cultural problem with the glorification of violence. It does permeate our culture, our history, our movies and video games, it appears in music and in notions of masculinity and more.

Not sure exactly what we can do about it, though, other than try to raise our children right, and teach them that violence should never be more than a unavoidable last resort, and never a first response to problems.

I think a good first step would be gun corporations making public statements in regards to the use of their products. I think it's time that they stopped being reactive to gun violence and proactive. Cigarette corporations, medicines and liquor companies are held to these standards. So why not guns? If it's possible to create to a culture that understands that cigarettes and liquor aren't to be used by children, and this has been around for decades, why isn't it possible for gun corporations to create a culture where guns are seen as tools and NOT problem solvers? Obviously, I speak from ignorance because I don't know if these efforts are already underway and I welcome the possibility that they are. However, I honestly believe that even if they are, they simply aren't visible to the general public and we have this disconnect between product and consumer.
 
We are on 13th place in firearm-related death rate ranking. Do you think it has something to do with guns possession laws? I believe yes.



No sir, we are not. Worldwide there are literally about half the nations of the world ahead of us in firearm deaths per-capita. Try more like 50th place.



Your post does not answer the question posed. What specific gun control measures would you like to see implemented, which you believe would have likely prevented this shooting from happening?


After all, there is no point in simply passing emotional-knee-jerk-response laws willy-nilly unless they are actually going to affect that which you wish to see affected. Laws which restrict the liberty of the general public must pass an even higher standard: they must be worth it.
 
So how exactly would gun control have prevented this? You say 'nobody wants to deprive you of the right to bear arms' then you say "if there had been no guns in that household".... these are two contradictory statements.

Most of those deaths you cite are suicides btw.

That really should be explained. No guns? But they don't want to take them?
 
Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News

Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.
As soon as I heard about one kid killing another kid over food I knew this story would take place in The South.
 
I think a good first step would be gun corporations making public statements in regards to the use of their products. I think it's time that they stopped being reactive to gun violence and proactive. Cigarette corporations, medicines and liquor companies are held to these standards. So why not guns? If it's possible to create to a culture that understands that cigarettes and liquor aren't to be used by children, and this has been around for decades, why isn't it possible for gun corporations to create a culture where guns are seen as tools and NOT problem solvers? Obviously, I speak from ignorance because I don't know if these efforts are already underway and I welcome the possibility that they are. However, I honestly believe that even if they are, they simply aren't visible to the general public and we have this disconnect between product and consumer.



Well, as things stand Hat, tmk there is no gun advertising in the general media at all. Gun adverts are almost entirely limited to gun magazines, which have to be purchased, and gun manufacturer websites... at least as far as I've noticed.

I've seen manufacturers tout their product's quality, reliability, accuracy, economy and similar utilities; I've seen some touted for home defense and concealed carry... can't say that I've ever seen a gun manufacturer ad that said anything like "Got neighbor problems? Try our fine line of ass-blasting firearms!" ;)


Now I'll admit that once in a while I've seen a gun STORE advert that made me smack my forehead...



Edited to add correction: I have once in a while seen a gun STORE advertise on local TV or radio stations.
 
Last edited:
As soon as I heard about one kid killing another kid over food I knew this story would take place in The South.



Yeah, because nothing stupid ever happens Out West right?



:roll:
 
Well, as things stand Hat, tmk there is no gun advertising in the general media at all. Gun adverts are almost entirely limited to gun magazines, which have to be purchased, and gun manufacturer websites... at least as far as I've noticed.

I've seen manufacturers tout their product's quality, reliability, accuracy, economy and similar utilities; I've seen some touted for home defense and concealed carry... can't say that I've ever seen a gun manufacturer ad that said anything like "Got neighbor problems? Try our fine line of ass-blasting firearms!" ;)

I think you should look into how guns are marketed today. Gun manufacturers and video games have been in bed since the days of GoldenEye '64. Video game companies pay royalties for "the realism" of real weapons. Movies marketed towards young adults have their guns provided for by gun manufacturers. I think they (gun companes) should stop doing that and promote movies where guns aren't seen as the answer to the main character's problems. At the very least, they should distance themselves by doing more than coming out with a statement every time these incidents occur.
 
I think you should look into how guns are marketed today. Gun manufacturers and video games have been in bed since the days of GoldenEye '64. Video game companies pay royalties for "the realism" of real weapons. Movies marketed towards young adults have their guns provided for by gun manufacturers. I think they (gun companes) should stop doing that and promote movies where guns aren't seen as the answer to the main character's problems. At the very least, they should distance themselves by doing more than coming out with a statement every time these incidents occur.


When Hollywood action movies commonly make in the hundreds of millions of dollars, I'm pretty sure they'd go ahead and just buy the guns if the manufacturers didn't offer them free.

Why does Hollywood make movies like that?

Because the general public flocks to see them in droves, spending hundreds of millions on tickets and more on DVDs and movie-themed games.


Most of the guns I see on video games are not ID'd as real brands btw, but as fictional brands or sci-fi stuff. Can only think of a few that use real brands.


What came first, the chicken or the egg? Supply or demand? or is it a "vicious circle"?


I don't see where the gun manufacturers are responsible for our national obsession with violence. At least, no more and probably far less than Hollywood, Silicon Valley and their financial backers.
 
I think you should look into how guns are marketed today. Gun manufacturers and video games have been in bed since the days of GoldenEye '64. Video game companies pay royalties for "the realism" of real weapons. Movies marketed towards young adults have their guns provided for by gun manufacturers. I think they (gun companes) should stop doing that and promote movies where guns aren't seen as the answer to the main character's problems. At the very least, they should distance themselves by doing more than coming out with a statement every time these incidents occur.

Like glock 7s and DD44? Hollywood and video games aren't known for realism. James Bond games never used real gun names.

Btw. You are asking gaming companies to make games that won't sell.
 
Like glock 7s and DD44? Hollywood and video games aren't known for realism. James Bond games never used real gun names.

Btw. You are asking gaming companies to make games that won't sell.



Actually, I'd say that the more REALISTICALLY a movie treats violence, the LESS likely it is to inspire people to engage in ill-considered violence.

Despite my annoyance with Liam Neeson, we went to see his latest action movie a couple weekends ago ("Run all night"). I have to say it was pretty good, and it gave a gritty depiction of criminal-underworld violence, and its aftermath and consequences. Liam played a burned-out hitman, turned into a drunken bum, tormented by all the murders he'd committed over his lifetime. He'd lost touch with his son and his grandchildren; the son despised him. Yet his own connections to organized crime played a role in dragging his son into an incident that left them on the run from both the mob and the police, and nearly cost the lives of his son's wife and children, and in the end cost him his own life in sacrifice.

It's the sort of grittily realistic film that, if you're a thinking person at all, does the exact opposite of "glamorizing violence". You walk away from it NOT wanting to be That Guy.

Sort of like war movies that try to tell a balanced story and portray the horror of war with some accuracy, like Saving Private Ryan.
 
Back
Top Bottom