• 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!

Girl Dies After Shooting Over Video Game Controller[W169]

Nilly said:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/18/us/ap-us-sibling-shooting-video-game.html



Jesus, what an absolutely tragic story. Yet more evidence to suggest that, actually, your family is less safe with firearms in the house than without. A reminder that guns, (unlike swimming pools), have the potential to escalate situations in a deadly manner.

I wouldn't wish this on any parent (or child) in the world - but I sincerely hope that the parents are taking full responsibility for their negligence in leaving an unsecured firearm in their home.

edit: Link appears to be behind a paywall for some so found a couple others:

Sheriff: Girl shot by boy dies

Girl Shot In The Head By Her Brother During Argument Over Video Game Controller
Click to expand...

The issue is what kind of parenting had a kid believe that murder is acceptable.
My kids are 15 and 20 and been around my guns their entire lives.
Never been an issue, never a problem.
There is always a loaded .45 on the coffee table when watching evening movies.
Never been a problem. Never will.
 
calamity said:
I can bring it back on topic while tying in a little of what I mean.

Clearly what happened in the story of the OP is a tragedy. And, the root cause of said tragedy is a child who lacked restraint or understanding had easy access to a gun, He used it. For whatever reason, he used it. And, now his sister is dead.

The argument made which drew me into the conversation was that having guns in the home increases the likelihood of the occurrence of such tragedies. My contribution was that the risk of having the gun in the home often outweighs the advantages, as evidenced by statistics which show that guns in the home are more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. However, as with most things, there is always a caveat. An abused woman would certainly be better off armed than not. And, if she kills her domestic abuser in self defense, the statistics will paint that positive in a negative light.
Click to expand...

Statistics show that a gun in the home of a lady who is being abused is far more likely to have it used against her than by her.
 
Nilly said:
Statistics show that a gun in the home of a lady who is being abused is far more likely to have it used against her than by her.
Click to expand...

I know.
 
TheGoverness said:
OK? Everyone does make mistakes. What about it?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of 9 year olds might not think of doing it. But 9 year olds are not developed adults that are capable of making rational decisions under varying level of stress. There is a reason we do not try 9 year olds as adults, or even juveniles. There is a reason we do not consider 9 year olds able to consent for sexual interactions. If adults are going to mistake then 9 year olds are going to make even more. The 9 year old kid in OP might have just wanted to wave the gun around, not shoot his sister. But the parts of their brain that allow them to gauge risk and consequence are not developed. Children are bad bad decision makers.

Yes, you did not shoot someone as a kid, but I guarantee you you did, at at least one point in your childhood, make a stupid or terrible decision. Every child does. Most of the time these decisions just end in tears, but sometimes, a gun is available and allows things to escalate into something more. You said as much yourself, the prevalence of guns per capita in the country has a massive influence on the frequency of these events.
 
Kreton said:
The Pro and Anti gun nuts are just that NUTS. They seem to believe that everyone should be constantly armed, or no should be armed.
Click to expand...

Kreton said:
Your statement of "There is a 99.999% chance that I will never do anything unsafe with firearms." I disagree completely. I don't know the number but I am absolutely certain that more than .001% of gun owners use guns in some way that is unsafe.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the "(numbers given for illustrative purposes only - actual numbers will vary [so please don't nit-pick])" (ADDITIONAL emphasis added) bit?

Kreton said:
The idea that people on both sides have that either all guns and gun owners are perfectly fine and safe or none are is why we as a country will spend more time arguing than discussing anything that will lead to actual desirable results.
Click to expand...

It also means that no one has to pay any attention to WHY some people think that using violence (including killing other people) is an "appropriate" method of "sorting out their personal issues". Very frequently that is a matter of "socialization" and has nothing whatsoever to do with "mental illness" (in the clinical sense).

In the HYPOTHETICAL (please note the "HYPOTHETICAL") case where NO ONE thought that using violence (let alone killing other people) was an "appropriate" method of sorting out their personal issues" then it wouldn't matter who had what weapons or where they had them.

I am perfectly well aware that that HYPOTHETICAL situation will ever be reached - so don't bother me with things like "No society will ever reach that state.".

However the closer a society comes to it then the less important who has what weapons or where they have them becomes. Neither restricting the number/type of weapons or increasing the number/type of weapons has anything whatsoever to do with moving a society closer towards that HYPOTHETICAL situation.

PS - Please excuse the rather dramatic uses of emphatic typography, but some people do appear to miss the point if I don't use it and seem to think that when I am talking about a "goal" I am talking about something that already exists (or about something that shouldn't be striven for because the "goal" will never be reached).

PPS - IF someone thinks that a goal that can never be reached is one that shouldn't be striven for, THEN I can only suggest that they talk to their friendly, neighbourhood, Guru, Imam, Minister, Priest, Rabbi, or Spiritual Leader (listed alphabetically and not to imply anything other than "A" comes before "B" - "B" comes before "C" - etc.) and ask them if they shouldn't try to live up to the teachings of their favourite "religious teacher" simply because they will never be completely successful in reaching the goals that "religious teacher" advocated.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
"Yet more evidence" is accurate. Had to leave a bunch off because I went over 5k limit, on just links.

Man kills baby and 2 family members in Brooklyn home - NY Daily News
1-year-old boy killed in accidental shooting - FOX10 News | WALA
One Year Old boy shoots himself when his mother goes into the backyard for a moment, gun really made her home safer.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news...ear-old-boy-shot-little-sister-multiple-times
Gun was stored separate from the ammunition, 8 year old loaded it and shot sister multiple times. Gun sure made this home safer.
http://kstp.com/news/guns-ammunition-seized-student-vadnais-heights/4811241/
Kid threatens another kid, cops investigate, find his parents own a collection of unsecured fire arms easily accessible to a minor. Super safe...
Child fatally shot while sleeping after party across the street gets out of control, family says
Neighbor kid, 5 years old, shot by a stray bullet in an altercation next door. If a baseball bat, or a bbq fork would have been used, this kid would be alive. Guns sure did make her safer.
http://www.kcbd.com/story/37468813/...g-at-mcdonalds-drive-thru-has-been-identified
Kid is shot at a mcdonalds drive thru by his brother, accidentally, when he pulled out a gun he found. Guns sure did make this kid safer.
http://www.wkyc.com/article/news/lo...gun-on-board-alliance-school-bus/95-516774083
5 year old finds his grandmothers hand gun takes it on a school bus to show his friend. Real safe there.
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...ed-gun-georgia-school/3U4A7dDofdm01mf9CtwDlL/
6 year old finds an unloaded gun, takes it to school. Good thing he didn't think to load it like the boy a couple links up. I'm sure his parents are congratulating themselves now for not keeping it loaded.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nat...his-Year-Are-Teens-or-Children-472214283.html

Gun. Home. So safe. Her father died from getting shot to, that's an established medical family history of getting shot.
http://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Student-brings-unloaded-gun-to-Hartsfield-Elementary-472304723.html
Another case of a kid bringing a gun to school for show and tell. This time a third grader. Guns are just so safe to have in the home...
https://www.chron.com/news/article/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Three kids, shot themselves in the home within a week, in TX. Who actually has laws about securing guns around kids. Those three homes were just super safe.
http://gephardtdaily.com/top-stories/4-year-old-boy-critically-injured-in-accidental-shooting/
4 Years old, climbs the shelf in the closet finds a gun, shoots himself. His home was safe as can be thanks to that gun.
http://abc13.com/police-4-year-old-dead-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/2996815/?sf180472795=1
Another four year old, found a gun in grandma's bedroom. I wonder how many burglaries she had to fend off to make her grandson dying worth having that gun. So safe.
http://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/toddler-fatally-shot-in-fort-worth-home/285-511407222
Three year old this time, found a gun in the bedroom, shot himself. Such a safe home.
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/10...north-charlotte-shooting-police-say/683744523

http://www.macon.com/news/local/education/article194121279.html

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...eport-shooting-dayton/zXr3dT54k9pGNMKRgX74BK/
Click to expand...

Yep, it is terrible when the adults that buy, and own guns don't have the sense to store, and secure them properly....Why does that mean that people like myself, and you who may have the common sense to own them responsibly, that we should abdicate our rights?
 
j-mac said:
Yep, it is terrible when the adults that buy, and own guns don't have the sense to store, and secure them properly....Why does that mean that people like myself, and you who may have the common sense to own them responsibly, that we should abdicate our rights?
Click to expand...

Here is my point. We shouldn't have to abdicate rights to correct these issues. But if the NRA keeps blocking every single idea, keeps painting every single proposed measure as a violation of rights, then eventually people are going to get tired of watching kids die while everything they try is shouted down in ignorance. They are going to get tired of the NRA attacking 1st amendment rights for the second. And then punitively pass laws that do restrict gun ownership rights.

Having a gun in your home does not make you more safe, implying that it does, is misinformation. But that doesn't matter because it is a right. Don't have to justify a right in my opinion. And it is ok to say, the options people are laying out are not ok with you. Ask for more information, put your own ideas on the table. And here is the thing, respect other peoples opinion when others are not comfortable with your options. Agree to come up with new options.

Protecting our children, protecting ourselves, shouldn't be partisan. I am not your enemy. Other Americans are not your enemy. But if you continue to blindly follow NRA talking points and refuse any and all measures, then you will become other Americans enemy. There are already signs now that the majority of people have become tired of NRA stonewalling and propaganda.

You want some different alternatives, other than background checks, and gun bans? I respect that. I agree with that. So we come up with alternatives, and we start with allowing real scientists to study the problem. The CDC. And I know, everyone is afraid the CDC is going to come out and recommend gun bans. But I am not. The CDC will do more than just track statistics submitted by law enforcement. They are going to study economic contributing factors, social, psychological and regional. They are going to study what works. They will look at communities with a high gun ownership rate and low crime and find out what is working there. And they are going to share their data for others to analyze.

Once we have a good clear look at the problem, and not the hodgepodge of broken statistics we are working with today. We can look at real measures that may not even need changes in the laws. What if the answer is to end the war on drugs. Which then stops sending young people to con college, where they would learn how to be criminals, and stops then from having a record that prevents them from a decent job. So they don't have to sell drugs when they get out of con college. Then they wouldn't get into a beef with another drug dealer, and shoot them. That's just one example.

And while the CDC is doing its study, which will and should take a few years, we can take a look at our mental health care system. Put child development specialists in every school that can spot these mentally unstable kids, and launch a new nationwide safety initiative. Much like what the NRA used to do before they were taken over by extremists. I in part blame the NRA because they focus so much on how to sell more guns, instead of how they used to be, focused on educating people about guns.

Instead of focusing on personal safety, focus on how banning alcohol lead to the Mafia, and banning drugs lead to the cartels. And then say something like, I don't like any of the options on the table today because they are based on misinformation and propaganda. We need a real look, scientific look, at what can be done. Because background checks and gun bans haven't worked and they make me feel like my rights and the rights of every American have been infringed. I want to help with the problem, so lets fund research and find some better options.

And for the love of god, stop believing that other Americans just want to take guns for no good reason or partisan politics. Stop making it an us vs them, your countrymen and women will respect your opinion if you respect theirs.
 
VanceMack said:
Are you ****in blind? Or are you just that much a leftist? You don’t think democrats introduced legislation. Following those incidents? New York passed AR bans within days following Sandy Hook. Connecticut passed new laws...already one of the most rest octave states got worse. California...FFS do you even have a CLUE what it is like in California? And the only reason...the ONLY reason they don’t attempt to do more nationally is because gun owners stand against it. Well...MOST gun owners.

You are the gun banners best ****ing friend. Just the tip. They promised you...just the tip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your constant need to default into defining the other as simply an anti-gun leftist is probably why you maintain such an obtuse position and fail to make argument. Allow me to help you into the discussion...

1) It was clear enough that I was talking about a Washington push to create ban laws in the House and in the Senate after one event to the next. For example, Canada, as a nation, just introduced new gun control measures. What you are talking about here is a matter of states rights and unless you live in California, New York, or Connecticut, what they do is really none of your business. You simply choose to default into the position of idealized victim as you imagine a domino effect right into your bedroom nightstand. You should only be concerned with your state and the national law. And since Washington did not seek to ban your guns after Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Vegas, while "responsible" gun owners demanded no preventative action, it is you who may want to get a clue about what is growing.

2) The ONLY reason they don't attempt to go extreme, is that Democrats are also gun owners; and there hasn't been nearly enough blood shed. Apparently, even 600 shot in Vegas wasn't enough to address the bump stock/fire work-around to existing automatic weapons rules as your kind immediately jumped to the extreme that your delusional leftist army is about to kick your door in and steal your toys.

3) Your "just the tip" or slippery slope argument is ignorant because it defies both the American culture and the American history. I will spare you my digression, because it involves an actual understanding of history, for which you have shown to have only a passing or selective interest in when it suits your need to dismiss a present day issue.

4) In the mean time...another school shooting, huh? This one in Maryland? While certainly not a mass shooting since it appears to have been a targeted affair, it is yet another example. Some kid had acces to his "responsible" dad's gun, stole it easy enough, and went to school. The anti-gun crowd just grew again. And your response? Nothing. You, and your kind, are demanding to self-fulfill your own prophesy of doom. One day, like Canada, the U.S. will have enough of this growing mess; and the "leftist" side you are so very petrified of, will have the power to actually hurt your feelings.

And this is why, dear Airman, I demand that actual responsible gun owners get out ahead of this crap and take charge instead of behaving as if nothing can be done and that this exponentially growing problem is simply the price of liberty and freedom. In the mean time, you default to "leftist" nonsense as an argument.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Yep, it is terrible when the adults that buy, and own guns don't have the sense to store, and secure them properly....Why does that mean that people like myself, and you who may have the common sense to own them responsibly, that we should abdicate our rights?
Click to expand...

Because you, as the actually responsible type, should not hinge your Rights on whether or not the average moron is doing the right thing.

The very fact that they have no sense is exactly why they need laws. People didn't have the common sense to buy a car and not go 100 MPH at one point. Speed limit laws were made because the morons exist. And guess what? The actual responsible types continued to do their responsible thing.

Your problem, like so many others here, is that you define your Rights in accordance to the lowest denominator. Oh, if the mentally-ill can't legally handle/purchase firearms, I will lose my rights! Oh, if the immature nineteen year kid can't legally purchase an AR-15, I will lose my rights to purchase an AR-15 at age 30! Holding them accountable does not abdicate your rights. This is a shallow and senselessness argument that is only ever pushed forward when the Second Amendment is the topic. For example, making a law that requires a gun owner to register a safe, does not hurt you rights, does it? Or do you store your weapons under the bed or in a simple closet? If you properly secure your weapons, how does such a law force you to abdicate anything?

It's time the rift raft, who have earned not a goddamned thing in this country, to behave the same way as you. Time they went to jail and lost their Rights permanently because their underage kid opened the nightstand and grabbed a pistol. Time the mentally-ill schizophrenic lost his rights to guns. This should be your soap box. Not gun anarchy because you will one day lose your Rights to the imagined "leftist" army (plenty of whom are gun owners) who want to steal from you.
 
MSgt said:
Your constant need to default into defining the other as simply an anti-gun leftist is probably why you maintain such an obtuse position and fail to make argument. Allow me to help you into the discussion...

1) It was clear enough that I was talking about a Washington push to create ban laws in the House and in the Senate after one event to the next. For example, Canada, as a nation, just introduced new gun control measures. What you are talking about here is a matter of states rights and unless you live in California, New York, or Connecticut, what they do is really none of your business. You simply choose to default into the position of idealized victim as you imagine a domino effect right into your bedroom nightstand. You should only be concerned with your state and the national law. And since Washington did not seek to ban your guns after Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Vegas, while "responsible" gun owners demanded no preventative action, it is you who may want to get a clue about what is growing.

2) The ONLY reason they don't attempt to go extreme, is that Democrats are also gun owners; and there hasn't been nearly enough blood shed. Apparently, even 600 shot in Vegas wasn't enough to address the bump stock/fire work-around to existing automatic weapons rules as your kind immediately jumped to the extreme that your delusional leftist army is about to kick your door in and steal your toys.

3) Your "just the tip" or slippery slope argument is ignorant because it defies both the American culture and the American history. I will spare you my digression, because it involves an actual understanding of history, for which you have shown to have only a passing or selective interest in when it suits your need to dismiss a present day issue.

4) In the mean time...another school shooting, huh? This one in Maryland? While certainly not a mass shooting since it appears to have been a targeted affair, it is yet another example. Some kid had acces to his "responsible" dad's gun, stole it easy enough, and went to school. The anti-gun crowd just grew again. And your response? Nothing. You, and your kind, are demanding to self-fulfill your own prophesy of doom. One day, like Canada, the U.S. will have enough of this growing mess; and the "leftist" side you are so very petrified of, will have the power to actually hurt your feelings.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure I support these measures. Solicitor General Ralph Goodale, a personal friend from my says in Saskatchewan says there are in response not to more shootings or crime, but to the impact shootings are having. In other words more people are dying.

I know Ralph, been fishing with the man and I trust him however I am not seeing what he's talking about. Canada's crime "rate" is a joke - something has to happen regularly to be a "rate" and we don't even have that anymore.

What I'm concerned about is that A) the act gives wide sweeping powers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to search an entire lifetime before issuing a certificate, B) the RCMP is the sole arbiter and C) there appears to be no measures taken for aboriginals some of whom begin hunting as early as 12, and own and look after their own weapons...that's a cultural issue that we should not step on.

I am upset over it because it's being made now to counteract some campaigning by the Conservatives who are going Trump and suggesting America's school/gun problem will become ours if we don't make all sentences much longer. Secondly, so much attention on a non problem detracts from the horror of a problem as people die in thew hundreds every week from Fentanyl OD's.

We're losing more kids to that **** than the death rate in WW2.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I'm not sure I support these measures. [SNIP ~ I read it all].
Click to expand...

This is my point. You may not support this measure. But you might have supported something less had it been introduced years ago.

We, in America, the great land of freedom and liberty, are so engrossed with our personal ideologies that we refuse to do even the smallest and obvious things. ONe day we will look kback and wished we had done the simple before the extreme became an option.

But I can't convince these yahoos of this. As this anti-gun crowd grows with every new mass shooting spree, the anti-gun crowd grows. For example, who was cutting their AR-15s in half last year? What companies were shoving the NRA to the side last year? How many students were walking out of class rooms last year? Gun owners are losing ground and they are losing it because they are refusing to take charge of it. And who does that leave? The "leftists" are coming, the "leftists" are coming!" In the end, the "leftists" will come. Again, they are far to engrossed with their own personal ideologies and what they have chosen to define them. The safety of their kids don't define them of their society. Responsible gun ownership and a responsible Second Amendment doesn't define them or their society. The simple gun does.
 
MSgt said:
Your constant need to default into defining the other as simply an anti-gun leftist is probably why you maintain such an obtuse position and fail to make argument. Allow me to help you into the discussion...

1) It was clear enough that I was talking about a Washington push to create ban laws in the House and in the Senate after one event to the next. For example, Canada, as a nation, just introduced new gun control measures. What you are talking about here is a matter of states rights and unless you live in California, New York, or Connecticut, what they do is really none of your business. You simply choose to default into the position of idealized victim as you imagine a domino effect right into your bedroom nightstand. You should only be concerned with your state and the national law. And since Washington did not seek to ban your guns after Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Vegas, while "responsible" gun owners demanded no preventative action, it is you who may want to get a clue about what is growing.

2) The ONLY reason they don't attempt to go extreme, is that Democrats are also gun owners; and there hasn't been nearly enough blood shed. Apparently, even 600 shot in Vegas wasn't enough to address the bump stock/fire work-around to existing automatic weapons rules as your kind immediately jumped to the extreme that your delusional leftist army is about to kick your door in and steal your toys.

3) Your "just the tip" or slippery slope argument is ignorant because it defies both the American culture and the American history. I will spare you my digression, because it involves an actual understanding of history, for which you have shown to have only a passing or selective interest in when it suits your need to dismiss a present day issue.

4) In the mean time...another school shooting, huh? This one in Maryland? While certainly not a mass shooting since it appears to have been a targeted affair, it is yet another example. Some kid had acces to his "responsible" dad's gun, stole it easy enough, and went to school. The anti-gun crowd just grew again. And your response? Nothing. You, and your kind, are demanding to self-fulfill your own prophesy of doom. One day, like Canada, the U.S. will have enough of this growing mess; and the "leftist" side you are so very petrified of, will have the power to actually hurt your feelings.

And this is why, dear Airman, I demand that actual responsible gun owners get out ahead of this crap and take charge instead of behaving as if nothing can be done and that this exponentially growing problem is simply the price of liberty and freedom. In the mean time, you default to "leftist" nonsense as an argument.
Click to expand...
One of the best posts I have read in a while. As I have said many times you can have guns and reasonable gun control. And you should
 
MSgt said:
This is my point. You may not support this measure. But you might have supported something less had it been introduced years ago.

We, in America, the great land of freedom and liberty, are so engrossed with our personal ideologies that we refuse to do even the smallest and obvious things. ONe day we will look kback and wished we had done the simple before the extreme became an option.

But I can't convince these yahoos of this. As this anti-gun crowd grows with every new mass shooting spree, the anti-gun crowd grows. For example, who was cutting their AR-15s in half last year? What companies were shoving the NRA to the side last year? How many students were walking out of class rooms last year? Gun owners are losing ground and they are losing it because they are refusing to take charge of it. And who does that leave? The "leftists" are coming, the "leftists" are coming!" In the end, the "leftists" will come. Again, they are far to engrossed with their own personal ideologies and what they have chosen to define them. The safety of their kids don't define them of their society. Responsible gun ownership and a responsible Second Amendment doesn't define them or their society. The simple gun does.
Click to expand...



It's called belligerence and it will eventually lead to 'no guns" or something more radical.

The gun lobby is stupid. They lost the fight the first time Charlton, He man, Heston showed up at a funeral of a slain child.

I speak for a lot of people when I say he should have been shot then.
 
Nine year olds shooting 13 year old sisters in the back of the head over a video game controller?
No, sorry...even as a liberal, this is not the fault of access to guns.
Even if he didn't have access to guns, he might have just waited for the right moment and pushed her in front of a bus, or stabbed her.
This is a psychopath who has a pair of uninvolved parents.

However, that said, even if he had he only grazed her, let's say, in the arm, I'd still recommend putting him on a Federal "NO GUNS" list for life, or at least until he could substantially demonstrate to appropriate authorities that he was mentally stable, and I would also place restrictions on anyone in the household, because that incident would or should be a sign to authorities that a gun in that particular house is not recommended.
If the parents feel that their need for a gun is so important, they can ship him off to boarding school and keep their guns just as long as he's not living in that house.

We have a "NO FLY" list that works in similar ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom