• 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!

4 yr Old shoots 6 yr Old Dead

When a child drowns in a swimming pool their parent or whoever was left to watch that child will suffer guilt for the rest of their lives because they weren't attentive or because they were irresponsible. But a child that murders another, like a six year old murdering his 3 year old sister, is going to know it was he that directly took her life. It's not intentional of course, but that boy is going to live his entire life knowing his sister died at his hands.
Lets say children decide to "horse play" in the pool and somebody drowns and kills his or her brother or sister, how is that any different than if they shot their sibling?
 
Because I hate seeing the mass murder of children in schools, dont you? or is the slaughter of innocent children a fair trade off as long as johhny big balls can strut around with a loaded gun in his belt.
That's why we need armed faculty and staff at schools.
 
That's why we need armed faculty and staff at schools.

Sad really isn't it when you need armed gaurds at a kids school, glad I live in the UK where even the police are not armed and dont want to be.
 
Sad really isn't it when you need armed gaurds at a kids school, glad I live in the UK where even the police are not armed and dont want to be.

That will change in the next ten years. The immigration policies in England assure that domestic terrorism is going to be on the increase and an unarmed police force will be worthless in dealing with what your country will soon face.
 
**** me, when you the slaughter of innocents in the USA, DO YOU BLAME THEM.

I'm not sure what you were attempting to say here; But if you are implying that I blame shooting victims for being shot, then no, I do not.

I was simply pointing out that the British Empire acquired a healthy fear of an armed civilian populace, and rightfully so if history is anything to go by.....that's the kind of fear that does not disappear overnight.
 
Lets say children decide to "horse play" in the pool and somebody drowns and kills his or her brother or sister, how is that any different than if they shot their sibling?

It is some what different. Because common sense and basic safety rules is that someone should be there to watch over the children.

While it is different in this situation we not only have the parent failing to be there to supervise but at least one of the parents knowingly leaving a loaded gun in an area where they could naturally assume children would be.

It is not the fact that swimming pools and guns are dangerous. It is the fact that a parent was criminally negligent in leaving a loaded gun where a child could reach it.
 
It is some what different. Because common sense and basic safety rules is that someone should be there to watch over the children.
And it is also common sense and basic safety to have somebody watch over the children when there's a gun present, or don't have the gun where the children can get to it.

While it is different in this situation we not only have the parent failing to be there to supervise but at least one of the parents knowingly leaving a loaded gun in an area where they could naturally assume children would be.
Which they shouldnt've done.

It is not the fact that swimming pools and guns are dangerous. It is the fact that a parent was criminally negligent in leaving a loaded gun where a child could reach it.
Sure its criminally negligent, but there are many other ways in which parents can be criminally negligent that don't involve guns.

This is a case of somebody obviously being criminally negligent in a case where there just happened to be a gun involved. I don't blame guns or the availability of guns I blame criminal negligence.
 
It is some what different. Because common sense and basic safety rules is that someone should be there to watch over the children.

While it is different in this situation we not only have the parent failing to be there to supervise but at least one of the parents knowingly leaving a loaded gun in an area where they could naturally assume children would be.

It is not the fact that swimming pools and guns are dangerous. It is the fact that a parent was criminally negligent in leaving a loaded gun where a child could reach it.

why even bother trying to explain this to them? if someone can't find some very simple differences between swimming pools and guns, then they surely don't have a the brain power to understand when you explain it to them.
 
And it is also common sense and basic safety to have somebody watch over the children when there's a gun present, or don't have the gun where the children can get to it.
Leaving a loaded gun in a car where a child can reach it does not fit that description.


Which they shouldnt've done
.
Agreed but that is not the problem i was getting at. The problem was that the police saw fit to do nothing about this.


Sure its criminally negligent, but there are many other ways in which parents can be criminally negligent that don't involve guns.
Again agreed and if the child had died by any other mean then we would be discussing that instead.

This is a case of somebody obviously being criminally negligent in a case where there just happened to be a gun involved. I don't blame guns or the availability of guns I blame criminal negligence.
Again, agree. But i would also point out that the real problem here is the lack of law enforcement. It without doubt, sends the message that stupidity with a gun is an acceptable part of your society. That a childs death is mere collateral damage to the more important right to own a gun and do as you please with it without fear of consequence.
 
why even bother trying to explain this to them? if someone can't find some very simple differences between swimming pools and guns, then they surely don't have a the brain power to understand when you explain it to them.

It's all part of the game.

It is as bad as trying to explain to the gun pro group that it is not about taking their gun away from them as it is trying to explain that gun owners should be held accountable when doing something stupid with their gun.
 
Is four years too young for a gun safety lesson? A demonstration of a shot (wearing ear protection), then explain why don't touch it and to get an adult immediately if a gun is seen.

Perhaps that couldn't save a four year old. I think a single gun safety lesson (without
even touching a weapon) could save many children, and it should be mandatory early in elementary school.
Gawd, a nation of pantywaists.
Never had the crap bombed out of them , never fought house to house
But guns make them feel more like a man??
 
Gawd, a nation of pantywaists.
Never had the crap bombed out of them , never fought house to house
But guns make them feel more like a man??

You're embarrassing yourself.
 
Gawd, a nation of pantywaists.
Never had the crap bombed out of them , never fought house to house
But guns make them feel more like a man??

WELL explain this-with England facing a Nazi invasion, English citizens BEGGED USA to send them firearms. My grandfather, a highly decorated artillery officer who served in WWI, sent several firearms to Britain, along with many of his friends, to help arm a country that had thought by giving up guns, they would prevent another World War. One of the weapons he sent to Britain, was a K-98 rifle he took off a dead German that his men had killed. He also sent a Springfield A3-03 rifle he had from the war.
 
Everybody knows you don't leave a loaded gun in a child's reach.

People are often just too cavalier with their weapons.


This family is ruined.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoops, my error. You don't leave any gun in a child's reach because all guns are loaded.

Everybody except this mother.
 
Leaving a loaded gun in a car where a child can reach it does not fit that description.


.
Agreed but that is not the problem i was getting at. The problem was that the police saw fit to do nothing about this.



Again agreed and if the child had died by any other mean then we would be discussing that instead.


Again, agree. But i would also point out that the real problem here is the lack of law enforcement. It without doubt, sends the message that stupidity with a gun is an acceptable part of your society. That a childs death is mere collateral damage to the more important right to own a gun and do as you please with it without fear of consequence.
So therefore this is an issue of parental criminal negligence not guns.
 
So therefore this is an issue of parental criminal negligence not guns.

Yes, i agree. The point i wanted to bring up here is not about guns but instead about why the police chose not to prosecute what was so obviously a case of negligence. It really does send the message that you can get away with stupidity with a gun.
 
Yes, i agree. The point i wanted to bring up here is not about guns but instead about why the police chose not to prosecute what was so obviously a case of negligence. It really does send the message that you can get away with stupidity with a gun.

I mean, yeah, but at the same time - you can't really shoot someone without a gun.
 
I mean, yeah, but at the same time - you can't really shoot someone without a gun.

True but there are still some good reasons to shoot someone. This event however happens to be a good example of stupidity with a gun and the attitude of american men that stupidity is a right.
 
True but there are still some good reasons to shoot someone. This event however happens to be a good example of stupidity with a gun and the attitude of american men that stupidity is a right.

unfortunately, we don't have great statistics on gun stuff because our agencies have been restricted or prohibited from properly investigating it. but, what we really have to ask is "is it worth it?" maybe one day, we can safely say the answer is "no" and do something more substantial about it.
 
Yes, i agree. The point i wanted to bring up here is not about guns but instead about why the police chose not to prosecute what was so obviously a case of negligence. It really does send the message that you can get away with stupidity with a gun.

All too often people get away with stupidity period, whether its with or without a gun.
 
You can't cause car crashes without a car, your point?

Cars are designed to minimise injury and death in the event of an accident when used for their intended purpose. Guns are designed to cause maximum injury and death when used for their intended purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom