Gun Tragedy, 5th grader suicide

[Cleopatra]

Accidents by guns should not happen in the 21st century

Why not? I'm not saying that accidents are OK, but they are a fact of life.

I don't really think that they should be a part of life when we are away from the battlefield.

I've no idea what rules I'm trying to impose on you. As a gun owner, I'm the one that's trying to keep more and more rules imposed on me.

Is the child of a gun owner skips his attention and his child kills mine while they are in school , this is how this man imposes his rules on me. By choosing to put my child in the risk he takes when he decides to keep a gun in his house.

I didn't equate them, I said that the chances of my child dying in a gun accident are much lower than dying in many other common accidents. I don't see how morals enter that statement at all.

Cars are part of a modern society, I don't think that guns belong to a modern and advanced society, that's all.

What exactly do you mean by "educational reasons"? Apparently you seem to think that it is morally wrong to own a firearm, and owning a firearm in the house is akin to teaching a child to settle "difficult situations" (whatever that means) with a gun. Am I correct on this? I just want to be clear on this before I continue.

Yes, thank you. You are correct, plus the fact that when you use a gun you get rid of something that "bothers" you easily and quickly. This is not how things are in real life...

 

[shanek]

Castration would prevent you from enjoying a normal part of healthy human existence. Another reductio ad absurdam argument.

Castration is mutilation.

Castration is potentially life threatening (ask the Chinese eunuchs).

Are those really the only reasons you oppose mass castration for protection?

 

[shanek]

The presence of guns Inhibits my freedom to act as I wish, therefore I cannot engage in controversial discussions that I might otherwise with to engage in, e.g. criticism of a highly popular political figure.

Wait... If you say somthing someone doesn't like, and they shoot you, that's already an illegal act. Why is there a need to make the act doubly illegal?

 

[John Harrison]

I don't really think that they should be a part of life when we are away from the battlefield.

I see. Only in war, but not for police, self defense, etc.?

Is the child of a gun owner skips his attention and his child kills mine while they are in school , this is how this man imposes his rules on me. By choosing to put my child in the risk he takes when he decides to keep a gun in his house.

In this situation I do believe in punishing the gun owner. I haven't seen any laws that can prevent this very well as of yet. Luckily this is still quite rare despite the media attention it receives.

then we have-

Cars are part of a modern society, I don't think that guns belong to a modern and advanced society, that's all.

and

Yes, thank you. You are correct, plus the fact that when you use a gun you get rid of something that "bothers" you easily and quickly. This is not how things are in real life...

Which contradicts the first statement. In real life there are violent criminals, despite our modern and advanced society. Wishing it was different doesn't change anything. And your assertion that owning a firearm automatically assumes that I will use it to solve some nebulous "problem" is quite insulting.

Real life. If my eyes could roll any farther I'd be looking at my butthole from the inside.

 

[Cleopatra]

I see. Only in war, but not for police, self defense, etc.?

Police needs the guns.I am not against the policemen using guns.

In this situation I do believe in punishing the gun owner. I haven't seen any laws that can prevent this very well as of yet. Luckily this is still quite rare despite the media attention it receives.

The gun owner will be punished anyway. I asked you about the moral aspect of the issue and you didn't reply. According to the example above, don't you agree that your rules affect my life?? One doesn't owe guns because he thinks that he can't take the risks and he has to pay for a mistake of somebody who took his risks.

As for the media thing, yes I agree.

Which contradicts the first statement. In real life there are violent criminals, despite our modern and advanced society. Wishing it was different doesn't change anything.

I fail to see the contradiction, I am sorry. In real life we have police force and we have courts of law. This is what distinguishes the modern societies from the primitives ones. In real life we must deal with what causes criminality and prevent ourselves from crime energetically not passively.Locking ourselves to our houses and patrolling it holding a gun it's very passive way to spend a life.

And your assertion that owning a firearm automatically assumes that I will use it to solve some nebulous "problem" is quite insulting.

Please... we were talking about children and their education here...don't twist what I said.

Real life.

Rolleys? ?? Shall I consider this as your final answer to our discussion?

 

[John Harrison]

Police needs the guns.I am not against the policemen using guns.

But you're against people protecting themselves with guns?

I asked you about the moral aspect of the issue and you didn't reply. According to the example above, don't you agree that your rules affect my life?? One doesn't owe guns because he thinks that he can't take the risks and he has to pay for a mistake of somebody who took his risks.

I don't get the moral aspect angle you keep talking about. What rules specifically? I'm afraid you're going to have to pose the question in a different way, because I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

I fail to see the contradiction, I am sorry. In real life we have police force and we have courts of law. This is what distinguishes the modern societies from the primitives ones.

In the US the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals from violent criminals. We are responsible for our immediate safety. The police can enforce the law after the fact, but not before.

In real life we must deal with what causes criminality and prevent ourselves from crime energetically not passively.

I agree, however what are we to do until then? Submit to the whims of the criminals?

Locking ourselves to our houses and patrolling it holding a gun it's very passive way to spend a life.

Of course not, that's why we have CCW laws.

Please... we were talking about children and their education here...don't twist what I said.

Then you should explain yourself a bit better. Case in point: That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

I don't understand this question. What is a "difficult situation"? What do you mean by "a distance"?

 

[Globert]

The loss to that family is tragic.
Their tragic loss used to advance politicaly motivated agenda's priceless.

I am particularly intrigued by people who are afraid of someone else's kids killing theirs, and by those who hold gun ownership as an impediment to free speech.

First things first, fear:does any one think that fear can be abated by legislation? We all have to mitigate fear, the misconception is that all guns can be somehow rounded up and reduced to slag and everyone lives happily ever after. naive in the extreme.

I am responsible for me and mine. The police have no statutory obligation to protect me, thus I protect me and mine. My gunsafe is enough to keep out all but the determined.(my wife, who is not so second amendment as I, cannot get in. I even Double Dog Dared her to open it. not in an intimidating way either.)
While I work I do not fear for them, unprotected as they may be, for it is her wish to remain at such a level of awareness.(condition white to some)

To the fear of others that my guns pose a risk to them and theirs?
however remote this possibility is,
even a one in a million,
one in a trillion,
one in a googleplex! is too much for them to bear.
I suggest counciling for phobia, for these inanimate demons (guns) may be the end of you.

I hate to trot this out, but it's my favorite bumper sticker:
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my Gun.

 

[evildave]

Missed the point, mate. It's the principle of the thing. I'll repeat my question:

If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, an immunisable disease like chickenpox, would anyone contend that such immunisation should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have chickenpox"?

I've no doubt that preventable diseases would be dealt with summarily by medicine, even if the US constitution was an ass in this regard.

However now substitute the word "guns" for "chickenpox" and "gun-control" for "immunisation":

If these avoidable deaths were due to, say, a controllable disease like guns, would anyone contend that such gun-control should be witheld on the basis of a legal code, like "it's in the US constitution that we can have guns"?

So why is the response to THIS so significantly different??



The USA has all the medical facilities and resources in the world to deal with these diseases in other countries, to make a really sizeable dent in this six million deaths per year. But what does it do instead?? Marches into other countries with GUNS! Not medicine, GUNS! What does THAT say to the world???

And perhaps you might also care to have a thought for the parents and families and friends of these "few hundred American 12-year-olds who kill themselves". What about the 13-year-olds? And the 14-year-olds? And so on?? Talk about trivialising the situation! Sheesh!

Zep

We could easily commit our resources to build a public transit infrastructure over the next 40 years and make motor vehicle deaths virtually unheard of.

We don't.

People like driving their own cars around, and the car companies like selling them to them. Even though it puts their own lives, those of their families and those of complete strangers at risk. Even though it gives people who are intoxicated trivial access to a 5000 pound human-body-crushing machine.

For instance, I've never seen a single person shot "for real". Ive seen dead and gravely injured people at car wrecks several times. Most recently, dead and on fire. Absolutely gruesome.

In the UK and in other countries, motor vehicles are the leading cause of injury of all kinds. Hands-down. No comparison. The number of killings with guns could never approach the number of "accidents" in cars. Never mind the pollution they cause.

Of course, in a country like the UK where people threaten to brain each other with bricks for cell phones, and everyone seems to routinely drink a LOT, I could see why you'd want to ban just about anything more aggressive than a nerf ball.

Lead by example, give up your own vehicle and take the bus to work, and MAYBE I'll consider giving up my firearms. You're far more likely to kill someone with your car than I am with my locked-up and unloaded weapons.

 

[shanek]

First things first, fear:does any one think that fear can be abated by legislation?

Unfortunately, yes. Most every appeal for government intervention is backed up by fear. Lately it's the fear of terrorism that has allowed the government to run roughshod over our liberties, but to one extent or another pretty much all appeal for government is based on fear.

To the fear of others that my guns pose a risk to them and theirs? however remote this possibility is, even a one in a million, one in a trillion, one in a googleplex! is too much for them to bear.

This is true of everything. Witness the fact that people have had no problems getting signatures on petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide, using nothing more than the truth about the harm dihydrogen monoxide causes. (Of course, they do omit all the good dihydrogen monoxide does, as well as the fact that dihydrogen monoxide is water...but that's kind of the point.)

 

[Cleopatra]

Too many questions coming from somebody who seemed to have all the answers...

Never mind. I am tireless and trained to answer to questions even to the most stupid ones.

But you're against people protecting themselves with guns?

Yes, I am against people protecting themselves with guns.

I don't get the moral aspect angle you keep talking about. What rules specifically? I'm afraid you're going to have to pose the question in a different way, because I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

Ok! Take a big breath! It will help you concentrate. One of the rules you seem to have in your everyday life is to own guns. You know about the risks of owning a gun and you have accepted them. If this rule of your - the gun onwership- affects my life in any possible way then you you will have imposed your rules upon me.

In the US the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals from violent criminals. We are responsible for our immediate safety. The police can enforce the law after the fact, but not before.

Really??? You interpretation of the Law is quite amazing.

I agree, however what are we to do until then? Submit to the whims of the criminals?

Do you know what causes criminality?

Then you should explain yourself a bit better. Case in point: That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

I don't understand this question. What is a "difficult situation"? What do you mean by "a distance"?

Ha! A good example is what this kid did. Easy to grasp it, I hope.

 

[aggle_rithm]

A gun's purpose is to project power. It has no other purpose. Sometimes it is the power to inflict injury or death, sometimes it is the power to put food on the table. Nevertheless, it is all about power. And those who have spent the most time or money on firearms will always be able to project their power to a greater extent. Hence the US/UK military victory in Iraq.

I think this is the crux of the matter: The kid was being bullied. He felt utterly powerless.

A lot of people minimize this sort of thing, but picture this: You're an adult, working a job where you are harrassed and verbally abused every day. What's worse, you have to keep going back, day after day. You aren't allowed to quit.

Now imagine going through all this without the coping mechanisms available to you as an adult. The feeling of powerlessness this would cause is difficult to imagine.

Bringing a gun to school gives you power. It gets people's attention. The principal and teacher take you seriously.

Bringing a whole bunch of guns to school gives you a LOT of power.

Being willing to kill yourself gives you even more. You would have nothing to lose.

I don't think this kid had a carefully laid-out plan in mind when he did this. Twelve-year-olds are impulsive. They tend not to think more than an hour into the future. They change their minds a lot.

Once he pulled the trigger, unfortunately, there was no more opportunity to change his mind.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Too many questions coming from somebody who seemed to have all the answers...

Never mind. I am tireless and trained to answer to questions even to the most stupid ones.

From what I can see, the questions are considerably clearer than the answers they're evoking.

Originally posted by John Harrison
But you're against people protecting themselves with guns?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes, I am against people protecting themselves with guns.

How do you propose they protect themselves then, particularly against someone with a gun, or someone who is simply more physically powerful?

I don't get the moral aspect angle you keep talking about. What rules specifically? I'm afraid you're going to have to pose the question in a different way, because I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

Ok! Take a big breath! It will help you concentrate.

Given the confusing nature of some of your comments, a little humility might be in order here, and you might just want to consider that the communication problem is yours.

One of the rules you seem to have in your everyday life is to own guns. You know about the risks of owning a gun and you have accepted them. If this rule of your - the gun onwership- affects my life in any possible way then you you will have imposed your rules upon me.

You haven't established that it does affect your life. Sorry, but your answers are still not very clear. As I asked you yesterday, how do gun owners impose their rules on you? (Hint: Simply repeating that they do so doesn't answer this question.)

I agree, however what are we to do until then? Submit to the whims of the criminals?

Do you know what causes criminality?

If you're so good at answering questions, how about answering his first?

Then you should explain yourself a bit better. Case in point: That if it find its self in a difficult situation it will take care of it from a distance?

I don't understand this question. What is a "difficult situation"? What do you mean by "a distance"?

Ha! A good example is what this kid did. Easy to grasp it, I hope.

Nope. You still haven't established what the hell you mean by "from a distance". You might want to give some serious thought to re-evaluating your confidence in your ability to answer questions.

 

[Cleopatra]

WMT1 why are you so agressively defensive? Relax!

I don't want to take your gun from you, I want you to persuade me to purchase one. You have failed so far to do so.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
WMT1 why are you so agressively defensive? Relax!

So, rather than trying to learn from criticism, you're just going to continue to try to cover for your evasiveness with condescending comments like this? If so, a "don't ask me any questions about my opinions" forum might be more suited to your approach. In this forum, such reactions only make you look silly.

I don't want to take your gun from you, I want you to persuade me to purchase one. You have failed so far to do so.

And the bizarre statements continue.

Pay close attention: I have never owned a gun. Nor do I have any interest in getting you to purchase one.

Now, is there any chance you can take another shot at responding to those questions I asked, and otherwise confining your comments to things I actually said?

 

[Cleopatra]

Pay close attention: I have never owned a gun.

Good for you!

As for the rest of your post regarding my condescending writing style and bla bla bla ,in case it upsets you so much or makes you feel uncomfortable, you can use the tiny button at the right side of your window that says i-g-n-o-r-e.

Have in mind though- when you are addressing to me- that I might accept some irony by John Harrison and others who have taken the time to compose some very interesting posts and they have an opinion instead of posing silly questions BUT this, doesn't mean that I am going to spend time with any crap that is posted here, especially with crap that is masqueraded into skepticism.

Having said that and after noticing that I have spent too much time -5 minutes-with somebody who hasn't posted an opinion in this thread... I wish you better luck with me next time.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As for the rest of your post regarding my condescending writing style and bla bla bla ,in case it upsets you so much or makes you feel uncomfortable,

Um ... it doesn't "upset" me or make me feel "uncomfortable". Once again, what it does it make you look ridiculous - in particular, you come across to any self-respecting skeptic as a lightweight who can't defend her views, and wants to make it appear as if her failure is someone else's problem. If anything, I should be asking you why you are so "aggressively defensive".

you can use the tiny button at the right side of your window that says i-g-n-o-r-e.

But ignoring you is not my goal. Getting you to answer questions about your statements is sort of what I'm going for. If anything, your evasiveness would suggest that you are the one who seems to be doing the ignoring.

Have in mind though- when you are addressing to me- that I might accept some irony by John Harrison and others who have taken the time to compose some very interesting posts and they have an opinion instead of posing silly questions BUT this, doesn't mean that I am going to spend time with any crap that is posted here, especially with crap that is masqueraded into skepticism.

I see, so you also think that using such terms as "silly questions" and "crap that is masqueraded into skepticism" to refer to reasonable questions about your position will help make your evasiveness appear to be something else?

Having said that and after noticing that I have spent too much time -5 minutes-with somebody who hasn't posted an opinion in this thread... I wish you better luck with me next time.

I suppose you think you have a point here, but my goal was not to express my opinion, it was to question yours. Moreover, posting an opinion is not a prerequisite to questioning someone's statements about their own, and only those whose views don't withstand much scrutiny would be likely to use that as an excuse to avoid answering those questions. Once again, if you don't realize this, you may be in the wrong forum.

 

[John Harrison]

Yes, I am against people protecting themselves with guns.

But it's ok if people call someone else (the police) to protect them with guns. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Ok! Take a big breath! It will help you concentrate. One of the rules you seem to have in your everyday life is to own guns. You know about the risks of owning a gun and you have accepted them. If this rule of your - the gun onwership- affects my life in any possible way then you you will have imposed your rules upon me.

Just like owning a car, which statistically is much more likely to affect your life in a negative way.

Really??? You interpretation of the Law is quite amazing.

There's nothing amazing about it. All I had to do was read the relevant court decisions. I'm happy to give you some evidence for this:

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

"A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." -- Warren v. District of Columbia (1979)

Here are some other court cases that say the same thing:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

Do you know what causes criminality?

No, I don't. Do you? Do you believe that guns cause criminality?

 

[DragonLady]

Hi everybody!

I'm brand-new here; I was invited this afternoon by Cleopatra. I was going to just lurk for a few days, but decided to jump into the fray on this one. I had a really long reply written, but my computer suddenly crashed and I lost it....probably just as well.

First, I want to offer my condolences to this boy's family. No matter what mistakes were made, no one deserves to lose their child, and certainly not in a manner that causes the eternal torment of questions about what could have been done differently.

Next, I'd like to say I was raised from the cradle with guns. My earliest memory in my life is playing with the empty box of my father's gun cleaning kit while he took care of his rifles & shotguns.

I was given my own .17 caliber pellet rifle at six years old, and I became a damn good shot with it. I "graduated" to a .22 at ten, and almost wore the thing out. I can't tell you how many boxes of ammo I went through, but it was a bunch.

But things were different in those days. My dad raised 6 children on his own by maintaining an absolute authority and a supple leather belt. That key would've been perfectly safe on the wall, because touching it would've led to a beltwhipping that would've still hurt today. But Daddy didn't even have to lock them up. Dad's guns were freely available. The shotgun hung on the wall above the door, the ammo was in the desk, the rifle was in his closet...and the ammo for it was in his nightstand.

We wouldn't have considered taking a gun to school because the punishment for taking one of them off the wall was so severe that we were afraid to even whisper the idea!

Kids today don't get that kind of self-restraint from hand-spankings and taking away the Nintendo. They don't really get a good working grasp of the pain, agony and destruction that comes out of a gun barrel. Even the ones who've been taken target shooting or skeet shooting still don't see the devastation. Firing ranges are great places, but they're too neatly sanitised to impress a young mind with the raw power & horror that comes from shooting a living being. A hole in paper target just doesn't have the same psychological effect as seeing a deer with it's entire head blown off, IMO.

And of course, just like learning the stove is hot, there's no real way of teaching it to them without a demonstration or some sort of RL experience...or waiting for that fateful day when they stick their hands in it & get burned.

They play video games & watch t.v. shows where the characters get shot by the RL equivalent of a cannon, splash blood all over the room, then get up & come back for more. Then we wonder why they have such unrealistic ideas about how the world works.

Also, I want to comment on Cleopatra's remark about the 1:1000000 chance of risk. I have four children, and I take those kinds of risks every hour of everyday. From the risk of one dying during birth or being dropped or molested or abused or run over or contracting a terrible disease....

With many of those risks, I have to trust them. I have to trust them not to drink the hydrogen peroxide, not to mess with a rattlesnake, not to get in a car with a stranger. I have to trust them not to stuff each other or the family cat into the dryer or the oven, not to brain each other with the baseball bat or drop the hairdryer into the bathtub.....hell the list goes on & on; and sometimes it makes me completely paranoid to even start thinking about it. Thankfully, right this moment I know where they all are.

I believe in gun ownership...although I don't currently own one. I believe in being able to protect one's self & one's property; and I believe one should have the skills to provide for themselves when neccesary. There have been times in my life when the only food in the freezer was what someone shot; and I'm mighty thankful for it.

And I do believe responsible parents should be able own guns and teach their children to use them without suffering terrible legal consequences if the children choose to pull something stupid. The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot put our children on leashes and lead them around all day. They have to be able to make choices for themselves, and we have to trust them. There's simply no other way to do it if we want them to grow up to be independant & able to care for themselves. And that means some of them are going to fail...with terrible consequences. When it happens, punishing everyone in sight isn't going to change it, isn't going to prevent it, and isn't going to make a 'safer' world.

 

[John Harrison]

Welcome! Excellent post

 

[DragonLady]

Thank-you!