Gun Tragedy, 5th grader suicide

[Malachi151]

I don't think the father was guilty of any wrong doing. If you have something in your house, kids will get it eventually somehow.

The father has had quite enough punishment as it is with his kid killing himself with his own guns I don't think he needs any more.

Guns are a problem though, because they make it too easy to cause so much harm. I doubt the kid would have killed himself w/o guns. I think he killed himself because he felt that he was in so much trouble and he wanted a way out of the mess he got into because of having guns at school.

I'm glad to see the kid went to church, maybe we can get these religus idiots to see that they really don't help anything

People need to start waking up to the reality that our society causes a high level of emotional stress. I'm tired of people calling psychologists a bunck of wankers, we need to be listening to these wankers and reforming our society to be more rational, secular, honest, open, and tolerant. Do that and we will reduce the violence.

Edit: Oh, and I also agree with corporal punishment too, I see no problem with spanking, in fact I think its better. I think that appropriate physical punishment is more healthy than some other forms of punishment, like taking away privliges and such.

And I also agree with taking kids hunting, and I even think all kids should have to go to slaughter houses and possibly also raise animals at school and buthcer them. I agree that you gain more respect and understanding for life that way, though obviously this kid did hunt.

 

[shanek]

Welcome! Excellent post

I'll second that!

 

[John Harrison]

People need to start waking up to the reality that our society causes a high level of emotional stress. I'm tired of people calling psychologists a bunck of wankers, we need to be listening to these wankers and reforming our society to be more rational, secular, honest, open, and tolerant. Do that and we will reduce the violence.

This is a good point, because I believe that social factors affect suicide rates, not the availability of firearms. For example: Japan - Almost zero guns and a higher suicide rate than the US.

 

[Cleopatra]

Dragon Lady! Welcome to the forum and to our favourite disagreement

Now tell me. If "your" child takes your gun and kills "mine" while playing, will it be because you trusted it, you didn't trained it or you didn't beat it enough while growing up? Tell me,should I care on what you did wrong or what you could have done better? For me there was only one simple option for you: Not to own a gun.

And what if I didn't own a gun exactly because I wanted to eliminate that risk, would you come and tell me not to feel devastated because in your freezer you have something that somebody shot and you feel grateful about it?

In that hypothetical case do you expect me to say : " Ok! It's ok he could have been killed by a car or in a fire" BTW who you think that must pay for the accident ? The kid who used the parent's gun, the parent or both? I think that the gun owner is the only responsible and he must be procecuted.

What distinguishes a car accident or other similar domestic accidents by a gun accident is that the later can be avoided.Cars are essential to our modern way of living, guns are not because otherwise everybody would own a gun but we don't. I repeat. Guns are not essential to our lives because if they were, everybody would own one.

John I will come back to you later and no, this is not a threat

 

[Malachi151]

This is a good point, because I believe that social factors affect suicide rates, not the availability of firearms. For example: Japan - Almost zero guns and a higher suicide rate than the US.

I got to thinking about this and I think that some of the problems are caused by psychologists too

What its often a case of is "pop-psychology" though. Dr. Spock, Dr. Phil, etc.

Psychology and sociology can offer quite a bit of insite and help, the problem is that most people won't accept the fundaments of these sciences, and applying pop science is no substitute for real science.

 

[Cleopatra]

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

Come on John. Since antiquity-I know for sure about Classical Athens-organized societies had special forces to protect what always have been sacred: Life and property.

What do you suggest? To dissolve the police force?

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

I think I have answered that to Dragon Lady. You can live without guns it's more difficult to live without cars in a modern society, of course you can live without a car too but I am sure that Dragon Lady owns a car to drive her kids at school and she runs a normal life without a gun.

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:

The court cases you provided were about negligence or inadequate exercice of police duties and they do not debunk my arguments. This is common in every country in the world.The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.

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

No, I do not believe that gun ownership causes criminality. Criminality is caused primarly by bad economical conditions. I think that I have provided in another thread some data about criminality rates and economical-social conditions.

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

 

[Globert]

The court cases you provided were about negligence or inadequate exercice of police duties and they do not debunk my arguments. This is common in every country in the world.The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.

No, I do not believe that gun ownership causes criminality. Criminality is caused primarly by bad economical conditions. I think that I have provided in another thread some data about criminality rates and economical-social conditions.

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.
Precisely why they have no statutory obligation to your individual life.
Are you suggesting that presented with a lethal threat I must lean in and take the pitch for your pollyanna society with my life?

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."--JFK
I would rather be alive to vote, personaly and by that mechanism influence society rather than through eulogy.

 

[DragonLady]

Dragon Lady! Welcome to the forum and to our favourite disagreement

Thank-you! I appreciate your inviting me here. I spent almost my whole day yesterday reading threads & trying to get to know everybody. I think this is a great forum; and seems to have a little bit of something for everybody.

Now tell me. If "your" child takes your gun and kills "mine" while playing, will it be because you trusted it, you didn't trained it or you didn't beat it enough while growing up? Tell me,should I care on what you did wrong or what you could have done better? For me there was only one simple option for you: Not to own a gun.

Well, ....I don't "beat" my children. The worst punishment I've ever given any of them is a spanking; and that for only the most serious & aggravated misbehaviors.

But as to the intent of your question, probably a bit of all three; but in the end the child has to bear the final responsibility. We parents simply are not Gods...we can tell them the rules, enforce the rules whenever they're broken, and hold them responsible for their actions after the fact. But only in the most simple situations can we actually prevent their mistakes. Once they get beyond the age of three or four, they are beyond our constant, continual supervision & that's when the 'fun' really begins. The best thing we can do is make the punishments for serious transgressions so stiff that the children never want to repeat them. Some things have their own integral 'punishments' -such as getting burned while playing with fire, or breaking a leg falling off the roof; but in other cases a parent has to find a consequence that fits the 'crime'...and be firm about it.

And what if I didn't own a gun exactly because I wanted to eliminate that risk, would you come and tell me not to feel devastated because in your freezer you have something that somebody shot and you feel grateful about it?

I hope you didn't mean this question in the flippant manner it sounds? It sounds as if you're implying that I would think some food would be more important to me then your child's safety or well-being? I'll hold off comment here, because I don't quite understand what's meant.

In that hypothetical case do you expect me to say : " Ok! It's ok he could have been killed by a car or in a fire" BTW who you think that must pay for the accident ? The kid who used the parent's gun, the parent or both? I think that the gun owner is the only responsible and he must be procecuted.

I suppose it depends. Is the child old enough to understand what has happened? Did the parent teach the child about guns and the terrible consequences they bring? Did the parent in any way encourage the child to use his friends or other people for target practise? Did the parent make sure the children knew that guns were only to be handled during certain circumstances & otherwise not to be touched? Did the parent make sure the guns were stored unloaded, safety on, etc so that sheer accidents would be unlikely? Or better, locked in a cabinet?

If so, then the onus has to remain on the child. That might be hard to swallow (and believe me, as a parent it is), but in the end the kid has to take responsibility. If he or she knew s/he was breaking the rules & doing something wrong, then how on earth can you hold a parent responsible?

What distinguishes a car accident or other similar domestic accidents by a gun accident is that the later can be avoided.

How so? Do you think the thousands of people who are injured or die by vehicle every year wanted it to happen? How about the pedestrians who are accidentally killed because a driver didn't see them? The people killed in rear-end collisions because another driver's brakes failed or couldn't stop in time? The children killed while chasing a ball or a puppy into the street? The accidents caused by ice or snow or oil or a thousand other obstacles that suddenly appear in the road?

Sorry...but all car accidents are not created equal, and while some are avoidable...many are not.

Cars are essential to our modern way of living, guns are not because otherwise everybody would own a gun but we don't. I repeat. Guns are not essential to our lives because if they were, everybody would own one.

Hmmm...without guns (and other weapons), our 'modern way of living' wouldn't exist. And not just because the political map would be unrecognizable. The ability to hunt efficiently for food alone freed up our ancestor's time enough to allow them to build decent shelters, plant crops, educate their children and consider other ways to make life easier. The ability to protect ourselves from bandits & predators allowed more travel into unknown regions, colonization of formerly hostile territory & promoted a general sense of well-being that allowed communities to establish order and the citizens to prosper in relative safety....

Starting with the blunderbuss (sp?), guns have been perceived as an absolute neccesity from the day they were invented....and today the combined firepower held by the world's militaries and police organisations from gunpowder weapons alone staggers my little imagination.

Also, I should say I know a lot of people who don't own a car. I also know a lot of people who don't own guns...and a lot of people who don't own either one. So I can't really claim either one is a "neccesity" in our modern lives.

Edited to clarify facts ...

 

[John Harrison]

Come on John. Since antiquity-I know for sure about Classical Athens-organized societies had special forces to protect what always have been sacred: Life and property.

What do you suggest? To dissolve the police force?

No. I just find it amusing that some people think that it is wrong for me to use a gun to protect my life, but it is ok for me to call someone else to do the same thing.

I think I have answered that to Dragon Lady. You can live without guns it's more difficult to live without cars in a modern society, of course you can live without a car too but I am sure that Dragon Lady owns a car to drive her kids at school and she runs a normal life without a gun.

Firearms have proven to be very essential for self defense for people living in areas with high rates of violent crime.

The court cases you provided were about negligence or inadequate exercice of police duties and they do not debunk my arguments. This is common in every country in the world.The Police Force must provide police protection to the public at large.

The "public at large" are not individual citizens. What part of this do you not understand?

No, I do not believe that gun ownership causes criminality. Criminality is caused primarly by bad economical conditions. I think that I have provided in another thread some data about criminality rates and economical-social conditions.

I'm with you on this.

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

What do you mean by "take care of things"? I'm sorry but I need you to be specific, since this statement could be interpreted to mean many things.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm sorry, Cleopatra! I see I misunderstood your statement:

What distinguishes a car accident or other similar domestic accidents by a gun accident is that the later can be avoided.

You're saying that a car accident is less avoidable than a gun accident; but I answered as if you meant they were about the same....I hope. Or are you saying car accidents are entirely unavoidable???

I believe both are usually avoidable, but there are so many more variables to consider with cars...including factors that simply cannot be prevented. Cars require so much more maintenance, require split-second decisions at every second they're in motion, have been known 'to jump gears' and begin rolling away all on their own....and yet we hand the keys to every sixteen-year-old in the country with no more admonishment than "Be careful, Honey, and watch the speed limit".

With guns, even the person with only the most basic training* should be able to safely handle one. While they require skill & fast reflexes to hit a moving target, they don't require them to be safely handled, loaded, used on a stationary target or brandished as a deterrent in a dangerous situation. Instead of outright shooting an attacker, a person can usually safely use a gun as a club. They come equipped with 'safety' switches that prevent them from accidentally firing, and there are all kinds of other locking devices that can be used when one is not in use.

I have to say the car is the more dangerous object to have lying around the garage!


*By "basic training" I mean those cardinal rules that should be taught in relation to all guns or even toy guns or gun-shaped facsimilies.

 

[John Harrison]

I think she feels that no one needs to own a firearm, therefore there should be no firearm accidents.

 

[Zep]

evildave: 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.

Sure! I agree. Motor vehicles DO kill many people in this world. Although there are millions of people who drive safely all their lives, there are still some people who should not be behind the wheel at all ... ever. They are a menace to life and limb in a car. I have said for years that all drivers, not just the cars, should be tested regularly to see if they are still "roadworthy". A driving license is not a right, it's a priviledge. Surely the same can be said for guns???

And I have never said that guns should be removed from a society. Not only is that not practical, it's not sensible. Nor do I think the armed forces should be reduced or "armed only with broomsticks" or some such nonsense. Certain guns are a useful practical tool in some situations, and a worthy recreational sport for others. So don't put words in my mouth.

I'm very glad to see that you lock up your weapons and ammo properly. Would also that this was the law, not just a good idea of yours. But that would entail "gun control", something that seems to be an anathema to many US gun owners. Seems like they DON'T like your good idea!

Have you seen "Bowling For Columbine" at all?

Zep

 

[DragonLady]

Another point about guns vs cars IMO, is that there are a lot of ancient cars on the road.

People generally drive 10, 000 - 15, 000 miles every year just running back and forth to work and doing daily chores. An older vehicle -say 10 years old- can generally be expected to function properly if it's had regular maintenance and upkeep.

But most gun enthusiasts would be very hesitant about firing a weapon that old unless they knew it had been carefully stored & kept in near-perfect condition. The possibilities of misfires from faulty firing pins, rusted barrels, bad trigger mechanisms etc. would scare off most.

Although I don't have any facts or numbers, I believe a lot of gun accidents every year are caused by old weapons that should've been permanently dismantled.

For instance, newer revolvers have a gap between the hammer and the firing pin preventing the weapon from discharging if they're dropped or struck.

 

[shanek]

Come on John. Since antiquity-I know for sure about Classical Athens-organized societies had special forces to protect what always have been sacred: Life and property.

Um, you left out one: liberty. But then, you don't seem to be too keen on that one, either...

 

[shanek]

I think that if citizens "take care of things" by themselves, then they won't have any reason to push politicans to fight criminality and we will end up in a vicious circle of crime.

Um...haven't you ever heard of the concept of "citizen's arrest," a long and cherished part of British Common Law, and by extension, America's and most of the industrial world?

 

[John Harrison]

A driving license is not a right, it's a priviledge. Surely the same can be said for guns???

Two points about this:1) No, the same cannot be said for guns, what with the US Constitution and all. 2) The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership. This doesn't happen with drivers licenses, so you can't really compare the two.

Have you seen "Bowling For Columbine" at all?

What does this have to do with the discussion? Is there something specific that you think applies here?

 

[shanek]

Two points about this:1) No, the same cannot be said for guns, what with the US Constitution and all. 2) The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership. This doesn't happen with drivers licenses, so you can't really compare the two.

One more point: You don't need a license of any kind to own or operate a vehicle on private property. Only if you want to drive it on government roads. That's a big difference, in and of itself. These gun licenses would affect your right to keep a gun on your own property.

 

[John Harrison]

Argh! I missed a good one. Thanks!

 

[Zep]

Two points about this:1) No, the same cannot be said for guns, what with the US Constitution and all. 2) The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership. This doesn't happen with drivers licenses, so you can't really compare the two.



What does this have to do with the discussion? Is there something specific that you think applies here?

1. "...the right to bear arms is not infringed." Umm, where does it say there that it must be "without any control"? It simply "allows" the right to bear arms.

2. License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

3. Oh yes it DOES happen with drivers' licenses! You screw up bad enough and often enough on the road and "the government" will take it off you, no worries! Unless they give drivers' licenses out in cornflakes boxes in your state? Or issue you one on your 17th birthday as a present?

Zep

 

[Zep]

One more point: You don't need a license of any kind to own or operate a vehicle on private property. Only if you want to drive it on government roads. That's a big difference, in and of itself. These gun licenses would affect your right to keep a gun on your own property.

Where did I say that you couldn't/shouldn't have guns on your own property, licensed or otherwise?! An irrelevant argument, and you are putting words in my mouth, Shanek.

Zep