silent_jay

Wow, that's just fucked, mental note, stay out of Pennsylvania.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Charlatan

Wow. Emote much?

Americans and their gun rights always amaze me. Many simply refuse to see any correlation between the number of guns on their streets and the massively huge number of gun related crimes and deaths.

It all comes down to personal responsibility without any thought to the fact that there is more to it than that.

I am not against private gun ownership but the situation that exists in the US goes beyond the pale.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Glory's Sun

Ya know, I'm really quite surprised at some of the talk here. The gun is fair play, but does anyone truly believe that an *11* year old really knew the full weight of the action? So what if he thought about it first, he was thinking about the actual act and not the consequences that could come from it. To try him as an adult would make the justice system more of a joke than it already is.

Just because a law exists does not mean that it is a correct and moral course of action. The fact that the state allows for the prosecution to charge as adults for *children* as young as 10 is remarkable on its own; the fact that people are ok with it is even more remarkable... Or should I say sad.

If this same child was the victim of some sick sexual offense, everyone would be crying that he's just a child and can't comprehend the full weight of the situation. But throw a gun into the mix and suddenly he's an adult monster. Sad.

Charlatan

I agree Gucci. I am amazed that an 11-year-old could be charged as an adult.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ngdawg

That doesn't mean that you can walk into a 7-11 and pick one up next to the donut bin, but it is pretty dumb, specially nowadays.
Source

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

JumpinJesus

A simple test of this is to ask a 10-12 year old, "What happens when someone dies?"

A lot of them just simply don't know. The development of complex abstract thought just isn't there at the age of 11 to understand that shooting someone results in a permanent death that can't be undone.

I had this discussion with the 6th graders I used to teach. More than half the students had the ability to put two and two together to a point. They see an actor on t.v. or in a movie die and then later see them in another movie. In their mind, the death wasn't permanent. While the students knew that the actors were just acting, their brain hasn't made the distinction that the death was faked, too. There seemed to be a belief that if someone was shot in a movie, they were actually shot.

Like the title says, though, there is so much wrong with this story that the child's inability to be aware of the ramifications of his actions is only part of the problem.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

silent_jay

I didn't reckon you could go to the local Kwik-E-Mart and buy one from Apu, but I figured they had some kind of registration system or something.

Is it just handguns that has to go through PICS or is it rifles as well? If it's just for handguns it's a rather half assed attempt on their part to keep tabs on things.

Yeah it is rather boggling Gucci that an 11 year old could be charged as an adult

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dksuddeth

now this is just plain dumb. what possible good would weapon registration have done for this particular incident? Now, ask that for ANY criminal incident that happens? what POSSIBLE difference would the weapon being registered have made? would that firearm think to itself 'I can't kill this woman, i'm registered'!!!????

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ASU2003

There is the slippery slope that people who are anti-registration worry about.

There will be limits as to who can own guns by the government. Let's say, The government won't allow anyone who is depressed, unemployed, has anger problems, divorced in the past 5 years, loses custody of kids, is on certain medications, isn't part of the cool kids at school, and the list goes on.

silent_jay

Dumb you say? My opinion is dumb, I'll keep my not so pleasant comments about your opinion to myself, possibly you should try the same next time, or address it in a more respectful manner, rather than calling it 'dumb'.

Never said registration would have done a damn thing in this situation DK, read my post again, just saying it's fucked that they don't have to register their guns is all

What difference would a weapon being registered make in ANY crime? I can think of a lot of good things it would do, but honestly I can't be bothered to waste my time, it won't make any difference in your opinion, so why waste my time, I'll just go bang my head against a brick wall instead, probably get more satisfaction from that.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dksuddeth

Yes, I said DUMB!!! Why you ask? because you said THIS about no registration in Pennsylvania, and I quote as if you are saying that pennsylvania is a horrifically dangerous state because they don't register peoples weapons. How much about the 50 states of our nations gun laws do you know? Would you run screaming in terror to find out that there might be 14 states total that require any registration at all? All of those other states do not require registration of firearms, ZOMG RUN FOR YOUR LIVES WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM UNREGISTERED WEAPONS!!!!!!.

Yes, I said dumb.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

silent_jay

It's YOUR nation, not OUR nation, so yeah I know fuck all about gun laws in YOUR nation, I could give a rats ass about YOUR nation, you guys could kill yourselves off for all I care, I'd even send flowers, maybe piss on a grave or two as well.

Think what you want about my opinion, call it anything you like, as I said before I'll keep my unpleasant comments about your opinion to myself, and keep addressing you in a respectful manner, even though you don't deserve it. I'll go bang my head against that brick wall now, rather than waste anymore time on the likes of you.

After looking at one link it seems Penn. isn't very safe for black people:
Gun Guys Pennsylvania Leads Nation In Per Capita Rate Of Black Homicide Victimization
And with that I'm done wasting my time on this thread, have fun DK, try showing people a little more respect than to just call their opinion dumb, I could say a lot of what you type is dumb, but I guess being able to control yourself comes with maturity, you'll see that someday.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Daniel_

Se - this is where we differ, because I do actally believe that what you said there (my highlight) should be the case.

Just to get this clear - if you have control of something, and if the attempt to use it for its normal purpose could have clearly expected fatal consequences (a car crash, a shooting, etc), then I believe you should be criminally liable for the consequences of allowing that item into the control of someone who mi-uses it. I have no problem if you want to own a gun for legitimate reason (farmer for pest control, hunter for deer whatever other reason your chosen society allows) but if you allow your kid to get hold of it when quite clearly they shouldn't (I think it's clear that a death was a bad thing) then you are complicit.


I think it's not "US=gun nuts vs. Britain=peaceniks", I think it's "US=personal freedom at the possible expense of collective safety, vs. Britain=public safety at the possible expense of collective freedom".

The point being that in this country, we have far more controls on all sorts of areas of life many of which confuse and anger Americans, but in consequence we have fewer people dead of gunshots, fewer people allowed to die because their medical cover was insufficient, more controls over food ingredients, more controls over industrial pollution, and so on.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

dippin

I don't think it is like this at all. At the level of discourse, maybe, but in actuality its nothing like that. In several respects the US, and many American citizens, are much more comfortable imposing draconian restrictions on personal freedom, usually claiming it to be in the name of collective safety. If on healthcare provider and guns the discourse of personal freedom is very strong in the US, the same is not true for sex, drugs and law enforcement.

In fact, I think few western countries regulate sex to the extent that the US does, with its sodomy laws, its indecency laws, and its anti-gay laws. Same with drugs, where in most states you can get a pretty strong opiate for pain, but mention medical marijuana and you are in trouble.

Just as an extreme example, in the state I live in right now, there are less regulations concerning the buying and selling of guns then there are regulating the buying and selling of cough syrup.

National cultures are usually schizophrenic like that, so it is not exclusive to the US or any country. What works at the level of discourse is often very different from reality.

spindles

This, I think, is also closely related to video game violence and the prevalence in US made movies for violence. It constantly amazes me the amount and level of violence on TV, especially when counterpointed with the level of sex and nudity on TV. This is one example of the gun culture in the US skewing things (imo) wildly. It always seems to amaze me the number of violent TV shows and movies and the relatively few that show nudity or sex.

I think this adds to the difficult younger people have with violent imagery.

Before anyone jumps on me, I don't believe that violent video games *cause* violence, but I think they do lessen the impact actual violence has.

On the adult thing - that sounds like just about the stupidest law I have ever heard of. Of course he isn't an adult!

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

ratbastid

One consequence being the collective surveillance state that the UK has become...

I'm not pro- or anti-gun in particular (although I'm coming to resent having to say that as a preface in so many god damn threads). Given the two options Daniel_ presents, I choose neither. Is a rational and balanced and mature approach too much to ask? The US is "Give me my toys" like a five-year-old. The UK is "We have to watch you to keep you out of trouble" like we're five-year-olds. How about we all grow the fuck up and do what makes sense for society AND individuals??

Glory's Sun

So a father hands his keys to a 16 year old who tells him he's only going out with a couple of friends to watch a movie..and ultimately gets into a car wreck that kills someone else..and the father should be held criminally liable?? I cannot wrap my head around this. The father had no expectation or warning of misuse by the kid. How can he be at all responsible??

The same goes for a gun.. if a father has done everything he is supposed to do to train the child of the proper use for a gun, how can he be held responsible when the kid mishandled the gun? It's not the father's brain, it's not the father's finger pulling the trigger.. it's his son. Now if the father had known about some mental instability before hand and just handed him a gun with no prior supervision or training then maybe that would be a case.. but in most cases I feel it wouldn't be.

ratbastid

A car's not built for killing things.

Do you really think this 11-year-old was sufficiently trained in firearms safety? And if you do, do you think he really had the maturity to have ready access to his own firearms? And if so... how do you explain what happened? Sheer psychosis? Whose job is it to keep guns out of his psycho children's hands (he asked, helpfully embedding the answer in the question)?

I think we'd do really well (ALL of us) to resist blanket pontification either for or against gun control based on this case. This case is a major exception--which is why it's news.

In this case, I think dad's to blame.

Plan9

Okay, let's play with this statement and really kill the thread since it's going down-down-down like that Bruce Springsteen hit from when I was born.

I want someone to pick up an instruction manual for a firearm manufactured in the last 75 years and find a heading that says something about killing things (people). Funny, I've a working knowledge of over a hundred different firearms and I just haven't seen any product literature where my target pistol or deer rifle or concealed carry revolver or steel plate competition AR tells me to go and "kill things." Nope, it talks about safety, disassembly, and cleaning. I wonder why that is? Intended use, maybe? I wonder if the manufacturers of the Swiss Army knife had to change their EULA after OJ sliced and diced himself some Nicole Brown with one of their fine products? Probably not.

People are just cranky about guns because they're more effective than other implements. That's all it is. Bodycountability.

Blame transference and shotgun litigation have made us all morons.

...

And I concur with you 100%. Young kids shouldn't have unsupervised access to firearms. Ever. They're just straight stupid. Curious, impulsive, and dumber 'n mud. Laws shouldn't be used to reinforce common sense, it should be the other way 'round. I don't care if you live in the US, the UK, or Zimbabwe... kids are very similar in the traits listed above. Education helps reduce issues, but only responsible storage behaviors and handling training prevent issues like what we encounter on a daily basis here in the Most Violent Country in the Universe (TM).

At 16? Maybe... if you, as a parent, are willing to risk your life over it. Don't worry about your training or your kid, just worry about the wild world out there and their interpretation of your parenting. I'm not going to chance it, I've seen the ringer in action.

At 18? You're your own legal target, so have at it. I'll probably buy my offspring a high skool graduation present similar to what my father got for me back in the day, a nice target rifle.

When I finally find a mate and decide to produce a wittle Crompling, said creature will be schooled from day one that firearms are not toys (like a butcher knife or power drill) but they are not dangerous if handled properly. No fear, just responsibility. Safe handling should be a way of life, not something that causes someone to sweat. If it turns out my Crompling has homicidal tendencies... well, they don't have the combo to the vault, anyway.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Glory's Sun

So are you assuming that if he was trained that that would have solved anything? I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun either, but the father cannot be held criminally liable in this case because we do not for one know the mental state of this *child* and two as I've said over and over again, the 11 year old does not know the extent of what he was doing. So we can blame the parents all we want, and I would have no problem in joining that blame, but the father had nothing to do with the crime when it happened. While it is up to the father to make sure the guns are safe, there is no such thing as childproof. A child is going to get what they want if they want it bad enough. The father is more than liable in civil court, but not in a criminal court.

dippin

Guccilvr,
I think that an important distinction here is that the child did not get one of his father's guns, but used his own, which he has full access to at all times and keeps in his room, along with ammunition. And apparently, there had been known issues with jealousy, and the kid even told some in his family what he wanted to do...

Plan9

Uhm... that's the core problem. Legal or not... a kid shouldn't possess a firearm and ammunition. Period. Falls towards the Super Bad Parenting category like a lead balloon. I still have a hard time believing PA law. I need to go read about it.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

what question of PA law would you like answered?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

I just have a hard time believing that a state has "no registration." You still have to be 18/21 to purchase, right? And something tells me if PA was this wild 'n free, I woulda heard about it before.

Example: Vermont has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US and they still have the same old forms that I've filled out in VA, NC, SC, etc.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

what it sounds like you're referring to is the form 4473, filled out when you buy a gun from an FFL. These are federal forms, not state. legalistically speaking, that is not registration. Of course the ATF can trace just about any gun back to the dealer it's bought from because of it, but the government will tell you that it's not 'registration'. Bullshit, but there it is.

PA law maintains a 'sales' database, not a 'registration' database. word difference only, but they will never admit to registration, because PA law specifically forbids gun registration databases. sort of a pandering to the public, but they will do it somehow.

A majority of states in this union have no registration. I own two handguns right now, not registered. I didn't buy them from an FFL. I bought them from private individuals. I'm not required to register them with any government agency, nor would I be required to if I lived in PA. Not in VA, SC, nor NC. Now, NC requires a 'permission' slip, or a gun purchase permit for each handgun you buy. This is also not 'technically' registration as the records for these are supposed to be discarded after a certain period of time. But we all know how government works, right?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It sounds like you're questioning my assertion that guns are built to kill things, since because the manuals don't talk about killing things. (I'm going to say that without my usual disclaimer, and just see how much trouble that gets me into...)

I hope you're not then saying that the purpose of a gun is to be safe, to disassemble it, or to clean it, since that's what the manual talks about? That the whole point of having a gun is to take it apart and clean it?

On a related not that's not a direct response to El Crompo's comments above: I think that blurring the line between a weapon and a tool is one we do at great peril, as a society.

Glory's Sun

You are right, and I may have been overlooking that point, but I still don't think the father can be held criminally liable. He has the burden of being liable in civil court undoubtedly, but the father didn't commit any crime, with maybe the exception of not paying enough attention.

I am in no way saying that guns aren't a problem.. there are plenty of stupid people out there with guns..but we can't just look at an object and blame the object. The blame ultimately has to fall on the person who controls the gun. In this case, the child is to blame for how he used the gun.. and even though I believe he shouldn't be tried as an adult.. he'll still serve a lengthy sentence if he is found guilty. It doesn't matter if he is tried as an adult or not.. it's basically just saying you're going to go to prison either way, but it's taking out the capital punishment issue by not trying him as an adult. (I'm assuming PA has capital punishment)

Plan9

Thanks. Yeah, I knew that fed form stuff. Just wanted confirmation on the state stuff since I don't pay a whole lotta attention when I fill out the white and canary in triplicate every month to get my next child-eating hunk of homicidal metal.

So basically... state reg... it's all talk that you're playing up to sound Wild 'n Free while the man still knows your number. It doesn't matter if it's state or fed, somebody somewhere has your name and address.

Hah, it's like saying it's okay if Dad knows you're taking his care keys as long as your sister doesn't.

Pfft.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Xerxys

1. Well, the short answer to that is yes. You ARE, in fact asking too much. I might have said this somewhere, the person is smart, people are stupid. Now, let's give stupid people guns..... I think not only in the USA but everywhere, the same thing will happen.

2. See number one above. People, not the person. In this case, (I'm assuming the kid is guilty which is wrong but I dont give a s***...) I blame the parent for having lackluster safety protocals. Hence the 5 year old thing comes into play. I live off the philosophy that the one day you go astray is theone day you loose something. I guess I'm a firm supporter of Murphy's Laws.

3. LOL, Since when has that happenned?? Which society, with all laws and safety measures in place...., has been known to get things right? I'm not counting the accidents. Don't give examples to do with vehicles ... any number of things could go wrong behind the steering wheel besides drunk driving.

What I'm trying to say is rat ..... you've gotta choose one.
a) Get strict gun laws or no guns at all
b) Be lax on gun laws.

No happy medium can be found there. There can be no inbetween when dealing with societies because as soon as we start compensating for some types of people, other folk will want there compensations as well. In the USA, though, we're lucky we vote on the state level.

And yes, poeple are stupid, no one here can convince me otherwise.

Plan9

Wow, I'm glad you're not in office. All or nothing is about as immature as... my blog. Our gun laws, as they stand today (for better or worse) are the product of thousands and thousands of hours of compromise.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dippin

I don't think people are blaming the object, but the negligence with regards to it. This whole "objects dont kill people, people kill people" is a cop out that can be applied to anything anywhere at any time. Not that I favor strict gun control or anything like that, but the same argument could be made about leaving an uncapped bottle of poison within a child's reach, or asking your 10 year old to drive, or anything like that. The point being that certain objects require a greater amount of supervision than others.

Saying that an 11 year old who has been telling his cousins that he wants to kill his step mom should not have free, unlimited and unsupervised access to guns and ammunition does not mean that one is for gun control or against guns. If the responsibility is civil or criminal is another matter. But I would imagine that even the staunchest pro-gun, NRA-card carrying person recognizes that it is gross negligence to let a kid who has had issues with the step mother, and who has made comments about killing her, have his own gun freely accessible at his room, and that perhaps the outcome of all of this would have been different had the gun been locked away or kept under the father's supervision.

Glory's Sun

I don't necessarily disagree with you.. in fact you are spot on for the majority of this, my only point is that in the end we don't know if anything would have stopped this from happening.. so blaming the father is kind of just a position of having something to blame as a cop out much like the blame people not the object you are referring to.

kutulu

I don't think the father should be criminally liable for this but he does share some culpability in this. You can't let kids have uncontrolled access to guns.

Gun owners can drone on and on about how it isn't the gun's fault but it wouldn't have happened if the kid didn't have access to the shotgun. Now the whole family is FUCKED because of this.

ratbastid

See, that's the kind of thing you hear from the pro-gun crazies, though.

"Wow. That's tragic. That kid probably shouldn't have had a gun, hunh?"
"What!? How dare you BLAME GUNS for this horrible event???"
"Um. Scroll back a line and read what I said, dude."

NOBODY'S BLAMING GUNS. Nowhere ANYWHERE on this thread has ANYONE implied that a gun has free will and can perform horrible acts without a person actually there using it. SEVERAL times on this thread people have been ACCUSED of making such a claim.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

What do you do, then? You've just said two things that can't inhabit the same space at the same time. Does the kid get locked up until he's 18? At best that delays the problem, at worst, it produces a true psychopath. Do you try the kid as an adult so he can stay locked up for a proper term, for Murder 1? Sentenced to life in prison at the age of 11? That's pretty hard to swallow.

At the VERY least, Dad's guilty of criminal neglect.

Xerxys

C'mon dude, have you never been to high school? I would want a compromise to compensate for me if they are meeting other people halfway ..... When dealing with large groups of people, you cannot cater to all of them because you have to start looking at them individually. Making things exponentially harder. It's a sacrifice the masses has to make.

Glory's Sun

Even if the child is not tried as an adult, he could still be sentenced to a proper term. The only difference is that he won't face Capital Punishment sentencing, and he'll spend 7 years in Juvie, then the rest of the sentence in an adult facility. That is of course if he passes a mental exam.

Is this really a necessary comment? There is no reason to question anyone's mental capacity or credits.

keep it civil.

ratbastid

I believe you're quoting "Men In Black", there?

Apart from being a revoltingly simple-minded view of humanity, I can point you to many many counter-examples. But even letting it stand, guns aren't owned by PEOPLE. A gun is owned by a PERSON. When (and it's the exception) one of those people is using their gun in a way that's not consistent with the common good, laws are used to disarm that person and protect people from them.

Xerxys

Dude, stop reading into my comments!!!!

High school is where I learned that you get punished for shit that the whole class did and ot neccessarily you!!! Even military sometimes this happens. I WASN'T in any way questioning Cromps mental capacity. I dont do that. I'm smart.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

Yes, that is where I heard it from, thanks.

You think it's simple minded ... er, ok yeah it is. I do have a tendancy not to trust because I've been burned way too many times and I am quite happy where my mindset has gotten me but I have to say ..... It's the bottomline.

Either one thing will happen, dont you think, either this article will be published or not.... it could have ben anything but the simple reason it has a gun related to it is why the hype.

Do you not agree?!?!?!?!

Strange Famous

If an 11 year old does not have the full rights of an adult then they do not have the full responsibilities.

If it is true that this 11 year old was allowed to OWN HIS OWN GUN then the father who is responsible for this should face criminal charges of some sort (accessory seems a bit harsh, but he should be looking at a 3 year stretch) certainly not keep custody of any other children.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

dksuddeth

RB, if a guns only purpose is to kill, why do we arm our police forces with them? police officers are not authorized executioners, right? A police officers job is to maintain law and order, serve the public, and protect the community as a whole. What possible purpose would it serve then, to arm police officers with tools that are designed to do nothing but kill people?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."