11-year old could get life sentence.. - Page 4

On March 27 2009 02:38 Nytefish wrote:


Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die?

On March 23 2009 14:01 Savio wrote:
I think that God put us here on earth in large part so we could learning what is right and wrong and learn to choose the right without being coerced. Some laws (of what is good) are probably unchanging to which God himself conforms (like the principles/laws of mercy and justice), while other laws define something as "good" or "bad" simply because God commanded it so. For example, in the Garden of Eden, God commanded them not to eat of a certain tree. There is nothing inherently wrong about eating off a tree but it was wrong because doing so would be blatant disobedience to our parent. Other laws have been transitory like the Law of Moses, but the law of sacrifice has always existed in one form or another (animal sacrifice, or a "broken heart and contrite spirit).

In short, it goes either way. But there IS a wrong and a right that is not just what we choose it to be. For someone who doesn't believe in God (as Idra just explained), there is no real wrong or right, but just what is evolutionarily advantageous.

We need to learn to chose what we know is right when we are given the option between right and wrong. That is where there must not be coercion. Is God made us choose the right, then we would not progress. Also, if we still lived with him in heaven we couldn't really have the opportunity to choose between good and evil because there isn't evil there. So this place is the perfect training grounds for learning to make correct choices.

So to answer your question, he gave us the ability to KNOW good from evil and what we are learning is how to CHOOSE good instead of evil when both are offered to us. When we can do that, we will be much more capable, powerful, perfect than we were before we came here.

But since he knew we would mess up from time to time and since God cannot rob justice (someone has to suffer for every sin committed), he sent Christ to suffer the sum of all our guilt, pain, and punishments (just like how lambs in the Law of Moses would die in the place of the sinner, Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed just like all those lambs during the time of Moses. That was all symbolic of what was about to happen). Then because Christ payed the debt, he can set the terms by which we can return to him (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

I have argued that all the bad (meaning the physical suffering) that happens in this life is as irrelevant as a half second itch because by an eternal perspective (and we are eternal being who have existed forever and will exist forever), 70 years is much shorter than a half second feels to us. In the long run, EVERYBODY in the world will receive much better things from God than we by ourselves deserve. THIS is the goodness of God. You can't judge his goodness by looking at the bad things that happen here and now. You have to at least attempt to view things from his perspective (that is an eternal perspective), then things that you thought were important are no longer important and other things are.

One way to think of things is to image God as a parent and us as a 2 year old (most deep doctrines about God are to be seen through the use of symbolism, this is why Christ taught in parables). 2 year olds get VERY emotional when another kid takes their toy for example (I have a 2 year old so I see this). When some sad thing happens to him, his face shows shear agony. I am serious, it is AGONY. Remembering back as far as I can, I can vaguely remember very strong feelings of anger and sadness when my brother would steal my toy or knock me down. They were strong and very real emotions.

Now, as parents, we know that it is not a serious problem that his toy is gone and we also know that he will feel better very soon. Sometimes we intervene and give the toy back but sometimes we punish them both for fighting in the first place and sometimes we just ignore them and let the injustice stand. That does not make us bad parents. It is not child abuse, but from the kids perspective, there is real suffering. So could the 2 year old, use the injustice that he sees as proof that his parents don't love him? Is letting an injustice stand show that the parent is unjust?

Actually all it shows is that the kid's perspective is different from the parent. In reality, there is nothing "fair" about what the kid gets from his parents. They give him EVERYTHING he has and do EVERYTHING for him. The kid is getting way more than he earns by whatever little good deed he does.

The same is true of us. We see bad things happen (even lost limbs). God does not intervene but we don't realize that the lost limb is not important because God has already ensured that we will all be resurrected some day and live for eternity with a perfect body. What does it matter that we missed a limb for a few years compared to eons with a perfect body?

The only difference in this analogy is that God temporarily took from us our memory of our life before being born and does not live with us here where we can see him. His purpose in doing this is to help teach us to choose right even when wrong is available and enticing and to do it when we think no one is watching.

Think about it. What would make you happier, if your kid shares their toy with another kid when you are sitting right there ready to intervene, or if you are peeking around the corner and you see your kid sharing and being nice? In the 2nd instance you know that the intentions are pure (and that the lesson was really learned) while in the first it might be affected by your presence.

So if you want to make sense of this world and God, you have to look at it not as someone in this world but as an eternal being looking at it from way out seeing eternity in both the past and the present.

On March 27 2009 02:42 Caller wrote:


if somebody else on the street had a gun loss of life wouldve been minimized.

That same guy could have easily gotten a molotov cocktail (legally) and thrown it at a building, burning it down and killing hundreds of people. Should we ban matches, cloths, and wine?

Or he could've stayed in the truck and just ran people over. Should we make trucks harder to obtain?

If anything, this is a counterexample of that.

On March 27 2009 01:13 NeonFlare wrote:
If there was no gun the kid might have used something else, such as kitchen knife or hammer.
Who knows, he was probably not only deeply jealous and engulfed in envy, but also desperate or just overall crazy.

Regardless of what sentece they are going to give him, it's likely that he will suffer even more if he ever realizes the gravity of his actions.

On March 27 2009 02:24 Rice wrote:


yeah he couldnt use any of the other 17284864585 items around a typical household that could be used as a deadly weapon. the kid obviously has a problem and if something like this happened at 11 what if you took the guns away? then he still does something later in life because hes obviously not a sane individual.

On March 27 2009 02:31 Jaksiel wrote:
I'm pretty sure studies have shown that people who purchase guns to "defend themselves" are much more likely to injure or kill members of their own family than theoretical criminals. The argument is ridiculous.

On March 27 2009 02:49 Caller wrote:
wat

On March 27 2009 02:56 BackHo wrote:


ALL have sinned and fall short of God's "expectation". Sin is not something you do, it is a condition that we as humans are literally born with. Just like the flu is a disease with symptoms that manifest itself as sneezing, coughing, fever, etc. SIN, as a condition, manifests itself in our actions (selfishness, jealousy, bitterness, lying, etc). We call these bad things we do "sin", but the reality is that the problem is deeper. Because I believe that sin is a condition, rather than things we do, I believe that even babies are born in this condition of sin. Do I believe that many churches teach that children are sinners? I think that any church that teaches the Bible should teach this. Romans 3:23... "all have sinned." I believe that we achieve salvation, not thru our own actions, but by God's action on the cross. This is what the Bible calls GRACE. None of us deserve salvation, since all fall short. So salvation is a GIFT from God through His son Jesus Christ. For the visual, Jesus bridges the gap (sin) between us and God. We can be reconciled to God because of Jesus' death on the cross. I believe this is the only unforgivable sin: to deny Jesus Christ.

On March 27 2009 03:00 Hans-Titan wrote:

A thread about gun control, life and death sentences, trying minors as adults and now religion.

I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed.

On March 27 2009 02:50 baal wrote:


first of all you woulnt kill hundrds, second u need a very specific location and plan to carry it out, you cant just go out and throw it in the middle of the street or you will fail.

You are a fucking retarded if you think there are means as effective and fast than going to the store and buy an M16.

so according to you, people should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon too right?... oh but you invaded a country on those premises fuck... incongruence.

On March 27 2009 03:02 BackHo wrote:


I just think that abortion is wrong, even though some may argue that it would have been better if this child had not been born.

On March 27 2009 03:00 Hans-Titan wrote:
I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed.

On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote:


The people who want to use guns for the wrong reasons will find ways to get guns no matter what the laws say. Granted it will be a little difficult but they'll still obtain them one way or another. Take a look at the ban on fully automatic weapons and guess how many people on the streets actually have them.

Taking guns away from the public just limits their ability to defend themselves.

On March 27 2009 00:33 GinNtoniC wrote:
I'm going to fuel the flames beforehand by saying (and this is actually my most serious opinion) that this obviously wouldn't have happened without every other US family keeping a firearm of some sort at home (well, duh!)

I know, I know, it's too late to change the law since now everyone has a gun, it's too late to recall them. People get guns because everyone else has guns and "I'll return my gun, if everyone else return their guns" etc and so on.

I understand the fundamental problem of why it's too late to change american gunlaws.
Nevertheless - flaming or not - I'd like to see some debate on this from U.S. citizens who actually have the inside information and the experience I lack.

On March 27 2009 03:08 BackHo wrote:


Five more posts until page five... Mate, you should've stuck with your original bet.

On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote:


Yes that is probably true seeing as even in Sweden organised criminals appear to have no problem getting a gun, but for an average joe like me - getting hold of a gun is quite the hassle and that is where im getting at, because alot of murders and shootings seem to be heat of the moment things, where it feels that if there wouldn't have been a gun at handy someone wouldn't have died or gotten shot. And the ability to defend themselves - against what? Like someone else pointed out if nobody else has guns why would you yourself need a gun to defend ourself??

If the hardcore criminals comes after you i doubt it would matter much if you had a gun or not, unfortunately.

On March 27 2009 01:53 Naib wrote:


That's bull, I'm sorry. Take this kid for example. It's clear he had the intention of doing what he did, but had his parents not kept guns at home, how would he be able to carry out such an act?

You could argue "he could just get a knife and stab her!" or something, but that'd be pointless. Stabbing someone to death isn't as easy (for a 11 year old) as it is to pull a trigger.

Not to mention various accidents that sprung news over the years...

All this "The Average Joe has a right to defend himself!" crap is so outdated, honestly.

Edit: clarity