Not saying weapons are a good thing...but don't blame gun laws for some insane kid killing. Imagine if he didn't have easy access to a gun? We would be seeing an article saying "kids slices woman's neck with meat knife." Of course then we would get quality posts like
"only in places where they enjoy to eat meat..." (MAN I'M SO MUCH BETTER THAN THEM)
Anyways...now that I have vented...lets just all get along!
1 ) OP posts a story about some mental kid/nerd using gun to kill people 2) non-american: lol, only in US. Fuck US, why are they so stupid. Why dont they do anything with the gun control law? 3) american: fuck you, we use gun to defend ourselves. Those kids/nerds can alway find another way to kill people if they dont have access to gun. 4) a debate between non-american and american that takes 5-10 pages. 5) some mod closes the thread
the amount of crazy people cannot be reduced to 0, so the presence of readily available weapons is an important factor in determining how much impact these crazy people could have. talking about the individual cases like matters of personal responsibility will not change the fact that there will be unstable people, and there will be irresponsible unstable people. blaming the instable people then is like blaming the weather when you forgot to bring an umbrella on a rainy day.
and of course, it would be easy to cause damage with simple tools if some guy intelligently and calmly researched his plan of mischief. nevertheless, some of these guys do not seem to be the rational and patient type, and they could act on impulse, using whatever means that they have in their reach. to an impulsive criminal, maybe the crime is just a reckless act to let off whatever psychotic pent up steam, while achieving the maximum possible damage isn't really the goal. so talking about theoretical space weaponry that they could have built in place of the guns they used is irrelevant. limiting access to easy to use and potent weapons is effective at least for these people.
Sorry to let you guys know but it's, ya know, kind of in our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment. It'll never change because Republicans will never let it happen. It may also be appropriate to fault the father for not keeping the gun in a safer place. Clearly th boy knew where to get it and also knew what to do. It isn't likely that the father had it already loaded, so to say the boy was uneducated in guns may be wrong as well. It would be pretty hard for an 11 year old boy to figure out how to load a shotgun without knowing where to start, depending on the kind of action it has. Merely speculation.
But really, stop blaming it on the unanimate object, the boy was the one who pulled the trigger, and he made the concious decision to pull the trigger, reguardless if he was mentally ill or not, we are not able to say whether he was that severe to not be aware of what he was doing. It is possible that the law may have garnered to treat the boy as an adult because he didn't just kill the woman, but also the kid she had inside her.
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 00:24 Ace wrote: What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this?
the same thing marilyn manson had to do with columbine.......nothing, just a scapegoat
umm it has to do with the fact that things like this wouldnt happen if kids didnt have access to guns?
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.
I think you underestimate how difficult it is to actually kill someone. Try stabbing a piece of meat with a knife next time your making dinner, youll notice you wont actually get that far in. To kill someone with a knife you generally need to hit a an artery or a vital organ. I doubt this kid has been trained in where to stab someone to kill them, and I doubt he has the strength to do it anyway. The same goes for nearly every other object your thinking of. He might take a baseball bat to them, but I very much doubt he would be able to kill them with it before they get a chance to fight back.
On March 27 2009 02:47 BlackJack wrote: How about those 2 kids in England that beat and murdered the 4 year old and left his body on the train tracks to be ran over? They didn't seem to need a gun.
So we should have armed the 4 year old with a gun so he could defend himself?
On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote: What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this?
the same thing marilyn manson had to do with columbine.......nothing, just a scapegoat
umm it has to do with the fact that things like this wouldnt happen if kids didnt have access to guns?
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.
I think you underestimate how difficult it is to actually kill someone. Try stabbing a piece of meat with a knife next time your making dinner, youll notice you wont actually get that far in. To kill someone with a knife you generally need to hit a an artery or a vital organ. I doubt this kid has been trained in where to stab someone to kill them, and I doubt he has the strength to do it anyway. The same goes for nearly every other object your thinking of. He might take a baseball bat to them, but I very much doubt he would be able to kill them with it before they get a chance to fight back.
On March 27 2009 02:47 BlackJack wrote: How about those 2 kids in England that beat and murdered the 4 year old and left his body on the train tracks to be ran over? They didn't seem to need a gun.
So we should have armed the 4 year old with a gun so he could defend himself?
yeah maybe with a steak knife... but with some of the other knifes I have in my kitchen its not that hard
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.
obviously wrong. this subject has been discussed here 100's of times. guns being used in the wrong way by people is what happens. baseball bats are fine and legal, but if you use it in a way it's not meant to be used (hitting someone with it) it becomes a dangerous weapon. society is the problem, where were all these kids shooting their parents, or gang bangers killing folks in the 60's and 70's? there weren't those kind of problems back then. you could bring your hunting rifle to high school and show your principal back then and no one would give a damn because people were responsible and had respect for one another. times are changing way too fast, and not for the better.
bottom line is if someone wants to kill someone, they're probably going to find a way to do it regardless. a gun might be easiest by just pointing and pulling a trigger, but it's not the gun that makes that person want to kill someone. it's just a method.
you were discussing that the how lethal a weapon is doesnt make a difference, if you stand by that you have no problem with people legally having explosives do you?
BTW it is legal to have assault rifles in texas, even machine guns.
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.
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.
So at the beginning of your post you agree that organized criminals have an easy time getting weapons. Then at the end of your post you state that if nobody had guns we wouldnt need to defend ourselves? So you have no problem with criminals having guns and everyone else not having guns?
On March 27 2009 00:22 unkkz wrote: Yeah well, always in America this crap happens. Kid seems pretty messed up and he cannot be mentaly stable, but with him covering up the sound of the shotgun and shooting her in her sleep kinda proves he knew what he was doing.
I find it hilarious though how i read about this over and over again in the states and the general american public do not understand how things like this can happen. Just change your gun laws already? Really what is the point of your gunlaws when all they do is cause problems and getting people killed? Can some american explain to me why the politicians and general american public are so blind to this fact?
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.
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
If the kid was set on killing her im sure he would have found another way to do it. Making ridiculous gun control laws takes weapons away from people who don't intend to do any harm with them. I'm guessing that you've probably never held a gun which makes it more unstandable that the idea of weapons scares you.
please tell me how that 11yo would have killed both his parents lol.
also ive held a weapon, gone hunting many times and actually own one just for the record, i believe they should be banned.
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.
obviously wrong. this subject has been discussed here 100's of times. guns being used in the wrong way by people is what happens. baseball bats are fine and legal, but if you use it in a way it's not meant to be used (hitting someone with it) it becomes a dangerous weapon. society is the problem, where were all these kids shooting their parents, or gang bangers killing folks in the 60's and 70's? there weren't those kind of problems back then. you could bring your hunting rifle to high school and show your principal back then and no one would give a damn because people were responsible and had respect for one another. times are changing way too fast, and not for the better.
bottom line is if someone wants to kill someone, they're probably going to find a way to do it regardless. a gun might be easiest by just pointing and pulling a trigger, but it's not the gun that makes that person want to kill someone. it's just a method.
you were discussing that the how lethal a weapon is doesnt make a difference, if you stand by that you have no problem with people legally having explosives do you?
BTW it is legal to have assault rifles in texas, even machine guns.
he didnt kill her cus the gun was there and he coul use it on her no problem....
What happens when a criminal / bad guy comes into your home and threatens your family with a gun? I don't know about you, but I would like to be able to defend family.
Banning guns isn't going to do anything...banning violence is what we should be going for.
the only funny part was the article says "The boy allegedly covered a shotgun with a blanket and shot Houk in head while she was asleep, before running out of the house to catch the school bus"
On March 27 2009 04:16 Khaymus wrote: What happens when a criminal / bad guy comes into your home and threatens your family with a gun? I don't know about you, but I would like to be able to defend family.
Banning guns isn't going to do anything...banning violence is what we should be going for.
You give the criminal what he wants
If you pull a gun, someone is much more likely to get shot. Most likely you because the criminal has the gun already trained on you. Alsoif you keep a gun in a ready to be fired state like you would have to in that situation, then the chances of a gun accident being your cause of death is a hell of a lot more likely than a criminal coming into your house and shooting you.
On March 27 2009 04:16 Khaymus wrote: What happens when a criminal / bad guy comes into your home and threatens your family with a gun? I don't know about you, but I would like to be able to defend family.
Banning guns isn't going to do anything...banning violence is what we should be going for.
I think violence is kind of banned already...
This kid should be institutionalized, he obviously knew what he was doing, I knew what murder was and how wrong it was when I was 11.
And as for banning guns in the US, doing it now would be very difficult and probably wouldn't reduce gun crime very much at all because most of its done with illegal unregistered weapons.
EPT
