|
On March 27 2009 06:55 Reason wrote:
So he's 11. So what?
Where do you draw the line ?
Wherever you draw it, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, eventually somebody right on the limit is going to be put into jail, and somebody 2 days before their birthday will get away with it.
There's no age difference between these two people other than a few days, yet one is completely liable and the other gets away with it. That is just stupid.
This story and the comments about it bother me because there's a lot of injustice and abuse world wide.
A lot of people have a lived a fucked up life and don't kill anyone for it, even their abuser, even though that's totally justified IMO. They get through it.
For those that don't, we don't allow this "fucked up life" to be a reason for letting people off with murdering or raping somebody. We still convict them and put them in jail.
How can you say because this boy is 11 it is ok to give him therapy and try to rehabilitate him when some guy in his early twenties who had a totally fucked up life who goes on to kill someone will be branded a killer and thrown into jail or executed with no one giving a shit about him?
So to all you people who want to be lenient on him, or suggesting not jail but juvenile or whatever....
Think about every person who had a hard life who murdered somebody and was put in jail or was executed.
Maybe they need therapy and imprisoning somebody for any crime is the most barbaric crime of all? I mean think of their pain!
Is this what you are suggesting?
If not, at what point, what specific date on the calender in anyone's life should we change our opinion from
"What a shame this child was abused, kid needs therapy, help him"...
to
"Throw him in jail."
Or in the case of America, [and some other countries? I'm not sure exactly]
"Commence the execution."
Edit: To the above post...
Possibly something to do with the fact that it wasn't in the early stages of life she was nine months pregnant which is virtually born, and murdering a new born baby is still murder, possibly the worst murder you can commit.
It's nothing to do with whether the mother wants it, and I'm fairly sure people don't "abort" a pregnancy after a certain time, you give birth and give it away if you don't want it.
You are an idiot if you think a 11yo should be treated as a 20yo, that would mean you have the same choice making hability as a 11yo (actually you probably do).
There is a fucking reason why you cant drink/smoke/etc when you are underage, because you are NOT an adult and you cannot be treated like one.
Its fucked up when punishing a 11yo he is an adult, but while granting rights, he is not.
|
On March 27 2009 07:52 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 06:45 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 04:12 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 03:18 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote: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 01:53 Naib wrote:On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote: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. Did you even read the article? He shot a woman while she was sleeping. Could he not have stabbed her while she was asleep? Please provide a good reason why weapons should be banned? Do you honestly think that banning guns will stop killing or keep criminals from getting them? I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. =_= i get warned because i get to agressive arguing but come on! just look at this fucking arguments for crying out, i feel like explaining the theory of relativity to down syndrome kids. Thanks for the newsflash dumbfuck, so tell me, we should allow explosives to be owned by "law abiding citizens"?, should we allow them to own mortars, what about machine guns etc?... The fact that you can kill a person without a gun doesnt mean we should provide everyone with easy access to more deadly weapons. Banning weapons clearly wont totally stop crimes with guns, but it certainly make sit harder to get one if all are outlawed.
I'm actually pretty certain that gun related deaths would increase or at the very least not drop all that much.
You outlaw something you automatically create a black market for it. Black markets bring crimes.
|
On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote:
What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this?
Some would argue an 11 year old shouldn't be able to get his hands on a loaded shotgun. The It could be argued, the dad should have locked it up better and holds some responsibility.
|
Another degenerated thread into Pro/Anti Gun laws.
Here is a good argument for all you anti gun people. If you give everyone a gun, then all the dumb people will kill themselves off and make the world a better place.
BoT, The only reason imo why they are trying to try him as an adult is because people are appalled that a nearly born baby was killed as well. They think this is totally fucked up and they want revenge. I don't think this is the right way to deal with it. But I don't know what should be done to the kid, nor do I know the circumstances/mental health of him or people involved.
After the trial(s) I don't think he will be tried as an adult, but he may end up with juvenile life in prison and then his 20s in the YA prison system. When he comes out out he will be fucked anyways. Probably just do something else and end up in there for life anyways.
|
On March 27 2009 06:55 Reason wrote:
So he's 11. So what?
Where do you draw the line ?
Wherever you draw it, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, eventually somebody right on the limit is going to be put into jail, and somebody 2 days before their birthday will get away with it.
There's no age difference between these two people other than a few days, yet one is completely liable and the other gets away with it. That is just stupid.
This story and the comments about it bother me because there's a lot of injustice and abuse world wide.
A lot of people have a lived a fucked up life and don't kill anyone for it, even their abuser, even though that's totally justified IMO. They get through it.
For those that don't, we don't allow this "fucked up life" to be a reason for letting people off with murdering or raping somebody. We still convict them and put them in jail.
How can you say because this boy is 11 it is ok to give him therapy and try to rehabilitate him when some guy in his early twenties who had a totally fucked up life who goes on to kill someone will be branded a killer and thrown into jail or executed with no one giving a shit about him?
So to all you people who want to be lenient on him, or suggesting not jail but juvenile or whatever....
Think about every person who had a hard life who murdered somebody and was put in jail or was executed.
Maybe they need therapy and imprisoning somebody for any crime is the most barbaric crime of all? I mean think of their pain!
Is this what you are suggesting?
If not, at what point, what specific date on the calender in anyone's life should we change our opinion from
"What a shame this child was abused, kid needs therapy, help him"...
to
"Throw him in jail."
Or in the case of America, [and some other countries? I'm not sure exactly]
"Commence the execution."
Edit: To the above post...
Possibly something to do with the fact that it wasn't in the early stages of life she was nine months pregnant which is virtually born, and murdering a new born baby is still murder, possibly the worst murder you can commit.
It's nothing to do with whether the mother wants it, and I'm fairly sure people don't "abort" a pregnancy after a certain time, you give birth and give it away if you don't want it.
I don't know about US law, but in australia, there is a presumption that a child between the ages of 10 to 14 will not be charged with a crime. This presumption can be rebutted if there is evidence of awareness of the wrongful consequences of their action.
What i mean by this, is that the slippery slide argument doesn't bear any weight as long as you respect the fact that cases which lie on the border line should be treated on their own merits.
Edit: in reply to that post
|
by the way, that shotgun was a gun made for children >_>
It was like a children sized gun :S
I heard this from internetzz
|
On March 27 2009 00:16 Naib wrote:Wow, he even silenced the shotgun. That's pretty sick,man  This could, however, set a precedent that I'm not sure I like...
lol that would be pretty gg....
lot of american crazy kids going to jail ^_^
|
On March 27 2009 07:52 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 06:45 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 04:12 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 03:18 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote: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 01:53 Naib wrote:On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote: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. Did you even read the article? He shot a woman while she was sleeping. Could he not have stabbed her while she was asleep? Please provide a good reason why weapons should be banned? Do you honestly think that banning guns will stop killing or keep criminals from getting them? I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. =_= i get warned because i get to agressive arguing but come on! just look at this fucking arguments for crying out, i feel like explaining the theory of relativity to down syndrome kids. Thanks for the newsflash dumbfuck, so tell me, we should allow explosives to be owned by "law abiding citizens"?, should we allow them to own mortars, what about machine guns etc?... The fact that you can kill a person without a gun doesnt mean we should provide everyone with easy access to more deadly weapons. Banning weapons clearly wont totally stop crimes with guns, but it certainly make sit harder to get one if all are outlawed.
Why is it so hard to understand my point? It flew right over your head right after you avoided all of my questions. Perhaps you should go get a cup of juice from your nice suburban home refrigerator, sit down, calm yourself, and try reading my posts again.
|
I highly highly doubt gun control has anything to do with how the kid obtained the gun in the first place. No matter how lenient or strict the laws may be, there is no way an eleven year old can obtain a gun legally in the US so even bringing up those points are moot in this thread. Attempting to drag the topic back on point, I honestly think he deserves the life sentence. Being treated as an adult or not, he's still a murderer.
|
On March 27 2009 08:45 KissBlade wrote:
I highly highly doubt gun control has anything to do with how the kid obtained the gun in the first place. No matter how lenient or strict the laws may be, there is no way an eleven year old can obtain a gun legally in the US so even bringing up those points are moot in this thread. Attempting to drag the topic back on point, I honestly think he deserves the life sentence. Being treated as an adult or not, he's still a murderer.
are you serious?.... the kid got his hand on a LEGAL weapon, owned by the retarded parents, as pointed before, guns for "home protection" actually kill more times one of their owners than attackers
|
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?
uhhhh republicans
|
On March 27 2009 08:32 statix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 07:52 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 06:45 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 04:12 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 03:18 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote: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 01:53 Naib wrote:On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote: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. Did you even read the article? He shot a woman while she was sleeping. Could he not have stabbed her while she was asleep? Please provide a good reason why weapons should be banned? Do you honestly think that banning guns will stop killing or keep criminals from getting them? I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. =_= i get warned because i get to agressive arguing but come on! just look at this fucking arguments for crying out, i feel like explaining the theory of relativity to down syndrome kids. I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. Thanks for the newsflash dumbfuck, so tell me, we should allow explosives to be owned by "law abiding citizens"?, should we allow them to own mortars, what about machine guns etc?... The fact that you can kill a person without a gun doesnt mean we should provide everyone with easy access to more deadly weapons. Banning weapons clearly wont totally stop crimes with guns, but it certainly make sit harder to get one if all are outlawed. Why is it so hard to understand my point? It flew right over your head right after you avoided all of my questions. Perhaps you should go get a cup of juice from your nice suburban home refrigerator, sit down, calm yourself, and try reading my posts again.
juice from my nice suburban home? what in the fuck are you talking about moron, i live in a city with 4 million habitants, or we are just randomly assume stupid things?
Ok, hi black haired pre-pubecent kid, son of a guy with a red old lexus who works in a cubicle 10 mins away from work.
|
On March 27 2009 05:28 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Guns are stupid and so are our laws about them, but they are never going to change because most people don't care really about these instances unless it personally happens to them. That and the Pro Gun people are very loud about defending their rights and will basically just drown you out. Also Gun companies have the money. Personally, only one person in my family has guns, and that is my grandfather who got his from older relatives when he was younger (Shotgun + .22 pistol and rifle) They are very old weapons and are never used and are kept where no kid could get to them (but then again my family is pretty religious with 3 Lutheran pastors in it and most of my family live in better neighborhoods so they do not experience crime 1st hand so I cannot speak for those who live in high crime areas where fear would prolly have people buy guns. Also I think two of the guns are disassembled in some way. But anyways I never had a cause for a gun, never had a break in or anything, but I know people that have. My friend had ppl breaking into his house while home, what did he do? He ran 2 houses down to the cop who lived there and he came with his police dog--> GG criminals. People who break 98% of the time are there to make money and would rather have you gone then anything else, Guns just up the ante to losing your stuff to life or death, People say "well LOL IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE GUNS THE CRIMINALS WILL AND WE NEED TO DEFEND OURSELVES" Really? Because gang members ALWAYS like to shoot random people right? How many drive bys were prevented because some random guy who got caught in the middle pulled out his gun? Most criminals people encounter want your stuff or money so your not protecting yourself just your stuff.
You're right. Most robbers and criminals won't always kill you. It is better to hand over the stuff.
Now it's when it comes to an individual level that your broad, sweeping generalizations become irrelevant. The fact is and will most certainly remain (whether or not I agree with guns or not) that you will not remove them from criminal hands by outlawing them. Now think about it: when you are sleeping unsuspectingly one night, you might hear someone breaking in. Most likely, they will not kill you or kidnap you. Given the inefficiency of law to remove guns from the most dangerous hands, why don't you take the chance with your family?
I don't necessarily agree with US policy, and while I don't want to generalize, it seems that the Europeans simply don't understand that the sum of all rational individual choices is NOT equal to the rational choice of society as a whole. Rather than getting into idealistic solutions from fairly high horses, maybe you should stop and put yourself in the shoes of someone affected by the actual proposed policies, and not from your shelter some thousands of miles away.
|
On March 27 2009 02:37 dragonmax wrote:
this is not an issue of gun control, more of gun safety.they should keep their guns locked up so the kid didn't do something like this
On March 27 2009 02:47 BlackJack wrote:
Only on teamliquid... can an 11 year old blow somebody's brains out and the conversation jumps immediately to the gun. Not how or why an 11 year old would want to shoot somebody in the face, but why was he able to get his hands on a gun to satisfy his urge? Things like this wouldn't happen if guns weren't so available? 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.
QFT. I can't believe it took three pages before someone started asking how the hell the kid got his hands on the gun in the first place? That's the real problem with the gun control issue. You have so many idiots who don't excercise *responsible* gun safety, and then blame the issue on the people who let them have a gun in the first place. If you're not responsible enough to be able to own, handle, and store a gun safely and responsibly, then you should not own one in the first place.
On March 27 2009 07:32 Person514cs wrote:
So.. If I let my 10 years old son play around with a nuclear bomb and some how he blow up a city and killed 10 million people. My son will suddenly become the most evil person ever lived?
No, but you would be the most irresponsible parent who ever lived. Would you let your 10-year-old son "play around" with a loaded gun? I certainly hope not.
|
On March 27 2009 08:56 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 08:32 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 07:52 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 06:45 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 04:12 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 03:18 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote: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 01:53 Naib wrote:On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote: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. Did you even read the article? He shot a woman while she was sleeping. Could he not have stabbed her while she was asleep? Please provide a good reason why weapons should be banned? Do you honestly think that banning guns will stop killing or keep criminals from getting them? I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. =_= i get warned because i get to agressive arguing but come on! just look at this fucking arguments for crying out, i feel like explaining the theory of relativity to down syndrome kids. I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. Thanks for the newsflash dumbfuck, so tell me, we should allow explosives to be owned by "law abiding citizens"?, should we allow them to own mortars, what about machine guns etc?... The fact that you can kill a person without a gun doesnt mean we should provide everyone with easy access to more deadly weapons. Banning weapons clearly wont totally stop crimes with guns, but it certainly make sit harder to get one if all are outlawed. Why is it so hard to understand my point? It flew right over your head right after you avoided all of my questions. Perhaps you should go get a cup of juice from your nice suburban home refrigerator, sit down, calm yourself, and try reading my posts again. juice from my nice suburban home? what in the fuck are you talking about moron, i live in a city with 4 million habitants, or we are just randomly assume stupid things? Ok, hi black haired pre-pubecent kid, son of a guy with a red old lexus who works in a cubicle 10 mins away from work.
So you choose to reply to the dumbest part of my post? Great job avoided the topic at hand, again.
edit: my hair is black
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 27 2009 07:41 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 06:52 AtlaS wrote:On March 27 2009 00:09 Disregard wrote:"An 11-year-old boy could be tried as an adult in a US court and face a mandatory life sentence if found guilty of killing his father's pregnant fiancee, local media reported.
A judge in Lawrence County, western Pennsylvania ruled that the child, Jordan Brown, would not be tried as a minor, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.
Lawyers for the boy said they would file a motion to have the case moved to juvenile court, after obtaining more forensic evidence.
The paper reported that Brown sat silently with his hands and feet shackled during his preliminary hearing, before being returned to a juvenile detention center where his attorney said he was "thriving."
He is accused of last month shooting Kenzie Houk, 26, in the back of the head while she slept, killing her and her unborn child who died of oxygen deprivation. He faces two charges of criminal homicide.
Houk was nine months pregnant and had two daughters, age seven and four, who lived in the house with her, her fiance Chris Brown and his son, Jordan.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. Relatives said the boy was jealous of Houk and her children.He is scheduled for an arraignment on May 1."Kid mustve been very depressed and lonely to brutally murder them. Where did this kid learn how to do such a thing at that age? Hes like a natural, covering up the sound of the shotgun blast with a blanket? Gotta love television. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.435ee54695f096e1c77c6fc27a19acd2.161&show_article=1 Just a random thought I just had while reading this. Why does he get 2 counts of homicide if abortion is considered legal in the states? Strange to think that an unborn baby is only considered a person if it's wanted by the mother. I'm not looking to start a giant flamewar between pro-life and pro-choice people, just looking for someone who has any idea behind the legal reasoning of this. EDIT: Bolded the wrong part Are you a moron? For 1 abortion is consented. Secondly, Most abortion is and must be done within the first trimester of pregnancy. Seriously, This is the dumbest question I've ever seen.
Really? That's the dumbest question you've ever seen? You must hang out with Mensa Members 24/7 if that's the dumbest question you've ever seen. But I highly doubt that since you're almost 25 years old and you still smoke pot (based on your post in the Mix Music thread, which I do agree that most of those songs were rubbish.)
Apparently, my question was so dumb that the United States Senate debated this issue for over 5 years before finally changing the law where a fetus is considered a victim (Before 2004, it used to be that a fetus would not be considered a person, even if the mother was murdered during the 9th month of pregnancy.) One of my poli sci friends just told me about it, it's called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by the way. I admit that I didn't know about this since I was only 14 when it was passed and I couldn't care less about government/politics at that time but it appears that you didn't know about it either since I asked for LEGAL reasoning behind this, not your opinion. Apparently, these pro-choice groups are still trying to switch it back since it's a step towards reversing Roe v. Wade. The two laws to seem to clash quite a bit in their reasoning. Anyways, when the law was up for debate in the Senate, tons of pro-choice people opposed it since it stated exactly what I just said, how can both laws exist at the same time.
I don't know how my question is retarded if so many people see my side of the argument and it was just debated in front of the Senate only 5 years ago.
|
On March 27 2009 09:06 statix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 08:56 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 08:32 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 07:52 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 06:45 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 04:12 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 03:18 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote: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 01:53 Naib wrote:On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote: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. Did you even read the article? He shot a woman while she was sleeping. Could he not have stabbed her while she was asleep? Please provide a good reason why weapons should be banned? Do you honestly think that banning guns will stop killing or keep criminals from getting them? I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. =_= i get warned because i get to agressive arguing but come on! just look at this fucking arguments for crying out, i feel like explaining the theory of relativity to down syndrome kids. I may be wrong but I think that murder existed before guns. Thanks for the newsflash dumbfuck, so tell me, we should allow explosives to be owned by "law abiding citizens"?, should we allow them to own mortars, what about machine guns etc?... The fact that you can kill a person without a gun doesnt mean we should provide everyone with easy access to more deadly weapons. Banning weapons clearly wont totally stop crimes with guns, but it certainly make sit harder to get one if all are outlawed. Why is it so hard to understand my point? It flew right over your head right after you avoided all of my questions. Perhaps you should go get a cup of juice from your nice suburban home refrigerator, sit down, calm yourself, and try reading my posts again. juice from my nice suburban home? what in the fuck are you talking about moron, i live in a city with 4 million habitants, or we are just randomly assume stupid things? Ok, hi black haired pre-pubecent kid, son of a guy with a red old lexus who works in a cubicle 10 mins away from work. So you choose to reply to the dumbest part of my post? Great job avoided the topic at hand, again. edit: my hair is black
He has 10,000 posts. He probably knows it will end up nowhere and is taking the opportunity to flame you.
I love TL discussions lol
|
On March 27 2009 08:53 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 08:45 KissBlade wrote:
I highly highly doubt gun control has anything to do with how the kid obtained the gun in the first place. No matter how lenient or strict the laws may be, there is no way an eleven year old can obtain a gun legally in the US so even bringing up those points are moot in this thread. Attempting to drag the topic back on point, I honestly think he deserves the life sentence. Being treated as an adult or not, he's still a murderer. are you serious?.... the kid got his hand on a LEGAL weapon, owned by the retarded parents, as pointed before, guns for "home protection" actually kill more times one of their owners than attackers
*sighs* I think you're trying to create argument for the sake of arguing at this point. I said, there is no way an ELEVEN YEAR OLD CAN OBTAIN A GUN LEGALLY. Getting the weapon from retarded parents DOESN'T make it legal.
|
On March 27 2009 09:16 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 08:53 baal wrote:On March 27 2009 08:45 KissBlade wrote:
I highly highly doubt gun control has anything to do with how the kid obtained the gun in the first place. No matter how lenient or strict the laws may be, there is no way an eleven year old can obtain a gun legally in the US so even bringing up those points are moot in this thread. Attempting to drag the topic back on point, I honestly think he deserves the life sentence. Being treated as an adult or not, he's still a murderer. are you serious?.... the kid got his hand on a LEGAL weapon, owned by the retarded parents, as pointed before, guns for "home protection" actually kill more times one of their owners than attackers *sighs* I think you're trying to create argument for the sake of arguing at this point. I said, there is no way an ELEVEN YEAR OLD CAN OBTAIN A GUN LEGALLY. Getting the weapon from retarded parents DOESN'T make it legal.
Obviously an 11 year old can't, but I think he's probably not being that retarded and referring to how his parents can legally buy it which makes it much more open for abuse (ie, the legal framework promotes the possibility of gun use by minors as opposed to outlawing guns completely). I think the argument is wrong on many levels, but I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting it.
|
That's so sad. I dont think the kid deserves life prision or death penalty. He's obviously mentally ill. Have some faith in humanity please.
Doesnt mean he doesnt deserves to be fucking punished badly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
