"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.
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?
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?
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?
Hoping this gets closed before it becomes 14 pages of idiotic back and forth of "lol america sux" "LOL U SUX" from a bunch of inept nerds who don't know what they are talking about.
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 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.
yes, you've obviously been in every american household and know that they all have guns.
On March 27 2009 00:35 Blunderbore wrote: that's why starcraft > counterstrike. Cs forces kids to kill people, while starcraft encourages to fund supply depots to feed the hungry!
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.
Yeah kinda where i wanted to get at just more well put
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.
yes, you've obviously been in every american household and know that they all have guns.
exactly, I haven't. /sarcasm. If you took the time to read my post I said "every other US family" and the line "I'll return my gun, if everyone else return their guns" is just an expression of the underlying philosophy. By saying that I'm not actually stating what amount of people actually have guns, but rather describing the basic thought behind why it's hard to give up your weapon if other people get to keep theirs. I probably wouldn't either. In some way, that'd be like Al Gore making everyone get rid of their fuel-driven cars for the sake of the environment - only half the people would get to keep theirs due to various priviledges or whatever.
It's just basic "I'm not letting go, unless everyone is".
Finally, I did end my post by saying that I'd like US citizens to debate this who actually know what they're talking about. I'm merely speculating because - as you so elegantly pointed out - I don't actually know squat, since I've never lived in the US.
a) this had very little to do with guns. The kid could easily have used a knife, it's not likely counterstrike doesn't have knives b) kid was mentally ill. Shouldn't get life though, should get committed/juvie. c) Natural Selection ftw d) STFU I DONT WANNA HEAR THE GUNNAZ MASTERDEBATERS
On March 27 2009 00:46 Caller wrote: a) this had very little to do with guns. The kid could easily have used a knife, it's not likely counterstrike doesn't have knives d) STFU I DONT WANNA HEAR THE GUNNAZ MASTERDEBATERS
A) I know, I merely came to think about the american gunlaws, and felt like discussing them. Or more precisely; listening to other people discuss them.
D) Sorry man, but you don't have to be in this thread
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.
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.
what inside information hicks like shooting shit cuz it makes them feel manly to kill deer politicians like hicks voting for them that pretty much covers it
I'll ask an honest question to our German residents: what would have happened to that kid that murdered several people at school recently had he been caught and charged prior to committing suicide? Please don't answer unless you have an honest idea of the legal precedents for heinous juvenile crimes in the country; I'm actually curious.
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.
what inside information hicks like shooting shit cuz it makes them feel manly to kill deer politicians like hicks voting for them that pretty much covers it
although that's such a shallow response, I see what you're getting at, and it actually holds merit. And what I mean by "inside information" is basically the opinions of people who're actually forced (yeah, I'm using the word forced) to live with these laws. Not "inside information" as in the people who actually use guns to shoot other people -.-
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.
he should get life. we dont want no crazy ass who has the ability to calmly murder his father's fiance who is 9 month preggers to be let loose in society. fuck, slap on two life sentences on him, this was first degree murder.
but on a side note, i think the bigger issue with all these kids going crazy with violence is parenting. we in america have become horrible parents, not setting examples, not being around. instead we park our kids infront of a game or tv, that is where most of their time is spent, not actually interacting with people in the important developmental stages of their lives.
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.
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.
The creepy part is that he made an effort not to get discovered by trying to silence the noise from the gun. Gotta keep them 11 year olds away from watching CSI.
On March 27 2009 00:22 unkkz wrote: Taking guns away from the public just limits their ability to defend themselves.
I haven't seen any evidence of this argument although I've heard it many times. Could someone link me to some studies that say personal possession of a firearm reduces crime in the US? I know it's usually hard to prove something along the lines of "my gun was a deterrent that stopped the robbery/murder" because many aren't published.
In my opinion, owning a firearm wouldn't help defend yourself. I wouldn't pull out my gun to "defend myself" if someone else pulled on a gun on me. What am I going to do, shoot him? Even if I had the mental willpower to do it, and shoot him before he shoots me, I would be fucked up for life. I believe I'd have a better chance of surviving if I use words instead and let him have my possessions.
Judging by posts from Europeans in this thread, I don't think they understand that the main reason there aren't gun laws in the US is that it's their constitutional right. That's never going to change regardless of the studies done.
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.
On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote: What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this?
The thing is you hear about things like this happening every other month in USA, and almost never in any other countries. I'm not trying to flame, this is just how it is.
Weapons are easier to get in USA for example, that's just something to blame of course but it is something to have in mind.
for the absolute morons out there, learn one thing: RESPONSIBILITY, we have our freedoms(although dwindling) and they come at just one cost which is, of course, responsibility. I have guns and have never killed anyone or anything. I don't expect nor want the government to do anything for me, this is the consequence of their actions and a little bit of the child being raised wrong. By the way don't pretend for even a second its easy for an 11 year old to hold a shotgun, that trigger might be fairly easy to pull, but holding the gun is not. Irresponsible family, but as a result this child made too much of a wrong. One that has no reason to be forgiven.
wow this kid really reminds me of the antagonist Johan Liebert in Monsnster (anime). (HIGHLY recommend anyone to watch, deals with humanity and evil, staged in post WWII Germany.
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.
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?
its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns.
Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it.
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.
what inside information hicks like shooting shit cuz it makes them feel manly to kill deer politicians like hicks voting for them that pretty much covers it
I usually agree with you, but people have guns for home protection above all other things. Lets put it this way. Would America be a safer place without guns? Obviously. Am I still going to have a gun in my house to protect my family? Obviously.
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.
[B] I usually agree with you, but people have guns for home protection above all other things. Lets put it this way. Would America be a safer place without guns? Obviously. Am I still going to have a gun in my house to protect my family? Obviously.
ROFL... Yeah, go gangsta style, kill em all... ROFL
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?
its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns.
Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it.
Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die?
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?
its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns.
Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it.
Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die?
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?
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.
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 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?
its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns.
Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it.
Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die?
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?
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 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.
You realize an 11yo cant kill both of their parents with a fucking hammer right? dumbass
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.
1, we cant say if he would have killed her if he didnt have access to a gun.
2, I dont think it takes someone at 11 to be mentally unstable. An 11 year old prolly doesn't even know what murder means, how can you expect him to completely understand what he is doing? To lock this kid up for life would be nothing but a waste of taxpayer money, an increase on an already overflowing criminal justice system, not to mention throwing away a life.
I think minors being sentenced as adults is absurd. Thanks to Measure 11 that was passed in Oregon not too long ago, my 15 year old brother was recently sentenced to 8 years in jail. I understand the whole 'tough on crime' stance, but sending a 15 year old to jail for that long for robbery is unthinkable. He is not a danger to society in any way. He is an idiot kid from a bad neighborhood who started hanging out with the wrong people and helped break into some guys house because of peer pressure.
In rare instances is this a good thing for society in any way, and more often than not it traps kids into a life of crime or mediocrity.
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.
Yup, I've read studies like this too. In Sweden no one has guns, does many people get killed by criminals? Not really.
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.
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.
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 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?
its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns.
Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it.
Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die?
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?
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.
a) Tokyo, Akihambra. Very crowded. b) Crowded as hell street, if you're crazy you'll do all sorts of irrational things. You're looking at committing an irrational crime from a rational point of view, which is flawed. c) Crazy people will do crazy things, you can't buy an M16 anyways, nobody said anything about assault weapons. d) False metaphor and extenuation of circumstances. It is of course much much much much harder to obtain nuclear weapons than it is to own a car that is capable of running over hundreds of people. More importantly, I never said anything about what kind of guns are acceptable, just that the principle that we should ban ALL guns to "protect" people is flawed.
Really, to be honest I just blame the whole thing on the readily availability of pornography on the internet. Every 11 year old has watched it before - greater censorship is required.
What really needs to happen is for the drinking age to remain at 18, otherwise the boy would have done a lot worse.
I'd also be interested to know whether or not the child was black, because no matter how PC you want to get the facts state that the majority of those who are crims in the US justice system are of negrotic skin colour.
What the kid did really deserves the death penalty.
If we allowed stem cell research then maybe there would be a cure for bringing the mother back to life, as well as her fetus.
It's because people downloaded illegal music that this boy listened to gansta rap which encourages disregard for wife beating.
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.
It is true that this kid could have just as easily stabbed her instead of shooting so talking about guns in this case really doesn't make sense.
Still you have to look at it from the perspective that the more guns that are made, the more chances that they will fall in malicious hands. What is the purpose of a gun? Basically, to kill. In a capitalistic sense there is a very high demand for death and ways of dealing it out. Every gun out there legal or not can easily be used to kill people in a far easier method than using a knife. Getting rid of guns wouldn't stop cases like this, but they would stop mass shootings (of course you hear from time to time about some whackjob running around cutting people with a sword).
How many guns you think there are currently in the world? How many illegal weapons were made in the United States? Illegal weapons just don't magically appear on the street, they have to be manufactured somewhere. And those goods have to be shipped somewhere. And then sold to retailers, the military, narco-terrorists, street thugs, etc. I supposed with a decent facility guns can be manufactured anywhere in the world by anyone, but they wouldn't be the best guns. Also, part of the reason there are so many guns out there is that the guns makers(around the world, not just our own) pretty much will deliberately get their weapons in hot zones in order to test and get a rep and hopefully make money, not caring all that much who ends up using the guns.
I'm not saying that all guns should be a illegal, just that there should be limits and supervisions imposed. Of course there are all kinds of regulations, but most of those are probably gone or weakened after the deregulation era of the past 20 years or so. I really do not think everything is kosher in the gun industry and that it should really be looked into.
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.
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.
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.
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 the big difference here is where you're from, which is why so many Swedes are sceptical about gun-ownership. I mean the argument that you need a gun to defend your home against "bad guys" is completely invalid in Sweden because that never happens. I doubt that more than a few individuals in Sweden will ever find themselves in a situation where they would need a gun, let alone a situation where they would need to use it, because our criminal climate is not nearly as harsh. Of course robberies/murders/etc occurs but not even close to American levels, and I think this is true in most nordic countries (but not all of Europe).
I still think guns should be banned in every country of the world but I guess someone who has grown up in a though neighborhood in some American city could make a pretty good point against it, based on their personal experience.
On March 27 2009 03:48 Dave[9] wrote: Sorry to let you guys know but it's, ya know, kind of in our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment.
I thought that amendment was about having guns to defend yourself against the federal government/external forces or whatever? I remember reading something about militias defending the freedom of the state or something.
On March 27 2009 04:37 Makhno wrote: I thought that amendment was about having guns to defend yourself against the federal government/external forces or whatever? I remember reading something about militias defending the freedom of the state or something.
I think it was originally put in there so that every citizen could be armed in case of a British invasion for the period after the war of independence. It was just kinda left in there even when it was no longer required.
you guys from sweden and stuff, you realize the american media thrives on fear. reporters love to cover these stories so that is why you always hear it in the u.s. not to mention its a bigger country. freak stuff like this happens everywhere its just u hear about it the most in u.s. due to media
Children murdering people does not occur often, it is a very very rare occurrence, I'm fairly certain it's less than twenty a year. The justice system has a problem dealing with this because it happens so little. As a crj student and studying juvenile justice this is a good article from someone who knows what they are talking about 11 yr old life sentence
Secondly growing up around a bunch of hicks in a small town most aren't mindless rednecks who love just to shoot shit with a gun (however shooting stuff like cans is pretty fun). Most I know hunt for fun and it's how they grew up and eat a lot of deer meat in season, or during dove season eat that as well fairly often. Other uses for guns besides that around here are for killing rattlesnakes and other things of that nature. Being pretty liberal but growing up in a small town I just don't see shooting deer or hunting as something done just to feel manly, people may have that perspective of it but I would say most actually doing it do not share those sentiments. It's just like going fishing or bow hunting to me. Also to point out, kind of an example of the culture in my home town and surrounding areas kids get their pictures in the local paper when they shoot their first buck (with it), pretty funny actually, though I can see people from other places being grossed out lol.
On March 27 2009 03:48 Dave[9] wrote: Sorry to let you guys know but it's, ya know, kind of in our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment.
I thought that amendment was about having guns to defend yourself against the federal government/external forces or whatever? I remember reading something about militias defending the freedom of the state or something.
The second amendment guarantees the "right to bear arms", but it's unclear what that means (for example, how wide is the definition of 'arms': pocketknives or guns? Automatics? Bombs?). The second amendment is the subject of endless debate...its implications for gun control are not cut and dry.
All I have to say about this sad story is: what the hell did this kid's parents do to him? I can only imagine what kind of a dad his father is...I mean jesus. Take care of your children, people!!
the nice thing about savio is that he gets the crazy out right at the beginning so i'm never tricked into reading the rest of the novel he writes
lol, i was reading also just this first few words and then thought:
"uhhh, religious moron" and skipped it..
and yes: The sad things about this story are
1: What made this kid do this? 2: Why would you put an 11 year old to a life sentence? This kid obviously needs therapie. 3: Why can he just grab fucking pump gun?
On March 27 2009 03:48 Dave[9] wrote: Sorry to let you guys know but it's, ya know, kind of in our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment.
I thought that amendment was about having guns to defend yourself against the federal government/external forces or whatever? I remember reading something about militias defending the freedom of the state or something.
The second amendment guarantees the "right to bear arms", but it's unclear what that means (for example, how wide is the definition of 'arms': pocketknives or guns? Automatics? Bombs?). The second amendment is the subject of endless debate...its implications for gun control are not cut and dry.
All I have to say about this sad story is: what the hell did this kid's parents do to him? I can only imagine what kind of a dad his father is...I mean jesus. Take care of your children, people!!
Yeah, I read a bit about on Wikipedia and it seems to have a number of causes. It's probably about defending your state against invaders though, because the way the second amendment is written and the fact that it seems to stem from earlier laws, probably English. What's strange is that in Britain the laws contained some sentences refering to personal defence but in America that seems to have been taken up on state level (in the different state constitutions), but only in about 2/3 states that allow guns. Wow reading about this really gives you an insight on how old these laws actually are, I mean the background of the second amendment stretches back to 13-century Britain. It does'nt really have an impact on this debate but it's a really fascinating piece of history.
And you're totally right, wtf has the parents been up to?
can any idiot who says all the time that the boy could've just grabbed a knife and stabbed her to death link me to such happenings? strangly i dont remember even 1 happening of a kid murdering someone with a knife. what the fuck you think? it is easy to kill someone with a knife? it takes fucking much, we arent as easy to kill.
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"
Yeah man, that's fucking hilarious...
Anyway, I don't think I've read so much stupidity on a single TL thread ever. Starting with the first reply, and then just about every other reply following. You can definitely tell who is and who isn't mature just by reading the posts.
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.
On March 27 2009 05:05 Makhno wrote: What's strange is that in Britain the laws contained some sentences refering to personal defence but in America that seems to have been taken up on state level (in the different state constitutions), but only in about 2/3 states that allow guns.
What is the purpose of those three words? All states "allow" guns because they must according to the 14th amendment.
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
Other than that fact that if shotguns were illegal the father probably wouldn't have owned one. Of course now you could argue he would've then taken a kitchen knife.
But: "Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%."
Surely there are more "sharp instruments" in the states than firearms. Some psychologists argue that it's "harder" (for your conscience) to stab someone to death than to shoot them, because it's more personal. (Apparently it's even harder to bludgeon someone to death.)
But access to a firearm was unlikely to have been the only cause for the death. It's not like he was playing and it was an accident, sadly.
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.
Ding ding ding. The "defend yourself" argument is so tired.
And no, criminals don't come into your house very often in the USA either.
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 the big difference here is where you're from, which is why so many Swedes are sceptical about gun-ownership. I mean the argument that you need a gun to defend your home against "bad guys" is completely invalid in Sweden because that never happens. I doubt that more than a few individuals in Sweden will ever find themselves in a situation where they would need a gun, let alone a situation where they would need to use it, because our criminal climate is not nearly as harsh. Of course robberies/murders/etc occurs but not even close to American levels, and I think this is true in most nordic countries (but not all of Europe).
I still think guns should be banned in every country of the world but I guess someone who has grown up in a though neighborhood in some American city could make a pretty good point against it, based on their personal experience.
On March 27 2009 03:48 Dave[9] wrote: Sorry to let you guys know but it's, ya know, kind of in our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment.
I thought that amendment was about having guns to defend yourself against the federal government/external forces or whatever? I remember reading something about militias defending the freedom of the state or something.
Ehh to be honest if i remember correctly the 2nd amendment was put there in order for the civilians to be prepared for a possible invasion from the british, or whever the enemy might be. It was put there so that every civilian had the right to defend themselves, and their homeland. While people tend to buy them for other purposes, the amendments purpose is, yes, mainly in purpose to defend themselves.
I would say most of the people on a website devoted to a video game are decidedly middle class. Outlawing guns would have little impact on middle class society except for aggravating gun freaks and hunters, etc, who see guns more as "man-toys" and trophies than anything else.
However, for the lower class in the inner city, guns mean something completely different. If you were surrounded by gangs, drugs, and violence on pretty much a daily basis, and never knew when someone might try to rob you, or try to break into your house, etc., you would probably buy a gun and think more seriously of its protective power over your home and your family.
Now I am myself quite middle-class, and can probably never understand the pressures and difficulties of life in the ghetto, but as the gangs will always have the guns, I would feel morally reprehensible about taking away guns from the ones who simply want to sleep a little safer at night.
So many gun-phobics and eugenicists in this site it's not even funny... damn. Guns are tools that can be used for good or evil. Those using it for evil care not for its imminent laws. Gun laws are meant to disarm the good willing people. Check out the history behind the 2nd amendment. It's there for a reason, to defend the people from tyranny.
A world without any guns whatsoever would be great. But it just can't be so. Disarming law-abiding citizens would just make things worse, much worse! Those that retain guns can do whatever they want. Common criminals, and criminal authorities alike!
I have no idea how to silence a shotgun in particular, this is very thought through cold hearted murder, it's legal to give him life sentence if he's not a psycho and is accountable same as mature person.
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.
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.
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.
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 think that it is mostly the "I want to get a gun to protect myself" attitude which causes most of this in the US, a person with a hunting rifle will never have his gun loaded, will lock it in tightly and keep it a long distance from the ammunition while if you want to defend yourself you need to have it ready in seconds.
The reason so many criminals got guns in the US is due to the history of lax gun regulations, if you can't take the gun from your dad, buy it in a shop and remove the register number or just buy it from a criminal who got it in the before mentioned ways then you got to smuggle it into the country which is a ton harder than smuggling drugs. Also notice that pistols which are the best suited for crimes are inferior to rifles in every other regard which means that allowing pistols is just stupid.
What I am saying is not that the US would be better off now with banning guns, what I am saying is that they would have been better off if they banned guns a hundred years ago since then guns would be as rare there as they are in western Europe today, even among criminals.
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.
1, we cant say if he would have killed her if he didnt have access to a gun.
2, I dont think it takes someone at 11 to be mentally unstable. An 11 year old prolly doesn't even know what murder means, how can you expect him to completely understand what he is doing? To lock this kid up for life would be nothing but a waste of taxpayer money, an increase on an already overflowing criminal justice system, not to mention throwing away a life.
I think minors being sentenced as adults is absurd. Thanks to Measure 11 that was passed in Oregon not too long ago, my 15 year old brother was recently sentenced to 8 years in jail. I understand the whole 'tough on crime' stance, but sending a 15 year old to jail for that long for robbery is unthinkable. He is not a danger to society in any way. He is an idiot kid from a bad neighborhood who started hanging out with the wrong people and helped break into some guys house because of peer pressure.
In rare instances is this a good thing for society in any way, and more often than not it traps kids into a life of crime or mediocrity.
I agree. People should get punished according to their maturity. It's kind of crazy to divide people to just two groups: adult and kids. I think the strength of the punishment should be proportional to their ago thought out a person's life.
11 years old kids do not even have their brain fully developed. Their decision making process is still maturing.
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?
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?
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?
If some were still alive from the blast they would probably tell him that he is the most evil person ever.
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?
If some were still alive from the blast they would probably tell him that he is the most evil person ever.
So. I am still a good person right? It's all ''my son's fault.
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.
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.
On March 27 2009 00:35 Blunderbore wrote: that's why starcraft > counterstrike. Cs forces kids to kill people, while starcraft encourages to fund supply depots to feed the hungry!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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?
im pretty sure at 11 years old you can understand that shooting someone in the head = bad
On March 27 2009 09:24 Night[Mare wrote: 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.
Why isn't this said about ALL murderers? What about serial killers? are they not mentally ill?
How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....????????????????????????????????????????????????????
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.
Ok so first you say I'm an idiot if I think that an 11 year old has the same decision making ability as a 20 year old, then you go onto say actually they probably do. By your own logic you are actually probably an idiot.
Secondly, indeed their is a reason why you can't drink some at a certain age. I'm not refuting that. The point is that it's fucking dumb that on the night before my 18th birthday its ILLEGAL for me to smoke, anyone caught selling me can get £5000 fine, maybe lose their job and possibly jail time or community service, but the next day its totally legit? Like what the fuck happened overnight that SUDDENLY makes me mature enough to smoke and drink and have sex? "because you are NOT an adult and you cannot be treated like one" NO SON, YOUR 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS OLD. YOU ARE NOT AN ADULT AND CANNOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. GOOD MORNING SON. IT'S YOUR 18TH BIRTHDAY. YOU ARE NOW AN ADULT!! Shit, wtf? Yesterday I wasn't an adult, and now I am! I don't feel any different... hmm... Do I need to continue with pointing out how fucking retarded that is?
Silly thing here is in my country you can get married at 16. You can't drink champagne on your wedding night and you can't smoke a cigar. So you can make a decision, getting married, which is supposed to change the rest of your life, but you're not mature enough to smoke and drink? That's stupid. So take murder. What age you gonna set ? 18 ? You telling me people can kill whoever they want as long as they are 17 or younger? Bullshit. Ok. 16. So a 15 year old can commit murder and get away with it... bullshit. Ok. 14. So a 13 year old can get away with it...... Do I need to continue? What age is murder acceptable? NO age I say. Murder is not acceptable and most kids learn that before they've even reached primary school. This kid was old enough to be finishing primary if not starting high school... isn't that long enough to learn kids.... killing is bad m'kay?
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
What I really want to get at is what I put earlier in this post... How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....? But in answer to this... where do you draw the line that the slippery slide stems from? I mean really 10-14? Why did you give this age range.. what about kids 1-9 ? Is that SO OBVIOUS that it's not included, but ages 10-14 need covering by some law because there it becomes questionable? Say you drew the line at 14 then. Cases judged on merit. Well he is three years short of the line..but he blew her head off with a shotgun for christ's sake....killing her unborn child in the process. That's unforgivable. I think that's "merit" enough to be put in jail for life, and to be counting yourself lucky that you are allowed to live. You sure as hell didn't grant her and the unborn baby that same mercy, whatever it is they did to you, if anything. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't killing you, because you're still alive and murdering people.
On March 27 2009 09:24 Night[Mare wrote: 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.
Why isn't this said about ALL murderers? What about serial killers? are they not mentally ill?
How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....????????????????????????????????????????????????????
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.
Ok so first you say I'm an idiot if I think that an 11 year old has the same decision making ability as a 20 year old, then you go onto say actually they probably do. By your own logic you are actually probably an idiot.
Secondly, indeed their is a reason why you can't drink some at a certain age. I'm not refuting that. The point is that it's fucking dumb that on the night before my 18th birthday its ILLEGAL for me to smoke, anyone caught selling me can get £5000 fine, maybe lose their job and possibly jail time or community service, but the next day its totally legit? Like what the fuck happened overnight that SUDDENLY makes me mature enough to smoke and drink and have sex? "because you are NOT an adult and you cannot be treated like one" NO SON, YOUR 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS OLD. YOU ARE NOT AN ADULT AND CANNOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. GOOD MORNING SON. IT'S YOUR 18TH BIRTHDAY. YOU ARE NOW AN ADULT!! Shit, wtf? Yesterday I wasn't an adult, and now I am! I don't feel any different... hmm... Do I need to continue with pointing out how fucking retarded that is?
Silly thing here is in my country you can get married at 16. You can't drink champagne on your wedding night and you can't smoke a cigar. So you can make a decision, getting married, which is supposed to change the rest of your life, but you're not mature enough to smoke and drink? That's stupid. So take murder. What age you gonna set ? 18 ? You telling me people can kill whoever they want as long as they are 17 or younger? Bullshit. Ok. 16. So a 15 year old can commit murder and get away with it... bullshit. Ok. 14. So a 13 year old can get away with it...... Do I need to continue? What age is murder acceptable? NO age I say. Murder is not acceptable and most kids learn that before they've even reached primary school. This kid was old enough to be finishing primary if not starting high school... isn't that long enough to learn kids.... killing is bad m'kay?
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
What I really want to get at is what I put earlier in this post... How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....? But in answer to this... where do you draw the line that the slippery slide stems from? I mean really 10-14? Why did you give this age range.. what about kids 1-9 ? Is that SO OBVIOUS that it's not included, but ages 10-14 need covering by some law because there it becomes questionable? Say you drew the line at 14 then. Cases judged on merit. Well he is three years short of the line..but he blew her head off with a shotgun for christ's sake....killing her unborn child in the process. That's unforgivable. I think that's "merit" enough to be put in jail for life, and to be counting yourself lucky that you are allowed to live. You sure as hell didn't grant her and the unborn baby that same mercy, whatever it is they did to you, if anything. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't killing you, because you're still alive and murdering people.
So, If my 2 years old son was playing with my nuclear bomb and blow up a whole city and kill god knows how many then my 2 year old will get a life in prison?
sad like all murder case, im willing to bet that this kid had a fucked up childhood in some way. trying him as an adult seems wrong given his young age, juvenile prison wont help him much either though so he is pretty much a lost case anyway you look at it.
regarding the gun laws in US its pretty simple to me. people in general are dumb. having access to lots of guns for stupid people is bad. more restrictions on the right to arm yourself = less guns for dumb people.
On March 27 2009 09:24 Night[Mare wrote: 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.
Why isn't this said about ALL murderers? What about serial killers? are they not mentally ill?
How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....????????????????????????????????????????????????????
On March 27 2009 07:55 baal wrote:
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.
Ok so first you say I'm an idiot if I think that an 11 year old has the same decision making ability as a 20 year old, then you go onto say actually they probably do. By your own logic you are actually probably an idiot.
Secondly, indeed their is a reason why you can't drink some at a certain age. I'm not refuting that. The point is that it's fucking dumb that on the night before my 18th birthday its ILLEGAL for me to smoke, anyone caught selling me can get £5000 fine, maybe lose their job and possibly jail time or community service, but the next day its totally legit? Like what the fuck happened overnight that SUDDENLY makes me mature enough to smoke and drink and have sex? "because you are NOT an adult and you cannot be treated like one" NO SON, YOUR 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS OLD. YOU ARE NOT AN ADULT AND CANNOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. GOOD MORNING SON. IT'S YOUR 18TH BIRTHDAY. YOU ARE NOW AN ADULT!! Shit, wtf? Yesterday I wasn't an adult, and now I am! I don't feel any different... hmm... Do I need to continue with pointing out how fucking retarded that is?
Silly thing here is in my country you can get married at 16. You can't drink champagne on your wedding night and you can't smoke a cigar. So you can make a decision, getting married, which is supposed to change the rest of your life, but you're not mature enough to smoke and drink? That's stupid. So take murder. What age you gonna set ? 18 ? You telling me people can kill whoever they want as long as they are 17 or younger? Bullshit. Ok. 16. So a 15 year old can commit murder and get away with it... bullshit. Ok. 14. So a 13 year old can get away with it...... Do I need to continue? What age is murder acceptable? NO age I say. Murder is not acceptable and most kids learn that before they've even reached primary school. This kid was old enough to be finishing primary if not starting high school... isn't that long enough to learn kids.... killing is bad m'kay?
On March 27 2009 08:04 sigma_x wrote:
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
What I really want to get at is what I put earlier in this post... How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....? But in answer to this... where do you draw the line that the slippery slide stems from? I mean really 10-14? Why did you give this age range.. what about kids 1-9 ? Is that SO OBVIOUS that it's not included, but ages 10-14 need covering by some law because there it becomes questionable? Say you drew the line at 14 then. Cases judged on merit. Well he is three years short of the line..but he blew her head off with a shotgun for christ's sake....killing her unborn child in the process. That's unforgivable. I think that's "merit" enough to be put in jail for life, and to be counting yourself lucky that you are allowed to live. You sure as hell didn't grant her and the unborn baby that same mercy, whatever it is they did to you, if anything. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't killing you, because you're still alive and murdering people.
So, If my 2 years old son was playing with my nuclear bomb and blow up a whole city and kill god knows how many then my 2 year old will get a life in prison?
Your post is full of idioticness to the fullest (watever the fuck that means)
Replying to someone in page #2 that said that the kid could have used a knife instead of a gun (related to the gunlawz etc)
I can tell you this and I am pretty sure a lot of people would agree (people that have shot a gun) that it is a lot easier to pull a trigger than to stab someone to death and I dont think I have to go into details why... you could picture it yourself...
and U.S laws are pretty retarded to some extend.. with the whole 18 (adult enough to have a gun, go to war, be treated as an adult etc but cant smoke a cig or drink?)
this kid ill or not should get punished to the fullest of the law because murder isnt OK at any age
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.
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.
Dude Abortion has nothing to fucking do with murder. That's why this is retarded. You're talking about a whole different topic.
Even if we were arguing what you are talking about it's still not 'just abortion' because the woman did not want to have the fetus/baby/cell whatever aborted. If you were gonna argue this it will still at least be something (and I'm gonna make up some shit right now) Forced abortion or some other unholy act.
And No I don't do any drugs besides drinking alchol every other weekend. If you read the 'High Thread', I recently took a few tokes after like a year of not ever taking a hit and even before that I haven't smoked regularly since in my early teens like I said in that post.
What are you trying to do anyways? Did you really just attack my musical tastes in an murder topic?
? Musical tastes? I said I agreed with you on the fact that those mashups were junk. That's neither here nor there. Clearly you're a well spoken and intelligent person so I take back the pot comment. It seems like my original question was oddly worded and that's why you understood it the way you did. I wasn't trying to compare murder with abortion and I'm guessing that's why you were taken aback by it.
As someone whose family bought a gun (an SKS carbine) after a robbery, I think guns are a natural way of defending yourself. There's nothing wrong with having the capability or the technology; it's the intent that's the issue here. If the government went and outlawed weapons, then it's quite natural that only people who don't obey the law in the first place will have guns.
I for one, have a Mossberg pump at home, and while I hope I never have to use it, it makes me sleep more soundly at night knowing that it's only 2 feet away under my bed and I can fuck up anyone who tries to rob me.
On March 27 2009 00:35 Blunderbore wrote: that's why starcraft > counterstrike. Cs forces kids to kill people, while starcraft encourages to fund supply depots to feed the hungry!
On March 27 2009 09:24 Night[Mare wrote: 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.
Why isn't this said about ALL murderers? What about serial killers? are they not mentally ill?
How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....????????????????????????????????????????????????????
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.
Ok so first you say I'm an idiot if I think that an 11 year old has the same decision making ability as a 20 year old, then you go onto say actually they probably do. By your own logic you are actually probably an idiot.
Secondly, indeed their is a reason why you can't drink some at a certain age. I'm not refuting that. The point is that it's fucking dumb that on the night before my 18th birthday its ILLEGAL for me to smoke, anyone caught selling me can get £5000 fine, maybe lose their job and possibly jail time or community service, but the next day its totally legit? Like what the fuck happened overnight that SUDDENLY makes me mature enough to smoke and drink and have sex? "because you are NOT an adult and you cannot be treated like one" NO SON, YOUR 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS OLD. YOU ARE NOT AN ADULT AND CANNOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. GOOD MORNING SON. IT'S YOUR 18TH BIRTHDAY. YOU ARE NOW AN ADULT!! Shit, wtf? Yesterday I wasn't an adult, and now I am! I don't feel any different... hmm... Do I need to continue with pointing out how fucking retarded that is?
Silly thing here is in my country you can get married at 16. You can't drink champagne on your wedding night and you can't smoke a cigar. So you can make a decision, getting married, which is supposed to change the rest of your life, but you're not mature enough to smoke and drink? That's stupid. So take murder. What age you gonna set ? 18 ? You telling me people can kill whoever they want as long as they are 17 or younger? Bullshit. Ok. 16. So a 15 year old can commit murder and get away with it... bullshit. Ok. 14. So a 13 year old can get away with it...... Do I need to continue? What age is murder acceptable? NO age I say. Murder is not acceptable and most kids learn that before they've even reached primary school. This kid was old enough to be finishing primary if not starting high school... isn't that long enough to learn kids.... killing is bad m'kay?
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
What I really want to get at is what I put earlier in this post... How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....? But in answer to this... where do you draw the line that the slippery slide stems from? I mean really 10-14? Why did you give this age range.. what about kids 1-9 ? Is that SO OBVIOUS that it's not included, but ages 10-14 need covering by some law because there it becomes questionable? Say you drew the line at 14 then. Cases judged on merit. Well he is three years short of the line..but he blew her head off with a shotgun for christ's sake....killing her unborn child in the process. That's unforgivable. I think that's "merit" enough to be put in jail for life, and to be counting yourself lucky that you are allowed to live. You sure as hell didn't grant her and the unborn baby that same mercy, whatever it is they did to you, if anything. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't killing you, because you're still alive and murdering people.
Those ages are just to draw lines for legal reasons. OBVIOUSLY nobody changes just like that overnight, but you have to draw the line somewhere. there are some people who are more mature at age 15 than others at age 20. those numbers are pretty ridiculous and dont have real meaning but they are just there so the judges and lawyers can use them for argument
On March 27 2009 09:24 Night[Mare wrote: 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.
Why isn't this said about ALL murderers? What about serial killers? are they not mentally ill?
How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....????????????????????????????????????????????????????
On March 27 2009 07:55 baal wrote:
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.
Ok so first you say I'm an idiot if I think that an 11 year old has the same decision making ability as a 20 year old, then you go onto say actually they probably do. By your own logic you are actually probably an idiot.
Secondly, indeed their is a reason why you can't drink some at a certain age. I'm not refuting that. The point is that it's fucking dumb that on the night before my 18th birthday its ILLEGAL for me to smoke, anyone caught selling me can get £5000 fine, maybe lose their job and possibly jail time or community service, but the next day its totally legit? Like what the fuck happened overnight that SUDDENLY makes me mature enough to smoke and drink and have sex? "because you are NOT an adult and you cannot be treated like one" NO SON, YOUR 17 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 30 DAYS OLD. YOU ARE NOT AN ADULT AND CANNOT BE TREATED LIKE ONE. GOOD MORNING SON. IT'S YOUR 18TH BIRTHDAY. YOU ARE NOW AN ADULT!! Shit, wtf? Yesterday I wasn't an adult, and now I am! I don't feel any different... hmm... Do I need to continue with pointing out how fucking retarded that is?
Silly thing here is in my country you can get married at 16. You can't drink champagne on your wedding night and you can't smoke a cigar. So you can make a decision, getting married, which is supposed to change the rest of your life, but you're not mature enough to smoke and drink? That's stupid. So take murder. What age you gonna set ? 18 ? You telling me people can kill whoever they want as long as they are 17 or younger? Bullshit. Ok. 16. So a 15 year old can commit murder and get away with it... bullshit. Ok. 14. So a 13 year old can get away with it...... Do I need to continue? What age is murder acceptable? NO age I say. Murder is not acceptable and most kids learn that before they've even reached primary school. This kid was old enough to be finishing primary if not starting high school... isn't that long enough to learn kids.... killing is bad m'kay?
On March 27 2009 08:04 sigma_x wrote:
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
What I really want to get at is what I put earlier in this post... How do you distinguish between who is mentally ill and needs help and who is mentally ill and should go to jail....? But in answer to this... where do you draw the line that the slippery slide stems from? I mean really 10-14? Why did you give this age range.. what about kids 1-9 ? Is that SO OBVIOUS that it's not included, but ages 10-14 need covering by some law because there it becomes questionable? Say you drew the line at 14 then. Cases judged on merit. Well he is three years short of the line..but he blew her head off with a shotgun for christ's sake....killing her unborn child in the process. That's unforgivable. I think that's "merit" enough to be put in jail for life, and to be counting yourself lucky that you are allowed to live. You sure as hell didn't grant her and the unborn baby that same mercy, whatever it is they did to you, if anything. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't killing you, because you're still alive and murdering people.
Those ages are just to draw lines for legal reasons. OBVIOUSLY nobody changes just like that overnight, but you have to draw the line somewhere. there are some people who are more mature at age 15 than others at age 20. those numbers are pretty ridiculous and dont have real meaning but they are just there so the judges and lawyers can use them for argument
Totally agree. It's all legal issues. The law needs some sort of abitrary line and it's easiest/most realistic to draw that line by using age.
On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote: What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this?
The thing is you hear about things like this happening every other month in USA, and almost never in any other countries. I'm not trying to flame, this is just how it is.
Weapons are easier to get in USA for example, that's just something to blame of course but it is something to have in mind.
yeah because our media likes to show negative things. and here we are talking about it on teamliquid because guess what, people like to hear about negative things apparently! so don't watch or read about it. simple. and im not for turning a blind eye to things. but to me this thread serves no purpose here on teamliquid.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://forums.nonewbs.com/media/smilies/facepalm.gif)
