Video console death: US boy, 9, 'kills sister, 13, over controller'

[Ghostpanther]

Agreed on the education.

They should not be exposed to guns they can touch though.

Agree to the point of without adult supervision. And of course the age of the minor needs to be taken into consideration. I would not have let my 6 year old son fire one of my firearms. But a 12 year old? No problems as long as a adult is with them and supervising.

[Raelbo]

Well, we chose to have cars and trucks to drive privately on public roads and irresponsible use of them as resulted in more deaths of children than from firearms.

That is a classic red herring. Yes, of course societies also have to make a choice between using motor vehicles and not having anyone die in traffic accidents. But it's a totally different value proposition. I expect that in a world without private cars and trucks, the world we live in would be a very different place, a place in which human mortality rates would likely be a lot higher. I just can't see the value proposition of a society in which every civilian has the right to own a firearm. What purpose does it serve exactly?

[Antiganon]

Agree to the point of without adult supervision. And of course the age of the minor needs to be taken into consideration. I would not have let my 6 year old son fire one of my firearms. But a 12 year old? No problems as long as a adult is with them and supervising.

I would consider a 12 year old an adolescent, not a child, for purposes of this discussion.

You can legally hold a hunting license at 12 in many states. In Connecticut, a 12 year old used to be able to legally own a long gun for hunting. I know this, because I did, back in 1999.

[Segus1992]

That is a classic red herring. Yes, of course societies also have to make a choice between using motor vehicles and not having anyone die in traffic accidents. But it's a totally different value proposition. I expect that in a world without private cars and trucks, the world we live in would be a very different place, a place in which human mortality rates would likely be a lot higher. I just can't see the value proposition of a society in which every civilian has the right to own a firearm. What purpose does it serve exactly?

They're big and cool and you can threaten people with them that scare you with words!

[Ghostpanther]

Definitely not just as easy, but whatever. You're clearly not open for discussion here.

I'm not saying my opinion means your constitution is dumb as hell, I'm saying that anyone without proof of proper knowledge about guns shouldn't be allowed to access guns, let alone shit like the AR-15, which is common sense and any sane person would see that. The US constitution disagrees.

You mean not open to your rhetoric. A AR-15 is no more deadly than a SKS.( the SKS actually uses a more powerful round ) Which has none of the scary features as the so called by the ill-informed assault rifle has. The term was first used rightfully so for the German STG-44 during the review of it during WW2. Which was a select fire military rifle from semi-auto to full automatic fire, which the AR-15 does not have. :P

[Deleted]

Not that this thread is about gun control

That's exactly what it looks like. There wouldn't even be a thread if the fatal incident had happened in another manner.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is definitely both, arguing anything else is ridiculous. Negligence with a parked car won't easily murder children.

Tell that to Anthony Yelchin.

[Ghostpanther]

That is a classic red herring. Yes, of course societies also have to make a choice between using motor vehicles and not having anyone die in traffic accidents. But it's a totally different value proposition. I expect that in a world without private cars and trucks, the world we live in would be a very different place, a place in which human mortality rates would likely be a lot higher. I just can't see the value proposition of a society in which every civilian has the right to own a firearm. What purpose does it serve exactly?

The same purpose the Second Amendment meant to have. The right to defend yourself with a firearm. Which for many, means just as much as any right. If I die from a deadly attack, my right to pursue happiness is gone. :P

[Segus1992]

You mean not open to your rhetoric. A AR-15 is no more deadly than a SKS.( the SKS actually uses a more powerful round ) Which has none of the scary features as the so called by the ill-informed assault rifle has. The term was first used rightfully so for the German STG-44 during the review of it during WW2. Which was a select fire military rifle from semi-auto to full automatic fire, which the AR-15 does not have. :P

Is there an argument here or are you just regurgitating standard pro-gun arguments? Never have I said that an SKS is better to have without a licence. I mentioned the AR-15 because that's a standard ridiculous "home protection" gun, and that's it. Did that specific word trigger a specific response or something?

[Raelbo]

Nothing to do with "society" and everything to do with the moronic, irresponsible parent(s).

When society places a high value on the right to bear arms, it has to accept that it is a statistical inevitability that some of those guns are going to land up in the hands of "moronic, irresponsible parents".

Also, I would point out that many "moronic, irresponsible parents" probably preach the same tune about how it is other people who the irresponsible ones. Until it happens to them. All human beings make mistakes. Sure some of us make less than others, but none of is infallible. But when you have guns in the mix, the potential consequences of the mistakes are amplified.

You can be a pro-gun gun owner without being an irresponsible sack of shit

True, but irrelevant.

1) Even responsible people can make errors.
2) When you have a societal principle of "the right to bear arms", that includes all the "irresponsible sacks of shit" (largely because knowing the difference between a responsible and irresponsible would-be gun owner is often not immediately apparent)

[Hilhen7]

Title is misleading. I was expecting to see that a murder was committed using an actual video game console, seeing as how it's named video console death...

[Segus1992]

Tell that to Anthony Yelchin.

Not sure if it's an actual argument (it's hard to tell in these threads) but: statistical anomalies don't change facts.

[Ghostpanther]

I would consider a 12 year old an adolescent, not a child, for purposes of this discussion.

You can legally hold a hunting license at 12 in many states. In Connecticut, a 12 year old used to be able to legally own a long gun for hunting. I know this, because I did, back in 1999.

I agree. Was just pointing out where touching a firearm by child might be ok. Depends on the child and their level of maturity and the parent. A 10 year old might be perfectly fine with a adult supervision shooting a .22 rifle. Not to hunt with exactly, but to let them get use to a firearm.

[Video Games]

They're big and cool and you can threaten people with them that scare you with words!

Friggin alcohol bottles are cooler than guns and I don't like alcohol either.

[Ghostpanther]

Is there an argument here or are you just regurgitating standard pro-gun arguments? Never have I said that an SKS is better to have without a licence. I mentioned the AR-15 because that's a standard ridiculous "home protection" gun, and that's it. Did that specific word trigger a specific response or something?

Yes. Because you used the AR-15 as your example. Which is common by the extreme gun control crowd.

[Vargur]

FOX: Video game violence kills a kid
CNN: Gun violence kills a kid

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The Stormbringer]

Moronic fucking parents who don't consider the consequences of leaving around deadly weapons strikes once again. Thanks, America! /s

LEARN TO LOCK UP YOUR GOD DAMN WEAPONS, PEOPLE.

[Segus1992]

Yes. Because you used the AR-15 as your example. Which is common by the extreme gun control crowd.

Now that we've cleared this up, will you go back and actually respond? I've heard these AR-15 vs (insert hunting rifle here) arguments many years ago on some news report somewhere. Is this really how far the gun debate has come in America? Nowhere? Don't you get tired of regurgitating that argument?

[PosPosPos]

You can be a pro-gun gun owner without being an irresponsible sack of shit,

In theory anyway. Except, we are talking about reality, of which there are zero "pro-gun" advocates who are not "irresponsible" some way or another, as judged by their callous take on life versus their precious guns.

[Segus1992]

Title is misleading. I was expecting to see that a murder was committed using an actual video console, seeing as how it's named video console death...

Well, being honest and naming it "gun murder" would upset the "guns are great and only great"-crowd, so that wouldn't fly for revenue.

[Ghostpanther]

Now that we've cleared this up, will you go back and actually respond? I've heard these AR-15 vs (insert hunting rifle here) arguments many years ago on some news report somewhere. Is this really how far the gun debate has come in America? Nowhere? Don't you get tired of regurgitating that argument?

I am responding. Lol. Not agreeing with you does not mean someone is not responding. I need to go to town for some shopping. If you wish to continue this debate, I will be more than willing to do it in the Gun Control thread. Which is where most of the discussion on this should be. :P