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

[Celista]

Odds are this child had mental issues, either diagnosed or not. He has probably lashed out in a very violent manner before. The fault lies entirely with the parents for for failing to secure the fire arm. The gun didnt force the child to do this. He could have just as easily used a knife or a heavy object . The parents and the child are at fault and must live with this.

Yeah agreed. I highly doubt this was the first incident. There's usually a buildup of behaviors.

[Dystemper]

Yeah agreed. I highly doubt this was the first incident. There's usually a buildup of behaviors.

I have a young nephew who is not allowed to watch or play violent games or movies because he has Asperger. These games absolutely will make him act out in a violent manner. Would he kill someone? No but he has unintentionally hurt others because he did not understand his actions. As he got older this is not a issue any more. But until he turned 14 it very much was a issue

[Aoyi]

This is a terrible event. I'm worried that too much of the stories coming out related to this will focus on the "fighting over a controller" aspect and therefore "video games are bad" rather than the "terrible parents leave loaded weapon in reach of children" part of the story. There is no reason a loaded weapon should ever be in easy reach of a nine year old.

[Rivellana]

So he almost certainly knew what he was doing was wrong, but his inclusiveness/anger drove his actions.

I agree with this, but having kids around that age and knowing how they are I absolutely cannot agree with some of the statements I've seen in this thread that insinuate that the boy didn't understand that taking a gun and shooting a bullet into the back of his sister's head would kill her. As in, he understood what his action would do.

I want to say I feel like it's probably better that this occurred now (and with only one death) and he can be mentally examined and whatever punishment is seen fit can be dispensed, than for his mental issues to stew and grow until he was in his teens or 20s and shooting up a school/movie theater/concert/church.

[Draco-Onis]

https://www.wired.com/story/smart-gun-fire-magnets/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...s-stupid-idea/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephs.../#6ead4fe06729

Thank you for proving my point, if you can't even understand how technology works then I can see why you would think smart guns are a bad idea. You don't have to like it the point is the technology never got a chance to improve and get better because of the NRA. Also how many 9 year old boys would spend the time to hack a gun to shoot their siblings? /facepalm.

[Boathouse]

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with Celista. This couldn't have been the first outburst by the child, at 9 I'm more than sure he understood what he was doing was going to make her go away forever. He just didn't know what was going to happen after he did what he did, nor will he even understand the punishments. That's what makes all this hard to deal with. Punishing him like an adult at this point wouldn't even do any good. He won't grasp that he did something that wrong.
This part is purely just me, but the gun wasn't the issue (Yes, I think gun safety needs to be taken more seriously, I agree with most Democrats with how gun training/safety needs to be handled), the issue was 110% the parents. A child doesn't just one day snap and kill his sister over an argument. He's done it before in lesser bursts and his parents probably ignored it. I'm sure he's even had issues at school they were writing off as "boys being boys". Even as a 100% defender in the 2nd amendment I'll never understand people who don't practice gun safety and live by it. I have a gun under my bed but it's in a lock box with a combination lock and a padlock. Secure enough to where no one can get in it but myself and easy enough to access it if I absolutely have to.
The gun being where it was played a part, sure, but the parents and the childs mental health should be the bigger focus of the story. If he was going to hurt her to that point the gun wasn't the only tool he was going to use. He'd have used something else.


Don't blame the tool for the choice of the user. Both the gun and child are the tools, and the parents are the user.

[Dystemper]

This is a terrible event. I'm worried that too much of the stories coming out related to this will focus on the "fighting over a controller" aspect and therefore "video games are bad" rather than the "terrible parents leave loaded weapon in reach of children" part of the story. There is no reason a loaded weapon should ever be in easy reach of a nine year old.

Whats being mostly over looked is why the 9 year old had suge rage issues that he was willing to kill a sibling over a video game. The parents are responsible for the tool used and are negligent as far as the evidence we have shows. What it tells me is another case of mental health failing and someone losing a life over it

[The Stormbringer]

Thoughts and prayers.....
......moving on

Solid Republican response right here. They sure do know how to show how they care.

Nice parody, Kell.

[Krigaren]

Thats a lot opf ignorance to cram into in post. You are aware that the NRA spends massive amounts of resources on teaching firearm safety, training classes and responsible gun ownership , right? Of course you are. The rest of the nonsense you spewed is just that nonsense. When you say things like Toxic cult of guns, and gun fetishism you loose any credibility in a discussion like this

When you start off by dismissing reality as "ignorance", you 'lose' credibility as well.

I'm well aware of what the NRA is supposed to do. I grew up in an NRA member home, and took NRA gun and hunter's safety courses when I was a kid.

However, consider that they spent an average of $10 million per year for the last 20 years on political lobbying efforts to make guns more accessible, easier to buy, and to thwart gun safety research efforts.

If you want to discuss ignorance, then it's pure ignorance to ignore the hypocrisy of an organization that was established to promote gun safety and education, which is now engaging in directed tactics to ensure that not only every person has a gun, but is also pushing an apocalyptic anti-government, anti-immigrant, near-fascist political agenda with heavy implications that guns are the answer to your problems.

So yeah, let's just ignore all of that, right?

[Antiganon]

Thank you for proving my point, if you can't even understand how technology works then I can see why you would think smart guns are a bad idea. You don't have to like it the point is the technology never got a chance to improve and get better because of the NRA. Also how many 9 year old boys would spend the time to hack a gun to shoot their siblings? /facepalm.

There can be no "early adopter issues" when it comes to things like gun safety. If I get biometric locks for my house, and they fail, I take out my keys and unlock it manually. If I have a voiceprint activated assistant on my phone, and it fails, I can unlock it manually and type in my request. If I get biometric security on a gun I carry for self defense or for my job in law enforcement or private security, and it fails, I may be dead before I can work around the issue.

There should be no beta testing when guns are involved. The alpha testing should be so rigorous and exhaustive that beta testing is not needed. Gun manufacturers interested in biometric guns should hire people to test them internally before the product is ever even considered for market.

This is not an area where margin of error or some small percent failure rate is acceptable.

[Velshin]

Apparently, they do.

Nope they don't. It's the parents fault for not keeping a careful watch to their children specially that age. They should watch and observe and take care of their children behaviors, actions almost all the time.


And the parents should not show their children that they had a gun in the first place. My parents had a gun but it was always hidden well and I only noticed that they had one when I was like 17+ years old and matured enough to know what is wrong and what is rights.

Video games are not the cause, these kind of aggressive behaviors of children of their age is not uncommon. In fact I see it all the time but yeah as I said the parents are at fault for not watching their children more carefully + letting their children know that they had a gun.

[Krigaren]

I have kids, one is 10, and around that age they definitely DO know that shooting someone with a gun will kill or injure them. So none of this "he didn't understand the consequences" garbage. The only consequence he didn't think of was potentially being locked up after doing it, or that his family might never forgive him.

This. He knew exactly what a gun was going to do, which is exactly why he reached for and used it. However, at 9 years old he didn't understand the consequences of it, and probably not the finality of it.

[Aoyi]

Whats being mostly over looked is why the 9 year old had suge rage issues that he was willing to kill a sibling over a video game. The parents are responsible for the tool used and are negligent as far as the evidence we have shows. What it tells me is another case of mental health failing and someone losing a life over it

Agreed. This child likely has a history of signs of violent behavior that the parents were likely ignoring. I feel like these cases lead to a lot of excuses that the parents will come up with for why it wasn't their fault and how their child was influenced by violent video games (which they would have purchased for him anyway depsite the ratings listed on the boxes), television, or movies.

I was just focusing on the details of the event as reported. In this particular case, the weapon should never have been in easy reach of the 9 year old. I grew up around guns. All our guns were locked in cases and stored unloaded (possible one loaded weapon kept in a special lock box for emergencies, though not sure this gun was loaded either). There is no excuse for a loaded weapon to be left out for the child to grab.

[Boathouse]

And the parents should not show their children that they had a gun in the first place. My parents had a gun but it was always hidden well and I only noticed that they had one when I was like 17+ years old and matured enough to know what is wrong and what is rights.

This is the important part. My children are 17 and 8 months. My daughter had -zero- clue I had a gun in the house until she was 16 and I took her to a training course to learn how to handle it safely and correctly. I wouldn't have even done it if she didn't express interest and even then she doesn't have access to it. I won't let her know the combination. People who neglect how to properly handle and own a firearm are the absolute fucking worst.

[Draco-Onis]

There can be no "early adopter issues" when it comes to things like gun safety. If I get biometric locks for my house, and they fail, I take out my keys and unlock it manually. If I have a voiceprint activated assistant on my phone, and it fails, I can unlock it manually and type in my request. If I get biometric security on a gun I carry for self defense or for my job in law enforcement or private security, and it fails, I may be dead before I can work around the issue.

There should be no beta testing when guns are involved. The alpha testing should be so rigorous and exhaustive that beta testing is not needed. Gun manufacturers interested in biometric guns should hire people to test them internally before the product is ever even considered for market.

This is not an area where margin of error or some small percent failure rate is acceptable.

That puts a very high cost and barrier of entry and it is ludicrous compared to what we have done. Feel free to look up early models or advances in guns and how terrible they were, they could have been tons of options including a bypass for early release until the technology is perfected. You should have stuck to you simply not liking it at least there would have been some logic to it, no one should be forcing people into buying it but to kill it before it is even an option is insane.

[Socialhealer]

Wait you think its normal for a child to be willing to kill another person over a video game?

And you think its harder for someone to stab another then it is to pull a trigger? You have very little understanding of how weapons work

a 9 year old doesn't fully understand the ramifications of their actions, but you keep acting like an angry 9 year old is thinking normally.

basically whatever bullshit you can come up with to point the blame on the video game.

well im allergic to bullshit, so you can keep it.

and yes it's far harder to kill someone with a knife he's 9 for fuck sake not a trained assassin.

[Katchii]

Our Constitutional rights are not just Laws and no they can not easily be changed. They are the guiding principles on which our nation was founded and is maintained. We Americans tend to get rather defensive and threatened when others like to talk about taking away our constitutional rights. Its bad enough we have those in our society willing to give up their freedoms such as the 1st amendment. OR willing to let the Government search your car, home etc with out a warrant because " I have nothing to hide".

I have never seen intelligent advocates for gun control that are actually trying to remove anyone's second amendment rights. They're literally just trying to have better processes put in place that ensure only people capable and responsible enough to own one actually get them and/or keep them. They ARE extremely deadly weapons that any child can obviously use.

Why is it so important that EVERYONE have a gun when it is so clearly obvious that not everyone SHOULD own a gun?

The very first words of the second amendment, "A well regulated Militia..." have meaning, but it seems everyone so vocally anti gun control are only looking at the last part: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?

The word regulate has a couple definitions and synonymous words or sayings:

1) control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly. synonyms: control, adjust, manage

2) control or supervise by means of rules and regulations. synonyms: supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for

To me, the second amendment basically says that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, however, those arms will be well regulated meaning there will be rules around them, and that you will be supervised, monitored, etc.... much like folks in the military will have their proficiency checked and will be held responsible for the storage and maintenance of their weapons. It does not say that anyone can own whatever gun they want and do whatever they want with it (within the law) JUST because they want one and then not be responsible for it.

[The Stormbringer]

This is the important part. My children are 17 and 8 months. My daughter had -zero- clue I had a gun in the house until she was 16 and I took her to a training course to learn how to handle it safely and correctly. I wouldn't have even done it if she didn't express interest and even then she doesn't have access to it. I won't let her know the combination. People who neglect how to properly handle and own a firearm are the absolute fucking worst.

Well god damned said. Guns are serious, and the fact that some people treat them so lightly is disgusting.

[Deleted]

Whats being mostly over looked is why the 9 year old had suge rage issues that he was willing to kill a sibling over a video game. The parents are responsible for the tool used and are negligent as far as the evidence we have shows. What it tells me is another case of mental health failing and someone losing a life over it

Me and my brother, along with pretty much every set of siblings I know fought over stupid stuff like this when they were kids, once every so often someone got hurt, a broken wrist or arm, but none ever had any serious long term consequences. No one ever died.

At 9 years old the brain is not fully formed and a child of that age cannot be held as responsible for their actions. The parents have a lot to ask for but to entirely dismiss America's fetishistic obsession with the firearm as a method to solve any and every problem is foolish in the extreme.

[Katchii]

This. He knew exactly what a gun was going to do, which is exactly why he reached for and used it. However, at 9 years old he didn't understand the consequences of it, and probably not the finality of it.

I'd argue he didn't know EXACTLY what the gun would do. He knew it would hurt her and that's about it, just as you said he didn't understand the finality of it.

You also can't compare the mental state of one 9 year old to the mental state of every other 9 year old because there are a huge number of variances in maturity, education, parenting, mental faculties, etc... that have a profound impact on how a child behaves in certain situations.

Sure, he may have wanted to hurt his sister, every child will get angry and lash out but usually it's a punch or kick or other similarly childishly violent outburst...not outright murderous intent.

I'll agree that unless he was mentally deficient, a 9 year old certainly has the capability to know right from wrong, how guns work and that violence is bad kind of things.....doesn't mean this specific 9 year old was taught any of those things in any meaningful way. I know some parents who will go out of their way to shelter their child from the realities of the world and only let them do very childish activities and heavily regulate what they watch and do to the point where they don't know what a gun is, and therefore have no concept of what a gun actually does, except for maybe a character they know and like in that cartoon uses one.