13-Year-Old Will Be Tried As An Adult For Shooting And Killing His Brother While Playing Cops And Robbers
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml...-kill-dads-gun
Tragic story, but that dad should be on trial.
13-Year-Old Will Be Tried As An Adult For Shooting And Killing His Brother While Playing Cops And Robbers
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml...-kill-dads-gun
Tragic story, but that dad should be on trial.
That kid is evil. At 13 you know right from wrong and putting a loaded gun, that he said he knew was loaded to his brother's head and firing it is absolutely chillingly evil.
Teens having access to guns is an important part of self defense.
https://myfox8.com/news/12-year-old-...ruder-in-home/
To blame the father for having the gun accessible when the entire purpose in having the gun is to protect their home is absurd. That said, maybe the father is guilty of some sort of abuse or neglect considering how monstrous the 13 year old is and I fully support a detailed investigation but on the surface no charges should be filed on the father simply for allowing a teen access to a gun.
Except guns are supposed to be unloaded and secured when there are children in the house.
Listen very carefully: you're as bad a father as you are a man, and I use the latter term in the broadest most generous sense of the word. Many children die every year in the shithole country that you call your own, simply because dull-witted LARPers think it's a bright idea to have loaded unsecured firearms lying around in their homes. If you are one of those jackasses, you should not have children in your home. The parent whose carelessness enabled this tragedy bears the responsibility for the family's loss—for both the death as well as for the eventual imprisonment of the older boy, and for making a child live with the knowledge that he killed his little brother. Your opinion to the contrary only serves to demonstrate why nobody on this planet respects you in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So why is it that YOU still don't know right from wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There are several stories of minors using guns to fend off home invaders. In those circumstances are you wanting their parents arrested too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Good grief some of y'all don't really understand gun culture at all. Minors hunt. They use guns at the range. And they use guns in defense of their homes if shit happens and their parents are away. This has been normal throughout all of American history.
Guns should be secured and unloaded and locked away from children.
The parents perhaps should be prosecuted for neglect for allowing children access to a loaded unsecure weapon. But on the other hand they've undergone a horrible tragedy and will likely have suffered enough and will continue to live with their actions for the rest of their lives.
None of that is applicable to this situation, and for every example you can find of a minor whose life is saved purely because they had access to a loaded and unsecured gun, you will have hundreds if not thousands of examples of minors who die or are severely injured because some moron facilitated their access to a loaded and unsecured gun. Though Pennsylvania does not penalize parents for making readily dischargeable firearms available to children eg. by failing to secure a loaded weapon, Texas does. It's clear you don't care about the safety of your children, but if you care about your own legal liability I hope you've at least made sure to move to a state where what you're describing isn't illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There are far more cases of children using loaded unsecured guns to kill family members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Spamming the boards with your ignorance doesn't make your "evidence" any less anecdotal dumbass
3 cases over 8 years, where one isn't even relevant (because the weapon wasn't loaded). In that time, thousands of children have died or been severely injured because morons left loaded, unsecured weapons where kids could get to them.
Definitely a problem, but let's be specific about our terms. How are you defining who is a child? Is it anyone under the legal age of majority? Typically there are around 60 accidental firearm deaths in children under 14 a year. which to be clear is absolutely a tragedy and 60 too many. However, it certainly isn't thousands of children killed due to accidental or negligent use of firearms, which a casual reading of your post might indicate. Injuries certainly could amount to thousands over that time, but again when we see those numbers generally they include everyone under the age of majority, (or in some cases 19).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
By that same token there are also almost certainly more than 3 cases of justifiable self defense using a firearm by children under the legal age of majority during that time.
Aimless said "killed or been severely injured" - 60 per annum would make up half a thousand over eight years, if severely injured were the same again (and its not unusual to have severely injured outnumber deaths) then a thousand or more is very plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Toddlers alone kill over a dozen people a year with a gun. I know you think you're being clever, but the numbers are levels of magnitude different. Kids face a far higher chance of being killed with their family's gun than to be killed by a home invader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I'm not trying to be clever, I'm trying to give what might on its surface appear a very alarming number indeed, (thousands of children dying or being injured) with a still alarming but more accurate number, (hundreds dying over a period of years, a much larger number being wounded). There are much larger numbers of homicides and suicides - negligent or accidental deaths are only a small fraction of gun deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A vast majority of homicides involve either involve gangs or significant others. And incredibly few claim children, who are far more likely to be killed by their own parents or someone close to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
That's all likely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think everyone agrees toddlers shouldn't have access to guns, in the story posted it was a 13 year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And how, exactly, was it not accessible to a toddler if it could be grabbed by rummaging in the couch? Toddlers love sticking their hands everywhere almost as much as younger infants love sticking anything they can get their hands on into their mouths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The house in this story had a 13-year-old, a 9-year-old, and two other children, who the article implied were younger than 9. Hell, even assuming a 13-year-old is mature enough to not shoot someone out of anger goes against quite a lot of psychology research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Lewk's post suggest there is a minimum age of a child he is comfortable with having possession of a gun. I'd love to hear what that is.
A 6th or 7th grader should not be the answer.
The entire civilized world defines a child as a human being under the age of 18. Between 2012 and 2018, roughly 600 children aged 0 - 17 were recorded as having died due to unintentional firearms injury. A further 200 were listed as undetermined wrt intent. Between 2012 and 2014, roughly 1200 children required treatment for nonfatal unintentional firearms injuries. Lewk's anecdotes, meanwhile, don't help us determine how many injuries or deaths were averted by children having access to loaded, unsecured firearms. Frankly, the many thousands of suicides should be included in this comparison, but, even if you exclude them, the number of actual unintentional deaths and injuries vastly outnumber the purported hypothetical lives saved. These numbers are not even remotely in the same league. If you make a readily dischargeable firearm available to a child, and a child kills or injures themselves or someone else as a result of having access to that weapon, you should be prosecuted. A parent is responsible for what their child does with firearms that parent has given them access to, whether intentionally or through negligence. We have rifles at home, but, by law, they must be secured—unloaded, in a locked gun-safe. If you hold parents accountable, far fewer parents will be so negligent—and far fewer children will die or be severely injured. Children should only be permitted to use firearms under supervision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I don't actually disagree with anything you have said here - I believe parents can and in many cases should be liable for the actions of their children - but let me make a few clarifying points. Certainly we make legal distinctions about who qualifies as a child, but the term child also carries with it additional baggage in what it means in common parlance. When I hear child I generally think of someone younger than a teenager or adolescent. Certainly I can see greater tragedy in a toddler shooting themselves with an unsecured firearm than there might be when a 17 year old accidentally shoots themselves while illegally carrying a gun. Many of those deaths occur not in young children, but in older adolescents and teenagers who are capable of learning about and using firearms responsibly, and equally capable of knowingly misusing them. As I think we would all agree, a 17 year old is not substantively different on the eve of their 18th birthday than they are the next morning. Which is why we also recognize cases where a child can be treated as an adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Additionally I have seen a number of statistics in the relevant literature that include individuals 19 years of age or younger, which would go beyond the age of majority in the United States.
Finally, I think Lewk should acknowledge the risks and responsibilities associated with responsible gun ownership. That lives can be saved by firearms being available to responsible teenagers is true. It is also true that guns being available to teenagers can carry enormous risks, both to the teenager and to their family.
And the rest of the civilized world looks down upon the US with disgust for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Because you guys very frequently do that not to the "on the cusp to 18" but to 13 or 12 year olds.
So spare us.