US boy, 9, 'kills sister, 13, over controller'

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

They do not have RPGs for sale.

And a semi-automatic is the default action for almost all types of modern weapons, right on down through your hand guns, ban them, and you might as well ban pretty all your guns.

"Assault rifle" is merely a catchy title for a hunting rifle dressed up in black to look like a military weapon. It makes it look "scary" or "cool" depending on your perspective, but it has a functionally identical hunting cousin dressed in wood look that no one cares about because it doesn't look "bad."

As for the large capacity magazine ... most of the serious enthusiasts on here will tell you that having to change out your magazines does not slow you down that much.

RPG's I clearly said "on display" not "for sale".
It's more of an insight to the mentality towards weapons in the U.S. Sure you might not be able to buy an actual rocket launcher. (Not looked into it myself) But you can own a cannon there and other stuff.

Sure maybe you need permits and # to have one. But you can still own one.
Point is you can legally own some pretty insane weaponry over there. (no doubt different state to state.)

I've used and owned bolt and pump actions. Come to think of it none of my guns when I had them were semi-auto. Never had an a issue with them when it came to hunting. Found no issue with getting a good fire rate. Not that I required super fast shooting, generally hit my targets first time every time.
So don't see the validity of if you cannot own a semi auto you may as well ban guns altogether.
That seems to be more of an issue regarding the users capability rather than the tool. (Maybe handguns are an exception as a bolt action pistol might be annoying lol)
Same for magazine loads. Except I found the delay between reloading numerous 5 round clips one after another vs just firing off 30 rounds one after the other without pause would probably make a huge difference, especially in a mass shooting situation. That delay could be all the difference between someone taking out the perp or more people dying before the 'reload shuffle' pops up.

As for the rest. Yeah, thanks for cherry picking and clearly missing (or is that avoiding) the overall point of my post.
Which is about being smarter and safer about gun owner ship in the U.S not about me generalizing on weapons and their firing rates and how many rounds they can hold etc.

But of the issue of how easy it is to access weapons. I wonder how many less shooting the U.S would of had if guns were more restrictive and certain guidelines had to be met, like proving you're mentally stable enough to own one to begin with?

Anyway said what I had to say on the matter. If what I am trying to stress is too complicated and goes over peoples heads that is on them.

I just urge you to go back, read EVERYTHING I said and try a little something called context while you do, and maybe be open minded, unbiased, less defensive and not try to read between the lines to get a narrative that fits your world view.

Any way as I said in my OP, if I debate the specifics and fine tune my views to try and explain what I am saying here I'll just end up going around in circles, as these types of discussions and responses always end up going that way from experience.

Sometimes it's just best to give our thoughts on a subject and move along. If only for our own sanity lol.


Peace.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

The last point is that you never had the right to self defense given to you in your basic Constitution. OK, maybe you did and you willfully ceded it as a people, but we have the right to defend ourselves. It is spelled out exactly how in our Constitution, and that right is held as sacred by many here.

Understand, this isn't about simply "owning guns" or some kind of mythical love affair with the same. It is about a basic unalienable right, same as the right to speak freely, to practice whatever religion we choose, to assemble and petition for redress of grievance, all of those wonderful things in our Bill of Rights.

Those are things the government *may not* touch or take away from us. It can only oppress those things. Like it or not, and I get that a lot of people are very confused by this, self-defense -- better known as the right to keep and bear arms -- is one of those rights. Any attempts to restrain it is very much an attempt to oppress a natural right of the people.

So all the semantics about what a person "needs" and everything else are just that ... arguing the pretty points of just how much oppression you think we need to accept from our government.

Well, how much oppression are you willing to accept?

originally posted by: SailorJerrynot a gun problem.

er.... BS. with no access to the gun, nobody would have been shot. but that's part and parcel of a gun loving society. just a regular part of life in the USA.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Not shot, but might still have been stabbed, bludgeoned, etc.

We've been over this.

This is the funniest thread i've read in a while-it's like an overcompensation competition.

What is troublesome apart from the non secured firearm is the fact the child could find said firearm, surely you would place a secure weapon in an unknown location that is inaccessible to children, and it appears this father or mother weren't exactly on the ball in this case.

I'm waiting for the inevitable 'it's the video games!' argument from politicians, because one day I might play super Mario and decide to break into a zoo and jump on some turtles.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

My contention is that there are two failures at least:

1. That the weapon was where the kid could get it.

2. Somehow ending up with a 9-year-old capable of maintaining a murderous rage long enough to retrieve the gun and shoot it.

Both of those things rest on parenting.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Totally agree with you. This has nothing to do about guns, heck, it doesn't have anything to do with violence in video games. The blame falls squarely on the parents. I grew up on violent video games, we had guns in the house. Never once did it ever occur to me to shoot my brother over him being a royal pain in the butt.

The parents obviously didn't care about their kids. I know that's a harsh thing to say, especially now. But they're the ones who decided leaving a gun unlocked wasn't a problem. They also didn't care enough to teach their son that violence isn't the answer.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

That's funny it never occurred to me to jump on a real turtle after playing Super Mario Bros.

Do you have any way you can back up this assertion? Most gun deaths are suicides, and any psychologist will tell you few suicides are an impulse action.

And can you back up that assertion? From a study at Harvard

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

and..

“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

Here is another article saying your thinking is wrong: Suicide rates boosted by easy access to guns, researchers say

It is ridiculous to claim that suicide rates would not change if guns were not in the picture. Suicide rates would be much lower. Guns make it so much easier for people to end their own lives at the moment when their crisis is at the worst point.

a reply to: ketsuko

Maybe so, but in my opinion, these parents should have their constitutional right to bear arms removed from them forever.

a reply to: fleabit

I can believe that having a gun could increase risk of suicide. Seems logical that it's a quick way to out ones self.

You really can't blame the gun however. The suicidal person is really the issue.
Take away the gun and that person still has issues and needs help and might commit suicide at some other time in some other way.

So taking away the gun doesn't cure the underlying problem.
The mental health issue is really what this is about and needs addressing.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

Maybe so, but in my opinion, these parents should have their constitutional right to bear arms removed from them forever.

IMO anyone who votes for Hillary should have their constitutional right to vote removed from them forever.

It's easy to advocate for removal of another person's rights.

a reply to: kaylaluv
I agree the person who owned that gun should never own a gun again or be able to use one.
They lost that right.

a reply to: ketsuko

So you think someone with a history of violent behavior should still have the right to have a gun? Or someone who is known to have a violent mental health issue?

Obviously we do take some people’s rights to bear arms away from them when they are proven to not deserve them.

Did you even read the post you were responding to?

Nothing you said is even remotely in context to what was being discussed.

You're really good a building strawmen.

Here's one solution.

It's culture ... fatherlessness. Broken parenting and inability to truly *be* parents even when both parents are there.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

So you think someone with a history of violent behavior should still have the right to have a gun? Or someone who is known to have a violent mental health issue?

Obviously we do take some people’s rights to bear arms away from them when they are proven to not deserve them.

And we let felons vote.

Should some people not be allowed to have guns? Absolutely, but then that becomes a whole lot of people for a whole lot of reasons that have nothing to do with what we originally started out with.

When we talk about stripping people of their rights, a lot of people get very cavalier about it, particularly those who think they have no real skin in the game themselves.

a reply to: kaylaluv

nvm

a reply to: ketsuko

Well if you think it’s cavalier to want to take away the guns of parents who were responsible for the child who killed his sister with one of their guns... I’d like to hear what you think is not cavalier.

a reply to: ketsuko

Bingo! !

Let's get some felony convictions first before we start considering taking away Constitutional Rights. Otherwise the sky is the limit...

Bring out the Witches, time to BURN!