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

a reply to: SaturnFX

And you missed the point. The point (no pun intended) is that stabbings, statistically speaking, result in a higher lethality rate than being shot.

Citing FBI stats about firearm murders is neat, but what you need to understand is that the data shows that, in the US, gun-related murders are on an increase, while knife-related murders are on a downward trend (speaking in percentages of total murders).

But what's interesting is when you look a country where firearms used to be legal, but now are widely outlawed: Australia (the darling of the gun-control advocates). There, at least in general over the years since they passed their gun ban and confiscation, gun use in homicides and violent crimes in on a decrease, but knife use in homicides and violent crimes is on a faster increase than gun crimes in the U.S.

The point is this: The heart of the individual is what matters, not the weapon. Those intent on killing will still find a legal weapon (or illegal, as is obvious in both countries) and do their deed.

According to the FBI stats shown on Expanded Homicide Data Table 4, non-firearm murders totaled on average 30.2% of all murders between 2012 and 2016, with a noticeable difference from the periods of 2012-2014 and 2015-2016 (averages of 31.7% and 28%, respectively). Why the relatively dramatic increase in firearm murders while the non-firearm murders stayed the relative same is not answered by the stats, but in those same two groupings of years, the firearm murders average at 8,554 (with a declining number each year) and 10,391 for the following two years (increasing by 1,466 in 2015 and 1,226 in 2016).

I would have to consider that more appropriate and complete reporting to the FBI has been happening as of late, and I would bet that the numbers for the first three years are actually higher, but that's my opinion knowing that local and state law-enforcement agencies don't always report crime stats to the FBI, and when they do, it's not always thorough and accurate.

But I'm just rambling now about stats, which is something that I enjoy. My question for you (if you read this far) is this: Do you really think that if access to guns was substantially reduced, that there would be a dramatic drop in overall murder rates, or do you just think that those who have no respect for human life and are willing to murder people would just simply latch on to one of the methods used in almost 1/3 of all murders instead?

I don't have an answer to that, because it's speculation, but judging by the trends in knife uses in Australia, for example, I don't think that those 70% of murderers would just decide not to kill people because finding a firearm might be more difficult.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't have an answer to that, because it's speculation, but judging by the trends in knife uses in Australia, for example, I don't think that those 70% of murderers would just decide not to kill people because finding a firearm might be more difficult.

I am not "The Shadow", so I don't know what evil lurks in the heart of men, but I have seen some pretty good examples of the evil of some. If every gun was removed from this planet this second, the number of assaults and killing would not stop, and I doubt if they would decrease.

From my experience, stabbings, blunt objects, strangulation, arson, poisons, and bombings, would happen more frequently. I am speculating only with those assaults that are personal in nature. Terrorist would likely use bombs, poisons, and arson more frequently, and these methods have the potential for greatly increasing the number of people injured.

I am not arguing about guns. I am saying that the belief that eliminating guns will save lives is false. Eliminating the threat may save lives, but guns are not the threat.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Sadly, I have to agree with you concerning the evil that lurks in the hearts of some people.

I mean, look at the Bible (if you believe the stories in there)...the first murder was with a rock. David killed Goliath with the same weapon.

Just because we have tools at our disposal that are easier to use for killing people does not mean that the tool is the problem.

What annoys me in this is that we have 9yr old's around here with gang affiliations who are already incredibly gun savvy and normally are the gang members holding on to the gun so if the dealer needs on he calls the kids as the kid is less likely to be stopped by police.

Many of the same family members are also either ex gang or with ties to them so there's guns around all the time. The point is that there are 9yr old who KNOW what the gun can do and are not afraid to use them. It so annoys me that the parents just allow it all to go on. It also shocks the hell out of me when a child as young as this see's extreme violence as the way to sort out simple things, is this the way the parents deal with it because some one must be influencing these kids that its ok to be violent.

We have very young kids who now carry knives and will pull them out if you bump in to them as I found out from a 14ish yr old girl in school uniform who I accidentally bumped in to her when she stopped dead to play with her phone, out of her bag came a huge carving knife. I because of bad knees cannot run so I have to deal with this and as I'm used to dealing with the drug dealers I told her what would happen if she tried to use it on me and she just ran off.

Don't even get me started on the faith schools that teach under 10's how and why to hack off hands etc (100% true, Google King Fahad Academy). But I just see the younger parents in area's like mine being very violent to each other and the kids pick it up as a 'norm', seriously how much more wrong as a species can we get!

What a tragedy..

Clearly something was/is wrong with the brother. I'm not sure if the seeming increase in these sort of incidents is because of media focus or an actual increase, but I do feel its just one facet of a larger problem.

A problem that is incredibly unlikely to be solved by focusing on things like the tool used or video games. That said, I do feel violent, realistic games may contribute to things in a very small percentage of folks.. but that should point to a deeper underlying issue. The same could be said about most media like the "news." It may set some people off, but only because of a different, more relevant underlying factor.

There is something else going on here, and I for one, believe its a very serious problem that we need to start addressing.

a reply to: Serdgiam

There is something else going on here, and I for one, believe its a very serious problem that we need to start addressing.

I think you did a very good job of placing it all neatly into a nutshell.

Even though it will be denied, rejected, or ignored.

He would have stabbed her or hit her wiht something if it wasnt a gun.

Heart and hands, like its been said.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

First, thank you

And, you are probably right for a variety of reasons.

But! I don't know if that will always be the case. If the seeds planted today have even a small chance of a future where we effectively and meaningfully address social issues (or any issues?), then I'm all for it.

I think that modern communication technology gives us a unique opportunity in that regard. Like never before, it can hold those seeds in perfect stasis until the conditions are right for them to grow.

Speaking personally, I have lost hope in so many things in my life. But, that small chance of a better tomorrow isn't one of 'em. Until that hope is torn asunder like the rest, I figure ill try to operate under the premise its possible. Why not?

Even if its not in my lifetime, who knows what the catalyst might be for that change in the future..

a reply to: badw0lf

So your point is what? Is this a problem for society or a problem for that family and now the courts? This is one gun and one child out of millions of children and guns that this doesn't happen to. I won't invest any emotions in this incident. Maybe a bit of empathy for the family but how is this our fault or problem? Do you think we can control a gun in a house with a 9 year old that has access to it? Not me.. Not my business or problem.

Me thinks you selectively invest your emotions to elicit a response of "oh dear, we must do something about this because it didn't happen in the inner city!" pfft.. This happens every day.. Living in America has its risks and rewards. The most you can do about it is shake your head, learn from it and move on.

Or lessen your risk and move to North Korea.

a reply to: Butterfinger

Probably not actually... 13 year old sisters generally have a massive strength advantage over 9 year old brothers. I was a big strong kid, yet my sister at those ages could easily beat me... 4 years of development at those ages is significant. If he was strong enough to best her physically, he would have likely just taken the controller off her, and not resorted to massive overkill.

He probably also knew that any close range weapon carried a big risk of losing to the stronger sister... even if he managed to ninja his way close enough to get a good shot in, if it wasn't a one-hit, then retaliation would be eminent, and she likely wouldn't be dead.

I hate the "they would have just used something else" argument... many wouldn't. Heaps of people are squeamish, and getting up close and personal is way more confronting than twitching a finger at a distance.

Guns ≠ knives or clubs... or anything else

Guns are literally the most efficient killing devices... people have a much greater chance against almost every other easily available weapon.

Stop with the false equivalencies!

a reply to: puzzlesphere

He shot her in the back of the head, could have easily knifed her.

The problem is a real disconnect between his social skills, heart and what to do when frustrated.

Coping Skills

a reply to: Butterfinger

Absolutely, the child obviously has some developmental issues... but when you were in a heated disagreement with your sibling (especially if you know they can be a little unhinged), did you let them sneak up on you? I doubt it.

He couldn't have as easily "knifed" her as you are making out.

Shooting from across the room though? Easy.

As much as you all don't want it to be the case, in this situation the gun was instrumental in this girls death.

No false equivalencies will make it not so.

a reply to: badw0lf

This is not a gun problem. It's an irresponsible parent issue. The parents of this boy should every bit, be held accountable for the death. They give gun owners a bad name, and give ammunition to the Liberal media. The parents could have just as easily left a small nail gun, a buck knife, or even a hammer nearby. All of which would have ended in the death of the boy's sister. The boy had it in his mind (for some reason) to kill his sister and the gun was there. With all of the video games out today of first person shooters, it's not too hard for a kid to know how a gun operates. It was a perfect storm of adversity and the boy was programmed by media and raised by irresponsible parents who leave guns lying around. The boy and his sister were doomed from the start. I don't think this was a "lack" of education, rather, I think that the boy just learned the wrong things, and as a result he acted on what he had learned.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
What annoys me in this is that we have 9yr old's around here with gang affiliations who are already incredibly gun savvy and normally are the gang members holding on to the gun so if the dealer needs on he calls the kids as the kid is less likely to be stopped by police.

Many of the same family members are also either ex gang or with ties to them so there's guns around all the time. The point is that there are 9yr old who KNOW what the gun can do and are not afraid to use them. It so annoys me that the parents just allow it all to go on. It also shocks the hell out of me when a child as young as this see's extreme violence as the way to sort out simple things, is this the way the parents deal with it because some one must be influencing these kids that its ok to be violent.

And I bet you 95% of them vote democrat and blame the NRA for gun violence.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

So what's your point?

Yes, the gun was indeed the instrument of execution by the 9 year old on his sister. In this case. He killed her, dead to rights, with a "GUN", he did it. We know that.

What's your point?

Outlaw guns? Is that your point? Just come out and say it!

Is your point secure the guns? Okay, fine. But just state your damn point!

You want a new law? What law, and about what?

State your point! Stop beating around the bush! Just put it out there!!

What is it you want?

ETA...Gawd, I can't stand innuendo and drama! Just get to the damn point!

ETA II...Stop dancing around the issue with fancy talk. What do you want? Point blank!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SaturnFX

And you missed the point. The point (no pun intended) is that stabbings, statistically speaking, result in a higher lethality rate than being shot.

We are looking at the same flat data here. I don't understand how you have such a wildly different view.

deaths via firearms in 2016: 11,004
deaths via knives in 2016: 1,604

guns are far more deadly than knives

Now, keep in mind, that number is super inflated not from some average joe with his shotty and NRA membership. a high number of the gun deaths are from gangster crap. If they didn't have guns, they would most likely get stabby, but the net result would be less deaths because knives are less deadly than guns.

The reason behind this is because gangster crap isn't necessarily about murdering each other..its about being tough. a few stabs making someone run home would work for most of their nonsense. a gun however has a far more powerful effect to the body making a stitching turn into a ditching

As far as how to resolve this...pandora's box is already open. you won't be getting guns off the street anytime soon...just pointing out the facts. the solution isn't easy to point out...if there is one

a reply to: SaturnFX

I don't think that was his point.

I believe his point was, on a case by case basis (a one to one comparison) stab wounds are more lethal than gunshot wounds.

I can generally agree too. Back in the 80's I worked as an EMT and what I observed during this time was, stab wounds were generally to the lower torso and/or forearms while the vast majority of bullet wounds were to the extremities. Stab wounds generally did a lot more soft tissue damage and blood loss was significantly worse with a stab wound regardless of wound location. Now, wounds to the head are a far different matter and gunshot wounds to the head were nearly always fatal whereas stab wounds to the head were seldom fatal (the skull is petty tough to stab), but gunshot wounds to the head were by far the minority of gunshot wounds overall. My observations are certainly not empirical evidence, but they were just what I observed.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

We are looking at the same flat data here. I don't understand how you have such a wildly different view.

deaths via firearms in 2016: 11,004
deaths via knives in 2016: 1,604

guns are far more deadly than knives

Because what you are citing is numbers of deaths attributed to the number of times a certain weapon was used. Just because most criminals choose to use a gun over a knife does not mean that knives are less deadly when compared to guns, it just means that they are used less.

Now, keep in mind, that number is super inflated not from some average joe with his shotty and NRA membership. a high number of the gun deaths are from gangster crap. If they didn't have guns, they would most likely get stabby, but the net result would be less deaths because knives are less deadly than guns.

Do you have evidence to back up that claim, or is that just assuming that the average use of a gun against a person is more deadly than the average use of a blade? Because nothing that you have presented shows that the blade is a less deadly weapon, it just shows that the blade is used less.

I, however, have taken training in use of straight blades as a weapon, and part of the training was specifics on studies that show that the average attack with a blade is likely to cause death more often than the average attack with a gun, where the dramatic majority of shots fired miss their targets completely.

As far as how to resolve this...pandora's box is already open. you won't be getting guns off the street anytime soon...just pointing out the facts. the solution isn't easy to point out...if there is one

No, you're providing data that doesn't back up that which you're claiming. Again, I ask you to show proof that gun attacks are, on average, more deadly than knife attacks, because all of my research and training on this subject have proven otherwise.

And like Flyingclaydisk noted from his time as an EMT, my mother was also a ER nurse and a mobile intensive care nurse throughout my young and early adult life, and she also told me from a young age that knives are the most deadly weapon out there. Yes, that small bit is anecdotal, as is Flyingclaydisk's, but the rest of what I have researched is not.

In any case, I'm not going to keep arguing this point, which I know is correct. It's a relatively pointless tangent that has gone way off-point from the OP, and I don't feel like perpetuating it is doing the thread any good.

Best regards.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: SaturnFX

I don't think that was his point.

No, it was not, and it's not what the data indicates, either, at least in the FBI statistics.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

My point is that guns are the most deadly of the commonly available weapons (not knives or clubs... which is why armies arm themselves with guns), and trying to diminish their perceived deadliness by comparing them to cars or blades is a red herring. It's a diversionary tactic used to pin the blame on anything but the gun, and it sounds like immature whining... like a kid who accidentally bounces a ball off a tree and breaks a window, then blames the tree when an adult wants to take their ball away.

Ultimately it is the persons' fault for irresponsible behaviour and consequences should apply to the individual, though as with the kid and ball, when society is showing it is irresponsible collectively with the readily availability of guns, then maybe it is time to consider exactly how guns are distributed to society.

It sucks that a few ruin it for the many, but that's what often happens in an egalitarian society.

Saying that "it isn't a gun problem, it's a parent problem", or a "mental health problem", or some other nebulous, ingrained social issue achieves nothing other than pushing back the argument for another day... and that is that the ease of access to firearms is absolutely having a net negative effect on our communities.

This is not the "gubment cumin' to take yer guns", this is a people saying that they don't like living in a society where shootings are commonplace, and any unhinged nut can potentially cause massive pain and suffering at any time, because guns are so easy to get.

The proposed solutions of better mental health care, better education or social services is not going to work (especially in the short term), as collectively we don't value those things enough in our capitalist system, so the solution is likely elsewhere.

If there was an easy solution to this, we would have already done it. I'm sure the reality is that we will need to enforce measures and compromises that will not please anyone, on either side, to curtail the problem.

For the short term (maybe a 10 year period), enact a voluntary buy-back scheme, and temporarily enforce strict gun ownership laws with a mandatory expiry date for the laws, just to try to bring the issue under some control. During that 10 year period, make a dedicated effort to enact social change. Maybe have mandatory gun training at fixed points in schools for everyone's education, or something similar. For the long term, move away from the penal system, and move towards a rehabilitation and reintegration system where we care for individuals engagement with society for the social good, that would include ending the "war on drugs", and removing harsh penalties for victimless crimes.

I think it's sad that as a human race we are not mature enough yet to globally commit to not manufacturing objects with the dedicated purpose of killing other people, but that's where we are, and because people aren't individually advanced enough to not produce weapons, unfortunately what is left is some type of blanket regulation on access and ownership of firearms.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

OK let us outlaw guns. What's next? Knives? Bombs? Baseball bats?
We have to deal with the reality that some people are sick and weapons exist.
Nothing is going to stop people from killing people.

Sad reality is we can't save everyone.

FYI. I currently don't own a gun but I may later if I decide to start hunting. To be honest though I think I'd prefer hunting with a bow.
For now I prefer fishing.