11 year old kills 8 year old over puppy

LittlePinto said:

Yeah.

An eleven year old boy shot an eight year old girl--his neighbor--with a shotgun. According to witnesses, the girl had just refused to show him her puppy.

The boy was charged with first degree murder.

Click to expand...

Guns don't kill people. Children with poor impulse control, possible mental problems and easy access to shotguns kill people.

Terrible. That poor little girl. She seems to have been showing good judgement not letting this kid see her puppy.

And yes, that's a good argument illustrated right there - it's hard to conceive that if the shotgun had not been readily available, that the kid would have found a way to get a gun and shoot her. I suppose he could have used something else for a weapon, but would it have been as lethal? There are many of these 'heat of the moment' scenarios where immediate gun availability allows the tragedy.

Feel like I should say something. Don't know what, never will, thought I couldn't pass this one without remark.

regdog said:

My heart goes out to that poor girl's family.

The parents of the shooter should be charged as accessories for leaving a shotgun and ammunition where a child was able to get a hold of both and use them.

Click to expand...

Except I don't think that's against the rules in Tennessee. I remember the kid or kids who shot up their school in, I think, Jonesboro, AK, using grandpa's weaponry. The grandfather in question said the kid knew where the gun(s) and ammo were kept and had been allowed to go shooting and was, again I think, sort of explicitly told he could use them - not for that purpose, obviously, but I believe the family didn't have a problem with the kid having open access.

By the NRA's logic, if that eight year old girl had a gun of her own, she could have defended herself. wtf, NRA, wtf.

My heart goes out to that poor child's family. I cannot--and do not want to--imagine what it must be like for them to have lost their baby. Yes, whomever left that gun out and easily accessible to an eleven year old should be charged as an accessory. That's neglect at its worst.

It's all fun & games until a kids gets hurt killed.

-cb

Follow up: I posted a link to this article on my Facebook feed, asking gun advocates if they have a good answer for it. They're condemning me for using this incident to fuel my left wing agenda and steal their rights. Can no one see that a little girl just lost her life, that a family is grieving? Can no one see that THAT's what this is about? Not some made up agenda?

what answer are they supposed to have?

William Haskins said:

what answer are they supposed to have?

Click to expand...

How about the answer of why they think gun regulation shouldn't be considered? Why government studies about the effects of gun regulations and what they could do to prevent such hostilities are being shot down and aren't receiving funding? How about why we are not open to changing our laws even a LITTLE? Why we are clinging to archaic ideals that aren't working? I'm not saying ban guns. I'm not saying take away everyone's rights. I'm saying look at the way things are now and think about what we could do to make them better, not sit around and point fingers at the mentally ill and terrorists. This child was neither mentally ill nor a terrorist, and he was capable of taking a life. We need to find a solution. What is that solution? I don't know...because no one will allow funding for a damn study that might lead to one!

Sorry, who says he wasn't mentally ill?

randi.lee said:

How about the answer of why they think gun regulation shouldn't be considered? Why government studies about the effects of gun regulations and what they could do to prevent such hostilities are being shot down and aren't receiving funding? How about why we are not open to changing our laws even a LITTLE? Why we are clinging to archaic ideals that aren't working? I'm not saying ban guns. I'm not saying take away everyone's rights. I'm saying look at the way things are now and think about what we could do to make them better, not sit around and point fingers at the mentally ill and terrorists. This child was neither mentally ill nor a terrorist, and he was capable of taking a life. We need to find a solution. What is that solution? I don't know...because no one will allow funding for a damn study that might lead to one!

Click to expand...

Did you also ask them what restrictions should be placed on being parents? It would seem an equally valid question.

I think we have to reach the point where we can productively have these conversations when there isn't a tragedy going on. However, those times seem to be getting shorter by the day.

As much as I am for better gun control for the purchase and tracking of firearms in this country, this seems more an issue of parental responsibility.

Most proposed changes to gun regulations would not have kept this family from owning a single shot twelve gauge.

What a horrible tragedy. Devastating.

randi.lee said:

Follow up: I posted a link to this article on my Facebook feed, asking gun advocates if they have a good answer for it. They're condemning me for using this incident to fuel my left wing agenda and steal their rights. Can no one see that a little girl just lost her life, that a family is grieving? Can no one see that THAT's what this is about? Not some made up agenda?

Click to expand...

I guess the parents' rights to own that gun are much more important than the child. I mean, true, they can lock up the gun and the ammo in two separate locations and tell their children not to touch the gun and the ammo but in the end, they need to keep the gun because Murrica.

randi.lee said:

How about the answer of why they think gun regulation shouldn't be considered? Why government studies about the effects of gun regulations and what they could do to prevent such hostilities are being shot down and aren't receiving funding? How about why we are not open to changing our laws even a LITTLE? Why we are clinging to archaic ideals that aren't working? I'm not saying ban guns. I'm not saying take away everyone's rights. I'm saying look at the way things are now and think about what we could do to make them better, not sit around and point fingers at the mentally ill and terrorists. This child was neither mentally ill nor a terrorist, and he was capable of taking a life. We need to find a solution. What is that solution? I don't know...because no one will allow funding for a damn study that might lead to one!

Click to expand...

well, i don't see how you regulate your way out of this one. it was a single-shot shotgun left accessible to a child.

all of the gun control in the world, all of the gun lock regulations in the world can't protect against a legal owner of one being a dumbass.

so yeah, your posting of this story on facebook as a challenge to The Big Question of gun control comes off as you using a dead child for your soapbox just as much as your were implicitly accusing others of doing.

The article I read mentions that the boy had previously bullied the girl to the point where it was reported to the principal. So the brat was bullying the little girl, but his parents still allowed him to go over to the poor girl while she was out playing.

William Haskins said:

so yeah, your posting of this story on facebook as a challenge to The Big Question of gun control comes off as you using a dead child for your soapbox just as much as your were implicitly accusing others of doing.

Click to expand...

Yup. Seriously, as a gun owner, if someone waved that story in front of my face and demanded I justify owning guns, I'd think that person was being ghoulish and nasty and not seeking answers in good faith.

It would be kind of like me, an atheist, taking that "by the grace of God" line from the linked story and demanding "So, where was your God when one child was shooting another?"

And yeah, even in rural communities where hunting is a way of life and kids learn to use guns early, you shouldn't be leaving shotguns around where 11-year-olds can pick one up unsupervised.

BenPanced said:

I guess the parents' rights to own that gun are much more important than the child. I mean, true, they can lock up the gun and the ammo in two separate locations and tell their children not to touch the gun and the ammo but in the end, they need to keep the gun because Murrica.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why this breed of argument is so common — it seems very disingenuous. Sort of like:

After a car crash kills a kid: I guess American's rights to own cars are more important than the thousands of kids who die in automobile accidents every year.

After an obese kid dies of health issues: I guess American's rights to not have the government ration out food portions are more important than the thousands of people who die from obesity-related issues every year.

It's possible to frame basically everything as an opposition between the right to X and the lives that might inevitably be lost from having that right. Because everything kills people. There are deaths caused by having the right to leave one's home that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Seems odd, however, to literally suggest that people who support a given right don't think that the lives that might be lost as a result of it are important. And it's also somewhat clear that you can't get rid of things just because they can kill people.

You could, instead, say, "I guess the parents' right to own the gun have been incorrectly judged to be more beneficial than harmful", and I personally wouldn't even argue with that — but you do lose your emotionally manipulative rhetoric!

cornflake said:

Children with poor impulse control, possible mental problems and easy access to shotguns kill people.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. My cousins and I never killed anyone.

LittlePinto said:

An eleven year old boy shot an eight year old girl--his neighbor--with a shotgun. According to witnesses, the girl had just refused to show him her puppy.

The boy was charged with first degree murder.

Click to expand...

The parents should be charged with accessory to murder. Hands down. They gave an irresponsible child access to a deadly weapon thus facilitating the crime.

They are as guilty if not more than the child.

My closest gun-owning friends argue that their children need to be able to access the guns and ammo just in case there was ever an emergency requiring such and the parents weren't readily available.

Their youngest is currently 8, and I saw a loaded rifle leaning into a corner at their house ages ago. Their house with good-sized dogs who could run into a gun running around in it. Their house with MY children present.

I long ago stopped letting them watch my children, but what they're doing isn't illegal, and according to everyone they know - and especially themselves - they are "responsible gun owners." They will be considered so up until and unless something goes horribly wrong.

RichardGarfinkle said:

The laws involved here are examples of how pro-gun laws actively interefere with other rights and responsibiltiies. Note that the second amendment right being championed completely stomps over the first amendment rights of the pediatricians as well as interfering with their duty to their patients.

Click to expand...

2 > 1. That means it's more important, right?