12 year old girl shoots mom

[sushi]

There are many types of gun locks.

Here is an example of a trigger lock:

http://www.triggerlock.com/triggerlocks.asp

Here is an example of a gun lock:

http://www.triggerlock.com/106gunlock.htm

As you can see, there is a big difference. Anyhow, anything is better than nothing I guess. One thing is for sure, anybody who stores a weapon that is ready to fire, deserves to be removed from the gene pool. This is plain stupid.

That is why I am a firm believer that anyone who desires to legally own a handgun, rifle, assault weapon, etc., must attend and pass a rigorious weapons safety and qualification course.

When you have been around live weapons shooting real bullets, you tend to not tolerate those who don't have a clue about gun safety, let alone knowing how to properly use one.

Sushi

 

[frozenstar]

Okay, no sweat. Understand.

So when your 12 year old, or some other teenager blows you or a close family member away, we'll just say that's fine. No reason to punish them. Besides you would not want them punished anyway.

Sushi

I never said or even implied that it's just "fine" to commit murder. I was making a point that punishment doesn't necessarily solve the problem; rather, it satisfies a human desire. And believe it or not, I don't need that desire satisfied. Punishment is not the answer.

Under most circumstances, I can't see why I'd want my child (if I ever have one) punished for committing murder. That's not to say I wouldn't want him detained, psychoanalyzed, and given the treatment necessary to assist in suppressing the aggressive behavior.

 

[frozenstar]

Bottom line, is people need to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of age. Humans have a device located between their ears which allows for judgement to be interjected in any situation. So many times it is much easier to blame someone or something else for our actions.

Sushi

With all due respect, I think that's a really narrow-minded approach. Let me give you an extreme example to help illustrate my point. Suppose I have a child and I beat him with a baton on a daily basis from the age of 5 until 15. Eventually he'll commit a violent act towards another human being. When that happens, according to you, he should be held fully responsible and punished accordingly, regardless of the fact that it was me who instilled the violent tendencies in him. You see my point? Frankly, I think your view is rather barbaric and reminiscent of the some of the more misanthropic civilizations in history. I don't mean to offend; I'm just being honest.

As always, of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

[James L]

With all due respect, I think that's a really narrow-minded approach. Let me give you an extreme example to help illustrate my point. Suppose I have a child and I beat him with a baton on a daily basis from the age of 5 until 15. Eventually he'll commit a violent act towards another human being. When that happens, according to you, he should be held fully responsible and punished accordingly, regardless of the fact that it was me who instilled the violent tendencies in him. You see my point? Frankly, I think your view is rather barbaric and reminiscent of the some of the more misanthropic civilizations in history. I don't mean to offend; I'm just being honest.

As always, of course, I could be completely wrong.

Frozen,

You are not wrong. You speak of environmental product, and learned behaviour... both well proven theories.

But, it does not take away from the basic tenant that a person who knows right from wrong must be held responsible for their actions regardless of upbringing, and that society must be protected from that person.

What form that punishment takes is always open to debate though!

 

[LethalWolfe]

I wouldn't have a clue where to get one from, and I think the same would go for the vast majority of people over here.

Considering the gun crime rate over there has been rising steadily since the late '90's (about the same time the "anti-gun" laws really cracked down) I think a fair number of Brits know where to buy firearms illegally.


What's the more important issue here, the fact that a daughter killed her mom or how she did it? Would this thread have gone the same direction if she stabbed her to death? Forest for the trees, people. You need to address the cause and not just the symptom.


-Lethal

 

[wdlove]

That is why I am a firm believer that anyone who desires to legally own a handgun, rifle, assault weapon, etc., must attend and pass a rigorious weapons safety and qualification course.

When you have been around live weapons shooting real bullets, you tend to not tolerate those who don't have a clue about gun safety, let alone knowing how to properly use one.

Sushi

I also think there should be a rigorious training course prior to a person legally owning a gun. Also strict prosecuition of our current gun laws.

Sadly criminals can still get guns. The underground economy thrives.

Sadly because of all the child abuse today, something needs to be done. There should also be a rigorious course to become a parent. They should have to have to pass a test before the child goes home.

 

[boz2004]

A few months ago, I read an article where a teen (can't remember where, but I keep thinking it was somewhere in SE Asia) took a butcher knife to his mother. She'd busted him for something and disciplined him by taking away his PS2 or XBox (one of those systems) for a couple weeks... I think I read that one in a Yahoo! News of the odd...

but, my point is...

it doesn't take a gun for someone... ummm... "out of sorts" shall we say... to inflict harm for no good reason...

when I was growing up, neither my sister nor I would have even considered looking cross-eyed at our mother if we didn't agree with a punishment... let alone contemplate murder...

makes me wonder about ever having kids - I'm strict with my sister's kids, I *know* I'd be moreso with my own...

 

[Brize]

Considering the gun crime rate over there has been rising steadily since the late '90's (about the same time the "anti-gun" laws really cracked down) I think a fair number of Brits know where to buy firearms illegally.

That's true to a certain extent. Crime involving shotguns has varied slightly year on year over the past 20 years, but remains pretty much constant. Crime involving handguns has increased over the past five years as a whole, but not year on year. Handgun crime actually decreased by 6% between 2002 and 2003. The most consistent increase in gun related crime can be attributed to air and imitation weapons.

I know the UK is often cited as an example of how gun control might benefit the US, and I was therefore curious as to the relative homicide and gun-related homicide statistics of the two countries. With this in mind, I had a look at information available from the UK Home Office and the US Bureau of Justice, from which I collated the following stats:

Average of years 1998-2002; homicides per 100,000 of the population.

England and Wales: 1.51, of which 9.1% were gun related​

United States of America: 5.74, of which 65.1% were gun related​

N.B. If you're not convinced by these stats, Google 'worldwide homicide rates' or something similar.

I'm too tired to pass comment on these figures right now, but I'm curious as to what you guys think could explain a 380% difference in homicide rates between two countries that are supposedly similar in many ways.

 

[t300]

Ages 10 to 200, if there is murder, they should be punished accordingly. Your right, maybe this 12 year old shouldn't be given the death penalty, but there are PLENTY of other cases where young people should.

Like the 15 or so year old girl, who with her friend, killed her grandparents...Lethal injection, please.

Or those 10-11 year old kids who stole from and raped a very old woman...Life sentence with no parole for all of them.

And now...This 12 year old girl who commited murder...1,000 life sentences.

 

[frozenstar]

Ages 10 to 200, if there is murder, they should be punished accordingly. Your right, maybe this 12 year old shouldn't be given the death penalty, but there are PLENTY of other cases where young people should.

Like the 15 or so year old girl, who with her friend, killed her grandparents...Lethal injection, please.

Or those 10-11 year old kids who stole from and raped a very old woman...Life sentence with no parole for all of them.

And now...This 12 year old girl who commited murder...1,000 life sentences.

Yes, yes, you've made your stance clear. But you haven't said WHY you take that position. You keep saying we should do this and we should do that, BUT WHY??? Why does a 15-year-old NECESSARILY deserve the death penalty for killing her grandparents? What exactly does it accomplish other than serving to satisfy the innate human desire for retribution?
I'm not trying to single you out. Others in this thread have said similar things, yet no one has actually supported their assertions with facts or even speculation of sort (except maybe James L). People just keep saying things like "they deserve it; case closed". Unfortunately, that's not good enough. In the real world, people have to prove their claims.

As I always say, I could be dead wrong, so don't take me too seriously.

 

[5300cs]

... here in Japan, it is easy to get a gun. Illegal yes. But easy. All it takes is the right connections and some scratch...

I live in Japan. Where to get one? Do I have to be living in Tokyo?

I do feel a little safer living over here (from the US originally) though Japan isn't as safe as it once was. Don't even get me started on how useless Japanese police are...

Hard for me to make a judgement call about the girl without more info on the mother and child.

 

[Stelliform]

....

 

[homerjward]

Ages 10 to 200, if there is murder, they should be punished accordingly. Your right, maybe this 12 year old shouldn't be given the death penalty, but there are PLENTY of other cases where young people should.

Like the 15 or so year old girl, who with her friend, killed her grandparents...Lethal injection, please.

Or those 10-11 year old kids who stole from and raped a very old woman...Life sentence with no parole for all of them.

And now...This 12 year old girl who commited murder...1,000 life sentences.

as a 14 year old i agree with that to a certain extent. however, i feel the age should be 13. if a person is 13 and can be proven competent to stand trial by adult standards and has no mental disabilities they should be tried as an adult, including the death penalty. as a teenager i know right from wrong and i know the consequences of murder and other similar crimes. if my best friend was killed by another 15 year old i dont think the 15 year old should be able to use age as an excuse for taking an innocent life. they conciously killed a person, knowing it was wrong.

 

[takao]

hmm my younger brother is 12..so at that age somebody is definatly old enough to know that you don't shot/kill somebody 'just cause' ..no normal kids are _that_ stupid..
if it were something like hurt somebody or stealing a car i would say 'give the kid therapy and when he's at legal age punishment" (here that would be 14) but shooting somebody while asleep isn't the same category.period.
find a fitting place ..perhaps there are special prisons for such young teenagers in the US i don't know...

PS: i wouldn't have an idea where to get a firearm illegal and i'm 21... (i'm sure i didn't knew it at 12 as well )

 

[edesignuk]

Considering the gun crime rate over there has been rising steadily since the late '90's (about the same time the "anti-gun" laws really cracked down) I think a fair number of Brits know where to buy firearms illegally.

Gun crime may have been rising, but it is still NO WHERE near the level of the US. Every home doesn't have a gun, and so accidents, or people just loosing their temper and going nuts doesn't happen.

 

[Brize]

I don't have any numbers handy, but from what I understand, the U.K.'s murder rate was significantly lower than the U.S.'s murder rate before the gun control laws. So you can't simply say it is lower because of the gun control laws.

Edit: Oh, I also found this article from 2002 that says England has the highest crime rate in the world among industrialized countries.

It would be too simplistic to correlate high levels of violent crime with a lack of gun control, despite the temptation to do so. Switzerland is a good example of a nation with high gun ownership and an extremely low rate of crime involving firearms. In any event, I made no such comment. I was simply curious as to what might explain the high murder rate in the US.

Yes, the UK is generally considered to have a higher overall crime rate than the US, but much of this is to do with fraud, burglary, and locking up single mothers for refusing to buy a TV licence. Violent crime – homicide, rape, and assault – are significantly higher in the US. Check out this report from the United Nations for comparable data.

This notion that the UK has only recently introduced gun control is a fallacy. Controls have been in place since 1903, and have been progressively tightened since. For example, it's been illegal for a UK citizen to carry a gun since the 1950s. As I understand it, the legislation introduced following the Dunblane massacre amounted to an outright ban on handguns. As a result, British pistol teams now have to practice their sport abroad.

 

[MOFS]

Gun 'em down

It would be too simplistic to correlate high levels of violent crime with a lack of gun control, despite the temptation to do so. Switzerland is a good example of a nation with high gun ownership and an extremely low rate of crime involving firearms. In any event, I made no such comment. I was simply curious as to what might explain the high murder rate in the US.

Yes, the UK is generally considered to have a higher overall crime rate than the US, but much of this is to do with fraud, burglary, and locking up single mothers for refusing to buy a TV licence. Violent crime – homicide, rape, and assault – are significantly higher in the US. Check out this report from the United Nations for comparable data.

This notion that the UK has only recently introduced gun control is a fallacy. Controls have been in place since 1903, and have been progressively tightened since. For example, it's been illegal for a UK citizen to carry a gun since the 1950s. As I understand it, the legislation introduced following the Dunblane massacre amounted to an outright ban on handguns. As a result, British pistol teams now have to practice their sport abroad.

To be honest, I believe the point edesignuk (and my other fellow brits -hehe!) have been trying to make about guns in our fair isles (and other countries where gun ownership is practically ilegal) is that if you want to get a gun to shoot someone, actually getting the gun is for the vast majority of people a crime. Now, without wishing to generalise, but kids don't tend to get a liscence and/or nick a gun to do a spontaneous shooting. Similarly, having that second legal loop for would-be criminals (so the criminal would have to illegally obtain a gun and then shoot someone) makes it more likely that the criminal could be either put off completely doing the crime or get caught trying to steal the gun. I would stay they're pretty strong deterrents.

 

[MOFS]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I don't have any numbers handy, but from what I understand, the U.K.'s murder rate was significantly lower than the U.S.'s murder rate before the gun control laws. So you can't simply say it is lower because of the gun control laws.

Edit: Oh, I also found this article from 2002 that says England has the highest crime rate in the world among industrialized countries.

Link

I fail to see the link between overall crime rates and gun crime rates. The breakdown from the full version of this abridged headline was that the majority of these crimes were minor ie shoplifting and other such petty fines. I don't happen to have the full article in front of me, but feel free to pay the £1 to peruse the article in your free time.

Anyway, choose the article you refer to better this time. The "Torygraph" - so called because of its unfailing allegiance to the Conservative Party, the opposition party in the UK - is one of an (unfortuant) plethora of right wing papers in our country. Only the Independent (centre) and the Guardian (left of centre) of the proper papers aren't - both reccomended reads...

Sorry to sound so curt!

mofs

 

[aloofman]

That's not to say that I don't think what is currently happening in this country RE: gun usage is appalling - rather, I don't think the problem can be legislated away. Too many people are imprisoned in this country as it is. Education would be far more effective (in solving this problem and many others). Something is wrong in this country when 12 year old children are killing their parents, but to me it doesn't follow that is simply because there is 'easy access to guns'. You don't need a gun to kill someone - trying to ban guns, for example, is like treating the symptom and not the disease. It would be better to figure out why so many people think that this kind of violence is an acceptable way to 'solve' problems, and fix that instead.

I agree. One of the great points that Moore brought up in Bowling for Columbine (in spite of his penchant for distortions and conspiracies) is that many Americans think they need to own guns for protection, when they really don't. There are a lot of paranoid people out there, and they are probably the last people that should have a gun in the house. How often does a gun make a difference for the potential victim of a crime? The gun would have to be loaded and within reach at that exact moment. That's far less likely to happen than that same gun accidentally being fired with tragic results.

On the other hand, people who think gun control actually reduces violent crime are delusional. It never has. There are too many guns out there already and too many ways for criminals to get them. Every time there's a mass shooting everyone clamors for more gun control laws, even though the perpetrators already broke a dozen existing ones.

The one wild card here is that many people on both sides assume that the Constitution allows private ownership of guns. The Supreme Court has never ruled that to be true. The few times the Supreme Court has ruled on Second Amendment cases, it was related to the "well-organized militia" clause instead of the "right to bear arms" clause. Both sides wish the Court would rule on it, but the high court has not heard a Second Amendment case in decades. It'd be nice for some clarification, even if it just fueled disagreement.

 

[Brize]

To be honest, I believe the point edesignuk (and my other fellow brits -hehe!) have been trying to make about guns in our fair isles (and other countries where gun ownership is practically ilegal) is that if you want to get a gun to shoot someone, actually getting the gun is for the vast majority of people a crime.

I think you perhaps misunderstood the purpose of my response to Stelliform. I wasn't disagreeing with either yourself or edesignuk. To my mind, the UK has far superior firearms legislation than the US, and this is perhaps reflected in a significantly lower violent crime rate. I say perhaps, because there are clearly other factors at play here. The notion that "guns don't kill; people do" is a meaningless statement, and one that belies a failure to engage with the issue at hand. However, comparing the US to nations such as the UK and Canada as a means by which to extol the virtues of strict gun control is easily countered with the example of Switzerland and other nations that enjoy a low homicide rate, despite the prevelance of firearms.

Given that there are no easy answers in respect of US gun control, I was curious as to what the folks on this forum believe to be the underlying reasons for the consistently high level of violent crime in the US, whether involving firearms or otherwise. That an average of 3.74 people per 100k of the US population die every year from firearms related violence is shocking enough, but even when we take guns out of the equation, we still find that 2 people per 100k are murdered every year in the US, compared with 1.37 in England and Wales. All things considered, that's a significant difference, and indicates that the problem of violence is not adequately explained by the prevelance of guns. Firearms are doubtless a contributory factor, but there have to be various other factors in addition.

 

[boz2004]

On the other hand, people who think gun control actually reduces violent crime are delusional. It never has. There are too many guns out there already and too many ways for criminals to get them.

Just last week, a 14 yr old was found with a gun on the school bus... he'd bought it from an 11 year old who'd found it in a park playground area...
http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/184244-2739-127.html

gun control laws don't matter when the weapon already exists and is out there... nor do I think any law can stop someone determined enough to inflict harm on another... No, not saying there shouldn't be laws on the books, as without them we're likely worse off... just saying we had best be prepared for the likelihood of having to react instead of pre-act...

 

[Wyvernspirit]

Gun crime may have been rising, but it is still NO WHERE near the level of the US. Every home doesn't have a gun, and so accidents, or people just loosing their temper and going nuts doesn't happen.

I am sure you do realize this, although your post seems to refute that, every home does not have a gun over here. I would actually say that the mojority do not have guns. Those that do however usually have many.

 

[aloofman]

To be honest, I believe the point edesignuk (and my other fellow brits -hehe!) have been trying to make about guns in our fair isles (and other countries where gun ownership is practically ilegal) is that if you want to get a gun to shoot someone, actually getting the gun is for the vast majority of people a crime. Now, without wishing to generalise, but kids don't tend to get a liscence and/or nick a gun to do a spontaneous shooting. Similarly, having that second legal loop for would-be criminals (so the criminal would have to illegally obtain a gun and then shoot someone) makes it more likely that the criminal could be either put off completely doing the crime or get caught trying to steal the gun. I would stay they're pretty strong deterrents.

That's true, but the difference isn't nearly as stark as you say because, although it varies within the US, it's a crime to use a gun for almost anything except for controlled conditions like target practice, or in those fairly rare self-defense situations. Even places that have concealed weapons laws don't let you do much with that gun if you can walk around with it. You can't brandish it and point it at people. You can't give it to minors or other people who don't have a license. In most circumstances, you can't fire it at anything without breaking some other law.

I think the fact that there are a lot more guns around is a bigger factor in crime than whether it's legal to own one, if only because it means that criminals have more chances to steal a gun.

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times last week about a tiny town in western Alaska where almost every resident has a gun, but the police aren't allowed to have them. This suited everyone just fine, except for the police officers, who rightfully worried that they could be shot without a way of shooting back.

 

[wdlove]

Another very sad incident involving children.

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/3819789/detail.html

 

[takao]

Another very sad incident involving children.

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/3819789/detail.html

i know somebody who was offered a kid in Haiti...but Milwaukee ?...