There is so much wrong with this story... 11 year old kills step-Mom
 

*
Pa. boy, 11, accused of killing dad's girlfriend

I don't know where to begin...

The easy place to start would be, what is a child doing with an unlocked shotgun & ammunition in his room?

But, blaming the gun isn't right. I'm sure he would of used the hatchet in the barn or the knife in the kitchen if he didn't have access to the gun.

Should he really be tried as an adult? While he probably should stay in prison for more than 10 years for what he did, I think there were a lot of factors that could push a kid to do this. From the story, I can count five things that could cause him to hate her. There might not have been any physical child abuse, but it doesn't seem like they cared about his psychological development.

Then again, some kids are just evil.

What do you think could have been done to prevent this from happening in the first place?

(*He is innocent until there is physical evidence that he did it, but let's assume for the purpose of this thread that the evidence is there)

First things first... hate is not an excuse to kill someone..

secondly.. kids this age aren't at the mental stage in most cases to really understand the consequences for actions. They don't see in the long term. They live in a world full of reset buttons and head shots.. so while the gun is nowhere near being the problem..I cannot see him being tried as an adult. Even worse, the police are relying on a 7 year old's statement.. that's just shitty police work.

I had unlocked weapons and open access to ammo when I was 9... the gun has nothing to do with this.

The kid needs to be tried as an adult. It was pre-meditated, and he showed no emotion after the incident. In my opinion the current evidence points to severe psychological problems, including psychosis. If he's not tried as an adult, permanent mental institution.

of course the gun has something to do with it.

This murder probably wouldnt have happened if it wasnt for the easy access to the gun.

The fact you didnt kill anyone doesnt mean anything Seaver, most people would not - but there are a portion of people, a combination of issues and circumstance and lack of morality, where having easy access to a gun makes ALL the difference and tips the balance.

Pulling the trigger is a lot different to clubbing someone to death with a hatchet.

Of course a determined murderer can kill with a knife or poison or something else, but the easy access to guns create both far more spur of the moment murders, and also create a morbid fascination in some unsettled minds that feeds their aggression.

__

Every time these kind of killings occur it makes a lot of buzz, but teenagers are getting shot in urban area's every day... America can have as much gun related murder as it is prepared to tolerate to be honest. People dont make the conscious connection because it is uncomfortable and unpleasant... but the rights to own firearms that so many (mostly peaceful and honest) people seem to hold dear equate to an extra number of deaths each year because of the availability of guns.

So if he used an axe the axe would have something to do with it? She was sleeping... he could have used a corkscrew to kill her without much effort.

It's not the gun?

What?

How can it not be the gun?

That the child had access to a firearm is clearly a contributing factor to the child using a gun to kill his dad's girlfriend. If there had been no easy access to a point and click instant death machine the child would not have been able to do what he did.

Would this have happened if there was no gun? No.

Does this mean that all guns are bad? No.

Does this mean that all children should have access to guns very strictly controlled? Yes.

If it was the gun that caused all this, why didn't they arrest the gun?

It is completely and wholly illogical to assign blame for this tragedy on an inanimate object. There is no process that I know of that imbues a firearm with evil malice bent on seducing weak minded people or young children to take lives.

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

and you read this from your magic 8 ball?

I see no plausible reason to try him as an adult.. he's 11. Tell me how many 11 year olds really know the weight of their actions.

Please explain how, in the absence of a gun, a child can shoot someone?

-----------------------------

To take it further...

Political arguments aside, I don't see how anyone can deny that in countries with easy access to firearms there are more murders and more suicides.

It is not even true to say that if there was not a gun the murder would certainly have happened because the kid could have used a knife or a brick.

In every case I have ever read about, making guns harder to access leads to a fall in the total number of deaths : by accident, by murder and by suicide.

you think that kids have never heard of knives or bricks? baseball bats? screwdrivers? you discredit your own argument by even intimating that this kid, or any kid, would NEVER kill another unless they had a gun.

If 11-year-olds can be tried as adults for their actions, why do we have laws that prevent them from living their lives as adults when they aren't murdering people?
Is the capacity to murder indicative of advanced maturity in an 11-year-old?

People jump off bridges and out of windows, take overdoses, even kill themselves by stepping into the path of a train or into traffic.
While almost half of all suicides is by firearm(by far more men than women use this method), the second most used method is suffocation. So perhaps we should outlaw plastic bags....
And while I can see that it would be a lot harder to go on a knifing spree than a shooting one(although people have done just that), the idea that it is the gun that did the act is like saying my frying pan made dinner.
In any case involing a violent death,we need to stop blaming the tool used and put it where it belongs-the person that used the tool.

On the surface, it looks as if this kid has some major mental health issues--if he did do it (innocent until proven guilty, remember?). I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens as they move towards trial and he gets evaluated. I don't think he should be tried as an adult. He does not belong in the general prison population at 11 years old, especially if it turns out that he does have mental health problems. gucci is absolutely right--kids that age cannot comprehend the long-term consequences of their choices. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but the consequences ought to take into consideration his age and mental health issues.

If the gun had nothing to do with this, then guns are pretty much useless and don't serve any purpose.

If the kid truly wanted the woman dead at any cost, he would have used anything to do it. He chose the gun.

Why is that?

* * * * *

I'm with guccilvr:

He shouldn't be tried as an adult.

He isn't an adult.

The only gun related argument is that it was easier for him to (allegedly) kill her. There is no need to get your hands dirty, and there was no chance that she could have survived. Using a brick, baseball bat, or knife would have been harder for an 11 year old to use.

But to get back to the original question, what should have these adults done differently to prevent him from wanting to kill her in the first place?

I'm not sure I would be so quick to lock him up and throw away the key for the rest of his life. I would guess that there are plenty of kids who might want to do this if put into this family situation, so part of it is just bad luck. But there is a long list of other things it could be as well.

Blaming the gun is like blaming the oven for burning a pizza when the cook goes on a 40min smoke break.

The mother was asleep. As I stated before, he could have used a screwdriver and successfully killed her with little effort.

I always get a kick out of these stories, not the actual story itself, it's tragic and not funny at all, what I get a kick out of is all the gun people right away start saying the gun had nothing to do with it, the gun had nothing to do with it. I'll never understand American gun culture, but sure do get a laugh out of people trying to take the blame away from guns. I enjoy shooting as much as the next guy, but come on, a gun at 11? While some at 9 can handle it, kids mature at different speeds.
seriously it doesn't have to be registered? Well fuck me that's just retarded.

This is such a fatuous argument to claim that a gun is simply a meaningless tool and it has nothing to do with the murder rate in the US.

A gun is a tool made to kill people or animals, full stop. The majority of people may be able to own guns responsibly, but some will not be able to.

In my opinion anyone who believes that these sort of tragedies would still happen in a state with no gun ownership, and the boy would have stabbed his step mother again, is simply deluding themselves to prevent them from having to face up to the reality of what THEIR right to own guns actually means.

I will say it again and more clearly. I am certain that the people on this site are honest and decent and peaceful - but the right to bare arms which you hold so dear costs lives, every single week, in the United States. People die who would not die otherwise because guns are so easy to own and carry in America.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, if guns are no more easy or convenient to use as a murder weapon, why are they the preferred choice...

Yes, it's possible to kill someone by stuff marbles up their nostrils until it reaches the brain. But it's not easy, it's not convenient and something that can be done cleanly from a distance with that few newtons of force on the trigger. It makes a big difference having the nerve to repeatedly bludgeon someone with a bat while they're screaming rather than to simply pull the trigger.

I think it is disingenuous to claim that gun ownership is irrelevant to violent crimes.
But the key is that guns really have an impact in impulse crimes. In a moment of rage or frustration someone shoots instead of punching, etc.
So in this particular case, if the action was indeed premeditated, it doesn't look like gun availability was a determining factor.

In any case, I think mixedmedia pointed to a relevant case here, which is related to age limits. We've become a society that cedes to its puritanical urges in everything related to youth except punishment. Kids are not old enough to decide to have sex, alcohol, drugs, and in some places even to go out after a certain period, but when it comes to punishing them, they become adults (as this case and the sexting cases indicate).

Please don't all atack the Brits in this thread for nt understanding the US fetishisation of guns.

It is true, if you are determined to kill, you will find a way.

It is also true that access to guns increases the rate of killings.

Period.

Seriously, it's not opinion, it's not politics, it's fact. Where it is easy to get guns, more people kill themselves and others.

Many times people say things like "ban plastic bags then", but the fact is, if guns were harder to get hold of, total deaths would fall.

It is a specious argument to state that if there was not a gun the kid would still be able to kill her. He would, but evidence shows that all over the world when it takes more than just pointing and pulling a trigger, people kill less often.

Guns make death simple. When it is simple to do something, people do it who would otherwise not have done it.

The internet makes communication easier - we could all have pen palls, we could all write mimeographed fanzines and send them to each other in the post, but most of us didn't until email and blogging made it easy. Guns make death easy, and when people an reach for a gun as easilly as they can reach for an insult, they don't call names, they shoot each other.

I'm sorry to lose track of the OP.

The kid should not be tried as an adult, but whoever allowed him to have access to a gun should be tried for creating the situation.

I think the pro/anti gun arguments bog down the real issue that causes the debate to resurface again and again: with all of our comforts and advantages, why are so many people desensitized and willing to kill each other in our society?

If this question were to find an answer then the gun question would be moot.

Guns...


Bad parenting...


Chemicals in our food...



That damned rap music them kids be listening to today...





Oprah...

This really isn't a course of action that needs to be looked at either. The only way this could even be considered is if the person who owned the gun gave it to him and knew he was going to kill someone..then it would be an easy link for aiding and abetting..

So really, where ever he got the gun, it was up to the kid to pull the trigger (if he in fact did) not up to the person who owned the gun to make sure the kid couldn't get it.

Now, before blast that whole theory to bits.. I will agree that a person should take reasonable steps to ensure that their weapons are locked and guarded against children.. but I do not agree that a person who owns the said weapon should face criminal charges when that person did not have anything to do with the crime.

That would be like saying a parent should be held criminally liable for a manslaughter charge when their teenager goes out and gets stupid in a car and kills someone. That is pure bollocks.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through this.

To me, it doesn't matter what weapon was used, what strikes me as more alarming is the idea that children view violence (and even murder) as a viable solution to conflict.

You laugh, but I don't think these are far off the mark...rather, I think every one of these are indicative in different ways of the same environmental phenomena.

Personality disorders. Just like assholes, every American's got one.

I think the truth is that's its human nature

If you believe in evolution, probably the reason that man is the apex predator is his unparelled levels of aggression and violence, which has no equal in the animal kingdom. Society socialises us to set aside these primal impulses, but when the veneer is stripped away, what bubbles under the surface comes to the light.

It's so weird that the observation that perhaps this kid shouldn't have had ready access to firearms is met with, "Oh!? So you BLAME the gun!? Suddenly it's the GUN'S FAULT???"

Jesus. People. Name one other device that any old 11 year old can use to literally turn someone else off with the push of a button. YES the kid's clearly got serious problems, YES there are thousands of kids who are perfectly safe (that is to say, well trained) with guns. But THIS kid probably shouldn't have had a gun, and this murder might not even have taken place if he'd had to actually touch his victim. Can you really disagree about that?

I'm not pro- or anti-gun. I think that gives me the room to look at the issue rationally. In THIS CASE, that kid shouldn't have had that gun. In THAT household, I'm very much pro gun control.

Oooooh... god, the short hairs on the back of my neck just twinged. :love:

No, it's called responsibility... something a lot of Americans like to push off onto inanimate objects because they can't handle the concept that responsibility is a behavior. How can we explain this? I grew up around free access to guns and look at my body count: 0.

It doesn't matter if it's a gun, bro. A failure in parental responsibility is the same for all inanimate objects... whether it is over an unlocked gun cabinet, your Xanax and Vicodin stash in the bathroom, car keys lying on the end table, Internet usage while you're not around, the liquor cabinet when you go out of town, your failure to check Johnny's room for dime bags, etc.

I've never seen anyone have to have a talk about responsible screwdriver ownership...

No one is arguing that many responsible people own guns and dont commit crimes.

No one is arguing that murders are not committed by other means.

But as stated by myself and others, the widespread availability of guns in America causes some deaths. Some people are killed who would not be killed if guns were not widely available, evey year, every month, every week.

I say again that if you try and deny this you are simply protecting yourself from an uncomfortable truth. You, and the country, must judge if the freedom to own guns and the benefits to those who use them responsibly, is worth the lives it costs.

You might use the same arguments for speed limits. Without speed limits, many of us would still drive safely and responsibly. But do you really suppose that if there was no speed limit applied, there would not be more deaths on the roads?

This is becoming some sort of US=gun nuts vs. Britain=peaceniks when Britain has also had its share of gun violence and the most publicized were shooting sprees with multiple deaths so don't blame the US for this.

The fact is that those with a mind to do so will commit whatever crime that warped mind decides and having gun laws doesn't change that.

This is about an 11 year old kid who voiced his desire to kill an eight months pregnant woman and did so and no one noticed his mental state. Now they want him tried as an adult....
Even if he is tried as an adult, they probably wouldn't put him in an adult prison, if convicted, until he is of age to be so. In New Jersey(neighbor to PA where this took place) is a full youth's prison, the Yardville Correctional Facility. He'd probably end up there.

yes, there are shootings in the UK. Far, far fewer - because it is a lot harder to get hold of guns.

so I'm guessing this blanket statement means all of your parents are just better at keeping guns from children eh?

This simply falls under the category of people not paying attention. It's the same as the Virginia Tech story.. the Columbine story.. it's been replayed over and over.. and people still wonder what the fuck is wrong.. I'll tell you what's wrong.. parents (and I'm a parent so I have full right to say this) should pay more attention to what their kids are doing and saying instead of how fat their bank account is. I see all these parents who do nothing with their kids when they get home..they pop on the television and let the kids coma out and then wonder why they didn't see the signs earlier...

So what could have been done to prevent this.. who knows..maybe nothing; but I'm guessing just a little bit of positive interaction with the child would have at least served to deter this incident from happening. If not, at least they wouldn't be so surprised that something happened.

Question:
Can you really tell if one has the faculties necessary to distinguish right or wrong at the age of 10? Has anybody ever looked into this? Scratch that, let's say at the age of 16. Is one considered "socially fit" to make decisions at such an age?

Being charged as an adult is just not right. And no, I'm not making excuses for even minor misbehaviors. I know this is serious, someon lost a life.

That said, It's definitely the gun. I live alone and I have baby proofed my house. I make sure cleaning bleaches and detergent are far away from my neice whenever she comes visiting. Electrical sockets are all covered up and she doesnt have a chance of poisoning me or herself. I dont own a gun. So the detergeant or the bleach could be the gun in this case. It's not wheather it's right or wrong to own a gun .... it's how they took care of it that is in question here.

It's interesting that here, where it is illegal to own a gun (with few exceptions), there is almost no gun violence.

OMG!!! THANK YOU!!! I really wanted to asert my beleif (I have no idea is true)...... Where I come from either there is no gun violence as well!!!! People who actually own guns are hunted down like animals and locked up for a substantial amount of time!!!

**sighs**

another thread

/threadjack

Can someone explain to me why a 'kids gun' doesn't have to be registered, and an 'adults gun' has to be registered? They're both gun, both capable of firing a projectile that can end a persons life, is it because it's smaller and cuter than the adults gun?

it's Pennsylvania, weapons do not have to be registered, at all.

The law in Pennsylvania is that a child at 10 can be charged with criminal homicide and tried as an adult. The tests will show if the boy's gun was used in the shooting. There will be fingerprints on the gun. The report that he told someone else that he was going to do this shows premeditation and awareness of the consequences of his actions. This kid will probably be tried as an adult and should be. The law is the law. Somone has to pay, and you can't charge the parent with murder. If a 10 year old kid murdered one of my relatives I would want him/her sent away for life. I would not look away and say "oh, but he's just a little boy." A case like this shows that there should be new laws regarding children and access to guns. That will never happen.

Wow, that's just fucked, mental note, stay out of Pennsylvania.

Wow. Emote much?

Americans and their gun rights always amaze me. Many simply refuse to see any correlation between the number of guns on their streets and the massively huge number of gun related crimes and deaths.

It all comes down to personal responsibility without any thought to the fact that there is more to it than that.

I am not against private gun ownership but the situation that exists in the US goes beyond the pale.

Ya know, I'm really quite surprised at some of the talk here. The gun is fair play, but does anyone truly believe that an *11* year old really knew the full weight of the action? So what if he thought about it first, he was thinking about the actual act and not the consequences that could come from it. To try him as an adult would make the justice system more of a joke than it already is.

Just because a law exists does not mean that it is a correct and moral course of action. The fact that the state allows for the prosecution to charge as adults for *children* as young as 10 is remarkable on its own; the fact that people are ok with it is even more remarkable... Or should I say sad.

If this same child was the victim of some sick sexual offense, everyone would be crying that he's just a child and can't comprehend the full weight of the situation. But throw a gun into the mix and suddenly he's an adult monster. Sad.

I agree Gucci. I am amazed that an 11-year-old could be charged as an adult.

That doesn't mean that you can walk into a 7-11 and pick one up next to the donut bin, but it is pretty dumb, specially nowadays.
Source

A simple test of this is to ask a 10-12 year old, "What happens when someone dies?"

A lot of them just simply don't know. The development of complex abstract thought just isn't there at the age of 11 to understand that shooting someone results in a permanent death that can't be undone.

I had this discussion with the 6th graders I used to teach. More than half the students had the ability to put two and two together to a point. They see an actor on t.v. or in a movie die and then later see them in another movie. In their mind, the death wasn't permanent. While the students knew that the actors were just acting, their brain hasn't made the distinction that the death was faked, too. There seemed to be a belief that if someone was shot in a movie, they were actually shot.

Like the title says, though, there is so much wrong with this story that the child's inability to be aware of the ramifications of his actions is only part of the problem.

I didn't reckon you could go to the local Kwik-E-Mart and buy one from Apu, but I figured they had some kind of registration system or something.

Is it just handguns that has to go through PICS or is it rifles as well? If it's just for handguns it's a rather half assed attempt on their part to keep tabs on things.

Yeah it is rather boggling Gucci that an 11 year old could be charged as an adult

now this is just plain dumb. what possible good would weapon registration have done for this particular incident? Now, ask that for ANY criminal incident that happens? what POSSIBLE difference would the weapon being registered have made? would that firearm think to itself 'I can't kill this woman, i'm registered'!!!????

There is the slippery slope that people who are anti-registration worry about.

There will be limits as to who can own guns by the government. Let's say, The government won't allow anyone who is depressed, unemployed, has anger problems, divorced in the past 5 years, loses custody of kids, is on certain medications, isn't part of the cool kids at school, and the list goes on.

Dumb you say? My opinion is dumb, I'll keep my not so pleasant comments about your opinion to myself, possibly you should try the same next time, or address it in a more respectful manner, rather than calling it 'dumb'.

Never said registration would have done a damn thing in this situation DK, read my post again, just saying it's fucked that they don't have to register their guns is all

What difference would a weapon being registered make in ANY crime? I can think of a lot of good things it would do, but honestly I can't be bothered to waste my time, it won't make any difference in your opinion, so why waste my time, I'll just go bang my head against a brick wall instead, probably get more satisfaction from that.

Yes, I said DUMB!!! Why you ask? because you said THIS about no registration in Pennsylvania, and I quote as if you are saying that pennsylvania is a horrifically dangerous state because they don't register peoples weapons. How much about the 50 states of our nations gun laws do you know? Would you run screaming in terror to find out that there might be 14 states total that require any registration at all? All of those other states do not require registration of firearms, ZOMG RUN FOR YOUR LIVES WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM UNREGISTERED WEAPONS!!!!!!.

Yes, I said dumb.

It's YOUR nation, not OUR nation, so yeah I know fuck all about gun laws in YOUR nation, I could give a rats ass about YOUR nation, you guys could kill yourselves off for all I care, I'd even send flowers, maybe piss on a grave or two as well.

Think what you want about my opinion, call it anything you like, as I said before I'll keep my unpleasant comments about your opinion to myself, and keep addressing you in a respectful manner, even though you don't deserve it. I'll go bang my head against that brick wall now, rather than waste anymore time on the likes of you.

After looking at one link it seems Penn. isn't very safe for black people:
Gun Guys Pennsylvania Leads Nation In Per Capita Rate Of Black Homicide Victimization
And with that I'm done wasting my time on this thread, have fun DK, try showing people a little more respect than to just call their opinion dumb, I could say a lot of what you type is dumb, but I guess being able to control yourself comes with maturity, you'll see that someday.

Se - this is where we differ, because I do actally believe that what you said there (my highlight) should be the case.

Just to get this clear - if you have control of something, and if the attempt to use it for its normal purpose could have clearly expected fatal consequences (a car crash, a shooting, etc), then I believe you should be criminally liable for the consequences of allowing that item into the control of someone who mi-uses it. I have no problem if you want to own a gun for legitimate reason (farmer for pest control, hunter for deer whatever other reason your chosen society allows) but if you allow your kid to get hold of it when quite clearly they shouldn't (I think it's clear that a death was a bad thing) then you are complicit.


I think it's not "US=gun nuts vs. Britain=peaceniks", I think it's "US=personal freedom at the possible expense of collective safety, vs. Britain=public safety at the possible expense of collective freedom".

The point being that in this country, we have far more controls on all sorts of areas of life many of which confuse and anger Americans, but in consequence we have fewer people dead of gunshots, fewer people allowed to die because their medical cover was insufficient, more controls over food ingredients, more controls over industrial pollution, and so on.

I don't think it is like this at all. At the level of discourse, maybe, but in actuality its nothing like that. In several respects the US, and many American citizens, are much more comfortable imposing draconian restrictions on personal freedom, usually claiming it to be in the name of collective safety. If on healthcare provider and guns the discourse of personal freedom is very strong in the US, the same is not true for sex, drugs and law enforcement.

In fact, I think few western countries regulate sex to the extent that the US does, with its sodomy laws, its indecency laws, and its anti-gay laws. Same with drugs, where in most states you can get a pretty strong opiate for pain, but mention medical marijuana and you are in trouble.

Just as an extreme example, in the state I live in right now, there are less regulations concerning the buying and selling of guns then there are regulating the buying and selling of cough syrup.

National cultures are usually schizophrenic like that, so it is not exclusive to the US or any country. What works at the level of discourse is often very different from reality.

This, I think, is also closely related to video game violence and the prevalence in US made movies for violence. It constantly amazes me the amount and level of violence on TV, especially when counterpointed with the level of sex and nudity on TV. This is one example of the gun culture in the US skewing things (imo) wildly. It always seems to amaze me the number of violent TV shows and movies and the relatively few that show nudity or sex.

I think this adds to the difficult younger people have with violent imagery.

Before anyone jumps on me, I don't believe that violent video games *cause* violence, but I think they do lessen the impact actual violence has.

On the adult thing - that sounds like just about the stupidest law I have ever heard of. Of course he isn't an adult!

One consequence being the collective surveillance state that the UK has become...

I'm not pro- or anti-gun in particular (although I'm coming to resent having to say that as a preface in so many god damn threads). Given the two options Daniel_ presents, I choose neither. Is a rational and balanced and mature approach too much to ask? The US is "Give me my toys" like a five-year-old. The UK is "We have to watch you to keep you out of trouble" like we're five-year-olds. How about we all grow the fuck up and do what makes sense for society AND individuals??

So a father hands his keys to a 16 year old who tells him he's only going out with a couple of friends to watch a movie..and ultimately gets into a car wreck that kills someone else..and the father should be held criminally liable?? I cannot wrap my head around this. The father had no expectation or warning of misuse by the kid. How can he be at all responsible??

The same goes for a gun.. if a father has done everything he is supposed to do to train the child of the proper use for a gun, how can he be held responsible when the kid mishandled the gun? It's not the father's brain, it's not the father's finger pulling the trigger.. it's his son. Now if the father had known about some mental instability before hand and just handed him a gun with no prior supervision or training then maybe that would be a case.. but in most cases I feel it wouldn't be.

A car's not built for killing things.

Do you really think this 11-year-old was sufficiently trained in firearms safety? And if you do, do you think he really had the maturity to have ready access to his own firearms? And if so... how do you explain what happened? Sheer psychosis? Whose job is it to keep guns out of his psycho children's hands (he asked, helpfully embedding the answer in the question)?

I think we'd do really well (ALL of us) to resist blanket pontification either for or against gun control based on this case. This case is a major exception--which is why it's news.

In this case, I think dad's to blame.

Okay, let's play with this statement and really kill the thread since it's going down-down-down like that Bruce Springsteen hit from when I was born.

I want someone to pick up an instruction manual for a firearm manufactured in the last 75 years and find a heading that says something about killing things (people). Funny, I've a working knowledge of over a hundred different firearms and I just haven't seen any product literature where my target pistol or deer rifle or concealed carry revolver or steel plate competition AR tells me to go and "kill things." Nope, it talks about safety, disassembly, and cleaning. I wonder why that is? Intended use, maybe? I wonder if the manufacturers of the Swiss Army knife had to change their EULA after OJ sliced and diced himself some Nicole Brown with one of their fine products? Probably not.

People are just cranky about guns because they're more effective than other implements. That's all it is. Bodycountability.

Blame transference and shotgun litigation have made us all morons.

...

And I concur with you 100%. Young kids shouldn't have unsupervised access to firearms. Ever. They're just straight stupid. Curious, impulsive, and dumber 'n mud. Laws shouldn't be used to reinforce common sense, it should be the other way 'round. I don't care if you live in the US, the UK, or Zimbabwe... kids are very similar in the traits listed above. Education helps reduce issues, but only responsible storage behaviors and handling training prevent issues like what we encounter on a daily basis here in the Most Violent Country in the Universe (TM).

At 16? Maybe... if you, as a parent, are willing to risk your life over it. Don't worry about your training or your kid, just worry about the wild world out there and their interpretation of your parenting. I'm not going to chance it, I've seen the ringer in action.

At 18? You're your own legal target, so have at it. I'll probably buy my offspring a high skool graduation present similar to what my father got for me back in the day, a nice target rifle.

When I finally find a mate and decide to produce a wittle Crompling, said creature will be schooled from day one that firearms are not toys (like a butcher knife or power drill) but they are not dangerous if handled properly. No fear, just responsibility. Safe handling should be a way of life, not something that causes someone to sweat. If it turns out my Crompling has homicidal tendencies... well, they don't have the combo to the vault, anyway.

So are you assuming that if he was trained that that would have solved anything? I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun either, but the father cannot be held criminally liable in this case because we do not for one know the mental state of this *child* and two as I've said over and over again, the 11 year old does not know the extent of what he was doing. So we can blame the parents all we want, and I would have no problem in joining that blame, but the father had nothing to do with the crime when it happened. While it is up to the father to make sure the guns are safe, there is no such thing as childproof. A child is going to get what they want if they want it bad enough. The father is more than liable in civil court, but not in a criminal court.

Guccilvr,
I think that an important distinction here is that the child did not get one of his father's guns, but used his own, which he has full access to at all times and keeps in his room, along with ammunition. And apparently, there had been known issues with jealousy, and the kid even told some in his family what he wanted to do...

Uhm... that's the core problem. Legal or not... a kid shouldn't possess a firearm and ammunition. Period. Falls towards the Super Bad Parenting category like a lead balloon. I still have a hard time believing PA law. I need to go read about it.

what question of PA law would you like answered?

I just have a hard time believing that a state has "no registration." You still have to be 18/21 to purchase, right? And something tells me if PA was this wild 'n free, I woulda heard about it before.

Example: Vermont has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US and they still have the same old forms that I've filled out in VA, NC, SC, etc.

what it sounds like you're referring to is the form 4473, filled out when you buy a gun from an FFL. These are federal forms, not state. legalistically speaking, that is not registration. Of course the ATF can trace just about any gun back to the dealer it's bought from because of it, but the government will tell you that it's not 'registration'. Bullshit, but there it is.

PA law maintains a 'sales' database, not a 'registration' database. word difference only, but they will never admit to registration, because PA law specifically forbids gun registration databases. sort of a pandering to the public, but they will do it somehow.

A majority of states in this union have no registration. I own two handguns right now, not registered. I didn't buy them from an FFL. I bought them from private individuals. I'm not required to register them with any government agency, nor would I be required to if I lived in PA. Not in VA, SC, nor NC. Now, NC requires a 'permission' slip, or a gun purchase permit for each handgun you buy. This is also not 'technically' registration as the records for these are supposed to be discarded after a certain period of time. But we all know how government works, right?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It sounds like you're questioning my assertion that guns are built to kill things, since because the manuals don't talk about killing things. (I'm going to say that without my usual disclaimer, and just see how much trouble that gets me into...)

I hope you're not then saying that the purpose of a gun is to be safe, to disassemble it, or to clean it, since that's what the manual talks about? That the whole point of having a gun is to take it apart and clean it?

On a related not that's not a direct response to El Crompo's comments above: I think that blurring the line between a weapon and a tool is one we do at great peril, as a society.

You are right, and I may have been overlooking that point, but I still don't think the father can be held criminally liable. He has the burden of being liable in civil court undoubtedly, but the father didn't commit any crime, with maybe the exception of not paying enough attention.

I am in no way saying that guns aren't a problem.. there are plenty of stupid people out there with guns..but we can't just look at an object and blame the object. The blame ultimately has to fall on the person who controls the gun. In this case, the child is to blame for how he used the gun.. and even though I believe he shouldn't be tried as an adult.. he'll still serve a lengthy sentence if he is found guilty. It doesn't matter if he is tried as an adult or not.. it's basically just saying you're going to go to prison either way, but it's taking out the capital punishment issue by not trying him as an adult. (I'm assuming PA has capital punishment)

Thanks. Yeah, I knew that fed form stuff. Just wanted confirmation on the state stuff since I don't pay a whole lotta attention when I fill out the white and canary in triplicate every month to get my next child-eating hunk of homicidal metal.

So basically... state reg... it's all talk that you're playing up to sound Wild 'n Free while the man still knows your number. It doesn't matter if it's state or fed, somebody somewhere has your name and address.

Hah, it's like saying it's okay if Dad knows you're taking his care keys as long as your sister doesn't.

Pfft.

1. Well, the short answer to that is yes. You ARE, in fact asking too much. I might have said this somewhere, the person is smart, people are stupid. Now, let's give stupid people guns..... I think not only in the USA but everywhere, the same thing will happen.

2. See number one above. People, not the person. In this case, (I'm assuming the kid is guilty which is wrong but I dont give a s***...) I blame the parent for having lackluster safety protocals. Hence the 5 year old thing comes into play. I live off the philosophy that the one day you go astray is theone day you loose something. I guess I'm a firm supporter of Murphy's Laws.

3. LOL, Since when has that happenned?? Which society, with all laws and safety measures in place...., has been known to get things right? I'm not counting the accidents. Don't give examples to do with vehicles ... any number of things could go wrong behind the steering wheel besides drunk driving.

What I'm trying to say is rat ..... you've gotta choose one.
a) Get strict gun laws or no guns at all
b) Be lax on gun laws.

No happy medium can be found there. There can be no inbetween when dealing with societies because as soon as we start compensating for some types of people, other folk will want there compensations as well. In the USA, though, we're lucky we vote on the state level.

And yes, poeple are stupid, no one here can convince me otherwise.

Wow, I'm glad you're not in office. All or nothing is about as immature as... my blog. Our gun laws, as they stand today (for better or worse) are the product of thousands and thousands of hours of compromise.

I don't think people are blaming the object, but the negligence with regards to it. This whole "objects dont kill people, people kill people" is a cop out that can be applied to anything anywhere at any time. Not that I favor strict gun control or anything like that, but the same argument could be made about leaving an uncapped bottle of poison within a child's reach, or asking your 10 year old to drive, or anything like that. The point being that certain objects require a greater amount of supervision than others.

Saying that an 11 year old who has been telling his cousins that he wants to kill his step mom should not have free, unlimited and unsupervised access to guns and ammunition does not mean that one is for gun control or against guns. If the responsibility is civil or criminal is another matter. But I would imagine that even the staunchest pro-gun, NRA-card carrying person recognizes that it is gross negligence to let a kid who has had issues with the step mother, and who has made comments about killing her, have his own gun freely accessible at his room, and that perhaps the outcome of all of this would have been different had the gun been locked away or kept under the father's supervision.

I don't necessarily disagree with you.. in fact you are spot on for the majority of this, my only point is that in the end we don't know if anything would have stopped this from happening.. so blaming the father is kind of just a position of having something to blame as a cop out much like the blame people not the object you are referring to.

I don't think the father should be criminally liable for this but he does share some culpability in this. You can't let kids have uncontrolled access to guns.

Gun owners can drone on and on about how it isn't the gun's fault but it wouldn't have happened if the kid didn't have access to the shotgun. Now the whole family is FUCKED because of this.

See, that's the kind of thing you hear from the pro-gun crazies, though.

"Wow. That's tragic. That kid probably shouldn't have had a gun, hunh?"
"What!? How dare you BLAME GUNS for this horrible event???"
"Um. Scroll back a line and read what I said, dude."

NOBODY'S BLAMING GUNS. Nowhere ANYWHERE on this thread has ANYONE implied that a gun has free will and can perform horrible acts without a person actually there using it. SEVERAL times on this thread people have been ACCUSED of making such a claim.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

What do you do, then? You've just said two things that can't inhabit the same space at the same time. Does the kid get locked up until he's 18? At best that delays the problem, at worst, it produces a true psychopath. Do you try the kid as an adult so he can stay locked up for a proper term, for Murder 1? Sentenced to life in prison at the age of 11? That's pretty hard to swallow.

At the VERY least, Dad's guilty of criminal neglect.

C'mon dude, have you never been to high school? I would want a compromise to compensate for me if they are meeting other people halfway ..... When dealing with large groups of people, you cannot cater to all of them because you have to start looking at them individually. Making things exponentially harder. It's a sacrifice the masses has to make.

Even if the child is not tried as an adult, he could still be sentenced to a proper term. The only difference is that he won't face Capital Punishment sentencing, and he'll spend 7 years in Juvie, then the rest of the sentence in an adult facility. That is of course if he passes a mental exam.

Is this really a necessary comment? There is no reason to question anyone's mental capacity or credits.

keep it civil.

I believe you're quoting "Men In Black", there?

Apart from being a revoltingly simple-minded view of humanity, I can point you to many many counter-examples. But even letting it stand, guns aren't owned by PEOPLE. A gun is owned by a PERSON. When (and it's the exception) one of those people is using their gun in a way that's not consistent with the common good, laws are used to disarm that person and protect people from them.

Dude, stop reading into my comments!!!!

High school is where I learned that you get punished for shit that the whole class did and ot neccessarily you!!! Even military sometimes this happens. I WASN'T in any way questioning Cromps mental capacity. I dont do that. I'm smart.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

Yes, that is where I heard it from, thanks.

You think it's simple minded ... er, ok yeah it is. I do have a tendancy not to trust because I've been burned way too many times and I am quite happy where my mindset has gotten me but I have to say ..... It's the bottomline.

Either one thing will happen, dont you think, either this article will be published or not.... it could have ben anything but the simple reason it has a gun related to it is why the hype.

Do you not agree?!?!?!?!

If an 11 year old does not have the full rights of an adult then they do not have the full responsibilities.

If it is true that this 11 year old was allowed to OWN HIS OWN GUN then the father who is responsible for this should face criminal charges of some sort (accessory seems a bit harsh, but he should be looking at a 3 year stretch) certainly not keep custody of any other children.

RB, if a guns only purpose is to kill, why do we arm our police forces with them? police officers are not authorized executioners, right? A police officers job is to maintain law and order, serve the public, and protect the community as a whole. What possible purpose would it serve then, to arm police officers with tools that are designed to do nothing but kill people?

Its the law of escalation quite simply, D

If the law abiding citizens have guns, the villians have guns, so the copper's need guns.... how else could you arrest a villian when he has a metal and you have a truncheon? I think you understand this and such arguments are beneath you.

Do you believe that America maintains such a huge stock of nuclear weapons because it plans to decimate every major city in the world?

so the basic tenants of your argument is that if civilians didn't have guns, cops wouldn't need guns, do I have that right?

of course. Ordinary police arent armed in the UK, and the "special" teams that are are hopeless and should not have them (for example they gunned down an innocent Brazilian electrician on the tube a couple of years... and none of the thugs who shot the guy have even been sacked, let alone faced manslaughter or murder charges)

I firmly believe that only the army should be allowed to carry guns, and special army units should deal with crisis situations in civilian life. There is some argument that farmers need shotguns for pest control also - but the police dont need guns if the population is effectively disarmed.

Right... ask the British police how that's worked for them. Criminals still have guns, the people who are supposed to subdue said criminals are at a severe disadvantage. Essentially a criminal with a gun can only be apprehended by being stupid.

The police use superior (hopefully) firepower as a means of enforcing authority with the threat of physical, possibly mortal, violence. I'm thunderstruck that I have to spell this out. Are you actually denying that guns are meant to inflict injury up to and including death?

It was the first lesson I learned in gun safety: never aim a gun unless you intend to destroy what you're aiming at. To say a gun is for anything less than that is to turn it into a child's toy, and to ENCOURAGE the kind of incident that we're talking about here. And I know you're not FOR 11-year-olds committing cold-blooded murder, right?

then you might want to catch up on what the police training and policies about drawing their sidearms are all about. NOWHERE have I ever read that police are allowed to draw their pistol to enforce a law. EVERYWHERE have I always read that a policemans handgun is ONLY to be drawn in order to defend themselves.

so what is it to be? are we being lied to? I think not. You cannot have it both ways. Guns are either designed to kill, or they are built to provide self defense.

Unless of course you'd like to claim that police officers are a superior class of people deserving of a broader range of rights.

I damned well did when i caused trouble at ages much younger than 11, and i'm sure you did to.

Personally i think letting a kid that young have such easy access to a gun is a mite idiotic, but we'll have to see how the case pans out.

Fucked up case all around really:sad:

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is what I like to call political denseness. Our friend dksuddeth is being deliberately obtuse when it furthers his political agenda.

I have a question for you, dk, and I invite you to engage with this question as honestly as possible. HOW precisely does a gun provide self defense? By threatening... WHAT exactly? If I want to defend myself from you, and I aim a gun at you, I'm keeping you from harming me by saying to you, in effect, "Come any closer and I'll...." ... WHAT, exactly? Scratch your back? File your taxes? WHAT?

This is the problem with the gun debate. I don't think either side deals honestly in it. I genuinely don't have a dog in the fight--I just want people to say it like it is. A gun is MEANT to wound, injure, maim, or kill something. I don't have a moral problem with that, it's just the truth. (In fact, I think having a moral problem with that in the abstract is as absurd as saying "a gun is a tool and you blame the gun for the violence".) You can't turn a screw with a gun. You COULD hammer a nail with one, but I don't recommend it. To treat it as a tool at the same level as say a power sander is just absurd.

No RB, what we have here is you attempting to side step your own landmines because you just got trapped by your own words.

I had a whole huge paragraph to continue on this, but it would hijack the thread even further. Suffice it to say, this kid may have known what he was doing but 11 is too young to be tried as an adult.

Not sure how old you are now, but really?

I didn't know the full extent of my actions at 11.. it's been proven over and over again that children just simply cannot comprehend the actions and the consequences that could follow. Thinking "I might get in trouble" simply doesn't cut the standard that an adult would follow. An adult plays through all the scenarios and understands what each one could bring before making an action..well some do.. ;)

an 11 year just lives in the moment.. he understands right from wrong, but doesn't necessarily understand the extent of the wrong or what will happen when that wrong is committed.

I wrote a long diatribe, but upon review wasn't happy it furthered the discussion.

What I can't get my head round is that anyone can argue against the fact that in all cases the death rate correlates with the number of legal firearms out there.

If there are more legal guns per capita in a country, then there are more people killed per capita.

(see data from here: GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates)

Have less guns, have less deaths.

I think it's sad that this happened I think the gun is to blame in regards to her being dead however I don't think the gun is the reason she was killed
the child because thats what he is clearly has/had some serious problems and would have done violence in any case

the question of whether he would have been able to kill her is up for debate, if he had attacked her with a screwdriver it would have been harder for him to kill her and she might have had some chance to fight back, this is all theoretical nevertheless the idea that any child should be given a gun and ammo to be kept in their personal possession is ludicrous, the whole they don't/can't truly understand their actions is you* making that argument for me

personally I think the child should be in prison for life **and that the father should do some jail time as well

I think that the child says taking the car to the movies and gets in an accident is not an accurate portrayal of the idea, I think that the kid takes the car gets drunk and gets in an accident is an accurate portrayal of when the parents should also be locked up

if the child killed the mother with a screwdriver I think the father should not face jail time however because the child had easy access to and used the firearm to kill someone the father should

some of my not entirely on topic beliefs
-the idea of being able to have a gun in the house and completely deny any possible access to a child living in that house is foolishly optimistic
-All people should be required to take parenting classes when in high school
-the American prison system needs a major over haul either in the positive direction of rehabilitation or the "negative" severe punishment one



*not aimed at anybody in particular more at society with its laws regarding culpability

** see Boy A for a good movie experience as well as a glossy example of how you miss things in prison and to lock somebody up during their formative years is a bad idea

This is my last post in this thread, or anything to do with firearms on TFP, or probably anything to do with firearms anywhere else on the internet. I'm contemplating taking a break from TFP in general, actually, although when I've contemplated that before, it's usually only lasted a few hours. So... I'm contemplating it, but I'm probably not going anywhere.

The irony here is, I don't even care. I just want people to have a LITTLE intellectual honesty. And I'm willing to be the guy on the sidelines of the scrum, pointing out where people are cheating. Somehow my wish that people pull their heads out of their talking-points and actually THINK gets me dragged into one side of the debate. I HONESTLY don't care. Have your guns! Or don't! What the hell ever! Just deal honestly in the discussion. That's really all I'm interested in.

Whatever. I'm disgusted with all of us right now. Myself included.

umm.. how would a parent be responsible for this?? Unless the parents gave him the booze, there's no culpability on the parent's part in this example.

This is fairly simple when you break it down.

1) Trying the kid as an adult is stupid. We have separate juvenile and adult justice systems because we acknowledge that children are not mature enough to reliably act in a reasonable manner. We acknowledge this elsewhere in society by not letting kids drive, vote, drink, or enter into binding contracts. What we say when we try a kid as an adult (the specifics of this case are irrelevant) is "You are a child and therefore you are not mature enough to reliably act in a reasonable manner, unless you did something really bad, in which case, dammit, you knew exactly what you were doing. We are putting forth the, frankly idiotic, argument that children are too immature for rational thought unless what they are thinking about exceeds societal norms. "You can't rationalize the pros and cons of driving unsafely, but you are fully, 100% capable of thinking about every consequence to shooting someone in the head." It's a moronic way of thinking. Either have two separate justice systems as we do now, and keep them separate, or combine them and try everyone as an adult. This picking and choosing because "we're really mad at you for what you did even though it hasn't been proven yet in court that you did it" is vacuously idiotic.

2) It's not the gun's fault that the woman died any more than it is the bomb's fault that people were killed in the explosion. That said, the gun did /enable/ the child to shoot the woman. Pretty simple equation. If the kid can't get hold of a gun, he can't shoot anything. Again, this goes back to point 1. Kids can't drive, but they can have unfettered access to firearms? That's stupid. So the kid and his dad liked shooting things with the shotguns. That's fine. When you're done, take the gun away from the kid and put it up until the next time you go out shooting. There's no reason for a little boy to have a lethal weapon.


I find it interesting, by the way, that, in general, the people that loudly proclaim that it's not the gun's fault and therefore we must not think about taking guns away from people are the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq when we were told it was to find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction. It's not the WMD's fault either, and so by that logic, we should not have tried to confiscate them.

3) I think mixedmedia's point is the best in here. We have a system set up where we routinely commit atrocities against one another and then everyone quickly avoids trying to find out what the real problem is by arguing over some 3rd party object. People are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise, but instead of addressing the fact that we as a nation are a bunch of lazy pigs, we argue over whether or not we should sue McDonalds. People commit acts of violence against each other because for whatever reason they think it's ok and proper to do that, but instead of trying to find out what that reason is, both sides sit around spouting bullcrap about whether or not guns are to blame. As someone else in here pointed out, if there hadn't been a gun the kid would have used a knife. Or a hammer. The fact is that, whether the gun was there or not, and whether the gun should have been there or not, and whether guns should or should not be legal, the fact that the kid had such a disconnect as to think that murdering a woman as she slept was OK still remains. If we want to solve the violence problem we have, we need to get to the root of that disconnect.

After all, if no one ever wanted to kill anyone, then we could have all the guns we wanted, and we'd still never have a murder, right?

He should be tried as an adult.

I had access to unlocked gun and ammo as child and I was taught the consequences of what shooting a person or myself would be.

This boy was taught how to use a gun, and when somebody uses a gun they should immediately understand the obvious consequences of shooting a person or thing with it.

This kid just shot her and left for school. He had no remorse for what he did. He didn't bother to tell anyone. No matter what the motive, there is no excuse for what he did.

Then, I would ask you, are you advocating dissolving the juvenile justice system? You say he had no remorse for it. Is that why he should be tried as an adult? Why? If an adult says he's sorry for his crime, can he be tried as a juvenile? ;)

Are you also for lowering the drinking, driving, voting, and consenting to sex age limits? Not to pick on you, but just to understand if you think those issues are different and why.

No, it is far more simple than that.

The more guns there are in society, the more violent deaths there are.

No I think it far more complex than that. As our friend Roger Moore pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, Canadians own just as many guns (if not more) per capita than we do yet their rate of gun death is much, much lower. I don't like guns, I don't own guns, I'd be perfectly happy in a gunless world. But it's not the guns.