10 year old shoots 9 year old sister in face over chips with dad's shotgun

[ottermax]

Everyone seems to blame the parenting or the child. What law can change that? What plan do you have to keep children from "accidentally" shooting their siblings? It seems much simpler to just place stricter controls on guns; how else can these "accidents" be prevented?

[12th Doctor]

Everyone seems to blame the parenting or the child. What law can change that? What plan do you have to keep children from "accidentally" shooting their siblings? It seems much simpler to just place stricter controls on guns; how else can these "accidents" be prevented?

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

[12th Doctor]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hole of and seriously harm a family memeber.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

Anyone who is determined to kill someone is going to do it regardless of the implement used.  The gun didn't cause the act, did it?  No.  Some f***ed up little punk kid is the cause.  Maybe if his parents had been a little more responsible all around then it wouldn't have happened.

BTW... your assertion isn't correct, indeed, one quick slice or stab can often be more easily fatal than a gun shot wound.  As can one quick blow to the head.

[dead0man]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hold of and seriously harm a family member.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

And the opposite can be true as well.  Many tools human use can be quite dangerous if used inappropriately.

[Franzl]

Yes, I agree, if you really want to kill someone, you'll find other ways to do it, but it's far easier to pull a trigger if you get upset. While the gun isn't directly responsible for this girl's death, I'm fairly confident that the girl would still be alive if the gun hadn't been around.

Shooting someone doesn't require physical contact. I doubt the boy would have stabbed his sister to get the chips.

[The Hack Hater]

No gun control. The parents were pretty obviously thoughtless about what could happen, if they were as ed up as some here seem to think.

[Speed of Sound]

phew...i dunno...chips are good but, damn... 

[John Dibble]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hole of and seriously harm a family memeber.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

One quick swipe with a sharp kitchen knife across the throat is all it takes to bleed a person to death. The human body is actually quite fragile and has a number of places where a single stab or slash can result in death.

[memphis]

Yet another case of big media exploiting tragedy. Has no merit of being national news other than its sensationalist appeal.

[ilikeverin]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hole of and seriously harm a family memeber.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

One quick swipe with a sharp kitchen knife across the throat is all it takes to bleed a person to death. The human body is actually quite fragile and has a number of places where a single stab or slash can result in death.

Psychologically, it's far easier to fire a gun to kill someone than to use a knife to kill someone.

[John Dibble]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hole of and seriously harm a family memeber.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

One quick swipe with a sharp kitchen knife across the throat is all it takes to bleed a person to death. The human body is actually quite fragile and has a number of places where a single stab or slash can result in death.

Psychologically, it's far easier to fire a gun to kill someone than to use a knife to kill someone.

If you're pissed off a single slash of a knife might be just as easy as pulling a trigger. In this case we've got an irrational 10 year old who seems to have been having a bit of a tantrum.

[minionofmidas]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hole of and seriously harm a family memeber.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

One quick swipe with a sharp kitchen knife across the throat is all it takes to bleed a person to death. The human body is actually quite fragile and has a number of places where a single stab or slash can result in death.

Psychologically, it's far easier to fire a gun to kill someone than to use a knife to kill someone.

If you're pissed off a single slash of a knife might be just as easy as pulling a trigger. In this case we've got an irrational 10 year old who seems to have been having a bit of a tantrum.

You're both mistaken. It's certainly not "far easier" to fire a gun than to use a knife.

But it requires far less expertise (and is probably psychologically easier, too) to make a lot of damage with it, except by random chance.

[Јas]

No matches in the house, no house on fire, no children burned to death. It applies to many things. These things, while tragic, are very rare and taking guns away (or questioning why they are there to begin with) doesn't help.

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

The logic you two are using presumably means that you favour absolutely no restricitions whatsoever on anybody possessing any items of a dangerous nature in terms of arms (land mines; cluster munitions; irradiated weaponry); poisons (anthrax; bubonic plague; smallpox); etc. - because after all it's not the item but the person that's the problem.
Correct?

[Keystone Phil]

No matches in the house, no house on fire, no children burned to death. It applies to many things. These things, while tragic, are very rare and taking guns away (or questioning why they are there to begin with) doesn't help.

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

The logic you two are using presumably means that you favour absolutely no restricitions whatsoever on anybody possessing any items of a dangerous nature in terms of arms (land mines; cluster munitions; irradiated weaponry); poisons (anthrax; bubonic plague; smallpox); etc. - because after all it's not the item but the person that's the problem.
Correct?

Not necessarily. Those who are blaming guns here seem to want them either banned when banning them wouldn't solve a thing. And you can't really compare guns to the other items you listed. When it comes to a gun, yes, it is the person handling it, not the item.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To put things into perspective:

The year before the so called Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, more people were murdered by pillows than the guns prohibited under the ban.

[minionofmidas]

To put things into perspective:

The year before the so called Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, more people were murdered by pillows than the guns prohibited under the ban.

This statement is demonstrably untrue.

Look up the definitions of "murdered" and "by", and it is plainly evident that 0 persons were murdered by pillows, which is the same number - and therefore not "more" - than were murdered by the guns prohibited under tha ban.

[Хahar 🤔]

To put things into perspective:

The year before the so called Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, more people were murdered by pillows than the guns prohibited under the ban.

This statement is demonstrably untrue.

Look up the definitions of "murdered" and "by", and it is plainly evident that 0 persons were murdered by pillows, which is the same number - and therefore not "more" - than were murdered by the guns prohibited under tha ban.

How about this:

The year before the so called Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, more murderers used pillows than the guns prohibited under the ban.

[Smash255]

If tougher gun laws were passed, things such as mandatory trigger locks and what not the kid would have been much less likely to be shot or harmed in this manner. 

The whole thing with Gun control its not about banning guns, its about doing whatever we can to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them.  More extensive background checks (including gun shows), reducing the amount of guns someone can buy at once, registering guns, having more ability to trace the bullets back to the guns it came from, trigger locks, and what not don't interfere with someone's legal ability to own a gun.

[bullmoose88]

Guns don't kill people...siblings do.

[Хahar 🤔]

Guns don't kill people...siblings do.

[dead0man]

If tougher gun laws were passed, things such as mandatory trigger locks and what not the kid would have been much less likely to be shot or harmed in this manner. 

The whole thing with Gun control its not about banning guns, its about doing whatever we can to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them.  More extensive background checks (including gun shows), reducing the amount of guns someone can buy at once, registering guns, having more ability to trace the bullets back to the guns it came from, trigger locks, and what not don't interfere with someone's legal ability to own a gun.

Whew, our guns are safe then. Nobody want's to ban guns guys, this guy says so!

[ilikeverin]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

You could argue that he could have found a gun another way, but somehow I doubt that there'd be that much effort put in by the kid.

Right, because guns are the only weapon in a home that a nut could get a hole of and seriously harm a family memeber.

One quick squeeze of a trigger does a lot more damage than one stab.

One quick swipe with a sharp kitchen knife across the throat is all it takes to bleed a person to death. The human body is actually quite fragile and has a number of places where a single stab or slash can result in death.

Psychologically, it's far easier to fire a gun to kill someone than to use a knife to kill someone.

If you're pissed off a single slash of a knife might be just as easy as pulling a trigger. In this case we've got an irrational 10 year old who seems to have been having a bit of a tantrum.

No, that's not true.  Firing a gun is indirect, and can be done from a distance; using a knife is quite direct.  See, for instance, proximity's influences on conformity.

I think I had something else to say on the topic, but unfortunately my train of thought got derailed by a phone call

[Person Man]

No matches in the house, no house on fire, no children burned to death. It applies to many things. These things, while tragic, are very rare and taking guns away (or questioning why they are there to begin with) doesn't help.

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

The logic you two are using presumably means that you favour absolutely no restricitions whatsoever on anybody possessing any items of a dangerous nature in terms of arms (land mines; cluster munitions; irradiated weaponry); poisons (anthrax; bubonic plague; smallpox); etc. - because after all it's not the item but the person that's the problem.
Correct?

Not necessarily. Those who are blaming guns here seem to want them either banned when banning them wouldn't solve a thing. And you can't really compare guns to the other items you listed. When it comes to a gun, yes, it is the person handling it, not the item.

[opebo]

It is seriously comical to see the gun-lovers on here suggesting that this lad would have been able to seriously harm his sister in any other way than with a gun.  You have no understanding of what happened here, fellows - the reason she was hurt badly was because of the gun.  Tiny kids do not normally have the strength, stamina, or determination to kill in the less convenient non-gun ways.  The whole point is that guns kill so well that even a casual or accidental gun-user can kill very well.

[Јas]

No matches in the house, no house on fire, no children burned to death. It applies to many things. These things, while tragic, are very rare and taking guns away (or questioning why they are there to begin with) doesn't help.

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

The logic you two are using presumably means that you favour absolutely no restricitions whatsoever on anybody possessing any items of a dangerous nature in terms of arms (land mines; cluster munitions; irradiated weaponry); poisons (anthrax; bubonic plague; smallpox); etc. - because after all it's not the item but the person that's the problem.
Correct?

Not necessarily.

I don't see how the comparison is invalid.
If you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to weapons/dangerous materials, then how can you suggest that it's unwise to consider restricting gun ownership?

Those who are blaming guns here seem to want them either banned when banning them wouldn't solve a thing.

Are you of the belief that if guns were banned, with serious penalties imposed for non-compliance, there would be no difference in homicides or serious injuries such as in the instant case?