Florida police said Wednesday that a 13-year-old boy shot and killed his 6-year-old brother and wounded his 16-year-old brother before turning the gun on himself after a heated argument over food.
Right here in Palm Bay a mother killed her three children by manual strangulation. Just the other day.
I guess we need to ban hands.
Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News
Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.
You are mixing hot and green.
For a 13-year-old kid it is much harder to kill his 6-year-old brother unintentionally with a stick than with a gun. Grown up madmen can be easily found in any society and they have nothing to do with gun control. It is just that mortality rate is higher when guns are flowing freely.
What are you so afraid of anyway? If you have a gun already you have nothing to worry about. If not, why are you advocating guns without being a gun user?
Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News
Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.
So what would gun control have done to stop this? According to the article, nobody even knows whose gun it was.
At least there would be no anonymous guns around 13-year-old kids. Could anyone tell me what's so bad about stricter gun legislation? Those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyways. Those who need no gun - and therefore know nothings about safety and proper storage - will face some hurdles that will stop them from obtaining one.
So how exactly would gun control have prevented this? You say 'nobody wants to deprive you of the right to bear arms' then you say "if there had been no guns in that household".... these are two contradictory statements.
Most of those deaths you cite are suicides btw.
At least there would be no anonymous guns around 13-year-old kids. Could anyone tell me what's so bad about stricter gun legislation? Those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyways. Those who need no gun - and therefore know nothings about safety and proper storage - will face some hurdles that will stop them from obtaining one.
I don't agree that gun control would have prevented this. However, there is something to be said about a culture where guns and violence are glamorized and defined as the go-to source for problem solving. I fully understand that guns aren't to blame for this. Hell, that's my personal evolution on the subject. However, I refuse to accept that these incidents happen in a vacuum. I don't think anyone or any belief regarding guns is to blame, but I do think there exists a culture where guns are being constantly showcased as the solution to every problem and that should definitely be addressed. Whether it's done by the government or individuals, is irrelevant to me but a national discussion should be held on the matter. I repeat: That's entirely independent from the notion that guns should be banned.
Nonsense. You can't prove that statement.
TMK at present, we have no idea whose gun it was or how he obtained it. He may have bought it illegally on the street.
You haven't even specified what sort of gun control you want to see, that you think might have made a difference here. How can we take your assertions seriously when they are so vague?
You assert "those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyway" two sentences later.... this is actually the more correct statement, as we have no evidence that gun control laws actually reduce violent crime or keep criminals from arming themselves, or keep irresponsible people from being armed. They simply turn to the black market if they can't obtain guns via legal channels.
We've already successfully put to bed the idea that any gun control legislation then under consideration, nor any proposed afterward, would have had any significant likelihood of stopping Sandy Hook. I see nothing in your posts to indicate what would have stopped this shooting.
I agree we have a cultural problem with the glorification of violence. It does permeate our culture, our history, our movies and video games, it appears in music and in notions of masculinity and more.
Not sure exactly what we can do about it, though, other than try to raise our children right, and teach them that violence should never be more than a unavoidable last resort, and never a first response to problems.
I agree we have a cultural problem with the glorification of violence. It does permeate our culture, our history, our movies and video games, it appears in music and in notions of masculinity and more.
Not sure exactly what we can do about it, though, other than try to raise our children right, and teach them that violence should never be more than a unavoidable last resort, and never a first response to problems.
We are on 13th place in firearm-related death rate ranking. Do you think it has something to do with guns possession laws? I believe yes.
So how exactly would gun control have prevented this? You say 'nobody wants to deprive you of the right to bear arms' then you say "if there had been no guns in that household".... these are two contradictory statements.
Most of those deaths you cite are suicides btw.
As soon as I heard about one kid killing another kid over food I knew this story would take place in The South.Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News
Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.
I think a good first step would be gun corporations making public statements in regards to the use of their products. I think it's time that they stopped being reactive to gun violence and proactive. Cigarette corporations, medicines and liquor companies are held to these standards. So why not guns? If it's possible to create to a culture that understands that cigarettes and liquor aren't to be used by children, and this has been around for decades, why isn't it possible for gun corporations to create a culture where guns are seen as tools and NOT problem solvers? Obviously, I speak from ignorance because I don't know if these efforts are already underway and I welcome the possibility that they are. However, I honestly believe that even if they are, they simply aren't visible to the general public and we have this disconnect between product and consumer.
As soon as I heard about one kid killing another kid over food I knew this story would take place in The South.
Well, as things stand Hat, tmk there is no gun advertising in the general media at all. Gun adverts are almost entirely limited to gun magazines, which have to be purchased, and gun manufacturer websites... at least as far as I've noticed.
I've seen manufacturers tout their product's quality, reliability, accuracy, economy and similar utilities; I've seen some touted for home defense and concealed carry... can't say that I've ever seen a gun manufacturer ad that said anything like "Got neighbor problems? Try our fine line of ass-blasting firearms!"
I think you should look into how guns are marketed today. Gun manufacturers and video games have been in bed since the days of GoldenEye '64. Video game companies pay royalties for "the realism" of real weapons. Movies marketed towards young adults have their guns provided for by gun manufacturers. I think they (gun companes) should stop doing that and promote movies where guns aren't seen as the answer to the main character's problems. At the very least, they should distance themselves by doing more than coming out with a statement every time these incidents occur.
I think you should look into how guns are marketed today. Gun manufacturers and video games have been in bed since the days of GoldenEye '64. Video game companies pay royalties for "the realism" of real weapons. Movies marketed towards young adults have their guns provided for by gun manufacturers. I think they (gun companes) should stop doing that and promote movies where guns aren't seen as the answer to the main character's problems. At the very least, they should distance themselves by doing more than coming out with a statement every time these incidents occur.
Like glock 7s and DD44? Hollywood and video games aren't known for realism. James Bond games never used real gun names.
Btw. You are asking gaming companies to make games that won't sell.
Like glock 7s and DD44? Hollywood and video games aren't known for realism. James Bond games never used real gun names.
Btw. You are asking gaming companies to make games that won't sell.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?