By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - 4-year old boy kills father "over Playstation"

happydolphin on 23 April 2012
insomniac17 said:
I don't have a problem with people owning guns. Yes, they are made to kill. But when handled properly, there isn't an issue. I grew up in a house with guns. My father was very strict about them. I was not allowed in my parents' room, which is where they were kept, and they were also locked up. My dad did begin to teach me about the dangers of guns, and how to use them safely relatively early, however. He made it explicitly clear that guns are dangerous and should be treated with respect. If you aren't stupid with handling them, you won't have any problems.

This father made the mistake of setting his gun down where his child could get it. The result is this tragic incident. And it is true that if guns were banned, this man wouldn't have had a gun and he would still be alive. But when you ban guns, the only people who can get them will be law enforcement (who are very much a reactive force), and criminals who don't care about the law.

Thus, you disarm the population and leave them at the mercy of those who do have guns. Yes, it would be harder for criminals to get guns. But if they're determined, they'll still be able to get one. The only way to ban guns completely is to get rid of every single one, and destroy all knowledge of how to make one. That won't ever happen.

The reason that I, and others, are for allowing people to own guns is because I would like to be able to protect myself and my loved ones. I can't count on the cops to be there to protect me. There aren't enough of them, and they are a reactive force.

So, at least in my experience, owning a gun has not proven to create more problems. The families that I or my parents know that also have guns have not had any accidents because they know how to handle a gun properly. So the problem here (as far as I can see) isn't the gun itself, it's that the father forgot basic lessons on how to handle one.

This is the most sensible pro-gun post I've read here. Doesn't mean I'm changing my mind (I know you know that, but still), but it was very meaningful.



Around the Network
ils411 on 23 April 2012

the dude's stupid for leaving his gun where the child can reach it, serves him right for being stupid. hope the kid gets a rough life without his dad. stupid spoiled brat.



happydolphin on 23 April 2012

@insomniac
I do want to say though that, most of the threats you mention are due to guns being in the hands of the population in the first place. Even if criminals don't care about the law, it's usually the more advanced criminals who own guns illegally. The petty criminals wouldn't, and that's where the problem is in pro-gun countries, it's the petty goons that end up killing someone, or the paranoid gun owners that kill in self defense too soon. That's when crap happens.

But as for mafia or bikers and such, don't worry, the cops take good care of them.



superchunk on 23 April 2012
happydolphin said:
superchunk said:

Its not a flawed analogy.

The reason people go on about gun laws isn't because they have the capacity to kill, its because of innocent deaths and accidents. Just like kids drowning in pools.

However, you teach kids to swim, they don't drown. You teach kids about guns and gun safety, they don't die or kill by accident.

The analogy is fine, its the crazy thought that removing the freedom to protect yourself, family, and property with a gun will actually making you safer that is flawed.

@bold. We haven't had that much of a problem here in Canada I'll tell you that.

Give people weapons, you'll need weapons to protect your family, guaranteed. So, what's the root cause of needing a gun, hatred, or more guns? I think the answer's pretty clear.


Yeah, because Canada has no crime. uh huh. 

Well according to wikipedia (of course its sources would have to be checked) Canada and US overall are not that much different in crime rates. In fact it states there are areas in Canada (provinces) that have violent crime rates that would be in US top 10 cities. It shows the homicide rate as only a difference of 1% per 100,000 people. Interesting item in that same area is that 70% of murders in US are from guns where only 30% in Canada, yet we have nearly the same homicide rate. This proves that killers will be killers, even without guns. Difference is, I can defend myself a lot easier from those murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#United_States



crissindahouse on 23 April 2012

ok us-americans can defend themselve better and some of you shoot the burglar so he can't kill someone in your house but you still have more homicides? seems to work perfect

btw homicide rate was 4.8 in usa in 2010 and like 1.x in canada which means the rate is 3x as big in usa not "only 1% difference"

btw saw some stats from different countries now and i wonder about one thing, why are most criminal statistics in most developed countires peaking in 1992 +-few years? i could understand if it would be in usa or germany or whatever but it's the same in most developed countries.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 23 April 2012

^I can appreciate that chunks, but the paragraph is so full of fail:

"United States
Much study has been done of the comparative experience and policies of Canada with its southern neighbour the United States, and this is a topic of intense discussion within Canada.

Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US.[12] Since violent crimes are a smaller fraction of all crimes, the difference between the two countries is less than the homicide rate might make it seem, and the overall rates are generally close (see Crime in the United States).[citation needed]

Furthermore, in recent years, the gap in violent crime rates between the United States and Canada has narrowed due to a precipitous drop in the violent crime rate in the U.S. For example, while the aggravated assault rate declined for most of 1990s in the U.S. and was 324 per 100,000 in 2000, the aggravated assault rate in Canada remained relatively steady throughout and was 143 per 100,000 in 2000. In other areas, the U.S. had a faster decline. For instance, whereas the murder rate in Canada declined by 36% between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. murder rate declined by 44%. [13] Both Saskatoon and Regina consistently have Violent Crime rates that would place them among the 10 most violent cities in the US, and often individually exceed larger US centres in terms of Total numbers for Aggravated Assaults and Robbery.[citation needed]

The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[14] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[15]
By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5).

The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [13]
Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[16]"


The things is ridden with gaps, poor associative logic and such incohesiveness it's almost like it's meant to confuse you. To explain, Saskatoon and Regina, the most criminal cities in Canada, are amongst the TEN most criminal cities in the US. wtf?

So, property crime is higher in Canada than US, but violent crime is lower in Canada? That falls perfectly in line with what I said.

Homicide rate: So, the best the U.S. has had is 4.8 per 100k in 2010, whereas Canada peaked at 3.03 per 100k in 1975. That same year, it was 10.1 per 100k in the U.S. EDIT: Wait, I got this wrong, it's even better. In the U.S. the best is 10.1 per 100k in 1974.

There's more data but that's already good enough I'd think to say that Canada is much safer, and they are still enforcing more laws. Remember, Canada is very different from East to West. The West is more inclined to owning guns, the East not as much. Regina and Saskatoon are both in Saskatchewan (prairies, mid-continent). It's boring there.



Netyaroze on 24 April 2012

@crissindahouse 

 I followed your posts and I agree to a point. In some places you can think like that. But you are making the mistake that you ignore cultural differences. There are places in USA or Europe I would rather have a gun under my pillow. In some European countries is getting shot by robbers just as likely as getting hit by lightning. And the robbers are just interested in money.  They dont want to rape or murder you. They also dont want to add serious crimes to their list.  

 

And if the people everywhere could be sure that a house break in is just a business transaction they would feel safer without guns. The view on gun laws depends on where you live.  The americans dont trust their robbers as much. For a lot of europeans robbers are just people with a tragic past who dont have enough money. Mostly from poorer european regions.

But in the USA they are crazy methheads without any compassion ready to rape your children and wive and to burn them alive afterwards . And its true this is more likely there if you live in certain places. And if this is considered a possibility even if its just 0.01%. People obviously want a gun just in case.

It all depends on where you live in some slum in Africa I would buy me an AK47 and grenades and install a pit full of acid around my house.



Mummelmann on 24 April 2012

I honestly believe that if all your citizens are that hung up on owning weapons, there is something seriously amiss with your country's current state of being.
Arming the whole population is a very bad idea and even people committing petty crime feel the need to arm themselves when everyone else owns a gun.

Can you really call it the land of the free and the home of the brave if everyone is so deathly afraid all the time that they absolutely have to own a gun of some kind? Maybe I'm just a stupid foreigner but this is how I see it anyway.



happydolphin on 24 April 2012

^Doesn't sound stupid to me :S



Lafiel on 24 April 2012
superchunk said:

The analogy is fine, its the crazy thought that removing the freedom to protect yourself, family, and property with a gun will actually making you safer that is flawed.

less people that potentially carry a gun makes me and my family feel much much safer

but I don't want to take away american's beloved guns, I don't care about them at all, as long as they are half a world away