3 year old shoots 4 year old

[Shockwave.2CC]

That's America for you

[StefanWolves]

america sux, except for florida

[nvrspk4]

That's a terrible terrible story Idiocy on the part of the friend's dad in the first story and the dad in the second.

But I feel the need to clarify some things. Oh and I'll start off by saying there are various interpretations of the amendment on the right to bear arms, I personally believe that restriction on gun ownership is fine but others disagree.

I guess one of the most convincing cases was a town in West Virginia where it was legally obligated to have a gun, and there was a 0% crime rate because who's stupid enough to break into a house and know if the house owner doesn't get you the next door neighbor will?

But I'm still pro gun control.

That's America for you, do they still have the gun ownership laws? I'm not actually surprised. It's like if a child stabbed another child with a knife in their home and were related to each other - the tools are there.

Yeah, there are gun ownership laws, but there are always slip-ups. Probably be prosecuted.

Their reason for having guns is stupid, I was once asked one and it's apparently so they can form a militia if their president is a dictator :S Just get a monarch or something!

That's a little bit ignorant First of all some Americans can be a tiny bit thick (understatement) so they may have given you bad reasoning. There are various interpretations of the right to bear arms and I'll give you a nutshell synopsis.

In the beginning it obviously made sense to not restrict the ownership of guns, as a matter of fact it was derived from British law. There was an observation made that tyrannical rulers attempt to take the guns away from the public and into the hands of their loyal military. Citizens taking up arms were crucial in the revolution against the redcoats. Therefore it is only natural that the founding fathers saw fit to ensure that the same could occur again, if the need arose.

The argument, why not just get a monarch. ...are you kidding me? The Queen doesn't actually hold much power and a real monarch can be a tyrant. ie: why the colonists seceded in the first place.

Anyway, the two interpretations of the Second Amendment are as follows.

1) Pro Gun - An individual has the right to bear arms as a part of the "natural right of self-defense" and to rise up if necessary and defend his country from an invading force or a domestic usurper of power (I believe a Supreme Court Justice during Madison said something to that effect)

2) Pro Gun Control - The right to bear arms is a collective right, given to the public to resist an usurpation (is that a word) of power that would seek to deprive them of the democracy that so many fought hard for. Others claim that this simply allows for state militias on top of a Federal Army. Plus, this was before the US had a standing army so how else would they defend themselves if an attack came.

The real reasons? Personal preference. People want to have guns here. There in the UK, they don't. Because we are both democracies, that's how it turned out. You have to understand that the situation is different here. There are many more places where you can hunt etc than there are in the US. Also with the much larger population and area, its hard to get messages out everywhere, which is why there are still so many homophobes etc.

Arent they allowed to shoot someone if they go onto there property?

Yes, if you percieve them to be a threat :rolleyes: If you see a guy with a gun inside your house, who has no plausible reason to be there (hence why the police knock on the door and scream POLICE when they arrive, if not they are taking the risk) then you can shoot him. The theory being that if you're waiting to tell him to put down his gun, he could shoot you before you have a chance to react.

yeah they are allowed to do that lol.

only in america, thing is, the 3 yr old can just say (if he can talk) "it was self defence!" and they can't do anything about it.

That's utter crap You have to prove that it was self defence and that it was a reasonable course of action. You can't shoot someone for poking you in the eye.

It's not the dads fault really. It was his mates who had the gun under the bed. The Dad couldn't prevent it.

There are two seperate stories, the Dad who is getting sued had the kids at his own home.

That's America for you

Nice avatar.

[StefanWolves]

Yeah but they aren't gonna say that a 3 year old actually meant to shoot him, are they? unless the kids uber evil. XD

[-:Undertaker:-]

America has it right, i'd much rather have a gun in my house and have a chance of surviving than be defenceless. Its kill or be killed, and sadly their are problems with guns whether or not you have gun control or not because the bad guys will always be able to get hold of the guns.

If you ban guns, your just leaving the good people without defence and leaving the criminals fully armed.

[LuketheDuke]

America has it right, i'd much rather have a gun in my house and have a chance of surviving than be defenceless. Its kill or be killed, and sadly their are problems with guns whether or not you have gun control or not because the bad guys will always be able to get hold of the guns.

If you ban guns, your just leaving the good people without defence and leaving the criminals fully armed.

No America does not have it entirely right, moreover most people over there has one and to restrict them or to ban them completely would cause more problems than it would solve on the terms of illegal gun crime. Washington DC's ban is a prime example.

If you come back onto this thread nvrspk I'd just ask what your views are on the NRA having such a tight grasp on gun law in the US despite having only 3 million members out of a 303 million population. I cant work out how that gives them such influence.

In Britain guns have been thoroughly regulated over a number of years which means coming under the possession of a firearm is difficult and rare, to legalize such a thing would have a reverse effect as the country would have to adjust to such a dangerous law.

[nvrspk4]

Yeah but they aren't gonna say that a 3 year old actually meant to shoot him, are they? unless the kids uber evil. XD

Obviously, it would be the fault of the owner of the gun for being so stupid as to leave it where a child could easily access it.

No America does not have it entirely right, moreover most people over there has one and to restrict them or to ban them completely would cause more problems than it would solve on the terms of illegal gun crime. Washington DC's ban is a prime example.

If you come back onto this thread nvrspk I'd just ask what your views are on the NRA having such a tight grasp on gun law in the US despite having only 3 million members out of a 303 million population. I cant work out how that gives them such influence.

In Britain guns have been thoroughly regulated over a number of years which means coming under the possession of a firearm is difficult and rare, to legalize such a thing would have a reverse effect as the country would have to adjust to such a dangerous law.

I don't like lobbying but I accept its the way America is, and the way America is supposed to be.

The reason the NRA has a tight hold is although they only have a hardcore membership of 3M, the popular support is with them, support for gun control is fading fast. I may not be personally in favor but its the will of the majority.

However the minority groups are very important in the American democracy. The primary reasoning behind many of the inventions of the founding fathers, from the Senate all the way down to the electoral college, was the intention to thwart the tyranny of the majority. Often popular revolts aren't always the right way and it can be dangerous to always be at the behest of a majority group. Because if a majority group takes hold, they then begin to suppress the rights of the minorities, take religion for example and the Sunni-Shiiite issue in Baghdad.

Therefore its incredibly important to protect the rights of minorities and thwart the tyranny of the majority, hence why lobbying is such an effective tool. I still am not entirely in favor of lobbying, and most lobbyists are greedy *******s, but I can understand its importance in the American system.

[syko2006]

What a story to tell when you're older eh?

''When I was younger, my bro' shot my in the stomach.''
''When I was younger, I shot my bro''.

Hope they're ok though!

[5,5]

Its because parents arent smart about owning guns and dont hide them.

[GommeInc]

Obviously, it would be the fault of the owner of the gun for being so stupid as to leave it where a child could easily access it.

Same for anywhere really, anyone stupid enough to leave a weapon or anything potentially dangerous near children are the ones to blame for their own stupidity. Gun laws in the UK tells gun owners to keep the gun locked away in a locker of some sort that is attached to a wall and locked at all times, be in the house nearly all the time and there's a third point but I can't remember it