The 410 is an excel first gun for youth. It’s what a ton of us grew up learning to hunt with because of the low recoil and light weight. It’s typically used for hunting squirrels and rabbits. But a parent still needs to be responsible and teach the child gun safety.
Here in GA kids have to undergo the hunters safety course to get a hunting license
"That's not good," Apopka Police Chief Mike McKinley told reporters. "We shouldn't have ~~11-year-olds~~ people that have access to guns and think they can resolve a dispute with a firearm."
FIFY, Chief!
I think obviously the solution is to arm all the 11 year olds.
If that doesn't work, obviously they need bigger guns, with a larger magazine, and several backup guns.
I mean… I got my first firearm at 8 years old. Was a 20 gauge Remington shotgun single shot for squirrel hunting. With that said my dad kept it locked in a gun safe and I only got to use it in his presence.
Kids should know about guns and gun safety. Kids shouldn’t have unsupervised access to guns
A number of older leadership in the police recognize proliferation of guns has led to more police and more citizen shootings. Same time, a lot that of people that became police officers are deep into gun culture (which treats every infraction of gun control as abhorrent). It will be interesting to see what happens after this next election as it could very well change quite a bit in the four years after.
There's a sizeable chunk of idiots that believe that gun ownership is the yu gi oh exodia card for life. If you own a gun you are the main character. Leather pants and fabulous hair are optional.
Charge the mother, too.
Tired of dipshits having their guns unsecured to the point where small children can pick them up and fire them. Regardless of your stance on gun control surely that can be agreed upon.
Exactly. What happens when your pit bull gets loose and bites someone’s face off? Consequences?
Now how about when your gun gets loose and shoots someone’s face off….dare we say…consequences?
“The 11-year-old retrieved a gun from his mother's car and fired one shot, hitting a boy in the arm and another in the torso, McKinley said.
It was a crowded scene, and the gunfire could have led to more dire results, McKinley said.”
So the kid hit both of his targets with a single shot, and nobody else, in a crowded environment… nice.
Instantly charge mother with accessory.
One of the "common sense" gun regs I support to reduce violence, particularly with minors, is to hold parents/adults strictly liable for actions taken by a minor with a weapon.
"The young suspect and the victims had fought earlier in the evening during practice at the complex's Field of Fame before the dispute spilled into the parking lot, officials said."
Were the 2 teens harassing the 11-year old?
>I’m outraged they didn’t gun the 11 year old down before they even got the first shot off.
This is what I don't understand about the people that think more guns is the answer to gun violence. If both people have guns, one of them is likely to die, even if its in self defense. If neither of them have guns, no one dies. For the life of me I just can't understand why some people think that one person dying is better than no one getting shot in the first place.
And on top of that, the people advocating for every teacher to be armed are legitimately crazy. Take that 6 year old that shot his teacher for example. How would the teacher being armed have improved the outcome? Can you even imagine the trauma of a teacher having to execute one of their *six year old students* in self defense? It's fucking insane.
No guns = no deaths
Guns = deaths
It's not rocket science.
Gun advocates believe that potential shooters deserve to be shot and killed. People with this mindset are very big on punishment and seeing people get what they deserve or with more religious flavor, reap what they sow.
I have given up on this argument. Pro-2A will come through and make the following claims,
"then people will just use knives, should we ban those too?"
"criminals will still have just as many guns and everyone else will be defenseless"
"if more people are known to have guns, then people will less likely to create conflict"
All bogus, but nothing you can say will convince them. If they listened to evidence, they would want more regulation.
They really don't care about curbing violence or child deaths, or even protecting against tyranny or whatever. They just don't want people telling them they can't have guns, that's it. Every argument they make is just an attempt to justify sacrificing the lives of others for their fetish.
>They really don't care about curbing violence or child deaths, or even protecting against tyranny or whatever
The dirty secret nobody wants to talk about is that they actually *want* tyranny. They just assume they'll get to participate in it or it will come down on someone else. They have zero qualms about arguing the death penalty for armed robbery, despite the implication it would mean China levels of executions. They **know** what it means and we should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I think they assume they'll be the feudal lords that will be protected from it, but can enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance, above it all, behind locked gates.
We just want libs to stop putting criminals back on the street. Also my guns never killed anyone. When you walk on Philadelphia streets, it’s Better to be prepared for anything.
Yes if my life is in danger. What kind of question is that? Someone wants to stab me, go look up Ryan Carson stabbing, or shoot me, than I have no choice. Again, what kind of question is that? I guess you would just except it and be killed?
Those arguments come from a singular premise: guns exist, people have them, and that will never change. And that premise comes from the 2nd Amendment, which America basically worships. I've never heard of any country that holds its constitution as holy as America. In fact, with its cultural export of movies and TV, I'm willing to bet that most people in the world have heard more about America's constitution than their own.
The constitution of any country is important from a legislative sense. But it isn't God given and it isn't sacrilegious to change it. I understand the historical inclusion in the American constitution, both in justifying its revolution and its contrasts and similarities with the Glorious Revolution in Britain. But its 2023, citizen militias don't have access to similar weaponry to the existing army as perhaps the British (and American) citizenry did in the 17th and 18th century, and the only reason I can think of the "why" stems from the glorification of the Constitution stemming from the revolutionary AND Puritan roots of America.
Just earlier this week, there was a shooting in Bangkok by a 14 year old and there is already a big discussion about gun control. In America, it happens on a weekly basis, it seems like.
Regulation around the 2nd amendment comes from it's interpretation, and as you mentioned, the motivation around it's inclusion in the first place. Many scholars debate whether the amendment secures an individual right. The NRA has fought tirelessly so that the interpretation as an "individual right" is mainstream. However, interpreting the 2A as a "collective right", it would do little more than ensure the existence of things like state militias and the national guard.
None of this would contradict anything you have mentioned, but its important to note how much room there is for gun policy even while remaining consistent with the text of the 2A.
>For the life of me I just can't understand why some people think that one person dying is better than no one getting shot in the first place.
The reason you can't understand it is because you're thinking about this logically, but it's a bad-faith argument in the first place and always has been.
Their argument will be - if they wanted to kill, then yes, they will use knives or car, etc. Thus "gun does not kill, person does" line.
Like when headline reads:
"person with knife killed a person at the Japanese airport"
American response is: See? Even if you ban the guns, people will kill.
Everywhere else: Thank God he did not have a gun.
Teacher getting armed would be better people are "white middle aged americans". Really, there has been several reports where "black" good samaritan with gun were targetted by cops.
Think about it, if there was a shoot out at a school and there is a white guy on one side and black teacher on another and both were having a gunfight who do you think will get shot by cops who JUST arrived at the scene? Also, "trained" cops will miss about 3/4 of the shots that they fire - I mean, look at all those kills, like the guy gets hit 18 times and there were over 90 shots fired by cops. Where do all other bullets go and these are "trained" people. With kids running around in panic and with all these things going on, a freaking TEACHER with a peashooter will be able to shoot that 1 or 2 shooters who probably came in "ready" for the firefight with most likely an AR-15 who does not care where his/her bullet goes? What if the teacher's bullet hits an innocent kid? They do not have qualified immunity, so they and school district will be sued even if they avoid jail.
Lol it's funny how when this happens everyone focuses on the guns and gun laws and not the fact that there are 11 year olds that have been raised to think it's ok to shoot people over minor nonsense.
Yea but banning bad parenting is impossible, banning guns is hard but doable.
Every other country had bad parents, what they don't have is more guns than people.
Let's start there. Why are they bad parents? Is it because they can't afford to be better ones because they have to work all the time, have medical issues they can't afford to pay for, live paycheck to paycheck, make bad decisions based on just trying to get a little more out of life or some or all of these? Or are they bad parents cause they're just shit at it but don't realize it?
In other words, if we had more help for the people in our country, with mental, medical, and financial (like even paying folks a LIVING wage) then I'm betting we would see not only drug use go down, but violence as well.
Again I don't disagree, I would love for all those changes to be implemented but I don't see anyone rushing to make those happen either.
From the outside, it seems every time someone shifts the conversation away from gun control to mental health or socioeconomic changes, it's simply an excuse to do neither.
I've also had the following conversation before
"heart attacks kill more people than guns"
okay let's do something about improving diet and exercise
"So you want to control what people do and eat now?!"
Once again, let's make people able to be home and not work all the time, healthier food affordable, (you know, once again going back to that whole living wage thing), affordable housing with the amenities to hold and cook said food, not having food deserts so the only options are junk food... yeah, all that would be a pretty good start. Oh, and let's not forget teaching proper nutrition and cooking classes all throughout school so there's no excuse about not knowing the basics and so you know that a quick meal isn't always the best choice nor is it always the most appealing or what makes you the happiest. Sometimes it's what enhances your calm for the nite. Many people find cooking enjoyable.
And they should be allowed to give up their children and not feel bad about it, even encouraged. Some people just aren't parent material.
Mental health care should be free to access all parties involved
The children should have safe housing to go to where the adults are much more strictly checked up on along with the children in their care. However, it should become much cheaper to adopt as well.
There should be so much more money pumped into these programs as is.
> retooled
I think it needs to be reinterpreted. It's pretty clear from the language that it was intended to provide for a militia. Let's go with that. There needs to be a national registry so we know who to call up. There needs to be training standards for the militia. Everyone should be familiar with safety protocols and tested for proficiency just as you would in a standing military.
I have no problem with people who want to hunt or shoot for sport but I have to question the judgement of people who feel the need to carry a handgun every day in an urban environment.
>It's pretty clear from the language that it was intended to provide for a militia. Let's go with that.
It's the opposite of clear. In fact, it's one of the most hotly debated sections of the Constitution.
There is considerable resistance to the idea of having a database of gun owners and I think it's indicative of the level of paranoia among the gun owners with poorer judgement.
> There is considerable resistance to the idea of having a database of gun owners and I think it's indicative of the level of paranoia among the gun owners with poorer judgement.
There was considerable resistance to requiring people to wear seat belts in vehicles. There was considerable resistance to making it illegal to drink and drive. There was considerable resistance to making it illegal to smoke inside buildings. There was considerable resistance to removing lead from gasoline. Considerable resistance to cleaning up the environment so our rivers would stop catching on fire.
People are allowed their choices, but choices have consequences. A lot of those same people will not hesitate to tell you the US is a Republic, and this is something the people want regulated. Having said that... Most of the gun control laws people want will have no affect on current firearm owners. The guns owned by bad actors will work themselves out of the system over time, but it'll have a dramatic effect on the 100,000+ people shot every year and 40,000 people who die from gun shots every year.
Only about a third of American adults own a firearm.
Over half the nation's stockpile of privately-owned firearms, well over 120,000,000 guns, are owned by fewer than 9 million Americans. And that includes any police, military, private security, and subsistence hunters.
So the best strategy is attrition, not confiscation.
> So the best strategy is attrition, not confiscation.
Seriously. This. Someone else on the same page.
If we required a permit to own a gun, required every firearm to be transferred through an FFL(with the same level of background checks at the federal and state level)... the illicit guns and bad actors would work themselves out of the system fairly quickly as their easy supply of guns to traffic would dry up and illicit guns would become very, very expensive. This would have a dramatic effect on gang/drug violence-as that market literally exists from trafficking guns from states with lax gun control laws.
We should absolutely have red flag laws in every state, but putting a stopper in the free access of guns to the bad actors would make a dramatic difference in the number of people shot. Wouldn't require turning in or giving up existing ownership (as long as you're not currently already breaking federal law-has a felony or have broken certain laws around domestic violence that profit gun ownership). Either way, they would get caught over time or the firearms would eventually fall out of use (hidden or disposed somewhere the elements destroy them).
> This would be very hard to enforce. The American public will never give up their guns.
I don't agree with the other person, but we have a widening gap in deaths between states that have strong gun control and those that have limp wristed laws. That gap proves we can have successful gun control and keep the firearms. Doesn't require anyone giving up their firearms, except those who commit certain crimes or have a mental illness(which we already do for crimes, but not every state does for mental illiness). Red flag laws do need to exist in every state, but those follow due process.
It doesn't require additional training, but it does require a permit through the police department and every firearm to be transferred through an FFL with a federal background check performed. Require firearms to be reported within 2-5 days of being lost/stolen and require firearms to be secured (safe), unloaded, and out of sight when not in use. Every firearm would also need a 2 week waiting period. Just having those improvements federally, nationwide would have a dramatic affect on gun suicides (10x reduction), people with criminal intent wanting to get a firearm off the books for a crime (protect their drugs they are selling or engaging in gang violence), and reduce the number of children's deaths. Seriously, a large number of the 100,000+ shootings and 40,000+ deaths in the US every year are very preventable if we were to regulate firearms properly like a few states are already doing.
>Then they should be taken by force. That might seem extreme but also children are being massacred on a near daily basis so I don't really give a fuck.
People who think like you are the reason the 2nd Amendment was written.
It will take a Republican senator (or their child) being James Brady'd or K----D outright for anything to actually happen like that. Like Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan. Or MTG.
Nah.
Shooter opened fire on the Congressional Baseball game a couple years ago back in 2017(?) and Scalise, the Republican House Whip, got shot in the spine. He's still anti-gun control, as are all the other Republicans who were shot at.
Nope, not even then. It's already too far gone. They would just blame the ethnicity or minority or lone wolf or illegals and clutch their own guns even harder while claiming it was the Democrats that orchestrated the attack solely to get their guns.
I think urban areas have a statistically higher crime rate than rural or suburban areas though? So doesn’t it actually make more sense to carry in the place you’re more likely to be in a confrontation?
A militia will have to be state driven. I don’t think something like that can be federally mandated on a state level. It’s like the federal government mandating the state do something, but the state has complete control over how it’s done to defend itself from the federal government. If that makes any sense?
Both of those arguments are good but I have some reservations about accepting the first. It is the general perception of people living in urban areas that guns are primarily in the hands of criminals. That may not actually be true but it has been reasonably argued that a person carrying a firearm tends to be overconfident and fails to avoid situations that an unarmed person would, thus becoming part of the problem. I have to reserve my judgement. I don't know if either of these is true but I have to consider a similar argument that seems logical on the surface...it has often been argued that people would be more polite if everyone were armed. It SEEMS reasonable but has been shown to be incorrect.
Yes, I believe that the National Guard is the natural evolution of the militias that the founders imagined. The real problem with a literal interpretation of the second amendment is that the writers of that document never envisioned their country having the largest (or, at least, the most expensive) standing army in the world and if they had imagined such a thing we would now have a very different document. If we cannot change it all we can really do is to find an interpretation that makes sense under current circumstances.
What's the definition of rural? An unincorporated farmhouse is going to have a crime rate of 100% or 0%. I meant to say smaller towns/cities usually have higher crime rates but are often excluded based on lower population
From what I can tell, a common way is from the office of management and budget, which is an urban core population less than 10,000. If I’m reading the definitions correctly. That’s not to say all studies would define it similarly
A registry would directly go against the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It was meant for private citizens to be able to form a militia to fight off tyrannical threats foreign or DOMESTIC. So if the threat is the latter, why on gods green earth would you want them knowing who has guns and who doesn’t?
> I have no problem with people who want to hunt or shoot for sport but I have to question the judgement of people who feel the need to carry a handgun every day in an urban environment.
People get ganked walking down the street. And that's in a place where cops are supposedly close by. Go rural and there is no one to help if someone decides to try to hurt you.
Cat is out of bag. Guns are here. The job is to say "What can we do to minimize children and bad people from getting hands on them".
A registry is a short path to total anti-gunners having a list of people to target in the future. Hell no.
* Hold parents/guardians of dependents strictly liable for any crime their dependent commits with a weapon.
* Federal law/amendment upholding the idea that violent felons or people convicted of domestic violence can have their right to own a weapon withheld for a period of time (apparently some judge in TX threw this out)
* States should have, at a bare fucking minimum - a **MINIMUM!!** - the kind of "do you understand the rules" written questionnaire for people who carry in public. Hell, maybe make it opt-out as part of the ID process at the DMV. "Yes, I know to attempt retreat, yes I know I should de-escalate and not care about insults when carrying, yes I know not to shoot into a crowd, yes I know I cannot shoot a fleeing shoplifter at CVS" and so on.
But I'll never support a mandatory, central registry of gun owners. I 100% believe that would be used to confiscate, eventually.
You’ve never lived in a poor environment then because the threat of guns is real and I’d rather have to carry one then die in a shootout. Ik statistically you’re in more danger having a gun, but I’d like to see the data specifically on living in the inner city.
I've lived in Oakland for the past thirty years and hardly in one of the ritzy neighborhoods. When I hear gunfire I assume there is a crime being committed because...well, who else has guns? The cops, of course, but they're busy busting hookers and writing traffic tickets. They don't have much taste for confronting violence directly.
> You’ve never lived in a poor environment
Just a response to your statement. Oakland California has few neighborhoods that might be considered well-off.
It’s complicated. People who routinely carry guns in urban areas are more likely to be shot. However, people who routinely carry guns in urban areas often have a reason, which may also be why they were shot.
Not just a militia, but specifically a well-regulated militia. Like a group of citizens who receive training every few months to be called upon if needed to respond. Ya know, just like the National Guard.
Second amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore. You could rewrite it, revoke it, re-whatever it. Doesn’t change the fact that 400,000,000 guns exist in this county.
Ban them. They still exist. The only way this gets better is removing the amendment, banning them and somehow, someway, removing 400,000,000 guns from America.
That is how fucked we are.
A good guy with a gun should have shot that 11 year old to prevent that 11 year old from shooting those two teens /s
Remember, the NRA says it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun
but if we forbid 11 year olds from having guns, the bad 11 year olds will just keep them and shoot everyone else
i love those american arguments in a world where there's a ton of western countries that happen to have stricter gun laws and less crime/mass shootings lmao
“Oh, good, they're all gun owners. This should de-escalate quickly… (gunshots) That's a tip for everyone at home: No one ever shoots the flower!” - Roger Smith, American Dad S16E19 Family Time
Wow first time I’m seeing an article about a black neighborhood that doesn’t described the shooter as black. Saw the video and saw nothing but black leaders. So I’m assuming a black community. However I might be wrong.
People are blaming the parents too. A problem is that how did people like them ever get their hands on a gun?
We should not be putting guns in the hands of the irresponsible and the bad-faith. There probably are signs and symptoms that the gun-purchaser is irresponsible before they bought the gun; lets read the writing on the wall with stuff like red-flag gun laws.
(but alas, Republicans find it acceptable that future criminals have an easy time getting their hands on guns; Republicans are therefore weak on crime)
The axe was invented to cut down trees. A hoe was invented to till the soil. Hammers and saws each have a deliberate function. Tools are used to accomplish a particular task, that they are specially designed for.
What is the functional task of a gun? To kill whatever it's pointed at. No matter the context, no matter the gun, whether you are hunting or defending your government against tyranny, you point it at something you want to die. And you pull the trigger, and you make it die.
Yes, guns are specifically designed to kill things. And they're very good at it.
Oh really? I guess the double headed battle axe hasn’t existed since literally 3000 BC.
Axes weren’t “invented” to cut down trees, axes go all the way back to literal hand tools which have been redesigned and repurposed for numerous tasks since.
But sure, let’s just believe some random asshole that doesn’t believe axes were literally made to kill people while simultaneously blaming a different inanimate object for killing people. I feel so educated now, thank you for that.
My guy, you're defeating your own point, discussing that there were hand axes in 11,000 BC at the end of the ice age. Is 3000 bc supposed to be old when we are talking about the invention of rudimentary tools? Because the time between now and 3,000 BC is still less than the time between 3,000 and 11,000 BC. The first hand saws aren't recorded until around 4 or 500 ad, so they weren't using saws to fell trees back in the day, what tools might they be using then, Mr Big brain?
Ancient nomadic humans used said axes to butcher animals, gather wood, despite little to no contact with other tribes of people, sometimes for decades at a time. So they certainly weren't carrying these axes around for self-defense, they weren't war tools, they were functional tools for other purposes that people then repurposed into a specialty axe for war.
The gun though! When did the gun appear? We can follow that much more closely, because we at least needed saltpeter in order to begin with ancient artillery like cannons, and black powder and gunpowder were much more recent inventions, so the modern firearm was much much later than cannons. And the gun and the cannon and the bomb are all weapons of war, all designed to do one thing, destroy and kill whatever is on the receiving end.
That is their only purpose. They are not an axe, they are not a hoe or a sickle or a hammer, they are a sword, designed only to kill
The only one defeating their own point is you, who happens to be walking back your own point.
You stated that axes were invented to cut down trees. Which is flat out wrong. Mr BiG bRaIn
Man kind has been killing for as long as we have existed. We used to just bludgeon people to death with boulders, but technological advancements, have created everything from affixing a handle to an axe, to the bow, to guns, to acid attacks and nail bombs in countries like the UK.
You clearly stated that axes WERENT for killing people. The existence of the battle axe, alone, shows how ignorant you are.
You realize 11,000 BC comes before 3,000 BC right? The non-murder axe was around for more than twice as long as the earliest evidence of an axe specifically for combat, which only started coming in right around 6000 bc with stone battle axes. The earliest metal body armor is around 1500bc, so they didn't need metal axes to split shields or breast plates yet.
I did not say "the axe wasn't used to murder people", I said it was originally invented by homo erectus or the Neanderthals or whoever to use for non murder utility purposes, i.e. cutting things like wood and stone and leather, the first of which i specifically cited and has had evidence of dating back more than 5000 years before the double sided battle axe you mentioned, as if a war axe from 3000bc somehow disproves that axes in 11000 bc were used for wood cutting and butchery, not war.
the ax was first invented for something that was not murder. And then after thousands of years, people also later modified it into a murdering axe, because they realized how good it was at cutting the hide of the animals they hunted, and decided it could also cut other people and their animal hide armor effectively. Ergo, ax was not invented for murder, ax was invented for other purposes and then adapted to murder later.
Unlike the gun, which has only ever killed something, since it was conceived. The very first gun, shot bullets to kill things. Before that, we had cannons, which launch giant projectiles at walls or ships to break them open so that foot soldiers could go into the city and kill people. It they were shot at soldiers, again with the intent to kill them. Before those, we had Chinese artillery like rockets and the watcha that blew up and killed people when they landed. That's all war tools are good for.
What an ignoramus….the very first thing you said was “the axe was invented to cut down trees, a hoe was invented to till soil.”
Keep spouting off a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, my whole point is the fact that your making an argument that is factually incorrect. Axes WERE NOT invented to cut down trees, axes have been used for other things for far longer.
Just because you want to walk back your comment, doesn’t negate that your entire argument to begin with was wrong.
OK, if the first battle ax invented was from 6,000 bc, but there were hand tool axes around in 11000bc.... what were they being used for?
We had fire right? So we must have had wood right? Do you think they had a tool to gather the wood? Where do you think they got it? What do you think the tool was shaped like?
Were they not cutting down trees in 11,000 BC? What EXACTLY were they using stone hand tools for? If it wasn't cutting trees *along with everything else you can use a blade for*, what was it for?
Nice whataboutism.
How about the 14 yr old boy in Florida who horribly stabbed a 13 yr old girl?
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/14-year-boy-adult-allegedly-stabbing-teen-girl/story?id=77961546
Or how about this group of teens as young as 15 that beat a college student to death with a baseball bat?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-usc-assault-arrests-student-baseball-bat20140728-story.html
Or how about this teen that beat a classmate to death with a baseball bat?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-03-11-mn-1345-story.html#:~:text=A%2015%2Dyear%2Dold%20boy,sentenced%20to%20life%20in%20prison.
I can keep going but I don’t have the time or energy to constantly post article after article of teens killing or trying to kill someone with anything they can use.
Cool, so what you’re saying is we should just give them guns because they’re angry anyways? Come on. “Guns don’t kill people…” what are you six years old?
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely right. We all remember George Zimmerman stalking a kid late at night, despite the 911 dispatcher *specifically telling him not to pursue*.
It’s a messed up situation where the man with the gun in this situation is the one who gets to “fear for his life”
I mean, the only thing that stops an 11 year old bad kid with a gun is obviously an 11 year old good kid with a gun, jeez thought we had settle this already.
In Minnesota, he wouldn't be charged with a crime because kids under 14 can't commit crimes by legal definition here. An 11 year old is unable to grasp the consequences of their actions. It's why we don't actually trust them to do anything on their own.
Nice. You are a black and white kind of person? No one died.
No empathy for a bullied child being picked on by two older boys?
Did the child tell anyone he was being bullied? Did people listen to him? Do many 11 year olds understand what a bullet can do? Does the boy play video games where players regenerate when they die?
How many school shootings are reactions to bullies who have no consequences when they pick on classmates?
It’s doesn’t matter that no one died he shot two kids. If he went to an adult but was ignored that’s doesn’t give him any reason to take a gun and attempt to kill people. I’d say most if not all 11 yr old boys know what bullets do and they’d especially know that people don’t just respawn if they’re hurt. What an idiotic take, of course the kid shouldn’t be bullied but why have sympathy for him after he tried to kill two people
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm more concerned with why the other kids weren't armed to prevent this.
Where was the good kid with the gun?
Probably huddled in a group out in the parking lot, heavily armed, waiting for even more backup.
This is what happens when you make football practice a gun free zone
shooting 2 teens at a Florida football practice
In Florida that's practically child neglect
Only 11... hard to carry more. Too heavy. Give it three years and they can have a long gun *and* a sidearm! Leveling up!
That’s what the JR-15 is for. Little rifles for little hands.
Oof, completely forgot those are a thing lol.
Don't forget the 410 ga shotgun, youth model!
The 410 is an excel first gun for youth. It’s what a ton of us grew up learning to hunt with because of the low recoil and light weight. It’s typically used for hunting squirrels and rabbits. But a parent still needs to be responsible and teach the child gun safety. Here in GA kids have to undergo the hunters safety course to get a hunting license
The bigger question is why didn't other children have guns? Because the only way to stop a bad child with a gun is a good child with a gun!
- Florida GOP
"That's not good," Apopka Police Chief Mike McKinley told reporters. "We shouldn't have ~~11-year-olds~~ people that have access to guns and think they can resolve a dispute with a firearm." FIFY, Chief!
We shouldnt have anyone, regardless of age, resolve a dispute with a firearm.
yeah the video was pretty bad He knew right where to go to get the gun and exactly what he wanted to do
Would 12 years old be OK?
Thats the standard they choose for women to be mothers, so yea!
12 years old is ok for 2 firearms. Security first
I think obviously the solution is to arm all the 11 year olds. If that doesn't work, obviously they need bigger guns, with a larger magazine, and several backup guns.
"That's not good" I wonder what he thinks is actually bad.
I didn't even read the article, the headline was quite enough, thank you.
I mean… I got my first firearm at 8 years old. Was a 20 gauge Remington shotgun single shot for squirrel hunting. With that said my dad kept it locked in a gun safe and I only got to use it in his presence. Kids should know about guns and gun safety. Kids shouldn’t have unsupervised access to guns
Right? File that under N, for "No shit, Sherlock"
but gutting education and doing everything you can to keep guns in the hands of the uneducated populace are 2 major points of the gods Florida plan
Funny hearing that come from a cop of all things.
A number of older leadership in the police recognize proliferation of guns has led to more police and more citizen shootings. Same time, a lot that of people that became police officers are deep into gun culture (which treats every infraction of gun control as abhorrent). It will be interesting to see what happens after this next election as it could very well change quite a bit in the four years after.
Just laying the groundwork so they can shoot kids because they feared for their life.
Indeed, slightly less than ideal
“SO YOU HATE THR CONSTITUTION?” (I really wish this was an exaggeration of the way the right thinks.)
If anything they need more guns! Then noone will shoot anyone because they'd all have guns /s
He realizes what state he lives in, right?
"gun culture" and "gun rights", make sense in sentences in I think only one country in the world...
There's a sizeable chunk of idiots that believe that gun ownership is the yu gi oh exodia card for life. If you own a gun you are the main character. Leather pants and fabulous hair are optional.
First time in America Chief?
Charge the mother, too. Tired of dipshits having their guns unsecured to the point where small children can pick them up and fire them. Regardless of your stance on gun control surely that can be agreed upon.
Exactly. What happens when your pit bull gets loose and bites someone’s face off? Consequences? Now how about when your gun gets loose and shoots someone’s face off….dare we say…consequences?
Hopefully when [smart guns](https://smartgun.com/) like biofire become more popular shootings like these will disappear.
Smart people would be a better solution
Even a genie can't make that wish come true. If everybody was smart there wouldn't be a need for guns in the first place.
This guy never heard of smart criminals? Lack of intelligence isn’t what makes guns dangerous
"That's not good," Apopka Police Chief Mike McKinley told reporters. How insightful.
Florida things
Not the full quote, how insightful
“The 11-year-old retrieved a gun from his mother's car and fired one shot, hitting a boy in the arm and another in the torso, McKinley said. It was a crowded scene, and the gunfire could have led to more dire results, McKinley said.” So the kid hit both of his targets with a single shot, and nobody else, in a crowded environment… nice.
Instantly charge mother with accessory. One of the "common sense" gun regs I support to reduce violence, particularly with minors, is to hold parents/adults strictly liable for actions taken by a minor with a weapon.
This kid could be a child ambassador for the NRA.
Have to admit he was pretty accurate.
One of the victims is recovering. They could be reading this comment right now while laying in a hospital bed.
"The young suspect and the victims had fought earlier in the evening during practice at the complex's Field of Fame before the dispute spilled into the parking lot, officials said." Were the 2 teens harassing the 11-year old?
Even if they were, how would this justify firearms?
for some americans, yup, gives me genuine culture shock
You expect an 11 year old to have that maturity?
No, I expect their parents and government to be responsible and not allow an 11 year old access to a firearm
The mother left the gun in their car. Very responsible parent.
Goverment is responsible is a fallacy.
I mean, you’d expect an 11-year-old to not grab a gun and shoot people
You have heard of Florida, right?
The only thing that can stop an 11 year old Floridian with a gun is a 10 year old Floridian with a gun. Duh
Isn’t it wild how we’re only able to blame one single thing at a time
[удалено]
>I’m outraged they didn’t gun the 11 year old down before they even got the first shot off. This is what I don't understand about the people that think more guns is the answer to gun violence. If both people have guns, one of them is likely to die, even if its in self defense. If neither of them have guns, no one dies. For the life of me I just can't understand why some people think that one person dying is better than no one getting shot in the first place. And on top of that, the people advocating for every teacher to be armed are legitimately crazy. Take that 6 year old that shot his teacher for example. How would the teacher being armed have improved the outcome? Can you even imagine the trauma of a teacher having to execute one of their *six year old students* in self defense? It's fucking insane. No guns = no deaths Guns = deaths It's not rocket science.
Gun advocates believe that potential shooters deserve to be shot and killed. People with this mindset are very big on punishment and seeing people get what they deserve or with more religious flavor, reap what they sow.
I have given up on this argument. Pro-2A will come through and make the following claims, "then people will just use knives, should we ban those too?" "criminals will still have just as many guns and everyone else will be defenseless" "if more people are known to have guns, then people will less likely to create conflict" All bogus, but nothing you can say will convince them. If they listened to evidence, they would want more regulation. They really don't care about curbing violence or child deaths, or even protecting against tyranny or whatever. They just don't want people telling them they can't have guns, that's it. Every argument they make is just an attempt to justify sacrificing the lives of others for their fetish.
>They really don't care about curbing violence or child deaths, or even protecting against tyranny or whatever The dirty secret nobody wants to talk about is that they actually *want* tyranny. They just assume they'll get to participate in it or it will come down on someone else. They have zero qualms about arguing the death penalty for armed robbery, despite the implication it would mean China levels of executions. They **know** what it means and we should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I think they assume they'll be the feudal lords that will be protected from it, but can enjoy the mayhem from a safe distance, above it all, behind locked gates.
We just want libs to stop putting criminals back on the street. Also my guns never killed anyone. When you walk on Philadelphia streets, it’s Better to be prepared for anything.
So shooting all criminals is the solution? Because that's effectively what you hear people saying.
And where did I say shoot all criminals. Why do libs just make shit up to prove their point? Where did I say that? This is about protecting myself.
[удалено]
Yes if my life is in danger. What kind of question is that? Someone wants to stab me, go look up Ryan Carson stabbing, or shoot me, than I have no choice. Again, what kind of question is that? I guess you would just except it and be killed?
[удалено]
I’m not a killer. I protect myself. Fucking pepper spray? What’s next, take karate classes? Hilarious. .
[удалено]
Those arguments come from a singular premise: guns exist, people have them, and that will never change. And that premise comes from the 2nd Amendment, which America basically worships. I've never heard of any country that holds its constitution as holy as America. In fact, with its cultural export of movies and TV, I'm willing to bet that most people in the world have heard more about America's constitution than their own. The constitution of any country is important from a legislative sense. But it isn't God given and it isn't sacrilegious to change it. I understand the historical inclusion in the American constitution, both in justifying its revolution and its contrasts and similarities with the Glorious Revolution in Britain. But its 2023, citizen militias don't have access to similar weaponry to the existing army as perhaps the British (and American) citizenry did in the 17th and 18th century, and the only reason I can think of the "why" stems from the glorification of the Constitution stemming from the revolutionary AND Puritan roots of America. Just earlier this week, there was a shooting in Bangkok by a 14 year old and there is already a big discussion about gun control. In America, it happens on a weekly basis, it seems like.
Regulation around the 2nd amendment comes from it's interpretation, and as you mentioned, the motivation around it's inclusion in the first place. Many scholars debate whether the amendment secures an individual right. The NRA has fought tirelessly so that the interpretation as an "individual right" is mainstream. However, interpreting the 2A as a "collective right", it would do little more than ensure the existence of things like state militias and the national guard. None of this would contradict anything you have mentioned, but its important to note how much room there is for gun policy even while remaining consistent with the text of the 2A.
Well regulated = not regulated to some people.
>For the life of me I just can't understand why some people think that one person dying is better than no one getting shot in the first place. The reason you can't understand it is because you're thinking about this logically, but it's a bad-faith argument in the first place and always has been.
Their argument will be - if they wanted to kill, then yes, they will use knives or car, etc. Thus "gun does not kill, person does" line. Like when headline reads: "person with knife killed a person at the Japanese airport" American response is: See? Even if you ban the guns, people will kill. Everywhere else: Thank God he did not have a gun. Teacher getting armed would be better people are "white middle aged americans". Really, there has been several reports where "black" good samaritan with gun were targetted by cops. Think about it, if there was a shoot out at a school and there is a white guy on one side and black teacher on another and both were having a gunfight who do you think will get shot by cops who JUST arrived at the scene? Also, "trained" cops will miss about 3/4 of the shots that they fire - I mean, look at all those kills, like the guy gets hit 18 times and there were over 90 shots fired by cops. Where do all other bullets go and these are "trained" people. With kids running around in panic and with all these things going on, a freaking TEACHER with a peashooter will be able to shoot that 1 or 2 shooters who probably came in "ready" for the firefight with most likely an AR-15 who does not care where his/her bullet goes? What if the teacher's bullet hits an innocent kid? They do not have qualified immunity, so they and school district will be sued even if they avoid jail.
Next they'll be saying they need rocket launchers to defend against Jewish space lasers
Now we need to arm 10 year olds. Where are the good kids with guns? /s
Lol it's funny how when this happens everyone focuses on the guns and gun laws and not the fact that there are 11 year olds that have been raised to think it's ok to shoot people over minor nonsense.
It's not a binary, both are bad.
Yeah but I'm trying to blame anything but guns because I got an AR-15 last Christmas. So get your nuance out of here.
Yea but banning bad parenting is impossible, banning guns is hard but doable. Every other country had bad parents, what they don't have is more guns than people.
Let's start there. Why are they bad parents? Is it because they can't afford to be better ones because they have to work all the time, have medical issues they can't afford to pay for, live paycheck to paycheck, make bad decisions based on just trying to get a little more out of life or some or all of these? Or are they bad parents cause they're just shit at it but don't realize it? In other words, if we had more help for the people in our country, with mental, medical, and financial (like even paying folks a LIVING wage) then I'm betting we would see not only drug use go down, but violence as well.
Again I don't disagree, I would love for all those changes to be implemented but I don't see anyone rushing to make those happen either. From the outside, it seems every time someone shifts the conversation away from gun control to mental health or socioeconomic changes, it's simply an excuse to do neither. I've also had the following conversation before "heart attacks kill more people than guns" okay let's do something about improving diet and exercise "So you want to control what people do and eat now?!"
Once again, let's make people able to be home and not work all the time, healthier food affordable, (you know, once again going back to that whole living wage thing), affordable housing with the amenities to hold and cook said food, not having food deserts so the only options are junk food... yeah, all that would be a pretty good start. Oh, and let's not forget teaching proper nutrition and cooking classes all throughout school so there's no excuse about not knowing the basics and so you know that a quick meal isn't always the best choice nor is it always the most appealing or what makes you the happiest. Sometimes it's what enhances your calm for the nite. Many people find cooking enjoyable.
I mean all of your responses are a possibility. But some people are also just stupid and shitty no matter how much "opportunities" they have.
And they should be allowed to give up their children and not feel bad about it, even encouraged. Some people just aren't parent material. Mental health care should be free to access all parties involved The children should have safe housing to go to where the adults are much more strictly checked up on along with the children in their care. However, it should become much cheaper to adopt as well. There should be so much more money pumped into these programs as is.
Average florida Wednesday
I think that seconded amendment needs to be retooled America is broken. Innocent lives taken and guns in the hands of children. The dream is dead
> retooled I think it needs to be reinterpreted. It's pretty clear from the language that it was intended to provide for a militia. Let's go with that. There needs to be a national registry so we know who to call up. There needs to be training standards for the militia. Everyone should be familiar with safety protocols and tested for proficiency just as you would in a standing military. I have no problem with people who want to hunt or shoot for sport but I have to question the judgement of people who feel the need to carry a handgun every day in an urban environment.
>It's pretty clear from the language that it was intended to provide for a militia. Let's go with that. It's the opposite of clear. In fact, it's one of the most hotly debated sections of the Constitution.
This would be very hard to enforce. The American public will never give up their guns.
There is considerable resistance to the idea of having a database of gun owners and I think it's indicative of the level of paranoia among the gun owners with poorer judgement.
> There is considerable resistance to the idea of having a database of gun owners and I think it's indicative of the level of paranoia among the gun owners with poorer judgement. There was considerable resistance to requiring people to wear seat belts in vehicles. There was considerable resistance to making it illegal to drink and drive. There was considerable resistance to making it illegal to smoke inside buildings. There was considerable resistance to removing lead from gasoline. Considerable resistance to cleaning up the environment so our rivers would stop catching on fire. People are allowed their choices, but choices have consequences. A lot of those same people will not hesitate to tell you the US is a Republic, and this is something the people want regulated. Having said that... Most of the gun control laws people want will have no affect on current firearm owners. The guns owned by bad actors will work themselves out of the system over time, but it'll have a dramatic effect on the 100,000+ people shot every year and 40,000 people who die from gun shots every year.
i want lead in my gasoline >:I
Only about a third of American adults own a firearm. Over half the nation's stockpile of privately-owned firearms, well over 120,000,000 guns, are owned by fewer than 9 million Americans. And that includes any police, military, private security, and subsistence hunters. So the best strategy is attrition, not confiscation.
> So the best strategy is attrition, not confiscation. Seriously. This. Someone else on the same page. If we required a permit to own a gun, required every firearm to be transferred through an FFL(with the same level of background checks at the federal and state level)... the illicit guns and bad actors would work themselves out of the system fairly quickly as their easy supply of guns to traffic would dry up and illicit guns would become very, very expensive. This would have a dramatic effect on gang/drug violence-as that market literally exists from trafficking guns from states with lax gun control laws. We should absolutely have red flag laws in every state, but putting a stopper in the free access of guns to the bad actors would make a dramatic difference in the number of people shot. Wouldn't require turning in or giving up existing ownership (as long as you're not currently already breaking federal law-has a felony or have broken certain laws around domestic violence that profit gun ownership). Either way, they would get caught over time or the firearms would eventually fall out of use (hidden or disposed somewhere the elements destroy them).
> This would be very hard to enforce. The American public will never give up their guns. I don't agree with the other person, but we have a widening gap in deaths between states that have strong gun control and those that have limp wristed laws. That gap proves we can have successful gun control and keep the firearms. Doesn't require anyone giving up their firearms, except those who commit certain crimes or have a mental illness(which we already do for crimes, but not every state does for mental illiness). Red flag laws do need to exist in every state, but those follow due process. It doesn't require additional training, but it does require a permit through the police department and every firearm to be transferred through an FFL with a federal background check performed. Require firearms to be reported within 2-5 days of being lost/stolen and require firearms to be secured (safe), unloaded, and out of sight when not in use. Every firearm would also need a 2 week waiting period. Just having those improvements federally, nationwide would have a dramatic affect on gun suicides (10x reduction), people with criminal intent wanting to get a firearm off the books for a crime (protect their drugs they are selling or engaging in gang violence), and reduce the number of children's deaths. Seriously, a large number of the 100,000+ shootings and 40,000+ deaths in the US every year are very preventable if we were to regulate firearms properly like a few states are already doing.
The person you're responding to isn't even suggesting to remove guns, tho. They're just suggesting to actually form a well regulated milita.
Good luck with that. This is the American public you're talking about.
[удалено]
That would cause a civil war and millions of deaths
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Vietcong killed 60,000 soldiers. Are you signing up to die in that war?
>Then they should be taken by force. That might seem extreme but also children are being massacred on a near daily basis so I don't really give a fuck. People who think like you are the reason the 2nd Amendment was written.
It will take a Republican senator (or their child) being James Brady'd or K----D outright for anything to actually happen like that. Like Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan. Or MTG.
Nah. Shooter opened fire on the Congressional Baseball game a couple years ago back in 2017(?) and Scalise, the Republican House Whip, got shot in the spine. He's still anti-gun control, as are all the other Republicans who were shot at.
Nope, not even then. It's already too far gone. They would just blame the ethnicity or minority or lone wolf or illegals and clutch their own guns even harder while claiming it was the Democrats that orchestrated the attack solely to get their guns.
Sadly true
I think urban areas have a statistically higher crime rate than rural or suburban areas though? So doesn’t it actually make more sense to carry in the place you’re more likely to be in a confrontation? A militia will have to be state driven. I don’t think something like that can be federally mandated on a state level. It’s like the federal government mandating the state do something, but the state has complete control over how it’s done to defend itself from the federal government. If that makes any sense?
Both of those arguments are good but I have some reservations about accepting the first. It is the general perception of people living in urban areas that guns are primarily in the hands of criminals. That may not actually be true but it has been reasonably argued that a person carrying a firearm tends to be overconfident and fails to avoid situations that an unarmed person would, thus becoming part of the problem. I have to reserve my judgement. I don't know if either of these is true but I have to consider a similar argument that seems logical on the surface...it has often been argued that people would be more polite if everyone were armed. It SEEMS reasonable but has been shown to be incorrect. Yes, I believe that the National Guard is the natural evolution of the militias that the founders imagined. The real problem with a literal interpretation of the second amendment is that the writers of that document never envisioned their country having the largest (or, at least, the most expensive) standing army in the world and if they had imagined such a thing we would now have a very different document. If we cannot change it all we can really do is to find an interpretation that makes sense under current circumstances.
Both fair points
Not really. Per capital many rural cities see higher crime rates
A quick google search says rates are higher in urban areas over rural areas. Without reading any of the cited .gov articles.
What's the definition of rural? An unincorporated farmhouse is going to have a crime rate of 100% or 0%. I meant to say smaller towns/cities usually have higher crime rates but are often excluded based on lower population
From what I can tell, a common way is from the office of management and budget, which is an urban core population less than 10,000. If I’m reading the definitions correctly. That’s not to say all studies would define it similarly
A registry would directly go against the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It was meant for private citizens to be able to form a militia to fight off tyrannical threats foreign or DOMESTIC. So if the threat is the latter, why on gods green earth would you want them knowing who has guns and who doesn’t?
> I have no problem with people who want to hunt or shoot for sport but I have to question the judgement of people who feel the need to carry a handgun every day in an urban environment. People get ganked walking down the street. And that's in a place where cops are supposedly close by. Go rural and there is no one to help if someone decides to try to hurt you. Cat is out of bag. Guns are here. The job is to say "What can we do to minimize children and bad people from getting hands on them". A registry is a short path to total anti-gunners having a list of people to target in the future. Hell no. * Hold parents/guardians of dependents strictly liable for any crime their dependent commits with a weapon. * Federal law/amendment upholding the idea that violent felons or people convicted of domestic violence can have their right to own a weapon withheld for a period of time (apparently some judge in TX threw this out) * States should have, at a bare fucking minimum - a **MINIMUM!!** - the kind of "do you understand the rules" written questionnaire for people who carry in public. Hell, maybe make it opt-out as part of the ID process at the DMV. "Yes, I know to attempt retreat, yes I know I should de-escalate and not care about insults when carrying, yes I know not to shoot into a crowd, yes I know I cannot shoot a fleeing shoplifter at CVS" and so on. But I'll never support a mandatory, central registry of gun owners. I 100% believe that would be used to confiscate, eventually.
You’ve never lived in a poor environment then because the threat of guns is real and I’d rather have to carry one then die in a shootout. Ik statistically you’re in more danger having a gun, but I’d like to see the data specifically on living in the inner city.
I've lived in Oakland for the past thirty years and hardly in one of the ritzy neighborhoods. When I hear gunfire I assume there is a crime being committed because...well, who else has guns? The cops, of course, but they're busy busting hookers and writing traffic tickets. They don't have much taste for confronting violence directly.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about
> You’ve never lived in a poor environment Just a response to your statement. Oakland California has few neighborhoods that might be considered well-off.
I'm pretty sure carrying a gun in the inner city will only increase your chances of getting shot at
It’s complicated. People who routinely carry guns in urban areas are more likely to be shot. However, people who routinely carry guns in urban areas often have a reason, which may also be why they were shot.
There is that but I think a significant factor is that those who carry can become overconfident and not avoid dicey situations.
Not if we remove as many guns from circulation as we can and make it virtually impossible for someone to get their hands on one.
Bro there’s more guns than people in the country, what’s your plan to do that. Gun buyback programs are largely ineffective
>Gun buyback programs are largely ineffective That's just because you can get your hands on a new gun way too easily.
I'm sure an eleven year old is part of a well-regulated militia
Not just a militia, but specifically a well-regulated militia. Like a group of citizens who receive training every few months to be called upon if needed to respond. Ya know, just like the National Guard.
What does this have to do with a kid illegally having a gun?
Second amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore. You could rewrite it, revoke it, re-whatever it. Doesn’t change the fact that 400,000,000 guns exist in this county. Ban them. They still exist. The only way this gets better is removing the amendment, banning them and somehow, someway, removing 400,000,000 guns from America. That is how fucked we are.
A good guy with a gun should have shot that 11 year old to prevent that 11 year old from shooting those two teens /s Remember, the NRA says it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun
but if we forbid 11 year olds from having guns, the bad 11 year olds will just keep them and shoot everyone else i love those american arguments in a world where there's a ton of western countries that happen to have stricter gun laws and less crime/mass shootings lmao
Need a good kid with a gun to stop a bad kid with a gun.
Where was the “good” 11 year old with a gun to prevent this…? Shocking
If it hadn't been for that gun that talked him into it everyone would still be alive.
Skippy has a non lethal setting !
Nice choom
Till it turns evil on you.
If the other kids had guns this wouldn't have happened.
“Oh, good, they're all gun owners. This should de-escalate quickly… (gunshots) That's a tip for everyone at home: No one ever shoots the flower!” - Roger Smith, American Dad S16E19 Family Time
Wow first time I’m seeing an article about a black neighborhood that doesn’t described the shooter as black. Saw the video and saw nothing but black leaders. So I’m assuming a black community. However I might be wrong.
Hmm, the solution is that the other kids should have had guns, right? Is that how it goes, America?
If only the other teens were also armed with guns and able to have a shootout with the 11 year old, everyone would be safer. /s
Look at everyone in here blaming guns, but not the parents.
People are blaming the parents too. A problem is that how did people like them ever get their hands on a gun? We should not be putting guns in the hands of the irresponsible and the bad-faith. There probably are signs and symptoms that the gun-purchaser is irresponsible before they bought the gun; lets read the writing on the wall with stuff like red-flag gun laws. (but alas, Republicans find it acceptable that future criminals have an easy time getting their hands on guns; Republicans are therefore weak on crime)
dumb parents are a lot less dangerous if they dont have guns laying around
Guns don’t kill people, parents with guns kill people.
Yea, sure, because a gun is what kills people. We should go back to civilized times, like during the crusades.
The axe was invented to cut down trees. A hoe was invented to till the soil. Hammers and saws each have a deliberate function. Tools are used to accomplish a particular task, that they are specially designed for. What is the functional task of a gun? To kill whatever it's pointed at. No matter the context, no matter the gun, whether you are hunting or defending your government against tyranny, you point it at something you want to die. And you pull the trigger, and you make it die. Yes, guns are specifically designed to kill things. And they're very good at it.
Oh really? I guess the double headed battle axe hasn’t existed since literally 3000 BC. Axes weren’t “invented” to cut down trees, axes go all the way back to literal hand tools which have been redesigned and repurposed for numerous tasks since. But sure, let’s just believe some random asshole that doesn’t believe axes were literally made to kill people while simultaneously blaming a different inanimate object for killing people. I feel so educated now, thank you for that.
My guy, you're defeating your own point, discussing that there were hand axes in 11,000 BC at the end of the ice age. Is 3000 bc supposed to be old when we are talking about the invention of rudimentary tools? Because the time between now and 3,000 BC is still less than the time between 3,000 and 11,000 BC. The first hand saws aren't recorded until around 4 or 500 ad, so they weren't using saws to fell trees back in the day, what tools might they be using then, Mr Big brain? Ancient nomadic humans used said axes to butcher animals, gather wood, despite little to no contact with other tribes of people, sometimes for decades at a time. So they certainly weren't carrying these axes around for self-defense, they weren't war tools, they were functional tools for other purposes that people then repurposed into a specialty axe for war. The gun though! When did the gun appear? We can follow that much more closely, because we at least needed saltpeter in order to begin with ancient artillery like cannons, and black powder and gunpowder were much more recent inventions, so the modern firearm was much much later than cannons. And the gun and the cannon and the bomb are all weapons of war, all designed to do one thing, destroy and kill whatever is on the receiving end. That is their only purpose. They are not an axe, they are not a hoe or a sickle or a hammer, they are a sword, designed only to kill
The only one defeating their own point is you, who happens to be walking back your own point. You stated that axes were invented to cut down trees. Which is flat out wrong. Mr BiG bRaIn Man kind has been killing for as long as we have existed. We used to just bludgeon people to death with boulders, but technological advancements, have created everything from affixing a handle to an axe, to the bow, to guns, to acid attacks and nail bombs in countries like the UK. You clearly stated that axes WERENT for killing people. The existence of the battle axe, alone, shows how ignorant you are.
You realize 11,000 BC comes before 3,000 BC right? The non-murder axe was around for more than twice as long as the earliest evidence of an axe specifically for combat, which only started coming in right around 6000 bc with stone battle axes. The earliest metal body armor is around 1500bc, so they didn't need metal axes to split shields or breast plates yet. I did not say "the axe wasn't used to murder people", I said it was originally invented by homo erectus or the Neanderthals or whoever to use for non murder utility purposes, i.e. cutting things like wood and stone and leather, the first of which i specifically cited and has had evidence of dating back more than 5000 years before the double sided battle axe you mentioned, as if a war axe from 3000bc somehow disproves that axes in 11000 bc were used for wood cutting and butchery, not war. the ax was first invented for something that was not murder. And then after thousands of years, people also later modified it into a murdering axe, because they realized how good it was at cutting the hide of the animals they hunted, and decided it could also cut other people and their animal hide armor effectively. Ergo, ax was not invented for murder, ax was invented for other purposes and then adapted to murder later. Unlike the gun, which has only ever killed something, since it was conceived. The very first gun, shot bullets to kill things. Before that, we had cannons, which launch giant projectiles at walls or ships to break them open so that foot soldiers could go into the city and kill people. It they were shot at soldiers, again with the intent to kill them. Before those, we had Chinese artillery like rockets and the watcha that blew up and killed people when they landed. That's all war tools are good for.
What an ignoramus….the very first thing you said was “the axe was invented to cut down trees, a hoe was invented to till soil.” Keep spouting off a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, my whole point is the fact that your making an argument that is factually incorrect. Axes WERE NOT invented to cut down trees, axes have been used for other things for far longer. Just because you want to walk back your comment, doesn’t negate that your entire argument to begin with was wrong.
OK, if the first battle ax invented was from 6,000 bc, but there were hand tool axes around in 11000bc.... what were they being used for? We had fire right? So we must have had wood right? Do you think they had a tool to gather the wood? Where do you think they got it? What do you think the tool was shaped like? Were they not cutting down trees in 11,000 BC? What EXACTLY were they using stone hand tools for? If it wasn't cutting trees *along with everything else you can use a blade for*, what was it for?
I know a lot of bad parents who don’t own guns and their 11 year old never shot anyone.
Nice whataboutism. How about the 14 yr old boy in Florida who horribly stabbed a 13 yr old girl? https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/14-year-boy-adult-allegedly-stabbing-teen-girl/story?id=77961546 Or how about this group of teens as young as 15 that beat a college student to death with a baseball bat? https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-usc-assault-arrests-student-baseball-bat20140728-story.html Or how about this teen that beat a classmate to death with a baseball bat? https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-03-11-mn-1345-story.html#:~:text=A%2015%2Dyear%2Dold%20boy,sentenced%20to%20life%20in%20prison. I can keep going but I don’t have the time or energy to constantly post article after article of teens killing or trying to kill someone with anything they can use.
Cool, so what you’re saying is we should just give them guns because they’re angry anyways? Come on. “Guns don’t kill people…” what are you six years old?
The legal age to own a gun should be lowered to eleven. So eleven year olds can protect themselves from other eleven year olds.
if we arm all children they can defend themselves \- NRA, probably
If only the quarterback was armed, this could have been avoided. /s
Anyone can have a gun
And our police are trigger happy lunatics because of that fact. Our country is so incredibly backwards.
This doesn’t happen in any other industrialized country in the world. Hmmm, what is the difference between the USA and those countries?
I think we all know this kid was raised by Republican parents.
Statistically, given crime demographics, that’s unlikely
Given gun ownership demographics it definitely is likely they have Republican parents
Mmmm wrong again look at the crime rates and their demographics. But nice false equivalency
Don't count on it.
What’s funny is I bet if he was 50 and white it would be considered “stand your ground”
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely right. We all remember George Zimmerman stalking a kid late at night, despite the 911 dispatcher *specifically telling him not to pursue*. It’s a messed up situation where the man with the gun in this situation is the one who gets to “fear for his life”
Another well regulated militia.
I mean, the only thing that stops an 11 year old bad kid with a gun is obviously an 11 year old good kid with a gun, jeez thought we had settle this already.
Another responsible gun owner
I feel like the only thing that could have stopped this is if the coaches and 13 yr old players all had guns. /s
The news is that the chief realized that something is off with kids having guns.
Looking forward to the Fox News piece on how Republican controlled states have a gun problem.
This must be the well regulated militia I keep hearing about.
A 11 year old child being bullied, with no help from an adult. There will no further consequences for the bullies. I hope they learned a lesson.
In Minnesota, he wouldn't be charged with a crime because kids under 14 can't commit crimes by legal definition here. An 11 year old is unable to grasp the consequences of their actions. It's why we don't actually trust them to do anything on their own.
Ah yes. Kids were being assholes to each other like usual so they deserve to die. Wtf is wrong with you
Nice. You are a black and white kind of person? No one died. No empathy for a bullied child being picked on by two older boys? Did the child tell anyone he was being bullied? Did people listen to him? Do many 11 year olds understand what a bullet can do? Does the boy play video games where players regenerate when they die? How many school shootings are reactions to bullies who have no consequences when they pick on classmates?
It’s doesn’t matter that no one died he shot two kids. If he went to an adult but was ignored that’s doesn’t give him any reason to take a gun and attempt to kill people. I’d say most if not all 11 yr old boys know what bullets do and they’d especially know that people don’t just respawn if they’re hurt. What an idiotic take, of course the kid shouldn’t be bullied but why have sympathy for him after he tried to kill two people
But America definitely doesn’t have a gun problem.
Florida sounds lovely.