Four-year-old shoots babysitter

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

Works in theory, but you're relying on the idea that criminals will not have guns. Given that criminals generally don't obey the law, that's a risky idea for police to follow.

No, I'm not. The police don't need lethal force to disarm a criminal. Local police have access to long range stun guns, pepper spray, tear gas, police dogs, those little sticks they hit you with, etc, etc...

When an officer shoots his or her gun at another human their intent is to kill. Not to stun, not to scare, not to incapacitate, but to kill. This is not to say they aren't usually justified- in most cases when a police officer actually shoots at another human the officer's life is in danger. However, theres no reason why they should really be using lethal force when a weapon such as a ranged stun gun will offer the same protection.

In fact, a high-powered, long range stun gun should offer more protection. What is the target with a standard firearm? You aim for the head. If you hit anywhere else- arm, leg, etc... you are likely to only stun your target temporarily. with a stun gun you may target any point on their body and the convulsions will force the criminal into a detained position.

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

Works in theory, but you're relying on the idea that criminals will not have guns. Given that criminals generally don't obey the law, that's a risky idea for police to follow.

Exactly. Making it illegal to own a guns only takes guns away from law abiding citizens. Which is why police will always need firearms. Though they are making guns that shoot sand bags or something that will take someone down without them having to go to the hospital afterwards.

Originally Posted by 8bit

The primary purpose of a gun is to murder another living being. The primary purpose of cars, trains, and cranes are not to kill people. Their benefits (usually) outweigh their detriments. However, this is not true for firearms, as there are no benefits to firearms.

Though I agree that firearm laws should be much stricter in the US, I'll have to disagree with this statement. Guns have benefits. All that meat that people buy at the store gets there because hunters with guns put it there. Now, that's not to say that the detriments of firearms (murder, threat, etc.) are outweighed by the benefits. I just thought I'd point out that there are some benefits to guns.

When an officer shoots his or her gun at another human their intent is to kill. Not to stun, not to scare, not to incapacitate, but to kill.

I'd like to reiterate that I do believe that gun laws should be stricter, but once again, you are making them out to be worse than they actually are. Officers shoot their guns to incapacitate or immobilize criminals quite frequently. I work with two men that used to be cops. They have a specific term referring to a shoot-to-kill situation called a "double tap" whereby they shoot the person once in the heart, and once in the head. There would be no need for such a term if the ONLY intention policeman had when they discharged their firearm was to kill.

As for the topic at hand, this is pretty freaky. However, as Rew pointed out, we do not know all of the circumstances. If the babysitter was going to the hospital for minor pellet wounds, it's unlikely that a real gun was even fired. A shotgun could do that from a bit of a distance, but in a trailer home, there's not too much room, so I'm just guessing that this was a pretty close range shot. In which case, a shotgun would have done a hell of a lot more than minor pellet wounds.

So for one, the gun probably wasn't even real. For two, the article does not discuss what happened in much detail. It says that the child had his foot stomped on, and afterwards shot the babysitter, but it seems to provide no concrete evidence that the two events were related. The child could have grabbed the gun for a completely different reason. Until a more detailed story is released, we can't really know for sure. It could have just been the kid messing around, never intending to hurt anyone, for all we know. In which case he should have a serious lesson about what guns do to people, but certainly not anger management counseling.

Originally Posted by 8bit

No, I'm not. The police don't need lethal force to disarm a criminal. Local police have access to long range stun guns, pepper spray, tear gas, police dogs, those little sticks they hit you with, etc, etc...

When an officer shoots his or her gun at another human their intent is to kill. Not to stun, not to scare, not to incapacitate, but to kill. This is not to say they aren't usually justified- in most cases when a police officer actually shoots at another human the officer's life is in danger. However, theres no reason why they should really be using lethal force when a weapon such as a ranged stun gun will offer the same protection.

"Ranged stun guns" have significantly less range than any firearm on the market, and are much easier to protect against (a bulletproof vest stops tasers, but then, so does a thick jacket.)

Police, I feel, should indeed have guns, and I'm not decided if civilians should or should not, to date there's no real study that determines if having or not having guns provides the higher crime rate.

In fact, a high-powered, long range stun gun should offer more protection. What is the target with a standard firearm? You aim for the head.

No you don't, you aim for the chest. It's a larger target that's moving significantly less.

If you hit anywhere else- arm, leg, etc... you are likely to only stun your target temporarily.

A shot anywhere to the body is reasonably likely to be fatal. However, a shot to anywhere but the head is, it's true, not guaranteed to incapacitate someone. That said, even shots to the head don't always do that.

with a stun gun you may target any point on their body and the convulsions will force the criminal into a detained position.

Indeed, unless they're wearing clothing thicker than your standard shirt and pants, in which case no dice.

Originally Posted by Chad

About the only thing you can do to defend yourself against a person with a gun, is have a gun yourself. Any other tactic likely involves running or negotiating. That's why I'm on the fence about gun laws. You could just make it lawful for police to carry guns, but the police may become corrupt.

The military or government in charge of that military could just as easily become corrupt, should we therefore allow citizens the right to purchase tanks?

Exactly. Making it illegal to own a guns only takes guns away from law abiding citizens. Which is why police will always need firearms. Though they are making guns that shoot sand bags or something that will take someone down without them having to go to the hospital afterwards.

It also makes it harder for the criminal to obtain guns. For example, in this country the only place I know about I could get a gun illegally if I wanted one is three hours drive away into territory which, should I cross its borders, would probably put a bullet in my head anyway, thereby making the gun useless to me.

Plus the majority of our police don't carry firearms, and we manage fine.

Police, I feel, should indeed have guns, and I'm not decided if civilians should or should not, to date there's no real study that determines if having or not having guns provides the higher crime rate.

Well there's two options - make it incredibly easy for someone who would want a gun for illegitimate reasons to obtain one, or don't. It's that simple. I don't think the studies are particularly relevant - it's the principle.

I'd like to reiterate that I do believe that gun laws should be stricter, but once again, you are making them out to be worse than they actually are. Officers shoot their guns to incapacitate or immobilize criminals quite frequently. I work with two men that used to be cops. They have a specific term referring to a shoot-to-kill situation called a "double tap" whereby they shoot the person once in the heart, and once in the head. There would be no need for such a term if the ONLY intention policeman had when they discharged their firearm was to kill.

As far as I'm aware, in Britain they have a procedure whereby they shoot the target in five different points in the brain, if the target is suspected to be a suicide bomber. Interesting little tidbit there.

The military or government in charge of that military could just as easily become corrupt, should we therefore allow citizens the right to purchase tanks?

There is no reason for the average civilian to own a tank. Or a semi to fully automatic weapon. Yes the military could be corrupt, but we need a military to keep us safe. Otherwise we'd get conquered, and many of our freedoms could be taken.

Originally Posted by John

You know many four-year-olds?

I've babysat quite a bit in the past. Also, my girlfriend has a 4 year old nephew who lives in her house.

Any kids show that has guns or similar has them doing not very much harm at all.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that the kids watches more than just the disney channel.

Originally Posted by Chad

There is no reason for the average civilian to own a tank. Or a semi to fully automatic weapon. Yes the military could be corrupt, but we need a military to keep us safe. Otherwise we'd get conquered, and many of our freedoms could be taken.

There is no reason for the average citizen to own a shotgun or an automatic handgun or a Smith & Wesson .500 either. In fact there's no reason to make anything bigger than a snub gun available to the public, and I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason they need them, too, since as has been highlighted above, it'd be much simpler just to make all guns illegal to anyone but those in the armed forces and those in the more elite law-enforcement units because their sole purpose is to cause harm, and making them widely available simply results in making an offensive weapon available to an untrustworthy public.

And your military could be used to conquer you too if you get a bit too free for the government's liking. They have tanks.

Like I said, making guns illegal only takes them away from law abiding citizens, and perhaps petty thieves who don't have connections or know someone who has connections.

And a lot of petty thieves who don't have connections in America are armed anyway thanks to the widespread sale of arms. So that is a lot of gun crime reduced purely by removing arms from the market. And law-abiding citizens would not need those arms if it was made significantly harder for would-be criminals to obtain them, and measures were taken by law-enforcement services to bust gun-running rackets. Therefore saying "making guns illegal only takes them away from law-abiding citizens" is a totally incorrect statement, as you yourself have just testified by providing another example of what it does, so stop spouting out what your shotgun-wielding father told you when he was ranting and raving about how liberals want to curtail your freedom by taking your "God-given" rights away from you like he just heard on Fox News, and think about what you're saying at a level slightly deeper than the fact that it sounds good, for just ONE SECOND, for ****'s sake.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Though I agree that firearm laws should be much stricter in the US, I'll have to disagree with this statement. Guns have benefits. All that meat that people buy at the store gets there because hunters with guns put it there.

......WHAT?!

I don't think hamburger meat and chicken wings ever saw the wild...

maybe fish, but no guns are involved.

I think the days of hunting for food in the US are looooooong over. I don't think we should ban guns outright, but certainly no full-auto and high powered rifles. .44 magnums are a bit much as well... and make a decent screening process to prevent joe idiot from owning 99 guns.

Originally Posted by rhakiath

......WHAT?!

I don't think hamburger meat and chicken wings ever saw the wild...

maybe fish, but no guns are involved.

I think the days of hunting for food in the US are looooooong over. I don't think we should ban guns outright, but certainly no full-auto and high powered rifles. .44 magnums are a bit much as well... and make a decent screening process to prevent joe idiot from owning 99 guns.

Oh yeah. I often forget that not everyone lives in a small town like I.

In my town, a lot of the meat actually is hunted by locals. Well, in any case, there is still some market for hunting for the purpose of food (though the idea of hunting for sport absolutely sickens me), and as such, some people do make their livelihood with said weapons.

If you were to make firearms illegal, then yes, there would probably be a lot less gun related crime, however, these few that do still make their living with guns would not be pleased. Now, granted, when one makes laws, one has to take into consideration how much the benefits outweigh the detriments, and in this case, I would definitely be FOR making guns illegal. However, to state that there are NO benefits to guns, is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Oh yeah. I often forget that not everyone lives in a small town like I.

In my town, a lot of the meat actually is hunted by locals. Well, in any case, there is still some market for hunting for the purpose of food (though the idea of hunting for sport absolutely sickens me), and as such, some people do make their livelihood with said weapons.

If you were to make firearms illegal, then yes, there would probably be a lot less gun related crime, however, these few that do still make their living with guns would not be pleased. Now, granted, when one makes laws, one has to take into consideration how much the benefits outweigh the detriments, and in this case, I would definitely be FOR making guns illegal. However, to state that there are NO benefits to guns, is incorrect.

What societal benefit hunting for food has societal could be attained through other means. That's the important thing to remember. There are no benefits to guns, therefore, because those benefits are easily attained through other means, and in order for the gun to actually be beneficial, it would pretty much have to be in a way which would not be possible were guns not legal. Therefore as it stands, their redundancy in that capacity means they do not confer a benefit on society by their legality and availability.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

And a lot of petty thieves who don't have connections in America are armed anyway thanks to the widespread sale of arms. So that is a lot of gun crime reduced purely by removing arms from the market. And law-abiding citizens would not need those arms if it was made significantly harder for would-be criminals to obtain them, and measures were taken by law-enforcement services to bust gun-running rackets. Therefore saying "making guns illegal only takes them away from law-abiding citizens" is a totally incorrect statement, as you yourself have just testified by providing another example of what it does

I just think it's riskier to make such laws. Maybe if there was an easy way to defense yourself against a person with a gun, without having one yourself, then I'd see your point. As it stands, I just see it as safer for the smart people to keep them legal.

so stop spouting out what your shotgun-wielding father told you when he was ranting and raving about how liberals want to curtail your freedom by taking your "God-given" rights away from you like he just heard on Fox News, and think about what you're saying at a level slightly deeper than the fact that it sounds good, for just ONE SECOND, for ****'s sake.

Uh huh. Because my dad is totally a typical bible thumping Cristian conservative who goes off on a tanget about guns whenever the G word is ever mentioned. Also, Fox News is the only source of news he ever listens to.

And you forgot top label him a white male supremist too.

Originally Posted by Chad

I just think it's riskier to make such laws. Maybe if there was an easy way to defense yourself against a person with a gun, without having one yourself, then I'd see your point. As it stands, I just see it as safer for the smart people to keep them legal.

You've totally ignored the fact that the majority of criminals that you need to be protected from only have their weapons because of the fact that they're legal.

So you think it's safer to trust the public and allow guns to be legal, rather than to make guns illegal altogether, even though the only reason the guns exist are so that trustworthy citizens can protect themselves from the many untrustworthy citizens?

Remove guns from the equation altogether and there ceases to be a problem. Yes, the odd outlaw will get his hands on weapons, but the point is that the police will be working to make that even harder if it was made an objective, and the fact that it will be so uncommon will mean that the average Joe Bloggs on the street won't need firearms to protect himself. Further, if you're going to let Joe Bloggs' protect himself from the possibility of getting shot, you should let Joe Bloggs' protect himself from the possibility of being run over by a tank, too, by legalizing tank purchases. After all, making tanks illegal is just taking tanks out of the garages of law-abiding citizens.

Oh, and the average man should be allowed to buy his own missile silo should he have the money as well. I mean, making warheads illegal is just taking warheads out of the silos of law-abiding citizens, after all.

Actually why is anything illegal? Making laws to prohibit stuff is just taking that stuff out of the hands of the people who can be trusted to use them responsibly.

The point is, there are too many people who cannot be trusted, and making them widely available is just putting guns INTO their hands. Legalizing guns is putting guns into the hands of criminals, to reverse your little phrase. The only reason they're legal is so that a person who will only use his guns responsibly can protect himself from people who won't use their guns responsibly. But if we take guns out of the equation altogether, again, there wouldn't be any problem.

Uh huh. Because my dad is totally a typical bible thumping Cristian conservative who goes off on a tanget about guns whenever the G word is ever mentioned. Also, Fox News is the only source of news he ever listens to.

The way you were spouting off "making guns illegal only takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens" straight out of the NRA's handbook without even thinking, I wouldn't be surprised.

People should really learn from these events but no does. Even if it was a toy gun, it shouldn't been in the childs reach. He's only 4 years old, so being stepped on the foot is a bigger deal then with older people. Plus, he was probably imtimdated being around people over 4 times his age. If people learned from events like this (like when that 8 year old shot and killed his dad and his dads friend because he was spanked) things like this wouldn't happen.

Originally Posted by Pelagias

Damn, and I thought Calvin was a tough brat to babysit. Hmm, isn't it a tad strange that a four year old kid knew how to load and use a shotgun? .

Its physically impossible for a four year old to hold a shotgun, its far too heavy for a normal toddler to handle. Also it sounds like he used a BB gun since the victim suffered minor pellet wounds, a shotgun on the other hand blows holes in people.