• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Two Teen Boys Arrested in Shooting Death of Georgia Infant in Stroller

Joined
Feb 23, 2011
These sorts of crimes will soon become the norm, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It's just a sign of the times—a time in which 60% of the population of the world has become desensitized to such horrid acts.

How odd... Why don't I feel sad about this? :mellow:
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
These sorts of crimes will soon become the norm, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It's just a sign of the times—a time in which 60% of the population of the world has become desensitized to such horrid acts.

How odd... Why don't I feel sad about this? :mellow:
It's my understanding actually that violent crime has been experiencing a pretty significant decrease, beginning in the 90s. In America, at least.

Also, what are you referring to with that 60% figure?
 

All Might

You are your own destiny
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
The Avatar State
First off, what is a 17 year-old doing with a gun anyway? How did he come to attain it and involve a 14 year-old--under the assumption that the older one instigated the idea--in with his crime? Doesn't matter how old they are to me, though. I'd just want them off the streets, no matter where that might be, until they learn a remarkable dose of empathy and selflessness. This case clearly shows their egos to be egregiously high.

Secondly...what's the incentive? I already understand that this situation was likely an attempted thievery (haven't heard of any confirmation yet), but something before the incident had to prod them toward this atrocity. Did they just meet up one day and say, "Hey, I wanna nab some lady's purse and get some free cash. It'll be fun."; "Yeah, okay."? If so, that would be valid proof that people are becoming desensitized more than ever.

Part of me is beginning to think that the recent surge of shootings over the last few months could have egged the two teens to consider this. It seemed that after the Aurora shooting, an influx more of gun-related occurrences started picking up, most notably in milieus such as schools. Inevitably, this has led to increased discussions in gun laws and the intricacies surrounding that subject. As heinous as the previous shootings have been, for infanticide to be considered expressly marks the deterioration of sensitivity in today's society. I only wish we knew the root cause so that we could quash or otherwise alleviate its deleterious connotations. Justice won't truly resound for the lives lost until we do everything that we can collectively to prevent capricious bloodshed.
 
Last edited:

ThePurpleKnight

ThePurpleKnightmare
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Location
Canada
Save the courts some money and execute these morons, allow others to pay to see the execution and make money for the mother.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
I don't understand the US citizens' need for guns. Being from France, where you cannot have guns unless you are part of the police, military, and where many less shootings occur than the US, (even though I do realise the two countries are not the same size and not the same amount of populations). your obsession with needing guns for protection seems... strange. I personally think you'd be better off that way, with only people who you know can use them and will use them (for the most part) responsibly.
It's important to note that it's not an obsession with the inanimate object (i.e. the gun), but rather the right to carry/own a firearm. As well as not being limited on what types you can own (usually the main issue on gun control), as it could possibly hurt the integrity of the constitution and the security of free state. Lets say a bill was passed to place a ban on "assault weapons" (the term being abstract). What's to say that certain books (e.g. assault books?) couldn't be banned because they posed as a 'threat' (a case in which a perpetrator went on a rampage after allegedly reading a certain book bringing about the cause for a ban). Obviously the idea of banning books is an absurd notion, and could be seen as attacking the straw man. However it has been implemented elsewhere List of books banned by governments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Shikenshu

Hero of CEGEP
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Location
Hyrule
Come on, do you really believe you need guns?

If it's only for hunting, why would need a handgun, or an AK-47?

No one need firearms, if it's for hunting, and only for hunting, you would get a licence that gives you the right to have in your possession 1 firearm destined for hunting, which is more than enough.

If you tell me it's for "security", come on, security against what? Other gun owner. We are no more in 1800s when there was only 1 sheriff always drunk, now we have strong police dept. that will protect you against bandit.

Also, yes, it is easier to kill with a gun, it's much more lethal, you don't need to get close to the victim and you don't need to hit the flesh yourself. I could kill someone with a gun, but never with a knife or any blunt weapon. You need more willpower to attack someobe with a melee weapon.

And M107, you can't compare banning books and guns, books are a tool of knowledge, of liberty and of art. Banning books is like banning the right to speak. Guns, in the other hand, is a killing tool, nothing more. You won't get knowledge from a gun, only death. Guns are not arts (ok, old flinkstones are looking badass). If you collect guns for arts, you don't need functionnal ones. Even when guns are use for a hobby like hunting, it brings death. Banning killing tools is a good idea.

And now, don't start comparting every killing tools, because you will turn it into fallacies. First, knife, bats and hammers have other use, good use. (knife are needed to cut what you eat and other things, you need bats to play baseball, a sport that gather people and hammers are need to build building and other things) GUns, in the other hands, are nothing more than killing tools. Yeah, they serve for hunting, but there are other tools for hunting, like bear traps, and these can't really kill (not as easily as guns).

Also, NO, having a gu regulation does not mean that the army will fight with stick. People that needs guns (police, military, etc) will be in possession of guns, because their work is protection, but the average joe won't have access to guns because it is not his job to protect. If you really want to own guns, become a police officer or a soldier.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
If it's only for hunting, why would need a handgun, or an AK-47?

No one need firearms, if it's for hunting, and only for hunting, you would get a licence that gives you the right to have in your possession 1 firearm destined for hunting, which is more than enough.
I would answer, if hunting was the only purpose

If you tell me it's for "security", come on, security against what? Other gun owner. We are no more in 1800s when there was only 1 sheriff always drunk, now we have strong police dept. that will protect you against bandit.
What does the time period have to do with determining security? Yes that is one general security purpose, another gun owner. However that gun owner would have bad intentions, thus leading another gun owner (with good intentions) to want to protect themselves or people around them.

Example:

[video=youtube;gBYSau64LOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYSau64LOc[/video]

Also, yes, it is easier to kill with a gun, it's much more lethal, you don't need to get close to the victim and you don't need to hit the flesh yourself. I could kill someone with a gun, but never with a knife or any blunt weapon. You need more willpower to attack someobe with a melee weapon.
Your own willpower doesn't necessary represent the willpower of somebody else.

And M107, you can't compare banning books and guns, books are a tool of knowledge, of liberty and of art. Banning books is like banning the right to speak. Guns, in the other hand, is a killing tool, nothing more. You won't get knowledge from a gun, only death. Guns are not arts (ok, old flinkstones are looking badass). If you collect guns for arts, you don't need functionnal ones. Even when guns are use for a hobby like hunting, it brings death. Banning killing tools is a good idea.

And now, don't start comparting every killing tools, because you will turn it into fallacies. First, knife, bats and hammers have other use, good use. (knife are needed to cut what you eat and other things, you need bats to play baseball, a sport that gather people and hammers are need to build building and other things) GUns, in the other hands, are nothing more than killing tools. Yeah, they serve for hunting, but there are other tools for hunting, like bear traps, and these can't really kill (not as easily as guns).
You could gain knowledge on how a particular gun functions or it properties, from having one. So it isn't true to say that death is the only outcome (also note that nobody was killed in the video). I will however agree in saying that (killing) it is its primary purpose, but there are also valid reasons to kill.

Also; Banning books : banning the right to free speech :: Banning guns : Banning the right to own a gun.


Also, NO, having a gu regulation does not mean that the army will fight with stick. People that needs guns (police, military, etc) will be in possession of guns, because their work is protection, but the average joe won't have access to guns because it is not his job to protect. If you really want to own guns, become a police officer or a soldier.
Here is in my opinion the biggest security flaw. You only want police and military armed, but they need firearms the same reason we (average joes) need them. Let's say a gun ban succeeds (that also entails gun confiscation). You now have what is essentially a monopoly of violence. Police and military operate on a chain of command (in which orders are given, and typically move from higher rank to lower rank). If the 'high end' of the chain becomes corrupted, then so does the entirety of the chain (garbage in - garbage out). Thus if the military or police turned against the unarmed populace (the result of corruption), then how would you stop it?

[video=youtube;pdb20gcc_Ns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdb20gcc_Ns[/video]
 

Shikenshu

Hero of CEGEP
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Location
Hyrule
The time period has importance. In the past (when the OUTDATED constitution was written), there was no police departement, there was no good way to communicate, when someone was threatening you, there was no other choice than fight back. But these days have changed, today, nearly everywhere, there is a good police dept to protect the citizen. Also, you can simply call 9-1-1 and there will be a police officer ready to serve you. (now, you probably use the example of the countryside, and yeah, MAYBE there could be an exception there because there is less police, but it would be limited to 1 handgun (no assault rifle, no more than 1) by citizen aged 21 and older, if not 25 (a smoker and a gambler is much safer than a gun older))

What you don't understand is that if there was a ban on guns (not even a ban, a control board), it would be harder to get guns. When something is harder to get, it require more willpower to get. Example, I rarely do/don't drugs (coke and harder stuff) because it is much more easier for me to get something legal (alcohol). Yeah, maybe killers would use other weapon (legal one, like knife or bats). But with these weapons it is much more harder to do a shooting and to fight against gun holders (police officers in the case of a crime).

Also, I'm pretty sure that the majority would find it easier to shoot with a gun than to stab someone. Also, because a knife (or any melee weapons) require a closer range to attack, it's easier to fight back.

You can get more knowledge from a book about guns than a gun itself. In the book, you can learn the history of firearms, the different mechanisms used in the past, how each era influenced the gun. If you physically own a gun, you will only know the mechanism of this model in particular, nothing more.

Liberty of speech is a right, liberty of owning gun is a privilege (not even, but I don't want to be mean), that's why banning a book is unthinkable, but banning guns is quite normal. We're not in time of war (yeah, there is war, but it not is america yet, the day it will be, I will approve the right to use assault rifle)

You want to know something, EVERYONE with an ounce of power in the world is corrupted, that's the way of capitalism, people with cash control the politics and the news. Also, I have another little secret, the police does a bad job. Yeah, that's right, they are corrupted, but we can't do anything. First, the population CAN'T win a warfare against the police and the army, they are better trained and better equiped. Also, there is no need for a revolution, police still do there job to an extend. If one day, we really need to fight back (the gouvernment and the police start assaulting everyone for nothing), we won't need the "right" to own guns, we will do everything we can to fight back, we will use every weapon we can find, even improvised one (molotov cocktails). Guns are only required in a time of war, and only where the war is raging, not thousand of miles away from there.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
The time period has importance. In the past (when the OUTDATED constitution was written), there was no police departement, there was no good way to communicate, when someone was threatening you, there was no other choice than fight back. But these days have changed, today, nearly everywhere, there is a good police dept to protect the citizen. Also, you can simply call 9-1-1 and there will be a police officer ready to serve you. (now, you probably use the example of the countryside, and yeah, MAYBE there could be an exception there because there is less police, but it would be limited to 1 handgun (no assault rifle, no more than 1) by citizen aged 21 and older, if not 25 (a smoker and a gambler is much safer than a gun older))
No. The constitution has no sunset provisions or any 'expiration' date. Nor has it been deprecated; public servants still swear an oath to defend the constitution. The constitution provides the framework for this republic (government ruled by law), so it can't removed or ignored without also removing the government itself (which would create a temporary anarchy, and an eventual oligarchy). Also determining what 'good' communication is, depends on the person. If someone broke into my house, I would call 911, but I would also want to defend myself in the mean time (Remember, there is a response time that can very from person to person).

What you don't understand is that if there was a ban on guns (not even a ban, a control board), it would be harder to get guns. When something is harder to get, it require more willpower to get. Example, I rarely do/don't drugs (coke and harder stuff) because it is much more easier for me to get something legal (alcohol). Yeah, maybe killers would use other weapon (legal one, like knife or bats). But with these weapons it is much more harder to do a shooting and to fight against gun holders (police officers in the case of a crime).
Determining ease, is depended on the person handling the object in question. It might be easier for someone to perform a violent act with one weapon over another. FBI statistics that come out a year late have shown that more people are killed by blunt force object than 'assault weapons' FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 (Handguns being the highest)

Also, I'm pretty sure that the majority would find it easier to shoot with a gun than to stab someone. Also, because a knife (or any melee weapons) require a closer range to attack, it's easier to fight back.
That's a conformation bias, that has nothing to do with the underlying argument. I could have easily have said the majority would find it easier stab someone, but it that doesn't give a valid reason to ban knifes or anything for that matter.

You can get more knowledge from a book about guns than a gun itself. In the book, you can learn the history of firearms, the different mechanisms used in the past, how each era influenced the gun. If you physically own a gun, you will only know the mechanism of this model in particular, nothing more.
I'm aware of this. I wrote it to point out that the only outcome of a gun isn't only death as you had written in your original argument.

Liberty of speech is a right, liberty of owning gun is a privilege (not even, but I don't want to be mean), that's why banning a book is unthinkable, but banning guns is quite normal. We're not in time of war (yeah, there is war, but it not is america yet, the day it will be, I will approve the right to use assault rifle)
No. The liberty of owning a gun is also a right. What you think is 'normal' doesn't give a valid reason to ban guns. I say it's not normal, even if the majority of countries around the world have implemented one.

You want to know something, EVERYONE with an ounce of power in the world is corrupted, that's the way of capitalism, people with cash control the politics and the news. Also, I have another little secret, the police does a bad job. Yeah, that's right, they are corrupted, but we can't do anything. First, the population CAN'T win a warfare against the police and the army, they are better trained and better equiped. Also, there is no need for a revolution, police still do there job to an extend. If one day, we really need to fight back (the gouvernment and the police start assaulting everyone for nothing), we won't need the "right" to own guns, we will do everything we can to fight back, we will use every weapon we can find, even improvised one (molotov cocktails). Guns are only required in a time of war, and only where the war is raging, not thousand of miles away from there.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody with power is corrupt, then again it depends on how you define corrupt. If people that control the cash also control the politics and the news, then you don't have true capitalism, but rather crony capitalism. Also to say that 'we can't do anything' to stop this isn't true, and not doing anything will only make the problem worse. However there are better ways to fight this that doesn't have to resort to violence. A well-informed public can stop a tyrannical takeover before it happens, but it has to know what to look for. Saying that 'we can't beat it' and doing nothing will only strengthen the corruption. If you give up your rights under the pretense that you will get more security, you won't get either.
 

Xinnamin

Mrs. Austin
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Location
clustercereal
I'm just going to point out a few things.

One, 911 is great, the police department is great, but it's awfully naive to believe they can protect you against everything. When it comes down to it, if your house is broken into while you are inside, the police may not get there in time, or because of the thief's presence you may not be able to reach your phone, or you are otherwise in immediate danger. A gun, even if just for show at that point, can save your life by either threatening the intruder and scaring them off, or at least buying yourself time and providing yourself a means of immediate self defense.

Two, not all guns are obtained legally. This case here, both boys were underaged, they must have obtained their weapon illegally. You have the black market, you have gun shows with legal loopholes etc that may not enforce strict enough background checks, you have the second-hand market. Will banning guns make them harder to get? Of course. But the criminal that still really wants a gun WILL find a way to get one, and then you have less people able to defend themselves against such threats.

Three, my father was telling me the other day about corruption in the police force in China. Because Chinese citizens are not allowed to own firearms, many members of the Chinese police force bully and abuse the general population because they know they can get away with it. You don't need to "wage warfare" against the "corrupt government", just the very fact that citizens are allowed to own guns and the police know that is in itself a preventative measure against such corruption. I'm not saying America will for sure end up like that if we ban firearms, I'm just pointing out that it's better to have preventative measures rather than deal with a problem after the fact.

Four, just because the constitution is old does not make it outdated. The fact that it allows amendments is proof that it was designed to be able to evolve with time and with society. Again, as I already stated, ya there was more of a need for self protection back then, but that does not mean the presence of a police force makes everything nice and safe everywhere. People are entitled to the right to defend themselves and their livelihood. And again, taking away the average person's legal access to guns through a firearm ban will not stop criminals from obtaining weapons illegally.

EDIT: Just to clarify I'm not saying there should be absolutely NO restrictions on firearms. Banning semi-automatics and other unnecessarily powerful firearms from the public market is totally reasonable. What I AM against is any restrictions that would come close to the scope of violating the second amendment. What I DO want to see is legislation targeted at the consumers and at the purchasing process, not the goods themselves. Better background checks, closing up those gun-show loopholes, etc. If a person who wants a gun can prove they are of sound mind and skill to own a gun responsibly, it should be his right to do so. Stop the people most likely to abuse a gun from obtaining one, but let the rest of the population alone.
 
Last edited:

Shikenshu

Hero of CEGEP
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Location
Hyrule
Well, if the thief as not planned what to do, simply let him steal what he wants, and then call police, if he isn't prepared, he will leave atrail that the police will get easily. If the thief is well equipped (with guns), trying to attack him is dangerous. If he see you first with a weapon, he will kill you before you can pull the trigger. Pointing a gun on him will make him shoot, it won't discourage him. Let him leave with what he wants and call the police after. Then, call the insurance and it will be ok, because you didn't risk your life.

@M107, in that FBI chart, it shows that an average of 67% of the homicides were caused by a firearm, that's a lot. I can't help but think that less guns means less homicide. You showed me stats that point toward that conclusion. The best to reduce guns is to have restrictive gun policies. (Maybe not a ban, but the needs of a license to buy and own guns.)
We could argue for years about normality, so I won't try to convice you on ideology.

@Xinnamin, 2) The less something is restricted the easier it is to get. These teenagers probably stole their parents gun or they probably only asked an adult to buy the guns for them. The first time I tried smoking was when I stole my father's cigs, it was easy to get for him, and then for me. I would probably never ask cigs to dealers because it's quite shaddy to deal with these guys.
3)China is not even a democracy, that's the real problem. The whole country is corrupted, there's a ban on everything, including the internet, it's probably illegal for a chinese to use this forum. Also, China is really far, they live another reality (false communism). Simply look at a neighbor country, the Canada. I live in Quebec (a state of Canada (called province)). We don't have the right to carry firearms, but police has the right to do it. You want to know something, They don't abuse the general population when they do nothing suspicious.
4)The constituation was written in 1787. Doesn't seem that old, slavery was legal until 1860s. I'm pretty sure no one approve slavery today, but when the constitution was written, it was mostly legal to own a slave. This is a good exemple of the change of mentality and needs of each era. It's is perfectly normal to reconsider whether or not owning gun is still a necessity today. Only 50%* of adults own a gun, this mean that half the population of USA can live without the need of a firearm. Considering that fact, are guns needed to live? The question is legit and the answer seems no.

Maybe banning the use of guns is a little hard to start, but I do think restriction should be applied. It will restrict the accessibility of firearms and those who wants guns will be able to get them if they respect some conditions (proper training, mental test, etc)

* Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
 

Xinnamin

Mrs. Austin
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Location
clustercereal
-People are not so easily willing to kill, and certainly not so willing to get shot. An intruder may carry a firearm during a break-in fully prepared to threaten the homeowner, doesn't mean they are willing to shoot, and certainly does not mean they will fire at the first sign of resistance. A firearm can and will deter an intruder, or at least make them hesitate. I find it hard to believe the average person, even one so desperate as to break into to another's home, would find a small haul of trinkets worth risking a bullet from a frightened homeowner much more willing to shoot in self defense.

-Of course restricting something makes it harder to get, I'm not saying that's not true. What I'm saying is that restricting access to firearms will not eliminate it, and in the end you still haven't solved the problem of people who want to commit a crime with a gun still can. It's difficult enough to get through any sort of firearm legislation, and I strongly believe there are better places to put those resources into that will yield a better result in the end.

-I already stated I know full well the circumstances in China do not necessarily apply to the US, I was simply making a point that preventative measures are better than reactive ones. I would also like to point out that it is, again, naive to believe the police cannot do wrong.

-Arguing that something which isn't necessary should not be allowed is flawed reasoning. No, people don't NEED a gun to live, but then again we don't need video games to live either. Would you then argue that we should ban video games?
 

Shikenshu

Hero of CEGEP
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Location
Hyrule
-I'm pretty sure the average thief is more willing to shoot than the average joe.

-We will never elimiate crime, if someone really want to kill, in the end, he will use his bare hands. However, by controling the killing tool in 67% of the case (firearm), we can reduce that number because it is much more easier to kill multiple persons at the same time with a firearm, it is also easier to fight the cops. Government is spending millions if not billions on "fighting evil drugs, evil marijuana that will make you suffer so hard" advertising, they should use that money to control something that can kill for real. Also, control does not mean ban, if someone meets the requirements to own a firearm, he has the right.

-It is naive to think the police cannot do right.

-It is stupid to compare 2 differents things like this. Guns are killing tools, war tools. Video games dont have that influence on life. But yeah, the day video games will really tranform players into killers, I think a ban would be appropriate.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom