7 year old girl shot dead while selling some lemonade

[McMullen]

Aww, too soon?

Some people don't let themselves get bent out of shape over all the terrible things that happen in the world, because they know the world is a terrible place sometimes. That doesn't mean they're not aware of how awful it is for the family.

Take your self-righteousness elsewhere, it's not welcome here.

It's not self-righteousness, it's called respect for the dead, and I'd rather you take your cynicism elsewhere, it's not welcome here at all.

But by your logic sadism and disrespecting the dead is funny. If you ever lose a family member, I hope you're prepared for a chorus of laughs and mocking at the funeral, because that would be "perfectly fine since the world sucks".

You missed my point. You also assume I believe and feel things I do not. I simply think you're taking this a little too seriously. Granted, I didn't give you much to work with, but vilifying someone in order to avoid considering their point won't make you wiser or help you grow in life. It'll just be one way in which you're more childlike than mature.

The joke wasn't malicious. In a world where things go so terribly wrong, laughing at how wrong the world is is sometimes all you can do to avoid becoming depressed or bitter about it. No offense was meant to the family, and I'm sure he/she never would have said anything of the sort at the funeral. This is the internet, not the family's home. I think you get offended too easily, and there's a youtube video we usually post for people like you. I'm sure you've seen it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

This is what you get when you want the right to own a handgun so you can feel like your family is safe. Deadly weapons do not make for good pacifiers.

lol, what?

riiight ..... cause the gang bangers in this country buy they're weapons though only legal channels, and not the countless underground illegal ones, which, I'll kindly remind you has military hardware as well

but you keep right on acting like gun control laws stop this kind thing, cause no one dies from guns in country where the populous isn't allowed to own a gun

And so what if they do? Does that mean we should continue like we are because we can't eradicate gun violence completely? Is that really your argument?

you will never be rid of violence. ever. there will always be murder/theft/rape/and so on, its sadly part of how our race is

but that's not the point.

the point is passing more laws to 'regulate guns' won't fix anything, all banning weapons dose is sweep the real underlying problems under the rug.

the real way to cut gun crime, or crime in general rather, is to attack the source of the problem, which isn't the weapon it self, but the PEOPLE using them. what we really need is better education across the board, to actually do something about the poverty stricken community's where a lot of these issues come from, and get them out of poverty. enforcing the laws we now have better would help a lot to

basically, giving these people a better, and more realistic chance then they've been getting.
which is harder, and will cost more money, but the result in the long run i feel would be far more effective then trying to pass another worthless law, got enough of those as is.

 

[Xan Krieger]

First thought: BOOM Headshot!
Second thought: Yep I'm going to hell for that one.
Third thought: Ew that's tragic, always sad when an innocent gets killed.

 

[ElPatron]

Gun Control Thread Imminency Senses...

Tingling!

Another sad story from the US involving guns... when will they learn? probably never

The ironic part is that Illinois is a state with tight gun control, requiring FOID for purchase of any long arm or handgun, and even banned handguns on certain municipalities.

 

[ElPatron]

Another sad story from the US involving guns... when will they learn? probably never

This was a couple of gangsters having a shoot out, and a little girl getting hit accidentally. I can absolutely guarantee you that none of the people in that shoot out had legally bought and licensed guns, and I can also guarantee you that no gun control laws would have prevented them from illegally buying them.

While true, it would have been harder to obtain them.

How so? I am far from being the kind of person that knows the ins-and-outs of the criminal life in my zone, and I can find a a gun in less than an hour for 50? if I don't want to buy it legally (read: if I had a criminal record)

stop. manufacturing. automatic. weapons. (Unless they go directly to the Military or S.W.A.T). I've got nothing against gun collectors like you, but I am MORE than willing to sacrifice your hobby if it means less children will end up like Heaven.

Yes, because a side-by-side/over-and-under shotgun can't cause as much or even more mayhem. Semi-automatics have existed since the 1900's and somehow they haven't caused that many fatalities until recently.

At least in the UK, I don't have to worry about dodging bullets when I want to get a burger. If I am to die to street crime, it will be in the face of a knife, or baseball bat

Newsflash: carrying a knife or a bat without an excuse is also illegal in the UK, but you have just said that it's perfectly possible to die from it.

No wonder London has more crime than NYC.

Not that I'm backing up Powereaver's point. But you can't really say that when you look at the amount of gun crime in countries with strict gun laws.

The problem with that logic is that people always assume that by not having gun crime, the number of deaths will simply disappear.

 

[IamQ]

This is really strange. In Mexico, there is a lot of violence due to the wars between drug cartels. In some cities there is a lot of violence due to gangs fighting it off with each other. But this? It's just so random. The only reasoning that I can think of, is that they did it for shit's and giggles, how sick that may sound. Or maybe someone in the family had some hidden ties with the mafia, and couldn't pay them back? Who knows.

 

[ElPatron]

Really? You consider the advent of street gangs and stray bullets to be a RECENT phenomenon?

Misunderstand my post harder, please.

Also, I don't know about you, but civilization has existed for thousands of years I think half a century is "recent".

But yes, a shotgun shell CAN also hit more that the intended target.

Can? No. It will. You just need to want to use it in that way. Stand back 30m, point it at a crowd. Unload two barrels of 3" triple-aught plated buckshot. Ta-daa.

Semi automatics? That shotgun just made more casualties than a full-auto weapon.

Plus, the UK allows semi auto shotguns and centrefire rifles. I don't get what do you have against semi-automatics.

Given the general American view of firearms

Newsflash: many Americans have irrational fear of weapons.

I don't know if you have learned how "averages" are calculated, but you can't just account for the gun owners - you also have to account for the so-called "liberals" and groups like the Brady Campaign.

And let's not forget that many states like Cali or Illinois have a lot of people who hate guns.

Basically, if you point was to take a jab at a culture you don't even know you failed hard.

 

[SecondPrize]

You are completely correct.

This is what you get when you want the right to own a handgun so you can feel like your family is safe. Deadly weapons do not make for good pacifiers.

lol, what?

riiight ..... cause the gang bangers in this country buy they're weapons though only legal channels, and not the countless underground illegal ones, which, I'll kindly remind you has military hardware as well

but you keep right on acting like gun control laws stop this kind thing, cause no one dies from guns in country where the populous isn't allowed to own a gun

And so what if they do? Does that mean we should continue like we are because we can't eradicate gun violence completely? Is that really your argument?

you will never be rid of violence. ever. there will always be murder/theft/rape/and so on, its sadly part of how our race is

but that's not the point.

the point is passing more laws to 'regulate guns' won't fix anything, all banning weapons dose is sweep the real underlying problems under the rug.

the real way to cut gun crime, or crime in general rather, is to attack the source of the problem, which isn't the weapon it self, but the PEOPLE using them. what we really need is better education across the board, to actually do something about the poverty stricken community's where a lot of these issues come from, and get them out of poverty. enforcing the laws we now have better would help a lot to

basically, giving these people a better, and more realistic chance then they've been getting.
which is harder, and will cost more money, but the result in the long run i feel would be far more effective then trying to pass another worthless law, got enough of those as is.

You are completely correct, except about regulation not doing anything. Strict regulation would reduce the number of guns in the long run.
On point with the rest, 100%.

 

[Lunar Templar]

You are completely correct.

This is what you get when you want the right to own a handgun so you can feel like your family is safe. Deadly weapons do not make for good pacifiers.

lol, what?

riiight ..... cause the gang bangers in this country buy they're weapons though only legal channels, and not the countless underground illegal ones, which, I'll kindly remind you has military hardware as well

but you keep right on acting like gun control laws stop this kind thing, cause no one dies from guns in country where the populous isn't allowed to own a gun

And so what if they do? Does that mean we should continue like we are because we can't eradicate gun violence completely? Is that really your argument?

you will never be rid of violence. ever. there will always be murder/theft/rape/and so on, its sadly part of how our race is

but that's not the point.

the point is passing more laws to 'regulate guns' won't fix anything, all banning weapons dose is sweep the real underlying problems under the rug.

the real way to cut gun crime, or crime in general rather, is to attack the source of the problem, which isn't the weapon it self, but the PEOPLE using them. what we really need is better education across the board, to actually do something about the poverty stricken community's where a lot of these issues come from, and get them out of poverty. enforcing the laws we now have better would help a lot to

basically, giving these people a better, and more realistic chance then they've been getting.
which is harder, and will cost more money, but the result in the long run i feel would be far more effective then trying to pass another worthless law, got enough of those as is.

You are completely correct, except about regulation not doing anything. Strict regulation would reduce the number of guns in the long run.
On point with the rest, 100%.

well i am an American, might not be big on fire arms personally, but I'm less keen on losing my right to own one, not when there's better solutions to the problem that we really should be doing already.

 

[ElPatron]

Strict regulation would reduce the number of guns in the long run.
On point with the rest, 100%.

And this is where you are wrong. Factually. This is not a disagreement, you're actually implying that guns are the cause if you are fighting for the reduction in number of firearms.

If the number of firearms is the problem then explain the cases of UK and Switzerland? In the countryside nearly everyone has a shotgun (the police can't legally deny you a shotgun certificate unless they have a good reason) and in Switzerland... there are a lot of guns.

So while you are entitled to disagree, you can't make up things and try to pass them as fact.

Also, Sten submachine gun. It can be made in any machine shop with the right tools.

When you can shoot multiple rounds in quick succession and only need to hit with one of them, you tend not to care where the others end-up. And THEN we get situations like THIS. It's called "spray and pray" and it's what usually happens in drive-bys

Really? You sure know a lot about the subject. NOT.

I respect your opinions but you are just making stuff up. Now I am not trying to pass off as an expert or anything, but you don't seem to have any experience in the field you are discussing so don't pretend you know what you are talking about.

Besides, I am all for criticizing the lack of marksmanship from gangsters, but that's not a problem caused by firearms. It usually has to do with the fact that many criminals are just stupid.

And just so we're clear I said stop manufacturing automatics, not semi-automatics. Semis can still be justified in self defense IMO because you don't need more than seven rounds a second to kill an assailant.

Semi-automatics are automatics. They were the first kind of automatic to see use in the military. Never read old spy books? They always refer to handguns as either revolvers or automatics, I rarely saw "pistol" used.

Production of fully-automatic weapons for civilian ownership has been banned since 1986. It requires a special permit and an occupational tax to produce them and you are not allowed to sell them to anyone but to agencies that are allowed to own them (police, military, whatever).

The only way of possessing a legal FA weapon in the United States is by acquiring a pre-ban (registered as a "machiengun" with the ATF before 1986) weapon.

Since they are limited in supply and no more are in production, a fully automatic/burst M16 can cost about 12,000-15,000 bucks + plus a $200 tax stamp. The transfer is only authorized by the ATF after the applicant has passed a very thorough background check.

So thank you for your suggestion, but since 1934 the United States have been restricting full autos.

By the way, bullets are not instant killers. Sometimes you do need more than 7 rounds.

 

[SecondPrize]

Strict regulation would reduce the number of guns in the long run.
On point with the rest, 100%.

And this is where you are wrong. Factually. This is not a disagreement, you're actually implying that guns are the cause if you are fighting for the reduction in number of firearms.

If the number of firearms is the problem then explain the cases of UK and Switzerland? In the countryside nearly everyone has a shotgun (the police can't legally deny you a shotgun certificate unless they have a good reason) and in Switzerland... there are a lot of guns.

So while you are entitled to disagree, you can't make up things and try to pass them as fact.

Also, Sten submachine gun. It can be made in any machine shop with the right tools.


So you're saying that when i say the regulation of guns would reduce the number of guns in the long run, I am actually making things up and passing them off as fact. Assuming that my statement even was a statement of fact, it wasn't, why exactly would the existence of these two countries invalidate it? Because of shotgun and... a lot of guns?
Oh, I see, I mentioned that gun-control would reduce the number of guns, so that means I was really saying that the number of guns are the SOLE determinant in cases of gun violence. No, wait, that actually doesn't mean that. What it means, is... wait for it...regulating firearms would reduce the number of them.

 

[ElPatron]

What it means, is... wait for it...regulating firearms would reduce the number of them.

And how would that ever be a good thing?

 

[Madgamer13]

Newsflash: carrying a knife or a bat without an excuse is also illegal in the UK, but you have just said that it's perfectly possible to die from it.

No wonder London has more crime than NYC.

Oh? Not quoting that it is also possible to die by spaceship? You should be ashamed for only partly quoting that particular sentence. You have a point, however, it is possible to die by being attacked by a knife or baseball bat, the very point I was attempting to make.

Regulation doesn't stop crime from happening and I really do not care about differences in crime statistics between cities when they happen to be in entirely different countries. I'd be more concerned about crime statistics of a particular city over a chronological analysis.

Also, I am not entirely certain the point you are trying to make about the "No wonder London has more Crime than NYC" statement. Guns in the USA are similarly regulated, arn't they? Surely, you cannot go sporting your piece in public without a good excuse, but does that lessen gun related crime? How does that compare to knife/bat related crime?

Edit: Something went wierd with the quote, apologies. =o

 

[ElPatron]

Oh? Not quoting that it is also possible to die by spaceship? You should be ashamed for only partly quoting that particular sentence.

Red Herring. Irrelevant to me, I won't bother including it. Your point was that you have the opportunity to not die by shooting, but being stabbed or beaten.

I've been stabbed twice. I'm not willing to try but I think bullets are preferable.

Also, I am not entirely certain the point you are trying to make about the "No wonder London has more Crime than NYC" statement.

It means that people are too focused on boasting their 14 gun deaths/year and their fear campaigns on knives than actually solving the gang problems.

Guns in the USA are similarly regulated, arn't they? Surely, you cannot go sporting your piece in public without a good excuse, but does that lessen gun related crime? How does that compare to knife/bat related crime?

No, they are not similarly regulated. Self-defense is an excuse to Conceal/Open Carry firearms, in the UK you can't use self-defense as a reason to carry a bladed weapon.

And while correlation does not imply causation, it seems like in the US concealed carry is related to less crime.

My point was basically this "Oh, look. We restrict civilian ownership of guns so I don't fear being shot. We can die from knives and bats, too. But they are restricted. But they happen. But they are restricted... But they happen."

I am 100% sure that last reference will be wasted on everyone else. What a shame.

 

[ultrachicken]

As Cave Jhonson said:
"I don't want your damn lemons! the hell am i supposed to do with these!?"

That is so many levels of apathy for a human life, it's not even funny. A little girl died and you're just cracking jokes about it.

I may be a fan of edgy comedy but that was just wrong.

Anyways, my prayers will go out to the girl and her family.

I found Biodeamon's post funny, AND I am sorry for the senseless loss of life displayed here. You can have it both ways, you know.

 

[Madgamer13]

Greets!

Indeed, Elpatron, your point is very much valid and you successfully caught on to my nudgings of the differences in weapon carry laws between the USA and the UK, it is good to finally see the opinion of someone who actually knows the differences.

Too many times I've heard Americans talking about weapon carry in the UK as if there are laws allowing concealment and self-defense with a leathal weapon. One of the major reasons why the USA and UK are so different is because the law in the UK does not allow for self-defense with a leathal weapon.

The notion of concealment also terrifies me, if someone has a weapon that could kill me at a distance, I'd much rather see it on their person first. I'd rather not live in that state of fear.

 

[Shadowkire]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

Yes, yes it does make a difference. And I'm quite content to live in a place with a quarter of the homicides/capita than the USA does.
Given the general American view of firearms, in order to change the culture, you'll need to start somewhat limiting the availability of guns.

While limiting the availability of guns as a step toward changing the culture may seem like the way to go for you, you do not know my country.

President Obama has not once in the last 4 years said anything about or even looked sideways at gun laws. Yet when he was elected into office gun stores began to run out of guns and bullets because guns owners were stocking up on the suspicion that he may make gun laws even stricter.

And now that he is running for re-election the head of the National Rifle Association has been saying that the President didn't say or do anything about guns because he was waiting until his second term when it didn't matter who he pissed off.

To recap: we buyout gun stores and make up convoluted conspiracy theories on the possibility that someone will make it harder to get guns.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*Sees Title*
[HEADING=2]WHAT.[/HEADING]
*Reads*
[HEADING=1]WHAT!?[/HEADING]

That is seriously one of the most Morbid things I have seen in a LOOOOOOONG time. I seriously hope the fucker who did it is brought down.

What also Bothers me is that they have had 250 Homicides so far this year.

Up here in Calgary we have only had like 5 (Checks) Wait no only 4! And the first did not happen till like march...

Yeah, I was definitely hoping that Calgary's homicide frequency was significantly lower than that. Because 250 homicides in a year is definitely a sign that there's a problem.

And yeah, this story is incredibly depressing, I can't imagine how her parents would feel.