7 year old girl shot dead while selling some lemonade

[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.

 

[thiosk]

The underground lemonade trade is a dirty business. She was selling in known Limoncello territory-- those monsters have been long known to shoot first rather than lose even a single nickel to competition.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I feel terrible for the family. But remember, this was not an intentional shooting. While the murderer deserves to go to jail for a long time, we shouldn't blame him for intentionally killing a seven year old.

captcha: partly to blame. What are you implying captcha.

I'd hardly say they don't deserve the blame or guilt. There was a shoot out, chances are they were trying to kill someone, it just happened to be the wrong person. Unless it was entirely in self defense, they deserve every bit of guilt for doing something that could so easily have resulted in unintended casualties.

Speaking of guilt, I can't believe how many people are blaming the parents. I very much doubt that most people who live in impoverished communities do so because they want to. They generally do it because that's generally the only place they can afford

 

[Westaway]

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

You just made me spray the lemonade I was drinking all over my monitor.
You, sir, are a comic genius.

 

[Faraja]

It sucks to be that girl's family. I can't imagine they're going to be able to let it go.

Ignorant implies I don't understand the culture or its laws. I'm actually fully informed of both and simply see how ancient and stupid they are. You guys are still living in the Wild West.

You're entire post is just utter bollocks. Make all the laws against gun ownership you want. People will still get a hold of them. Gun smuggling is the second largest criminal enterprise in the world. Just behind drugs, just above animals. The people who shot this girl either stole their guns, bought them from people who stole the guns, or got them from a smuggler. Making them illegal, and thus jacking up the price, is just going to drive up black market sales. Logic will tell you that.

Crime isn't intrinsically tied to availability of tools. If you really want someone dead, you'll bludgeon them to death with a pipe, cut them with a sword sword, or beat them to death with your fists if you have to. Humans have been figuring out decent ways to kill people since the first monkey wanted another's banana It helps, sure, but if you really want someone dead, you'll see them dead.

Also, if you really understood American culture, you'd realize that firearms aren't just a part of our history, they are our history. The United States exists because we took up arms against the British. The British didn't take us back because we took up arms. It took a war to end the slave trade. The west was 'won' because of fire arms. Saying we should give up fire arms is like asking the French to give up wine, the British to give up fish & chips, (yes, I realize that they aren't in the same vein as the topic, and that they may or may not be that important to British and French culture) or asking us to give up our individualist nature. It's not practical, and trying will just get you shot.

Besides, we'll need those guns to defend our homes from our coming Chinese overlords.

What we need isn't to make guns illegal, we need to teach people from a young age to respect their killing power. I say we start in high-school, and the first day of class we fit everyone with one of those impact vests that simulate the feel of getting shot, so that they know what it feels like. Admittedly, that's not going to do much to put a dent in the gang banger populous, but good luck trying to figure out how to really fix that short of complete irradication.

Sympathy for the girl and her bereaved family, none at all for the USA. They are happy and adamant to continue allowing guns to be privately owned, this is the inevitable result. Americans have no right to bemoan both the tragic loss of a child's life and their personal, inalienable right to own guns.

One is the consequence of the other so you make your bed and lie in it.

While I'm in a bitchy mood, I want to harp on this comment. By this logic, should we start blaming France, England, and the US for WWII? After all, there were plenty of chances for us to check Nazi Germany, but no country did. Really, it strikes me as anti-American hate. I get it, the US is an easy target. We're in the news a lot, Americans tend to be loud, proud, and we occasionally screw up.

Honestly, though, you clearly don't understand us. In my very limited international travels, the one time I went to Australia, that seemed to be pretty common.

 

[Faraja]

I'd rather work so that no one had any guns, pointy or blunt objects rather than try to arm everyone.

That's impossible, and impractical. I could kill someone with a plastic spork. Or a stick, especially a pointy one.

Personally, I would rather live in a world where we teach people to respect the power of the instruments in their hands.

 

[Faraja]

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.

The problem with gang bangers, is that they have to look cool for their homies. That means, holding your weapon in a way to make you look like a real OG. Two common ways for filth to hold their weapons are at a 90 degree angle, or a 180 degree angle. Basically, they hold it like they're holding the handle bars of a bike, or they needed to check something on their elbow. Holding a gun like that, means that you lose a lot control, and thus accuracy.

Combine that with the generally sudden nature of these shoot outs, and people trying to run and gun, and its easy to see why several rounds get no where near the intended target.

 

[Seneschal]

ts been said like three times already, but I'll say it again because its true. Outlawing weapons here wouldn't make stuff like this cease to happen. It would only drive the market for said weapons underground. An expanded black market for firearms would only INCREASE violent crime.

That's a myth. In countries with strict weapon laws it's extremely expensive and difficult to lay your hands on illegal firearms. It's nigh impossible to steal legal arms since the law requires all weapon owners to keep their weapons in a high grade safe at all times, have to be concealed during transport, and even deviations the do different things than visit a shooting club are forbidden in the case of firearms and shooting clubs or the one or two firearms dealers have even stricter regulations and are veritable fortresses. So every illegal weapon has to be smuggled in from far away, ussually Yugoslavia or somewhere in that neighbourhood, and even there, there is no open weapons market.

In the US however, it is only easy to get illegal weapons, because there are so many weapons to make illegal. Break into any random house, chances are you'll find weapons there. Or rob one of thousands and thousands of gun stores. Don't forget to shoot the storeowners first.

Most robbers around here for instance make do with replicas. Armed burglars are unheard of. The very few actual street gangs that exist are unarmed, or use tiny knives, think swiss army knives. Most street muggers are unarmed, some use small knives, and I can't remember a single instance of them stabbing someone.

It's also bred a culture where criminals will be extremely hesitant to use weapons, and especially firearms, because serious violence is so rare the police comes down on weapon users like a ton of bricks.
The only real fatal shootings are drug related among criminals, and those rarely ever take place in a way that people get caught in the crossfire. Once again, criminals are very aware they're instantly the most wanted person in the country if a bystander gets hit.

And untill last year where there was a fatal shooting, I could also say that in the US, compensated for population, more policemen are killed by criminals every month, than in the Netherlands in 50 years.

Agreed on everything. I do think just pretending that the US is Europe won't fix the problem. The sheer number of firearms in circulation, and the casual attitude towards them, will result in armed criminals and defenceless innocents if strict laws are ever enacted. So no, "just gun regulation" won't work, since the problem is cultural, not legal. But it is a problem, and should be solved, not just brushed aside as "pinko liberals panicking over nothing".

I'd also like to dispel some preconceptions as someone from "Yugoslavia" (which, for your information, ceased to exist 20 years ago). I've never seen a firearm that wasn't in a policeman's holster, let alone an unholstered one; I have no idea where to get them, there are no gun stores that I know of, the registration/license process is arduous, and hunting/sports shooting requires additional checks and precautions. The only regions with a lot of illegal guns are those that were affected by the war, mostly remote rural areas; there was an action to get veterans to surrender all the cold-war weapons they had stashed in their barns, and it had a large turnout. Illegal firearms do get smuggled in from further East, but gun violence is rather low - to the point where every shooting is front-page material, which is comforting, in a way. But, compared to Finland or Norway, which have gigantic amounts of (strictly regulated) sporting weapons, gun ownership here is rather low.

 

[royohz]

I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" just a few days ago. This testaments to that. I did, however, not catch a real answer for why US citizens kill each other with guns at such morbidly and frightening higher rate than any other country in the world (except, like, rebel war zones) apart from simple, animalistic fear. It's ridiculous.

 

[Varis]

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

And how would that ever be a good thing?

It would be a good thing since it would also reduce the amount of people stupid enough to start a shoot-out in public.
In Finland, which although is quite the small country compared to USA and many other countries, has a lower amount of deaths by gunshots than your average state (e.g. Lousiana, ahem..). A single state, having a larger death rate than a whole country? There is something wrong about that, don't you think?
In Finland, civilians aren't allowed to carry guns in public. Or for that matter, anything that even resembles a gun. In my opinion, that's only a good thing. Leave the guns for warfare and shooting ranges.
That way all the disputes can be solved by word, or fists, whichever works. That way there won't be any "collateral damage" and if someone has actually got a gun in public, shooting it even once pretty much "blows your cover". It's easy for everyone to point out the shooter.