Child Must Have Thought a Gun Was a Wii Remote, Mother Says

[GreyAxe]

http://allaboutthegames.co.uk/images/screenshots/10318/10318_screenshot2.jpg
top one is real
you can see why she thought it was the wii gun

 

[ffs-dontcare]

-snip-

Why was i quoted in that post? I never even mentioned videogames, i just said the parents are idiots. In fact agree that she's not blaming videogames, she's just saying what she thinks happened and is using it as an excuse.

Ah, sorry. You seem to have gotten caught in the crossfire. My bad. >_<

 

[asdasdasdasda]

I would like to point out that:

1. Fox isn't blaming videogames, it's the mother.
2. This is a dual failure in that the parents not only left a loaded gun on the table, but failed to educate their child about the gun.

 

[The Cake Is Annoying]

Words fail.

 

[The Cake Is Annoying]

http://allaboutthegames.co.uk/images/screenshots/10318/10318_screenshot2.jpg
top one is real
you can see why she thought it was the wii gun

Thanks for linking this. What format is the bottom one? Its not a Saturn Virtua Cop gun, is it?

 

[jubosu]

I believe it is called natural selection

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Americans...

Are they too stupid to have independence? Maybe we should ask them for it back.

Generalizations are always wrong.

 

[TOGSolid]

You guys are missing the point. It's totally fine to own a gun, but if you do, you have to be careful with it. Like, as in, not leaving it on the bench. The difference between knives, blenders and guns is a mixture of effectiveness and familiarity. A child will be familiar with the dangerous parts of a knife/blender, but (probably) not with a gun. Also, it's a lot harder to accidentally kill yourself with a knife...

...or a blender.

Ah, see that's a much better point and one I fully agree with. Being a responsible gun owner is incredibly important when you own something that can cause serious harm or even death to yourself or someone else. While I'm not a big believer in sweeping gun control, I am a huge proponent of gun education.

If you own a gun, and have a child in the house, it's in your best interest to teach the child the dangers of the firearm and give them a visual demonstration of what it's capable of (i.e. shooting a watermelon or something). Then keep it the fuck out of the kid's reach. Unfortunately parents like the ones in the OP's cause huge amounts of problems for firearm enthusiasts and yes, even for us gamers due to the nature of what happened. How the hell do you regulate idiots? You can't really and that's where we all run into problems. Do you regulate everything more and more and eventually turn society into a giant rubber room with safety versions of everything, or just ignore stories like this one and accept that sometimes idiots are going to get themselves killed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlSIqJpXI5A While not directly related to the current topic, it is one that I find to be pretty powerful cause of what happens at the range.

 

[Android2137]

Wow. Even Fox News isn't blaming video games. I understand that step-dad thought there was a prowler, but why would you leave a firearm within the reach of a small child? If he fell asleep, shouldn't he have put it away or put it up on a tall bookshelf or something?

 

[Trebort]

Americans...

Are they too stupid to have independence? Maybe we should ask them for it back.

Generalizations are always wrong.

They are, but they are so much fun too.

I agree with the suspended guy.

 

[Murderlicous]

Either the mother is really fucking stupid, or she trying to make herself look like a less shitty parent by saying its the game's fault. And what kind of game involves shooting yourself anyways?

 

[Lenoh]

Either the mother is really fucking stupid, or she trying to make herself look like a less shitty parent by saying its the game's fault. And what kind of game involves shooting yourself anyways?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.179630.5254100

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Who leaves guns lying around a house when there's children around?
SERIOUSLY??

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

...you can cite 'self defense' all you want but then we should remember that you've still killed someone, you're just as bad as your 'attacker' even though you may not have intended it).

After you said this I realized that I was talking to such an idealistic pacifist you can't possibly qualify as a rational human being to me. If you think a woman shooting an attempted rapist or a father protecting his family from home invaders is morally equivalent to murder, we have nothing to discuss.

Simply saying that you have nothing to discuss doesn't answer any of my counter arguements and doesn't make you correct (also, who are you to judge who is a rational human being and who isn't? Is it wrong that I think that we should try to avoid killing altogether where we can? From my perspective it is you who is being irrational here).

I have no problem with the notion of self defense, by all means, fight as hard as you have to to protect yourself and your friends/family. The bit I do have a problem with is the use of lethal force (i.e: shooting someone), the first response to every violent situation the world can throw at you should not be the shoot the other guy in the face.

If lethal force is justified in this fashion then not only does this cheapen life but it will only result in unnessercary deaths, I remember the case of a man in the US who noticed a young man breaking into the home next door (they weren't in at the time so no-one was at risk), naturally, he called the police and was instructed on fourteen occasions to stay inside and not confront the individual yet he still picked up a firearm, walked out and shot the thief in the back (killing him). It's weird how we find it barbaric that some countries punish theft by cutting off the criminal's hand(s) yet we believe it is acceptable and justified to kill them outright in the name of defense.

Also, the case of a family who were quad biking in some woods (this is again in the US) stopped quickly because one of the children needed to 'relieve themselves'. Fair enough, they're not doing anything wrong. Unfortuneatly, they made the mistake of stopping on land owned by a couple who noticed their 'intrusion' and shot one of the children in the back of the head (obviously killing him). Did this child deserve to die? Of course not, yet the land owners still believed that they were defending themselves from possible intruders.

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself and I can understand why firearms are a popular tool for self defense, but there are far too many cases of innocent or otherwise undeserving individuals getting caught on the recieving end of a gun for one reason or another.

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "data." Anyway, you've described two illegal murders, not legal uses of firearms, so your stories don't shore up your points about legal gun use.

When you say you believe in "self defense" but not weapons, what you're saying, all kung fu fantasies aside, is that you believe that the person with the bigger muscles will always be the one in the right. Otherwise you're saying you believe in unsuccessful self-defense. That tells me that you're young, male, in good health, and live in a pretty safe place. At least three of those. Out here in the real world where other people aren't shaped like you, it doesn't work that way.

My 45 kg wife, paraplegic neighbor, and I'm pretty sure just about every single one of our grandmothers would frankly stand no chance at all of defending herself against a healthy young male aggressor without a firearm. Barring death by misadventure, we'll all reach an age and condition where that will be so. Do we lose the right to self defense when we can't do it with a fist? Do we have to get beaten half to death before using a weapon, since it shouldn't be the first response? What about nonlethal threats? If three guys want to have a unilateral good time with your sister in an alley somewhere is it your opinion that allowing it is a greater good than killing one or two or three of them to stop it?

Take a look at this article: http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/ Basically what it shows if you don't want to read the whole thing is that murder is a cultural phenomenon, not a technological one, and not strongly influenced by the availability of weapons. Their strongest point is that the Soviet Russia had four times the murder rate of the United States despite having very effective bans on civilian gun ownership. I strongly encourage your reading it though. Whether you change your mind or not having so much more data can only help you debate, right?

 

[holographicman]

Okay...

adressed to the mother and stepfather: you and your husband are idiots for leaving a gun within the reach of a 3 year old girl. You are BLAMING VIDEO GAMES FOR YOUR INEPTITUDE AS RESPONSIBLE PARENTS. ITS YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT THAT YOUR DAUGHTER IS DEAD.

Thats harsh, but true.